It good to take down statues of white men that Indians no like ... it not good to take down picture of squaw!!
Posted on 04/01/2018 9:05:49 AM PDT by Simon Green
Cowboys ‘n’ Indians, anyone?
Indians won at Little Big Horn but it was all downhill after that.
It good to take down statues of white men that Indians no like ... it not good to take down picture of squaw!!
Please. The Civil War was fought by a variety of people for a variety of reasons. As you say, some fought over tariffs. Some fought over other economic issues. Some fought over their homes. Many fought over the issue of slavery.
Thank your for your thoughtful reply. I’m not trying to be difficult. I taught U.S. History for 10 years. I was born nin Jefferson Ohio, the birthplace of Wade and Giddings. Abolition runs strong in my veins as I toured the Underground RR hiding places. I live in the South now and have listened to all the arguments. Of course slavery was an abominable institution that all mankind should be ashamed of. I’m just pointing out that the Black man had few friends anywhere, North or South. Reconstruction with its promises of “40 acres and a mule” was a farce. But a lot of poor Tn, NC, and other poor farmers who couldn’t spell the word slave fought for ideals other than human slavery. Lincolns original idea of compensated emancipation would have been the best solution other than 700,000 lives.
Things should really start hopping when they run out of monuments. Maybe then we can tell them that the Democrats are the real racists.
While I will agree, wholeheartedly, that Reconstruction was a farce. It never promised anyone “40 acres and a mule”. This term originated with General Sherman’s Special Field Order No. 15 of Jan 16, 1865. He directed officers divide up abandon land South of Charleston, SC to the St Johns River, FL in to 40 acre plots for distribution to the thousands of refugee blacks in the area. No mention of mules in the order. About 450,000 acres were eventually distributed before Sherman cancelled the order.
Who gets to define “Traitor”? You?
The Constitution of the United States, to wit, Article III
Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.
Using the strict interpretation of that section of the Constitution, I suspect that firing on a United States Army Fort by South Carolinians, or leading an army from Northern Virginia to invade Pennsylvania, could be considered treason in some circles.
“Lee decided that loyalty to Virginia was more important than letting everyone in all states live as free people.”
At that time people in EVERY state, north and south, thought of themselves as citizens of their state first and the nation second.
It wasn’t until later that the notion of nation first, state second came about.
Gen William Tecumseh Sherman, no doubt one of your heroes, moved in the highest levels of southern society while stationed in South Carolina.
While his brother was a virulent abolitionist W T Sherman had little problem with slavery and was sympathetic to southerners defense of slavery. He knew the south.
In 1859 Sherman became the first superintendent of Louisiana State Seminary and Military Academy, now LSU. He would have been content to stay there if not for the Civil War.
An Ohioan, Sherman left to rejoin the union army for the Civil War in January, 1861.
Best known for his scortched earth policy, Sherman was responsible for burning, looting and rape throughout the south.
But I guess that was okay since a union general was doing it to southerners. Right?
Erasing history, just like Moslems.
Hell McKinley is nothing compared to Sherman....and there’s a statue of that war criminal in Central Park in NYC as well as several in Ohio. Those ought to be pulled down first.
There was the matter of the Tariff of Abominations, which became abominable for all concerned.
This inflammatory piece of legislation, passed with the aid of Northern politicians, imposed a TAX or duty on imported goods that caused practically everything purchased in the South to rise nearly half-again in price. This was because the South had become used to shipping its cotton to England and France and in return receiving boatloads of inexpensive European goods, including clothing made from its own cotton. However, as years went by, the North, particularly New England, had developed cotton mills of its own—as well as leather and harness manufactories, iron and steel mills, arms and munitions factories, potteries, furniture makers, silversmiths and so forth. And with the new tariff putting foreign goods out of financial reach, Southerners were forced to buy these products from the North at what they considered exorbitant costs.
If it was such an abomination, why did it take the South 32 years to secede if tariffs were the driving cause of secession.
Beats me...I wasn’t around at that time....
“War is the solution our enemies have chosen, and I say, lets give them all the want.” General William T. Sherman.
When one starts a war, one should understand the possible consequences of not winning it.
Obliviously, tariffs and taxation were not the driving forces behind secession.
I agree JBW, this senior believes history is history, and we should learn from it, not tear it down.
Different people have different opinions...
No doubt.
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.