Skip to comments.The Battle of Gettysburg Through a 13-Year-Old’s Eyes
Posted on 04/23/2013 5:44:26 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
click here to read article
The Southern average citizen was defending their homeland from FedGov and for their states rights. You are mixing up cause and effect, again.
"Apologetics (from Greek ἀπολογία, "speaking in defense") is the discipline of defending a position (often religious) through the systematic use of information."
Do you not consider yourself an apologist for the South? You certainly seem to be trying to be.
Just curious. What cause do you think the average German citizen was fighting for in WWII? Was it not to defend his homeland from attack? By a Red Army inarguably a great deal worse than the Union Army.
Can a man not fight bravely and honorably to defend his homeland while later recognizing that his homeland was engaged in some pretty bad stuff and that therefore its defeat was probably for the good in the long run?
I'm not trying to draw an analogy here between the CSA and Nazi Germany, except insofar as their soldiers both fought with admirable bravery and skill for (what I consider to be) bad causes. YMMV on that.
In WWII the USSR was also a bad cause, just slightly less bad than the Nazis. Many Red Army soldiers fought to defend their homeland and defeat Nazism, not because they loved Stalin or Communism.
Nobody in Germany voted for secession, they voted in a dictator who was maniacal. The people of the South voted for secession, which was their right. No comparison.
If you read Mein Kampf, you would know Hitler hated republics and the Confederacy and was a fan of Lincoln.
Really? What's your source for that? What would rain do to cotton bales out in the open?
Why would Hampton give orders not to fire the cotton unless he put it there for kindling?
That is what Sherman's Torches were doing, burning everything.
You've given no evidence for that, whatsoever.
As Sherman later said, if he had intended to burn Columbia, he would have done a complete job if it without concealment.
You are ignorant. They have books on the subject, the torching of the south, well documented.
All Lost Causer books, no doubt, with just as much evidence as you’ve presented, none.
Ok, it is your stated official position that Shermans men pranced through TN, GA, SC and NC and never burned anything? The whole story is make believe? You really are stupid. I am usually not so blunt, but you are an idiot. Perhaps you are geriatric and senile, if so I apologize.
Here's the text.
Hitler hated The (Weimar) Republic, not republics. And he doesn't even mention Lincoln
Which is, of course, why you leave them lying in the street. Good plan.
Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler Volume Two - The National Socialist Movement Chapter X: Federalism as a Mask
What is a Confederacy? By a Confederacy we mean a union of sovereign states which of their own free will and in virtue of their sovereignty come together and create a collective unit, ceding to that unit as much of their own sovereign rights as will render the existence of the union possible and will guarantee it.
But the theoretical formula is not wholly put into practice by any confederacy that exists today. And least of all by the American Union, where it is impossible to speak of original sovereignty in regard to the majority of the states. Many of them were not included in the federal complex until long after it had been established. The states that make up the American Union are mostly in the nature of territories, more or less, formed for technical administrative purposes, their boundaries having in many cases been fixed in the mapping office. Originally these states did not and could not possess sovereign rights of their own. Because it was the Union that created most of the so-called states. Therefore the sovereign rights, often very comprehensive, which were left, or rather granted, to the various territories correspond not only to the whole character of the Confederation but also to its vast space, which is equivalent to the size of a Continent. Consequently, in speaking of the United States of America one must not consider them as sovereign states but as enjoying rights or, better perhaps, autarchic powers, granted to them and guaranteed by the Constitution.
I asked a couple of logical questions, and asked for evidence. In return you started calling names.
cva probably meant Marx - something he heard one of the other neo-confeds assert.
Dude I am not going to spend another minute teaching you history. You can pay me $70/hour. My going rate.
Read post 62, you probably agree with everything the Fuhrer wrote. I see no difference in the position Hitler takes in Mein Kampf and yours regarding the Confederacy.
You would think that someone who worships at the altar of Jefferson Davis could keep his despots straight.
Be that as it may I'm still looking forward to that Hitler quote showing his admiration of Lincoln. When are you going to provide it?
Of course you wouldn’t
You said: “Hitler hated ... the Confederacy and was a fan of Lincoln.”
Your quote from MK says nothing of the kind. Merely a somewhat incoherent discussion of the definition of a Confederacy. Which the United States never claimed to be. In fact, if I remember correctly, the Constitutional Convention held very largely because the pre-existing Confederacy wasn’t working too well.
The USA was a federal republic, a very different pot of pisces.
I am citing The Real Lincoln(2002) DiLorenzo. You can read it for yourself and draw your own conclusions. With regards to the confederacy I see no daylight between Hitler’s stated position in book 10 and the neo unionists in Free Republic. See post 62.
Agreeing with Hitler again. Hey your jack boots arrive yet?
You're just saying it and leaving it there. If you want to cite DiLorenzo then cite him. Provide the quote, give the page and source. That's citing. If you were in college and put in a paper "Hitler admired Lincoln" and gave as your footnote "Read it somewhere in DiLorenzo. Go look it up if you don't believe me" then you would deserve the poor grade you would get.
That Hitler believed in a position does not of itself make that position wrong.
Hitler hated commies and loved dogs. Should we therefore all join the Communist Party and shoot the neighbor’s dog?
Hitler’s discussion of the relative relationship of US states and the federal government is not particularly learned. But it’s nevertheless closer to reality than the delusions of the CSA.
If he was in college and cited dilorenzo he’d be laughed out of the classroom.
Instead of the tangential argument, lets discuss post 62 and tell me where you disagree with Hitler’s position on the Confederacy.
Read the quote. According to Rauschning, Hitler was quite a fan of the Confederacy.
At the time he wrote, 35 of the 48 states had been created by the Union under the Constitution and the federal laws. Not exactly examples of pre-existing sovereignty, some part of which was conditionally delegated to the Union.
I am sure you think Gore Vidal’s Lincoln was fact based. I’ve read both. I read both sides.
Do you find yourself agreeing with Hitler a lot? Seems to be a Hitler love fest here.
I don’t agree with anything that lunatic(Hitler) wrote, unlike some around here.
That's Hitler. Glad you don't agree with him.
In good time. How about the Hitler quote on Lincoln first?
Don’t like Hitler, including his mourning for the defeat of the CSA.
But if H says the sun comes up in the East, I won’t deny the plain truth because a man I despise stated a fact.
A great deal of what the Nazis said about the degeneracy of modern life, the degrading effects of an over-emphasis on materialism in society, and the degradation of modern art and literature was quite on the money. I suspect few American conservatives would disagree.
Just as a lot of what commies had to say about the unfairness of the wage system of the time and the disproportionate influence of money on the political system was pretty hard to argue with.
Both these groups had some very cogent criticisms of the democratic/capitalist system.
The problem is that their cures were in all cases a great deal worse than the disease. As Churchill, someone I do admire, said: Democracy is the worst possible political system, except for all the others.
Similarly, the free market is by definition illogical and incoherent, logically indefensible. The fact is, however, that the free market WORKS, and is in the long run the most just system of running an economy ever devised.
I assume you’ll take my comments here out of context, but in context I stand behind every word.
Do you read anything but fiction?
The states that make up the American Union are mostly in the nature of territories, more or less, formed for technical administrative purposes, their boundaries having in many cases been fixed in the mapping office.
Do you disagree with this? Is this not just a statement of how 35 of the 48 states came into existence?
Because it was the Union that created most of the so-called states.
Do you disagree?
Then comes his conclusion, based on the previous two points.
Originally these states did not and could not possess sovereign rights of their own.
Obviously you disagree with this conclusion, but if you wish to be logically defensible you must show why the conclusion does not follow from the admittedly accurate premises. You aren't allowed to recognize the truth of the premises but reject the conclusion just because you don't like it.
The “Union” didn’t create anything. Art IV sect 3 Congress admits states: New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
Just can’t do without taking the Constitution out of context, can you?
The very next sentence in the same Section says:
“The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.”
There you go, the territories belong completely to the United States and Congress sets up territories, establishing the boundaries of future states and establishes rules and law codes for those territories, with delegation of powers to the people of the territory only as Congress sees fit. Then Congress decides whether (or not) to admit states with the Constitution they’ve produced under the rules set up by Congress.
How can you possibly say the United States, acting through its Congress, didn’t create these new states? What agency did? Is it an example of spontaneous generation? Were they created from nothing, or were they created from the territories established by Congress as specified in the Constitution?
Congress doesn’t have to create territories from states. It had the constitutional right and power to keep them all territories forever. But instead the Union chose to make new states on a basis of equality with the old ones.
At least you're consistent.
because it’s always the same and I mean the same couple who jump up with their anti southern theme
understand what you are saying but I in my mind using neo gives a negative when talking about those who wish to remember their ancestors or even love that art of history and then mention certain aspects of the war.
BTW, I respect how you put that post of yours and I too think both sides like Grant and others should be respected and there are so many aspects to the war from the rich plantation owner to the anti slavery to the average man in the south of north who got roped into it and who fought for what.
Southerner who did not like Yankees coming in to his state to northerners who thought America should be one and way different to others.
The neo confederates also don’t complain about the rape of southern women by southern deserters, nor do they complain about the kidnapping of poor whites and free negroes in the northern states when Lee invaded.
After Lee’s army was defeated at Gettysburg, he took the captured free negroes and poor whites, had papers forged, and sold them as slaves in Virginia.
I am pro southern. I think it is a good thing that a minority of rich southerners are no longer allowed to kidnap torture and murder poor southerners.
You call them out to name calling and yet it's the same with the Southern side and their anti-Union theme. And then you resort to name calling of your own.
I can see that and have no desire to be accidentally offensive.
(Sometimes I am offensive on purpose, of course.) :)
So what would you prefer as a descriptive term for those who defend the Confederacy? I'm not necessarily classifying you in this group, but there certainly are some around here who do.
Oh I agree same goes for those minority rich Northerners who had those slave ships and sold them off to the rich southerners and then made a nice living off slave labor.
I think the clue was
“ the same couple “ in that post.
oh and as usual the usual trolling of these threads by the usual couple who got banned always come back and troll again because they can’t let it go and enjoy themselves getting in their digs.
After 1807 doing so was legally classified as a type of piracy and those captured were tried. Unfortunately, they were generally caught in southern waters, for obvious reasons and tried before southern juries. Which invariably acquitted them. As generally did northern juries, for that matter.
I've been unable to come up with a number for estimated slaves illegally run into America after 1807, but there were quite a few.
The joke part of the process ended after Lincoln, the man who didn't care about slavery, was elected.
Nathaniel Gordon, a native of Maine, was captured in August 1860, tried in November 1861 in NYC and duly hanged in February of 1862.
Never was a capital sentence carried out more justly.
He was a really nice guy. Most of his "cargo" was children, whom he considered unable to revolt against his cruelties.