Posted on 08/04/2010 5:34:10 AM PDT by SJackson
The agenda of the North was always to destroy the Southern economy and culture. That slavery was part of the equation is undeniable and forever curses the Southern cause. War, however, was not intended to end slavery but to destroy the South.
I wrote the following to commemorate the same dynamic today in the form of the liberal cause of ending the independence of the American people by today’s Northern hypocrites, the Progressives.
They are the vultures of Dark Crystal screeeching their hatred and fear into the void of their malignant lusts knowing their malicious theft and corruption have been exposed and they will die ten thousand tiny quivering excremental deaths for every greedy mouthful they have swallowed.
Go Sarah.
Well said.
Ok
You shouldn’t comment on things you obviously know nothing about.
It gives the Grays a lot of comfort in pretending that the MAIN reason for those initial states bolting was something nuance and praiseworthy, and not something disgraceful even by 19th century standards.
It was pretty much in black and white that the power elite were terrified that Abe was going to free the people they held in bondage. That’s why they left. The guy wasnt even sworn-in yet!
Now for those other states? Maybe you can make a roundabout case that they left because they didnt wish to see federal force used to compel these states to remain in the union.
But if slavery wasn’t in their top 5 reasons, they make a crappy show of trying to prove it.
still struggle to expose the truth about why Southern soldiers fought...
Many of ‘em fought because they wanted to, because they enjoyed fighting (and winning). “Honor-based”, slave-holding culture, duels, sir and ma’am for almost everybody. I’ve read direct quotes of General Lee addressing individual sergeants under his command as “Sir”.
I applaude the patriotic tone of this article and I appreciate the intimate stories of the Civil War from a new and very interesting family viewpoint with so much detail.
But some of the history related is, in my opinion, mistaken;
and the story of Grant’s order #11 which applied to Jewish traders trying to pass through Grant’s lines and to go South to buy cotton cheaply for large profits,
is indeed mentioned in many history books -— but what I have read before this is completely at odds with what is related above.
Again, very interesting article.
Thank you for this post.
Further, such difference was mainly a function of their leadership rather than their innate natures.
Lee's Army spent almost a month in south central Pennsylvania before the fateful approach to Gettysburg from the north and west. The only atrocities recorded against the civilian population was one incident of the southern army near York capturing a group of 40 African American men whom they thought to be runaway slaves (but were mostly free men) and sending them south to slavery. There was another incident of Southern soldiers snatching headgear off the heads of townspeople in exchange for their battered headgear. Lee promptly issued an order that all such exchanges going forward were to be voluntary or paid in cash. While the presence of a large hostile army was obviously intimidation, compare and contrast Lee's Army comparative gentle treatment of the Pennsylvania population to Sherman's treatment of the Georgia population one year later. Sherman's army paid the civilians for nothing, took everything which they deemed useful and wantonly burned and destroyed everything else, including civilian homes with the inhabitants still inside. They went out of their way to slaughter, pillage and destroy everything in their path from Atlanta to the sea, a scale of destruction unmatched since the Thirty Year's War, some two centuries earlier.
The tall guy from Illinois made it clear during the campaign and in his inaugural address that he had no intent to interfere with slavery where it exists, and that as President he had no legal right to do so. It was likely one of many issues, probably near the top of the list for slaveholders, but it’s revisionism to suggest Abe invaded the South for that purpose, or that slavery was the motivation of the particimants, Southern ancestors tarred as pro slavery, northerners as anti. And it’s the honor and rembrance or thsoe vererans the article is about
the South shall rise again
And do what? Lose again?
Perhaps, but it is a noble cause.
There were Jewish slave owners, their were Black slave owners. Their were Black soldiers in the Confederate army. Their were Jewish soldiers in the Confederate army. Their were Jewish slave traders, their were Black slave traders. Most of the blacks sold into slavery were war captives taken by other blacks and sold to white slavers. All groups have been oppressed, and oppressor, in history. NO race or ethic groups is pure and innocent.
This constant attempt to rewrite history to validate current political dogmas is childish and really must stop.
Not stopping bump.
You’re absolutely correct but the temptation to continue the feud appears stronger among some than to stand united against our foes.
Ahhhhhh the Good Ole Days.. sighhhh
Exactly. And the most recalcitrant group of slave traders is in northeast Africa-- the Sudan region today and the Kenyan region in the 1880's when British warships had to patrol the coast and later even put the country under colonial administration to end the sorry practice.
How ironic it is that we have a Kenyan in the white house still engaging in a whole new level of slave trading.
Funny, how the way these "crazy" pro-southern civil war threads get invaded are similar to how the south was invaded in 1861. I guess being a anti-Republic status quo bully is genetic.
are similar=is similar
“Invaded”?! Don’t be a moron.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.