Posted on 01/19/2013 2:20:42 PM PST by BigReb555
General Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson are forever memorialized and remembered along with Confederate President Jefferson Davis on the larger than life carving at “Stone Mountain Memorial Park” near Atlanta, Georgia.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
And the mythology is written by the losers for small minded people ...like you!!!
Didn’t know liberalism was a regional thing. What explains California? Funny thing is the CSA were all a bunch of Democrats.
Boy you Rebs are the past masters of projection.
It must really suck for them to realize that their ancestors were democrats - their G-Grandfathers, their Grandfathers, perhaps even their fathers. Yes, the southron aristocracy were democrats. It was democrats that brought us the Civil War, it was democrats that created the Jim Crow laws and the KKK, and democrats that initially fought the civil rights struggle and then turned around and took credit for it.
I believe England did a lot to support the South in their effort.
Which is strange because they were adamantly against slavery (William Wilberforce, etc.)
I suppose they thought stopping the coming economic juggernaut which ultimately happened with the victory of the North was foremost in their minds.
England wanted to - they were a huge trading partner - but you are correct, they wouldn’t officially acknowledge the confederacy because of The Particular Institution.
At one time I was a liberal. And a drunk too. The two are a lot alike, liberalism and substance abuse, it’s all emotion over intellect. In time, by the grace of God I sobered up. And when I got my brains out of hock my politics became conservative. Seems to me you’re still drinking from a poisoned political well and you lost the pawn ticket.
ZING!!!! :-)
There were hotheads on both sides. A war was going on in the U.S. that would last well into the early 1900's. The later names involved ones like Morgan, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Scott, to name a few of many. Oh and other nations did sell weapons to CSA. Civil Wars of other nations are not wise to jump into most of the time. If only our own government could realize this in modern times.
As for myself I would never want the moral responsibility of slave ownership. I'm not pro-slavery. Historically though I see where nations were built on the labor of slaves and the slaves facing adversity rose up and beyond slavery. There is not one race in history more enslaved than what has been the Jewish people. Look at Egypt's wonders. They built them. Look at Rome's engineering same thing. The Jewish people either labored or paid for the labor for Rome. Slavery in the USA brought up a race from uneducated primitive conditions to successful persons in history that would change our nations and their own course in history.
The next uprising to watch for? IMO China. The churches are alive and well there though underground. You also have to remember this. The nation which ended slavery of black people in the U.S. stood by in silence as brave men and women in China faced off a communist government. Our governments response to Tiananmen Square was basically Shine your Jackboots fer ya Mr Chairman. Why? Because our nations leaders all the way to the top were deeply vested in China Trade interest meaning trading with the Communist Government of China just as some had done with Hitler pre-WW2. Many were them northern Blue Bloods LOL. Just as the days leading up to our Civil War it's all about power and money but it wasn't about ending slavery.
When the union began quarantining the southern ports they cut off England from a substantial cotton supply. They found stocks elsewhere but it was more expensive and I understand lesser quality. The Brits would have loved to do business with the confeds - right up until they devoured them.
Devoured them indeed, turning the best among them into nice little Englishmen and women singing “God Save The Queen’’ and ‘Up The Union Jack’’ and for the blacks and ‘’white trash’’ it would have been ‘’to the downstairs and back alleys for the lot of you!’’. In retrospect it was pretty bloody stupid for the Rebs, dependent of maritime access and trade to start a war with no navy to speak of.
There are liberals in all states...they dominate in the north east and the west coast. The west coast is a relatively new experience. The civil war was fought over the north trying to impose their will....economically...over the south. Before you start slavery was an issue but not the driving force and the south was wrong on that subject. As was the case then the northeastern liberal media and politicians are once again trying to impose their will on the rest of the country. Comparing democrats and republicans of the 1860s with today is foolish. Both of those partys were far superior to what we have today and both were predominately conservative compared to today. Neither of them would have even considered an attack on the 2nd amendmendment....the memories of a tyrantical king was still fresh on their minds. Like it or not the idea of personal freedom, responsibility and and fear of a tyrantical government is stronger in the south and midwest than the west coast and northeast. One has only to look at the politicians still being elected to see that truth. Here in Texas we are very sceptical of our leaders, so much so we only allow them to meat every other year and we judge them not on the amount of legislation but what they do to advance the state economically. We also have liberals just as stupid as anywhere else we just don’t have as many!!!
So you don't think the colonies were dependent on maritime access and trade.
You left Jimmuh out!!!
Really? How does that work?
Before you start slavery was an issue but not the driving force and the south was wrong on that subject.
Slavery was the reason that the south gave.
Comparing democrats and republicans of the 1860s with today is foolish.
democrats have always been democrats. They always want something for nothing and believe that the rules are meant for someone else.
That’s not what he said and he wasn’t talking about the colonies.
He was talking about people starting wars who were dependent on maritime access and trade.....he said the south was stupid for doing it....I pointed out that the colonies did the same. Were they stupid too?
By imposing regulations,taxes and tariffs on regional products to gain control.
Slavery was the reason that the south gave.
No doubt it was used to jen up support for the cause.Not surprising in that that is historically a way of getting support i.e. find a cause and exploit it.
Lets see what Lincoln thought about slavery:
1858: "I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.” (Lincoln, 1953, v3, p145-6)
1858: "We profess to have no taste for running and catching n*****s , at least I profess no taste for that job at all. Why then do I yield support to a fugitive slave law? Because I do not understand that the Constitution, which guarantees that right, can be supported without it.” (Lincoln, 1953, v3, p317, see also p91 and p94))
1859: "Negro equality! Fudge! How long, in the government of a God, great enough to make and maintain this Universe, shall there continue knaves to vend, and fools to gulp, so low a piece of demagogism as this." (Lincoln, 1953, v3, p399)
1862:"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that... I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free." (Appelman, p29)
Now by posting these comments I in no way implying he was for slavery...but it wasn't paramount in his mind concerning the civil war!!!
democrats have always been democrats. They always want something for nothing and believe that the rules are meant for someone else..
They may have always been democrats but they get more brazen with each passing moment. One only has to go back to JFK to see the difference in him and the democrat of today. The term "blue dog democrat" used to mean something in that they had some conservative values...Mark Stupak proved it no longer does!!!
The colonies had the French Fleet helping them. The colonists certainly did better than the CSA, didn’t they?
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.