If only Abraham Lincoln had understood and obeyed the Constitution

[Sundance508]

So you are a white nationalist, a criminal, and can't vote, Sundance.

You are useless. Blather on.

Since you call me by name....................

What is White Nationalism?
1. Q. What is White Nationalism?

A. The idea that Whites may need to create a separate nation as a means of defending themselves.

2. Q. Do White Nationalists feel they are superior to other races?

A. No. The desire of White Nationalists to form their own nation has nothing to do with superiority or inferiority.

3. Q. Do White Nationalists seek to dominate other races?

A. Not at all. In fact, formation of a White Nation removes any possibility of White dominance of other races, as well as the plausibility of the accusation that Whites wish to dominate others.

4. Q. Do White Nationalists seek to insulate themselves from competition from other races?

A. No. A separate White Nation would establish a policy of free trade with its new neighbors. Labor markets are global, and the formation of a White Nation would not protect Whites from economic competition.

5. Q. Well if White Nationalists don't feel superior, don't want to dominate others, and don't seek protection from competition, then why would they want a separate nation?

A. To avoid exploitation.

6. Q. Exploitation? This is rich! So how is it that Whites are exploited?

A. It is a long list. Burdensome racial preference schemes in hiring, race-normed employment tests, racial preference schemes in university admissions, racial preference schemes in government contracting and small business loans. Beyond quotas there is the denial of rights of free speech and of due process to Whites who are critical of these governmental policies. We have special punishments for vandalism and assaults committed by Whites if the perpetrators have a history of anti-egalitarian thought. In addition, Whites pay a proportion of the costs of the welfare state that is disproportionate to what they receive in benefits.

But the most exploitative aspect of the situation is that neither the racial quotas, the business preferences, the loss of freedom of speech, nor the disproportionate contributions to the welfare state have managed to sate the appetites of non-whites living in the United States.

The more Whites sacrifice, the more non-whites demand. Many Whites are beginning to believe that no amount of tribute, other than mass suicide, would satisfy the non-white demands.

If our presence stirs up that much hatred in the hearts of non- whites, then the only sensible course of action is to separate ourselves from them.

8. Q. You claim that non-whites are the aggressors and haters in race relations. Aren't you afraid that most Whites will think this is ridiculous?

A. Not in the slightest. For the past 30 years most Whites have taken part in a mass migration or "white flight" away from neighborhoods inhabited by non-whites. Aggressors don't flee. For example, on a per-capita basis, blacks are 49 times more likely to assault a White than a White is to assault a black. The best measure of racism is the number of non-economically motivated attacks. Whites score low in this regard, non-whites high.

The fact is that non-whites are clamoring to enter this country in droves. Whites are fleeing en masse to less densely inhabited areas to escape these new arrivals.

9. Q. But how can Whites be exploited when it is whites who have enacted these racial preferences, the taxation, the welfare payments and the immigration laws?

A. Excellent question! It is true that Whites are exploited by their fellow whites. In fact, we do not expect any resistance to the formation of a separate nation from non-whites. We expect white integrationist elites to resist. They are the ones who have a great deal to lose.

10. Q. If life in America is so bad for Whites why don't you just move back to Europe?

A. We are a majority. We do not have to move back. We can resolve to defend ourselves against this onslaught. We have the option of peacefully ceding lands already inhabited by non-whites to separate non-white nations. We would save money, and could restore our civil liberties and free ourselves from constant threats of violence by so doing.

11. Q. What would your separate state look like?

A. The truth is we don't know yet. Our separate state would follow the geographic outlines of White flight. The model for this state would be the modern gerrymander created by the Voting Rights Act to create majority non-white congressional districts. We would simply cede these to a separate nation. The mechanics of this process will be explained more fully later in a post entitled "sweating the details."

12. Q. Would all Whites be welcome in your separate state?

A. Absolutely. There would be no restriction by country of origin, and no genetic tests, skin color or hair color tests or any nonsense like that. The only restriction would be that those who wish to recreate the present system by importing non- whites and then encouraging their hostility would not be welcome. They would have to remain in or move to the lands ceded to the non-whites.

13. Q. Would Asians be welcome in your separate state?

A. Unresolved. As a general rule, Asian-Americans show very little aggression towards Whites, either personally or politically. Thus, there is no reason to exclude them. There is no desire on the part of White Nationalists to insulate themselves from competition from non-whites who are already here, and who get along well with us.

14. Q. Would the same hold true for hispanics?

A. The census bureau classifies half of all hispanics as White. White Nationalists generally feel the same way. That portion of the Hispanic population that blends in and displays no hostility of a personal or political kind may remain. The "Mecha" members who want to see the Southwestern U.S. annexed to Mexico would not be welcome.

15. Q. You are proposing that inclusion and exclusion be based on ideology and feelings. Won't your act of nation splitting turn into a witch hunt?

A. For white liberals it is definitely going to feel like a witch hunt! When the time comes, those who are guilty of "integrationism" should do the sensible thing and flee. It will spare us all a lot of pain.

16. Q. Is this White Nation something that you intend to pursue right away?

A. No. The White Nation is, by most accounts, about 20 years off. When the rest of the U.S. begins to look like Southern California it will happen more or less automatically, without much of a push from us.

16. Q. Why do you use the term "European-American"?

A. All Whites are descended from European immigrants. The term European-American has political significance for two reasons. First, it recognizes that most people in the U.S. of European extraction have intermarried to such an extent that it is no longer possible to identify american Whites as "Irish" or "German" or "Italian". But more important, use of the term "European-American" is intended to recognize that white elites in the United States have exploited differences based on religion and European national origin to divide European-Americans, with the intention of rendering us unable to defend ourselves against non-white demands.

17. Q. What is White separatism?

A. A White separatist will agree on most points with a White Nationalist, except that he may not see a need to establish a separate nation within the present territorial boundaries of the U.S.

18. Q. What is a White supremacist?

A. That is a White who wishes to subjugate other races by force, ordinarily by military conquest. White supremacists are very rare in 1994, and there is no visible trend or base of support which would allow them to carry such a political program into effect. White supremacists are generally an embarrassment to White Nationalists.

19. Q. Do White Nationalists think of Adolph Hitler or National Socialism as a model to emulate?

A. White Nationalists do not seek to recreate the German experience of 1936-1945. Hitler's Reich is not a model for White Nationalism. White Nationalism is defensive. It is not externally aggressive. It would most likely be a government of very limited powers, with a federal structure that assures localities considerable latitude to experiment with moral and social laws, with the idea of fostering traditional communities and traditional religions in places where the overwhelming majority of people want such things - and secularism where the majority wish to have that as well.

However, within the ranks of White Nationalists, there are some significant differences of opinion about the _historical_ significance of Hitler, and whether he was a help or a hindrance to the cause of White survival. Also, there are those who argue that Hitler's military exploits were a defensive reaction to the ethnically motivated slaughters by (predominantly jewish) Marxists in Russia. This debate among White Nationalists can get emotional at times, but has little to do with the practicality of White survival or the probable characteristics of any new White Nation today.

20. Q. Are White Nationalists anti-semitic?

A. That depends on what you mean by "anti-semitic". Most White Nationalists believe that Jews are not monolithic in their views and should not be viewed as a racial or ethnic enemy. However, the activities of Jewish organizations are another matter entirely. From Jewish organized and financed bolshevism, to the Frankfurt School and the AJC, various Jewish financed and managed "civil rights" organizations such as the the NAACP, various Jewish pro-immigration groups, the ADL with its vicious anti-white "hate crime" laws, to AIPAC and the various Jewish Neo-Con think tanks advocating pre-emptive wars, collective guilt and the slaughter of civilians - the activities of organized Jewish political groups are the primary cause of all the political and policy ills of which White Nationalists complain. Because of this, most White Nationalists feel that there is no way out of the ugliness and injustice of multi-culturalism except through vigorous opposition to organized Jewish political groups and their agendas. Indeed, White survival depends on successfully countering the power and influence of organized Jewish groups.

21. Q. What is the difference between political conservatism and White Nationalism?

A. Surprisingly little. White Nationalists generally diagnose the problems of the United States in exactly the same way as do most paleo-conservatives. Indeed Thomas Sowell's treatise on the universality of racial strife worldwide and the tendency of governments worldwide to aggravate that strife are the factual raw material for the White Nationalist argument.

Conservatives generally believe that different races can live peacefully in a single country as long as the government has limited powers and serves as a "loose confederation" guaranteeing individual rights. White Nationalists are very sympathetic to this conservative viewpoint.

However, White Nationalists will point out that there is no existing example of such a loose confederation in which racial autonomy and peace has been achieved, nor is there any reason to believe that a government (such as the United States Government) which starts out as a loose confederation with limited powers will remain so for long if subjected to the competing demands of different races.

White Nationalists believe that the urge to use governmental power to gain racial advantage is so great that the safest and most humane choice is to break up multi-racial empires and place each race under a separate government. In broad outline, Russia is headed in the right direction in preventing ethnic conflict by allowing different races their own separate governments.

Conservatives assume liberals are motivated by good intentions, and that the destructiveness of their policies should be forgiven. White nationalists believe that liberals are motivated by a lust for power and carefully cloaked ethnic and cultural hatreds and that their destructive social policies achieve their real (as opposed to their stated) aims. Because our federal and most state governments are dominated by liberals, those governments are illegitimate and the people have the right of immediate rebellion.

White Nationalists, believe that liberal elites will never tolerate the loss of power that comes from stripping down the U.S. Government to its original conception of a loose confederation, and that liberals would resort to any and all means including electoral fraud, suspension of freedom of speech and of the press, warrantless arrests, suspension of habeas corpus, inciting racial violence, and inciting mass migrations into the United States to avoid any such loss of power.

Most White Nationalists view our liberal elites as extremely dangerous, - as vicious and manipulative in the use of police power as they are cowardly in their personal lives. Most White Nationalists also view the "Waco" incident not as an aberration, but as the preferred response of liberals to dissident religious or anti-egalitarian Whites, and are convinced that the result of this incident represents the preferred outcome from the liberal perspective. It is clear that liberal elites think of dissident religious or anti-egalitarian Whites as, at best, a form of undesirable "property" and would view any unilateral secession attempt as a convenient excuse to order the military to undertake a general slaughter.

Since it is clear that many Americans approve of our current politicians and judges, most White Nationalists would prefer to minimize conflict with the liberal elites and their racial allies by ceding to them the 10% to 15% of the U.S. in which they and their racial allies are concentrated and then declaring the independence of the remaining American land mass from liberalism.

This may sound far-fetched now, but if present trends continue, conditions will get worse and the attitudes of the average voter will change.

 

[Sundance508]

so you think that owning people was constitutionally protected?

Back then there was total respect for the unalienable right to property.

. Leftists whine and wet their panties about Negroid Servitude

And Confederate fanboys- and fascists like yourself- applaud and celebrate "Negroid Servitude"

Slavery was begun in Africa long before it was exported to the Western World....and of course it still exists there today. The Arab Muslim Slave Trade Of Africans, The Untold Story – Originalpeople.org

and?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sundance, buddy, you are for grins and giggles.

 

[Sundance508]

Sundance, buddy, you are for grins and giggles.

Needling:simply attempting to make the other person angry, without trying to address the argument at hand.

Needling is also Ad Hominem if you know what that means.

In a nutshell if you cannot address any of the arguments or controversies on this thread why waste board space?

 

[Sundance508]

Nineteenth Century liberals had a long list of grievances against the South, nearly all of them based on faulty information and of course the same applies to the liberals today and their attacks on President Trump, Republicans, Conservatism and still many of them are hung up on 'sectionalism' aka hatred (still) of the South and Southerners in general...one sees this on most of the liberal boards.

Such propaganda as they espouse is pitiful. Nothing is more indicative of this than that of their comments on Southern Slavery as it it existed in that long bygone era..........obviously basing their complaints on stuff they have seen in movies or other fictional sources when actual words spoken by former slaves regarding slavery down South are available to all and online but of course they do not want the truth about that nor do they want to hear that the War Between The States Was not about slavery.

….On the real cause of the not-so-civil war

The war of 1861-65 was NOT about slavery at all, but about economic imposition upon the Southern states by the money/business dominated government in Washington, DC. The REAL reason for that war was the fact that northern manufacturers, making their clothing, farm implements, furniture, tools, etc., produced them for sale at a certain price – a HIGH price, at that. Southern states had some, but not a lot, of industry, and were in need of those very products. It just so happened that the European nations of France, Spain, England, and the Dutch, were producing and selling those same basic needs for a much LOWER price than the Northern produced goods. As the South had a lower standard of living (income, production, wages) than the North, they eagerly imported those foreign goods at each Southern port for much cheaper prices – simply because they could AFFORD to buy them at those prices. Northern businessmen and bankers put immediate pressure on the politicians in DC to make their “cash cow” (the Southern states) HAVE to buy from the North. To do that, they passed tariffs (the last straw being the Morrill Tariffs) to RAISE the price of those imported European goods, so that they would cost MORE than the Yankee goods.

The Feds passed the tariffs, of course – but the Southern states would ignore enforcing them at Southern ports (chiefly, Charleston, Savannah, New Orleans, and Galveston). So the Yankee dominated Congress – just as today, totally beholden to the Money Power – passed NEW laws, providing for FEDERAL officials (among them, military personnel) to set up federal stations in each Southern port to enforce and collect the tariffs – tariffs that would RAISE the price of those European goods ABOVE the prices of like goods produced in the Northern states. When even THAT did not produce the desired results, DC passed laws dictating that all foreign ships must FIRST enter the ports of Boston and Philadelphia before proceeding to deliver ANY goods to the South, so that the tariffs could be applied.

Faced with this economic strangulation, the South collectively decided that their own economic survival depended upon exercising their perfectly legal right to leave the Union, and set up their OWN nation, if you will. Secession was not something undertaken lightly. There were serious debates in each state about the pros and cons of leaving the Union and setting up their own association of states – a confederacy.



The plusses for such a step far outweighed the negatives, and the Southern states assured the Northern ones that in the event of any national emergency in the form of a THREAT from the outside, the Confederate states would immediately join forces with their Northern sisters in defense of the homeland. If you think that this was the FIRST instance of secession by states, I suggest you study the War of 1812, when more than one NORTHERN state threatened secession and actually SAT OUT that war rather than send forces to help their sister states fight the British. Rather strange that NOT ONE VOICE was raised at that time about secession being “illegal!” In actuality, it was not questioned at all as to its legality.


This moderate and fair stance threw the bankers and capitalists into a tizzy. European nations, very anti-slavery, in their editorials and public pronouncements, took a pro-South stance, stating that the Southern states had the more legitimate cause in the “family quarrel.” Those foreign nations would NEVER have done that if the war had been about the issue of slavery. Those “outsiders” had a much clearer view of the REAL issues, unlike Americans, caught up in the eye of the storm.


Southern states exercised their rights and dismissed the tariff-collectors from their ports. The Yankee garrison at the port of Charleston on the island and behind the walls of Fort Sumter were among the last Federal presence . Lincoln saw that the last chance of appeasing or serving the 1860s version of the “military-industrial complex” lay in making that fort the cause for WAR. Thus rather than ordering the abandonment of that federal presence within the territorial jurisdiction of the southern state of South Carolina, he sent reinforcements by sea to the isolated garrison – knowing that such an action would in all likelihood provoke a military response. Southern officials learned of the impending reinforcement – no doubt given the information by those trying to provoke war – and thus began the bombardment of Fort Sumter.

Confederate Memorial Day 1910



The Yankee forces surrendered before the reinforcements (also bringing much-needed food and ammunition) could arrive. Interestingly, not ONE Yankee soldier was killed in that bombardment; thus it is likely that a peaceful resolution could have been reached even AFTER the surrender of Fort Sumter. But those influencing Lincoln could not allow a peaceful resolution. They had to have their tariffs enforced, their beholden cash cow back in line and buying Yankee goods. Thus Lincoln’s plan to provoke combat, and to be able to blame it on South Carolina, worked like a charm. “They fired the first shot” was the echoing cry, which carried with it the obvious implication that “the South is GUILTY, they brought this on themselves.”


The historical record shows that even Lincoln declared that the war was not about slavery (check out his SPEECHES at that time!) – at least in the first 2 years of that war – two years that were won overwhelmingly by Southern fighting men.

With sagging morale and rapidly deteriorating support from northern states grown sick of their sons coming home in body bags, a moral issue was needed. Editorials in those few Yankee papers that were still free of government control were using expressions like “let our Southern sisters go their own way; the death and destruction must stop!”

Those promoting that war upon the South then decided to use the issue of SLAVERY as the CAUSE for which they were fighting. The ploy, though nothing more than a political ruse, worked. Even European newspapers began backing the North, as they too were caught up in Lincoln’s seemingly “magnificent” Gettysburg Address. A fact very pertinent to my point that the war was not about slavery – what percent of Southern people owned at least ONE slave? My grad work research gave me that answer – 4.8%. That’s correct. That means that 95% of Southern people had NOTHING vested in the institution, all the more reason not to go off and fight a war for it!

Would poor, generally illiterate Southern men and boys go off to the horrid conditions of war to fight for slavery? Highly unlikely. BUT – if those same males were told that the Federal Government is invading Southern states by military force, would they fight to defend their states and homes? A resounding YES.

How does all this apply to the current disagreement about those Texas license plates honoring the Confederacy? It applies because of the FALSE history that has been taught due to a political/social/racial agenda since the end of that war, and the following 12 years of the horror in the period of military rule over the Southern states known as “Reconstruction.”

The winning side always writes the history, and unfortunately, that “history” is about as close to the TRUTH as a Cinderella fairy-tale. The stupid argument that the Confederate battle flag is a symbol of “racism” is strictly a post-modern twist on falsified history.

Slavery existed for 4 years under that banner as a legal institution; it existed for nearly 100 years under the Yankee stars and stripes. And even the term “civil war” as applied to that fratricidal conflict is a total misnomer. A civil war takes place when there are two (or more) factions trying to take over the central government. This was NEVER the case in the war between North and South. The South had no interest in taking over DC; those states wanted to co-exist in peace.

When the fighting started, Southern states were fighting a DEFENSIVE war against Yankee troops INVADING their homelands!! When one considers that most Southern boys fighting for their states were dirt-poor and had nothing to gain by upholding slavery – an institution that even helped perpetuate poverty among Southern whites, it does not make sense that they would leave their homes, march from Texas or Florida or anywhere to suffer the most unimaginable horrors to fight to the death to preserve the institution of slavery. But does it make sense that they would rally for 4 years to fight an INVADER threatening their homes and way of life? Absolutely! Rarely if ever is it mentioned that blacks and Indians in substantial numbers fought on the Southern side. The false image of North equals good guys, South equals EVIL, must be preserved, to justify the carnage and evil visited upon Southern people, particularly civilians, by occupying Yankee forces.


The “hurt feelings” and racist attitudes of those against honoring the Confederate battle flag and the actions of disgusting wimp politicians like Rick Perry and so many like him are the result of being taught decades of FALSE history. This issue – pretty small, actually, in the overall grand scheme of things – does illustrate the very negative effects of teaching FALSE history to a gullible, trusting, and accepting populace. Once the “fly” has been introduced into the ointment, especially in today’s phony “politically-correct” and historically blind populace, the poisoning of the minds and pushing of GUILT is extremely difficult to straighten. Our only solace is in the belief that the pendulum does not swing the same way all the time, and that the truth will eventually out.

……See also
More on how Wall Street greed provoked the South and triggered the “Civil War” – John de Nugent

A southerner on the Confederacy; truth about black slavery; if “Jade Helm” goes from drill to real – John de Nugent

 

[deanrd]

"There would have been no war, no bloodshed, no sacking of towns and cities, no desolation, no billions of treasure expended, on either side, and no millions of lives sacrificed in the unnatural and fratricidal strife; there would have none of the present troubles about restoration, or reconstruction; but, instead of these lamentable scenes, a new spectacle of wonder would have been presented for the guide and instruction of the astonished Nations of the earth, greater than that exhibited after the Nullification pacification, of the matchless workings of our American Institutions of Self-government by the people!"
Alexander Hamilton Stephens, 1868

I can hear the demented, the liberals, and the politically correct progressives lamenting already.....(but we had to free the slaves) forgetting if they ever knew what that yankee --White Sumpremacist Lincoln said regarding that... ... "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."

The majority of people back then believed and the more astute and intelligent today, still believe and (those who are knowledegable regarding genetics) understand that Negroes were designed by Nature(Creator) to be slaves; that they were part of a 'degraded caste' meant to serve the rest of humanity...and of course any advanced civilization must have servants(at least until robots are able to assume that role)....a glaring hypocrisy in America today is that we are perfectly o.k. with illegal mexican immigrants being our servants...but our historical servants are too entitled by their supposed victimhood to serve in such roles any longer....mostly democrats that think like that..... also believing in the concept of 'the democrat plantation' as in keep the Negroes on the dole so they will always vote for the democrat.

Most Southerners based the legitamacy of slavery (it had been legal for thousands of years) on the Bible....which from Genesis to Revelation sanctions slavery.

Lincoln's disdain for Negroes was based on his own deep seated dislike of all non-white peoples, whom he typically referred to as 'inferior races'. Lincoln publically and quite often called blacks '*******' aka the infamous n woid(of which only negroes are allowed to use today) and mexicans 'mongrels'. Besides, Lincoln could not use the Bible to justify his beliefs: he was a self-proclaimed atheist and anti-Christian.

Mr. Lincoln's religious views.................
by William Herndon---Mr. Lincoln's best and lifelong friend.
The following letter appeared, in 1870, in the Index, a journal published in Toledo, Ohio.
:

Abraham Lincoln's Religious Views

What If There Was No Civil War?

"The past is never dead. It's not even past." ... Faulkner.

Republicans miss slavery so much.

Full text of "Constitution of the Confederate States of America"

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sundance, buddy, you are for grins and giggles.

Needling:simply attempting to make the other person angry, without trying to address the argument at hand.

Needling is also Ad Hominem if you know what that means.

In a nutshell if you cannot address any of the arguments or controversies on this thread why waste board space?

You have needled and talked down to others, a form of ad hom, so I am not much concerned with how you feel about getting what you dish.

You finally buckled, so now I can put you on Ignore.

 

[Syriusly]

Nineteenth Century liberals had a long list of grievances against the South, nearly all of them based on faulty information and of course the same applies to the liberals today and their attacks on President Trump, Republicans, Conservatism and still many of them are hung up on 'sectionalism' aka hatred (still) of the South and Southerners in general...one sees this on most of the liberal boards.

Such propaganda as they espouse is pitiful. Nothing is more indicative of this than that of their comments on Southern Slavery as it it existed in that long bygone era..........obviously basing their complaints on stuff they have seen in movies or other fictional sources when actual words spoken by former slaves regarding slavery down South are available to all and online but of course they do not want the truth about that nor do they want to hear that the War Between The States Was not about slavery.

….On the real cause of the not-so-civil war

The war of 1861-65 was NOT about slavery at all, but about economic imposition upon the Southern states by the money/business dominated government in Washington, DC. The REAL reason for that war was the fact that northern manufacturers, making their clothing, farm implements, furniture, tools, etc., produced them for sale at a certain price – a HIGH price, at that. Southern states had some, but not a lot, of industry, and were in need of those very products. It just so happened that the European nations of France, Spain, England, and the Dutch, were producing and selling those same basic needs for a much LOWER price than the Northern produced goods. As the South had a lower standard of living (income, production, wages) than the North, they eagerly imported those foreign goods at each Southern port for much cheaper prices – simply because they could AFFORD to buy them at those prices. Northern businessmen and bankers put immediate pressure on the politicians in DC to make their “cash cow” (the Southern states) HAVE to buy from the North. To do that, they passed tariffs (the last straw being the Morrill Tariffs) to RAISE the price of those imported European goods, so that they would cost MORE than the Yankee goods.

The Feds passed the tariffs, of course – but the Southern states would ignore enforcing them at Southern ports (chiefly, Charleston, Savannah, New Orleans, and Galveston). So the Yankee dominated Congress – just as today, totally beholden to the Money Power – passed NEW laws, providing for FEDERAL officials (among them, military personnel) to set up federal stations in each Southern port to enforce and collect the tariffs – tariffs that would RAISE the price of those European goods ABOVE the prices of like goods produced in the Northern states. When even THAT did not produce the desired results, DC passed laws dictating that all foreign ships must FIRST enter the ports of Boston and Philadelphia before proceeding to deliver ANY goods to the South, so that the tariffs could be applied.

Faced with this economic strangulation, the South collectively decided that their own economic survival depended upon exercising their perfectly legal right to leave the Union, and set up their OWN nation, if you will. Secession was not something undertaken lightly. There were serious debates in each state about the pros and cons of leaving the Union and setting up their own association of states – a confederacy.



The plusses for such a step far outweighed the negatives, and the Southern states assured the Northern ones that in the event of any national emergency in the form of a THREAT from the outside, the Confederate states would immediately join forces with their Northern sisters in defense of the homeland. If you think that this was the FIRST instance of secession by states, I suggest you study the War of 1812, when more than one NORTHERN state threatened secession and actually SAT OUT that war rather than send forces to help their sister states fight the British. Rather strange that NOT ONE VOICE was raised at that time about secession being “illegal!” In actuality, it was not questioned at all as to its legality.


This moderate and fair stance threw the bankers and capitalists into a tizzy. European nations, very anti-slavery, in their editorials and public pronouncements, took a pro-South stance, stating that the Southern states had the more legitimate cause in the “family quarrel.” Those foreign nations would NEVER have done that if the war had been about the issue of slavery. Those “outsiders” had a much clearer view of the REAL issues, unlike Americans, caught up in the eye of the storm.


Southern states exercised their rights and dismissed the tariff-collectors from their ports. The Yankee garrison at the port of Charleston on the island and behind the walls of Fort Sumter were among the last Federal presence . Lincoln saw that the last chance of appeasing or serving the 1860s version of the “military-industrial complex” lay in making that fort the cause for WAR. Thus rather than ordering the abandonment of that federal presence within the territorial jurisdiction of the southern state of South Carolina, he sent reinforcements by sea to the isolated garrison – knowing that such an action would in all likelihood provoke a military response. Southern officials learned of the impending reinforcement – no doubt given the information by those trying to provoke war – and thus began the bombardment of Fort Sumter.

Confederate Memorial Day 1910



The Yankee forces surrendered before the reinforcements (also bringing much-needed food and ammunition) could arrive. Interestingly, not ONE Yankee soldier was killed in that bombardment; thus it is likely that a peaceful resolution could have been reached even AFTER the surrender of Fort Sumter. But those influencing Lincoln could not allow a peaceful resolution. They had to have their tariffs enforced, their beholden cash cow back in line and buying Yankee goods. Thus Lincoln’s plan to provoke combat, and to be able to blame it on South Carolina, worked like a charm. “They fired the first shot” was the echoing cry, which carried with it the obvious implication that “the South is GUILTY, they brought this on themselves.”


The historical record shows that even Lincoln declared that the war was not about slavery (check out his SPEECHES at that time!) – at least in the first 2 years of that war – two years that were won overwhelmingly by Southern fighting men.

With sagging morale and rapidly deteriorating support from northern states grown sick of their sons coming home in body bags, a moral issue was needed. Editorials in those few Yankee papers that were still free of government control were using expressions like “let our Southern sisters go their own way; the death and destruction must stop!”

Those promoting that war upon the South then decided to use the issue of SLAVERY as the CAUSE for which they were fighting. The ploy, though nothing more than a political ruse, worked. Even European newspapers began backing the North, as they too were caught up in Lincoln’s seemingly “magnificent” Gettysburg Address. A fact very pertinent to my point that the war was not about slavery – what percent of Southern people owned at least ONE slave? My grad work research gave me that answer – 4.8%. That’s correct. That means that 95% of Southern people had NOTHING vested in the institution, all the more reason not to go off and fight a war for it!

Would poor, generally illiterate Southern men and boys go off to the horrid conditions of war to fight for slavery? Highly unlikely. BUT – if those same males were told that the Federal Government is invading Southern states by military force, would they fight to defend their states and homes? A resounding YES.

How does all this apply to the current disagreement about those Texas license plates honoring the Confederacy? It applies because of the FALSE history that has been taught due to a political/social/racial agenda since the end of that war, and the following 12 years of the horror in the period of military rule over the Southern states known as “Reconstruction.”

The winning side always writes the history, and unfortunately, that “history” is about as close to the TRUTH as a Cinderella fairy-tale. The stupid argument that the Confederate battle flag is a symbol of “racism” is strictly a post-modern twist on falsified history.

Slavery existed for 4 years under that banner as a legal institution; it existed for nearly 100 years under the Yankee stars and stripes. And even the term “civil war” as applied to that fratricidal conflict is a total misnomer. A civil war takes place when there are two (or more) factions trying to take over the central government. This was NEVER the case in the war between North and South. The South had no interest in taking over DC; those states wanted to co-exist in peace.

When the fighting started, Southern states were fighting a DEFENSIVE war against Yankee troops INVADING their homelands!! When one considers that most Southern boys fighting for their states were dirt-poor and had nothing to gain by upholding slavery – an institution that even helped perpetuate poverty among Southern whites, it does not make sense that they would leave their homes, march from Texas or Florida or anywhere to suffer the most unimaginable horrors to fight to the death to preserve the institution of slavery. But does it make sense that they would rally for 4 years to fight an INVADER threatening their homes and way of life? Absolutely! Rarely if ever is it mentioned that blacks and Indians in substantial numbers fought on the Southern side. The false image of North equals good guys, South equals EVIL, must be preserved, to justify the carnage and evil visited upon Southern people, particularly civilians, by occupying Yankee forces.


The “hurt feelings” and racist attitudes of those against honoring the Confederate battle flag and the actions of disgusting wimp politicians like Rick Perry and so many like him are the result of being taught decades of FALSE history. This issue – pretty small, actually, in the overall grand scheme of things – does illustrate the very negative effects of teaching FALSE history to a gullible, trusting, and accepting populace. Once the “fly” has been introduced into the ointment, especially in today’s phony “politically-correct” and historically blind populace, the poisoning of the minds and pushing of GUILT is extremely difficult to straighten. Our only solace is in the belief that the pendulum does not swing the same way all the time, and that the truth will eventually out.

……See also
More on how Wall Street greed provoked the South and triggered the “Civil War” – John de Nugent

A southerner on the Confederacy; truth about black slavery; if “Jade Helm” goes from drill to real – John de Nugent

LOL- everytime a Confederate fanboy wants to argue that there is nothing racist about celebrating the Confederacy- I will gladly point to your posts- since all of your posts are based upon your racist, pro-slavery, Confederate ass kissing twisted pov.

And I bet your Trump sign is still up in front of your trailer.

 

[Slash]

Nineteenth Century liberals had a long list of grievances against the South, nearly all of them based on faulty information and of course the same applies to the liberals today and their attacks on President Trump, Republicans, Conservatism and still many of them are hung up on 'sectionalism' aka hatred (still) of the South and Southerners in general...one sees this on most of the liberal boards.

Such propaganda as they espouse is pitiful. Nothing is more indicative of this than that of their comments on Southern Slavery as it it existed in that long bygone era..........obviously basing their complaints on stuff they have seen in movies or other fictional sources when actual words spoken by former slaves regarding slavery down South are available to all and online but of course they do not want the truth about that nor do they want to hear that the War Between The States Was not about slavery.

….On the real cause of the not-so-civil war

The war of 1861-65 was NOT about slavery at all, but about economic imposition upon the Southern states by the money/business dominated government in Washington, DC. The REAL reason for that war was the fact that northern manufacturers, making their clothing, farm implements, furniture, tools, etc., produced them for sale at a certain price – a HIGH price, at that. Southern states had some, but not a lot, of industry, and were in need of those very products. It just so happened that the European nations of France, Spain, England, and the Dutch, were producing and selling those same basic needs for a much LOWER price than the Northern produced goods. As the South had a lower standard of living (income, production, wages) than the North, they eagerly imported those foreign goods at each Southern port for much cheaper prices – simply because they could AFFORD to buy them at those prices. Northern businessmen and bankers put immediate pressure on the politicians in DC to make their “cash cow” (the Southern states) HAVE to buy from the North. To do that, they passed tariffs (the last straw being the Morrill Tariffs) to RAISE the price of those imported European goods, so that they would cost MORE than the Yankee goods.

The Feds passed the tariffs, of course – but the Southern states would ignore enforcing them at Southern ports (chiefly, Charleston, Savannah, New Orleans, and Galveston). So the Yankee dominated Congress – just as today, totally beholden to the Money Power – passed NEW laws, providing for FEDERAL officials (among them, military personnel) to set up federal stations in each Southern port to enforce and collect the tariffs – tariffs that would RAISE the price of those European goods ABOVE the prices of like goods produced in the Northern states. When even THAT did not produce the desired results, DC passed laws dictating that all foreign ships must FIRST enter the ports of Boston and Philadelphia before proceeding to deliver ANY goods to the South, so that the tariffs could be applied.

Faced with this economic strangulation, the South collectively decided that their own economic survival depended upon exercising their perfectly legal right to leave the Union, and set up their OWN nation, if you will. Secession was not something undertaken lightly. There were serious debates in each state about the pros and cons of leaving the Union and setting up their own association of states – a confederacy.



The plusses for such a step far outweighed the negatives, and the Southern states assured the Northern ones that in the event of any national emergency in the form of a THREAT from the outside, the Confederate states would immediately join forces with their Northern sisters in defense of the homeland. If you think that this was the FIRST instance of secession by states, I suggest you study the War of 1812, when more than one NORTHERN state threatened secession and actually SAT OUT that war rather than send forces to help their sister states fight the British. Rather strange that NOT ONE VOICE was raised at that time about secession being “illegal!” In actuality, it was not questioned at all as to its legality.


This moderate and fair stance threw the bankers and capitalists into a tizzy. European nations, very anti-slavery, in their editorials and public pronouncements, took a pro-South stance, stating that the Southern states had the more legitimate cause in the “family quarrel.” Those foreign nations would NEVER have done that if the war had been about the issue of slavery. Those “outsiders” had a much clearer view of the REAL issues, unlike Americans, caught up in the eye of the storm.


Southern states exercised their rights and dismissed the tariff-collectors from their ports. The Yankee garrison at the port of Charleston on the island and behind the walls of Fort Sumter were among the last Federal presence . Lincoln saw that the last chance of appeasing or serving the 1860s version of the “military-industrial complex” lay in making that fort the cause for WAR. Thus rather than ordering the abandonment of that federal presence within the territorial jurisdiction of the southern state of South Carolina, he sent reinforcements by sea to the isolated garrison – knowing that such an action would in all likelihood provoke a military response. Southern officials learned of the impending reinforcement – no doubt given the information by those trying to provoke war – and thus began the bombardment of Fort Sumter.

Confederate Memorial Day 1910



The Yankee forces surrendered before the reinforcements (also bringing much-needed food and ammunition) could arrive. Interestingly, not ONE Yankee soldier was killed in that bombardment; thus it is likely that a peaceful resolution could have been reached even AFTER the surrender of Fort Sumter. But those influencing Lincoln could not allow a peaceful resolution. They had to have their tariffs enforced, their beholden cash cow back in line and buying Yankee goods. Thus Lincoln’s plan to provoke combat, and to be able to blame it on South Carolina, worked like a charm. “They fired the first shot” was the echoing cry, which carried with it the obvious implication that “the South is GUILTY, they brought this on themselves.”


The historical record shows that even Lincoln declared that the war was not about slavery (check out his SPEECHES at that time!) – at least in the first 2 years of that war – two years that were won overwhelmingly by Southern fighting men.

With sagging morale and rapidly deteriorating support from northern states grown sick of their sons coming home in body bags, a moral issue was needed. Editorials in those few Yankee papers that were still free of government control were using expressions like “let our Southern sisters go their own way; the death and destruction must stop!”

Those promoting that war upon the South then decided to use the issue of SLAVERY as the CAUSE for which they were fighting. The ploy, though nothing more than a political ruse, worked. Even European newspapers began backing the North, as they too were caught up in Lincoln’s seemingly “magnificent” Gettysburg Address. A fact very pertinent to my point that the war was not about slavery – what percent of Southern people owned at least ONE slave? My grad work research gave me that answer – 4.8%. That’s correct. That means that 95% of Southern people had NOTHING vested in the institution, all the more reason not to go off and fight a war for it!

Would poor, generally illiterate Southern men and boys go off to the horrid conditions of war to fight for slavery? Highly unlikely. BUT – if those same males were told that the Federal Government is invading Southern states by military force, would they fight to defend their states and homes? A resounding YES.

How does all this apply to the current disagreement about those Texas license plates honoring the Confederacy? It applies because of the FALSE history that has been taught due to a political/social/racial agenda since the end of that war, and the following 12 years of the horror in the period of military rule over the Southern states known as “Reconstruction.”

The winning side always writes the history, and unfortunately, that “history” is about as close to the TRUTH as a Cinderella fairy-tale. The stupid argument that the Confederate battle flag is a symbol of “racism” is strictly a post-modern twist on falsified history.

Slavery existed for 4 years under that banner as a legal institution; it existed for nearly 100 years under the Yankee stars and stripes. And even the term “civil war” as applied to that fratricidal conflict is a total misnomer. A civil war takes place when there are two (or more) factions trying to take over the central government. This was NEVER the case in the war between North and South. The South had no interest in taking over DC; those states wanted to co-exist in peace.

When the fighting started, Southern states were fighting a DEFENSIVE war against Yankee troops INVADING their homelands!! When one considers that most Southern boys fighting for their states were dirt-poor and had nothing to gain by upholding slavery – an institution that even helped perpetuate poverty among Southern whites, it does not make sense that they would leave their homes, march from Texas or Florida or anywhere to suffer the most unimaginable horrors to fight to the death to preserve the institution of slavery. But does it make sense that they would rally for 4 years to fight an INVADER threatening their homes and way of life? Absolutely! Rarely if ever is it mentioned that blacks and Indians in substantial numbers fought on the Southern side. The false image of North equals good guys, South equals EVIL, must be preserved, to justify the carnage and evil visited upon Southern people, particularly civilians, by occupying Yankee forces.


The “hurt feelings” and racist attitudes of those against honoring the Confederate battle flag and the actions of disgusting wimp politicians like Rick Perry and so many like him are the result of being taught decades of FALSE history. This issue – pretty small, actually, in the overall grand scheme of things – does illustrate the very negative effects of teaching FALSE history to a gullible, trusting, and accepting populace. Once the “fly” has been introduced into the ointment, especially in today’s phony “politically-correct” and historically blind populace, the poisoning of the minds and pushing of GUILT is extremely difficult to straighten. Our only solace is in the belief that the pendulum does not swing the same way all the time, and that the truth will eventually out.

……See also
More on how Wall Street greed provoked the South and triggered the “Civil War” – John de Nugent

A southerner on the Confederacy; truth about black slavery; if “Jade Helm” goes from drill to real – John de Nugent

Fun statements. I like rewriting history at times too. This ones about as good as mine that the Civil War was about Abraham Lincoln creating Nuclear weapons.

Don't you find it interesting that in the reasons for secessions the states that seceded wrote NOT ONE mentioned these tariffs you speak of? Maybe becase the tarriff law in place was written by a southern Senator (he became the VP of the confederacy)? Hmmm, it would be like if the new tax law passes and in 100 years we get to hear how Republicans revolted in 2018 over the new tax laws. It's that dumb of a theory.

They did mention slavery though. Oh yeah, protecting that showed up everywhere. Not just as a way for free labor, but as a God given right to the white man and the cornerstone of their rebellion.

As for the "Yankee invasion", ummm, remember Military bases are federal property, not state property. You can even find the deed for Fort Sumter where it is ceded to the Government of the US. And when the USA failed to hand it over it was bombed for 24 hours straight. Cuba has asked us to give Guantanemo back plenty of times. We've said no. If they bombed our soldiers and Marines there for a day straight because of that I hope the US would defend it's assets and military lives as well. Remember, the South seceded and took EVERYTHING they could from the US. Ships that belonged to the federal Gov't. Bases. Mints. Banks. Money. Just told them to stuff it. Then attacked a US military installation for the first shots of the war.

Slavery did exist in slave states a long time. Remember Northern states were taking action to ban slavery and ban the slave trade in their states DURING the American Revolution. They went to the original Continental Congresses with ideas of a slave free US. But Southern states would not join a Union without slavery, so in the best interests of a nation to defeat the British they gave in on that.

Just because most Germans, poor men, fought for their country rather than the 3rd Reichs dream of a superior race and world domination, doesn't mean Hitler was a good guy. It doesn't mean his ideals were good ones. Honestly it makes it even worse that he would send people to their deaths over them. Same with the Confederacy. I don't hate those that fought and died. But those that sent them to war against the USA over the institution of slavery. Fuck them.


That's a nice study about the 5% of them. Granted that seems to be completely the opposite of what the 1860 census showed us. You know. The actual facts of the time, rather than us deciding to throw them away and create new ones that suit our needs.

In 1860 the census found out what percent of families owned slaves. 35% of those in Alabama did for example. 49% in Mississippi. 46% in South Carolina. Now granted if dad owns a slave, I am sure you are breaking down the numbers that even though that slave works for the family, an 8 person family means only 12% of those in that house would have anything to do with a slave. It's an easy and rather lazy way to bend the truth for your needs.

Again, you can rewrite this new version of history all you want. The great thing about the history of the US is it is written down. You can read the congressional meetings at state assemblies on the issue and see slavery was the defining reason they wanted out of the union. You can identify the states rights they felt were being infringed upon. Runaway slaves not being returned to slave states. Slavery not being able to expand to new states. States not having a right to re-open the slave trade. Of course now we need to call those "states rights" since pro-slavery rights doesn't fit the new agenda we all like.

Kinda funny how you Lincoln said the war wasn't a war on slavery early on. Remember, when the states were starting to secede and the war was starting, Washington DC was between two slave states. Yeah he could have said it was a war on slavery. And woken up the next day in the heart of the Confederacy and waved a white flag and surrendered the US. He could have spoken tougher on slavery when he was giving his campaign speeches in slave states and his opponents were calling him a "black republican" and that he'd send the country to war over slavery, but that would have lost him votes. Just like Trump says he is pro-immigrant and Hillary says she is pro-gun when campaigning in those area's that are for those things.

In the end, Lincolns acts were a war on slavery. Immediately in office he free'd the slaves in the one place he could (Washington DC). As soon as he wasn't under attack from the South, when he was having to be slipped out of Washington DC so they couldnt catch him, and they beat the rebels back, he issued the Emancipation Proclamation. Something most people call the most questionable use of presidential powers ever. After the war many called him the dirtiest politician ever. Bringing up exposing secrets and damning stories on other politicians if they wouldn't work to create that amendment to free all the slaves. He is still the only president ever to sign an amendment, the one that free'd the slaves. But yeah, even though his life was chock full of a battle against slavery. Even though he was from the abolitionist party, he wasn't anti-slavery lol. That'd be like in 150 years some guy trying to rewrite history that Trump wasn't anti-illegal immigrants. That he was actually anti-2nd amendment. It's literally that dumb of a statement.

I kinda had fun reading your re-write on US history there. But you are going to need to break into the Library of Congress with a LOT of white out to remove the actual history that's written down to get that story you made up through.

Thanks for the fun fantasy though.

 

[Slash]

The "blacks fought for the south" bit is fun as well. Yes we all know that lots of Generals and leaders would take their slaves and force them to support the war effort. But wheres the proof of anything beyond that? Why is it only something we've discovered in the past 20 years? I mean we've got easy numbers on blacks in the Northern army. About 10% of the forces, about 10,000 casualties on the records and hundreds of records supporting it. The only writing about black soldiers from the confederacy was that it was against the law for Blacks to be soldiers. March 13, 1865 was when it became finally legal in the South for the Confederacy to admit and train black soldiers, and too soon for any to ever face battle. A few weeks after that was made law... Lee surrendered. It was a desperate move at the end. But somehow I'm supposed to believe it had been already legal? I mean the documents are right there in the Library of Congress.

But we've got the intentionally photoshopped stories of blacks fighting for the south right?

I mean we have hundreds of references by Confederate military leaders counting their white and black laborers. Black slaves in their camp cooking and cleaning. But not one. NOT EVEN ONE account by a single Confederate leader of a black slave fighting in the military.

Not just the official documents. Not one confederate soldiers diary ever mentioned a black soldier. Not one confederate letter home ever mentioned a black soldier. Not one of the "lost cause" former Confederate soldiers, when trying to deny the war was about slavery but other things ever mentioned blacks fighting along side them. Here was the PERFECT opportunity to make a case on that, but not ONE ever mentioned it.

Union reports after battles would mention who was caught and rounded up and taken prisoner. They had these meticulous records. Troops, support staff, black support staff. NEVER A SINGLE BLACK SOLDIER.

Now, only after the veterans of that war who would have laughed this away are LONG GONE, do we get these stories. 80,000 black fighting men... more than Lee had at Gettysburgh hidden out there. It's a sad joke. It makes me think in another 50 years we will have to listen to morons telling us that Hitler really liked the Jews.

 

[Sundance508]

Nineteenth Century liberals had a long list of grievances against the South, nearly all of them based on faulty information and of course the same applies to the liberals today and their attacks on President Trump, Republicans, Conservatism and still many of them are hung up on 'sectionalism' aka hatred (still) of the South and Southerners in general...one sees this on most of the liberal boards.

Such propaganda as they espouse is pitiful. Nothing is more indicative of this than that of their comments on Southern Slavery as it it existed in that long bygone era..........obviously basing their complaints on stuff they have seen in movies or other fictional sources when actual words spoken by former slaves regarding slavery down South are available to all and online but of course they do not want the truth about that nor do they want to hear that the War Between The States Was not about slavery.

….On the real cause of the not-so-civil war

The war of 1861-65 was NOT about slavery at all, but about economic imposition upon the Southern states by the money/business dominated government in Washington, DC. The REAL reason for that war was the fact that northern manufacturers, making their clothing, farm implements, furniture, tools, etc., produced them for sale at a certain price – a HIGH price, at that. Southern states had some, but not a lot, of industry, and were in need of those very products. It just so happened that the European nations of France, Spain, England, and the Dutch, were producing and selling those same basic needs for a much LOWER price than the Northern produced goods. As the South had a lower standard of living (income, production, wages) than the North, they eagerly imported those foreign goods at each Southern port for much cheaper prices – simply because they could AFFORD to buy them at those prices. Northern businessmen and bankers put immediate pressure on the politicians in DC to make their “cash cow” (the Southern states) HAVE to buy from the North. To do that, they passed tariffs (the last straw being the Morrill Tariffs) to RAISE the price of those imported European goods, so that they would cost MORE than the Yankee goods.

The Feds passed the tariffs, of course – but the Southern states would ignore enforcing them at Southern ports (chiefly, Charleston, Savannah, New Orleans, and Galveston). So the Yankee dominated Congress – just as today, totally beholden to the Money Power – passed NEW laws, providing for FEDERAL officials (among them, military personnel) to set up federal stations in each Southern port to enforce and collect the tariffs – tariffs that would RAISE the price of those European goods ABOVE the prices of like goods produced in the Northern states. When even THAT did not produce the desired results, DC passed laws dictating that all foreign ships must FIRST enter the ports of Boston and Philadelphia before proceeding to deliver ANY goods to the South, so that the tariffs could be applied.

Faced with this economic strangulation, the South collectively decided that their own economic survival depended upon exercising their perfectly legal right to leave the Union, and set up their OWN nation, if you will. Secession was not something undertaken lightly. There were serious debates in each state about the pros and cons of leaving the Union and setting up their own association of states – a confederacy.



The plusses for such a step far outweighed the negatives, and the Southern states assured the Northern ones that in the event of any national emergency in the form of a THREAT from the outside, the Confederate states would immediately join forces with their Northern sisters in defense of the homeland. If you think that this was the FIRST instance of secession by states, I suggest you study the War of 1812, when more than one NORTHERN state threatened secession and actually SAT OUT that war rather than send forces to help their sister states fight the British. Rather strange that NOT ONE VOICE was raised at that time about secession being “illegal!” In actuality, it was not questioned at all as to its legality.


This moderate and fair stance threw the bankers and capitalists into a tizzy. European nations, very anti-slavery, in their editorials and public pronouncements, took a pro-South stance, stating that the Southern states had the more legitimate cause in the “family quarrel.” Those foreign nations would NEVER have done that if the war had been about the issue of slavery. Those “outsiders” had a much clearer view of the REAL issues, unlike Americans, caught up in the eye of the storm.


Southern states exercised their rights and dismissed the tariff-collectors from their ports. The Yankee garrison at the port of Charleston on the island and behind the walls of Fort Sumter were among the last Federal presence . Lincoln saw that the last chance of appeasing or serving the 1860s version of the “military-industrial complex” lay in making that fort the cause for WAR. Thus rather than ordering the abandonment of that federal presence within the territorial jurisdiction of the southern state of South Carolina, he sent reinforcements by sea to the isolated garrison – knowing that such an action would in all likelihood provoke a military response. Southern officials learned of the impending reinforcement – no doubt given the information by those trying to provoke war – and thus began the bombardment of Fort Sumter.

Confederate Memorial Day 1910



The Yankee forces surrendered before the reinforcements (also bringing much-needed food and ammunition) could arrive. Interestingly, not ONE Yankee soldier was killed in that bombardment; thus it is likely that a peaceful resolution could have been reached even AFTER the surrender of Fort Sumter. But those influencing Lincoln could not allow a peaceful resolution. They had to have their tariffs enforced, their beholden cash cow back in line and buying Yankee goods. Thus Lincoln’s plan to provoke combat, and to be able to blame it on South Carolina, worked like a charm. “They fired the first shot” was the echoing cry, which carried with it the obvious implication that “the South is GUILTY, they brought this on themselves.”


The historical record shows that even Lincoln declared that the war was not about slavery (check out his SPEECHES at that time!) – at least in the first 2 years of that war – two years that were won overwhelmingly by Southern fighting men.

With sagging morale and rapidly deteriorating support from northern states grown sick of their sons coming home in body bags, a moral issue was needed. Editorials in those few Yankee papers that were still free of government control were using expressions like “let our Southern sisters go their own way; the death and destruction must stop!”

Those promoting that war upon the South then decided to use the issue of SLAVERY as the CAUSE for which they were fighting. The ploy, though nothing more than a political ruse, worked. Even European newspapers began backing the North, as they too were caught up in Lincoln’s seemingly “magnificent” Gettysburg Address. A fact very pertinent to my point that the war was not about slavery – what percent of Southern people owned at least ONE slave? My grad work research gave me that answer – 4.8%. That’s correct. That means that 95% of Southern people had NOTHING vested in the institution, all the more reason not to go off and fight a war for it!

Would poor, generally illiterate Southern men and boys go off to the horrid conditions of war to fight for slavery? Highly unlikely. BUT – if those same males were told that the Federal Government is invading Southern states by military force, would they fight to defend their states and homes? A resounding YES.

How does all this apply to the current disagreement about those Texas license plates honoring the Confederacy? It applies because of the FALSE history that has been taught due to a political/social/racial agenda since the end of that war, and the following 12 years of the horror in the period of military rule over the Southern states known as “Reconstruction.”

The winning side always writes the history, and unfortunately, that “history” is about as close to the TRUTH as a Cinderella fairy-tale. The stupid argument that the Confederate battle flag is a symbol of “racism” is strictly a post-modern twist on falsified history.

Slavery existed for 4 years under that banner as a legal institution; it existed for nearly 100 years under the Yankee stars and stripes. And even the term “civil war” as applied to that fratricidal conflict is a total misnomer. A civil war takes place when there are two (or more) factions trying to take over the central government. This was NEVER the case in the war between North and South. The South had no interest in taking over DC; those states wanted to co-exist in peace.

When the fighting started, Southern states were fighting a DEFENSIVE war against Yankee troops INVADING their homelands!! When one considers that most Southern boys fighting for their states were dirt-poor and had nothing to gain by upholding slavery – an institution that even helped perpetuate poverty among Southern whites, it does not make sense that they would leave their homes, march from Texas or Florida or anywhere to suffer the most unimaginable horrors to fight to the death to preserve the institution of slavery. But does it make sense that they would rally for 4 years to fight an INVADER threatening their homes and way of life? Absolutely! Rarely if ever is it mentioned that blacks and Indians in substantial numbers fought on the Southern side. The false image of North equals good guys, South equals EVIL, must be preserved, to justify the carnage and evil visited upon Southern people, particularly civilians, by occupying Yankee forces.


The “hurt feelings” and racist attitudes of those against honoring the Confederate battle flag and the actions of disgusting wimp politicians like Rick Perry and so many like him are the result of being taught decades of FALSE history. This issue – pretty small, actually, in the overall grand scheme of things – does illustrate the very negative effects of teaching FALSE history to a gullible, trusting, and accepting populace. Once the “fly” has been introduced into the ointment, especially in today’s phony “politically-correct” and historically blind populace, the poisoning of the minds and pushing of GUILT is extremely difficult to straighten. Our only solace is in the belief that the pendulum does not swing the same way all the time, and that the truth will eventually out.

……See also
More on how Wall Street greed provoked the South and triggered the “Civil War” – John de Nugent

A southerner on the Confederacy; truth about black slavery; if “Jade Helm” goes from drill to real – John de Nugent

LOL- everytime a Confederate fanboy wants to argue that there is nothing racist about celebrating the Confederacy- I will gladly point to your posts- since all of your posts are based upon your racist, pro-slavery, Confederate ass kissing twisted pov.

And I bet your Trump sign is still up in front of your trailer.

To begin with racism is a useless word.......and only has been around for a relatively short period of time. Anyone who has been on many of these boards sees very quickly how most make up their own definitions of it....I go with the original definition of it in the Oxford English Dictionary....which simply acknowledges the power of genes and how they shape the human genome.now of course the liberals changed the dictionary definition of it in order to be able to use it as a political tool and they have been quite successful in that regards and the evidence is that this country is now more divided than at any time since the so called civil war(misnomer) and a lot of that unfortunately has to do with how liberals have played the 'politics of victimhood' game....wherein the blacks are always innocent victims....clearly demonstrated by the Zimmerman case....and another example is how the liberals supported Israel until they became rather successful...the liberals then switched to supporting the Palestinians' because they now perceive them as the victims and the Israelis as Evil Zionists...thus getting a lick in on both Israel and Jehovah.

The Origins of ‘Racism’: The curious beginnings of a useless word (Samuel Francis)

 

[Sundance508]

The debate over black Confederates has reached a kind of impasse: Neither side is listening to the other. As the historian William Freehling quietly acknowledged in a footnote: “This important subject is now needlessly embroiled in controversy, with politically correct historians refusing to see the importance (indeed existence) of slaves who were black Confederates,

Freehling is right. A few thousand blacks did indeed fight for the Confederacy. Significantly, African-American scholars from Ervin Jordan and Joseph Reidy to Juliet Walker and Henry Louis Gates Jr., editor-in-chief of The Root, have stood outside this impasse, acknowledging that some blacks, slave and free, supported the Confederacy....after all the South was their home too and many of them were very loyal not only to their Mastahs but to the Confederacy as well and viewed the yankees with much disfavor.


How many supported it? No one knows precisely. But by drawing on these scholars and focusing on sources written or published during the war, a good estimate is that between 3,000 and 6,000 served as Confederate soldiers. Another 100,000 or so blacks, mostly slaves, supported the Confederacy as laborers, servants and teamsters. They built roads, batteries and fortifications; manned munitions factories—essentially did the Confederacy’s dirty work.

We know that blacks made up more than half the toilers at Richmond’s Tredegar Iron Works and more than 75 percent of the workforce at Selma, Ala.’s naval ordnance plant. And slaves grew the crops that fed the Confederacy. As Frederick Douglass noted, blacks were “the stomach of the rebellion.”

The total number of black Confederate soldiers are insignificant as they
carry immense symbolic weight, for they explode the myth that a slave wouldn’t fight on behalf of masters. Scholars recognize that throughout history, slave societies have armed slaves, at times with the promise of freedom. They also acknowledge that a small number of African Americans were slave owners (about 3,700, according to Loren Schweninger).

BTW....most soldiers in any Army are not engaged in combat....most serve in non combat roles aka.........in logistics etc.

Even in WWI and WWII and Korea most blacks served in non-combat roles such as cooks, truck drivers etc. The only black airborne unit in WWII served as smoke jumpers in Oregon....not until Vietnam did any black soldiers of significant numbers serve in combat roles....and many know of the problems assiciated with that.

Black Confederates

 

[JakeStarkey]

Half a million slaves fled the Confederacy on foot rather than serve the slaveocracy.

185 thousand blacks served in the Union's military forces, 33000 thousand of them doing.

Talk about actual and symbolic importance!

 

[Slash]

The debate over black Confederates has reached a kind of impasse: Neither side is listening to the other. As the historian William Freehling quietly acknowledged in a footnote: “This important subject is now needlessly embroiled in controversy, with politically correct historians refusing to see the importance (indeed existence) of slaves who were black Confederates,

Freehling is right. A few thousand blacks did indeed fight for the Confederacy. Significantly, African-American scholars from Ervin Jordan and Joseph Reidy to Juliet Walker and Henry Louis Gates Jr., editor-in-chief of The Root, have stood outside this impasse, acknowledging that some blacks, slave and free, supported the Confederacy....after all the South was their home too and many of them were very loyal not only to their Mastahs but to the Confederacy as well and viewed the yankees with much disfavor.


How many supported it? No one knows precisely. But by drawing on these scholars and focusing on sources written or published during the war, a good estimate is that between 3,000 and 6,000 served as Confederate soldiers. Another 100,000 or so blacks, mostly slaves, supported the Confederacy as laborers, servants and teamsters. They built roads, batteries and fortifications; manned munitions factories—essentially did the Confederacy’s dirty work.

We know that blacks made up more than half the toilers at Richmond’s Tredegar Iron Works and more than 75 percent of the workforce at Selma, Ala.’s naval ordnance plant. And slaves grew the crops that fed the Confederacy. As Frederick Douglass noted, blacks were “the stomach of the rebellion.”

The total number of black Confederate soldiers are insignificant as they
carry immense symbolic weight, for they explode the myth that a slave wouldn’t fight on behalf of masters. Scholars recognize that throughout history, slave societies have armed slaves, at times with the promise of freedom. They also acknowledge that a small number of African Americans were slave owners (about 3,700, according to Loren Schweninger).

There is no debate. The only way to create the debate is to rewrite history. It's to Ignore the history that occurred and rewrite a new one that better suits the story we would like to tell today. It has no basis in written historical fact. We have to embellish (oh black slaves were part of the effort because their masters took them along).

This is one of the most easily disproven conspiracy theories. Believers of this one make flat earthers look like Einsteins in comparison. But unfortunately many are willing to stick their heads in the sand when it comes to seeing and hearing the truth, just in order to keep their own beliefs.

 

[Syriusly]

Nineteenth Century liberals had a long list of grievances against the South, nearly all of them based on faulty information and of course the same applies to the liberals today and their attacks on President Trump, Republicans, Conservatism and still many of them are hung up on 'sectionalism' aka hatred (still) of the South and Southerners in general...one sees this on most of the liberal boards.

Such propaganda as they espouse is pitiful. Nothing is more indicative of this than that of their comments on Southern Slavery as it it existed in that long bygone era..........obviously basing their complaints on stuff they have seen in movies or other fictional sources when actual words spoken by former slaves regarding slavery down South are available to all and online but of course they do not want the truth about that nor do they want to hear that the War Between The States Was not about slavery.

….On the real cause of the not-so-civil war

The war of 1861-65 was NOT about slavery at all, but about economic imposition upon the Southern states by the money/business dominated government in Washington, DC. The REAL reason for that war was the fact that northern manufacturers, making their clothing, farm implements, furniture, tools, etc., produced them for sale at a certain price – a HIGH price, at that. Southern states had some, but not a lot, of industry, and were in need of those very products. It just so happened that the European nations of France, Spain, England, and the Dutch, were producing and selling those same basic needs for a much LOWER price than the Northern produced goods. As the South had a lower standard of living (income, production, wages) than the North, they eagerly imported those foreign goods at each Southern port for much cheaper prices – simply because they could AFFORD to buy them at those prices. Northern businessmen and bankers put immediate pressure on the politicians in DC to make their “cash cow” (the Southern states) HAVE to buy from the North. To do that, they passed tariffs (the last straw being the Morrill Tariffs) to RAISE the price of those imported European goods, so that they would cost MORE than the Yankee goods.

The Feds passed the tariffs, of course – but the Southern states would ignore enforcing them at Southern ports (chiefly, Charleston, Savannah, New Orleans, and Galveston). So the Yankee dominated Congress – just as today, totally beholden to the Money Power – passed NEW laws, providing for FEDERAL officials (among them, military personnel) to set up federal stations in each Southern port to enforce and collect the tariffs – tariffs that would RAISE the price of those European goods ABOVE the prices of like goods produced in the Northern states. When even THAT did not produce the desired results, DC passed laws dictating that all foreign ships must FIRST enter the ports of Boston and Philadelphia before proceeding to deliver ANY goods to the South, so that the tariffs could be applied.

Faced with this economic strangulation, the South collectively decided that their own economic survival depended upon exercising their perfectly legal right to leave the Union, and set up their OWN nation, if you will. Secession was not something undertaken lightly. There were serious debates in each state about the pros and cons of leaving the Union and setting up their own association of states – a confederacy.



The plusses for such a step far outweighed the negatives, and the Southern states assured the Northern ones that in the event of any national emergency in the form of a THREAT from the outside, the Confederate states would immediately join forces with their Northern sisters in defense of the homeland. If you think that this was the FIRST instance of secession by states, I suggest you study the War of 1812, when more than one NORTHERN state threatened secession and actually SAT OUT that war rather than send forces to help their sister states fight the British. Rather strange that NOT ONE VOICE was raised at that time about secession being “illegal!” In actuality, it was not questioned at all as to its legality.


This moderate and fair stance threw the bankers and capitalists into a tizzy. European nations, very anti-slavery, in their editorials and public pronouncements, took a pro-South stance, stating that the Southern states had the more legitimate cause in the “family quarrel.” Those foreign nations would NEVER have done that if the war had been about the issue of slavery. Those “outsiders” had a much clearer view of the REAL issues, unlike Americans, caught up in the eye of the storm.


Southern states exercised their rights and dismissed the tariff-collectors from their ports. The Yankee garrison at the port of Charleston on the island and behind the walls of Fort Sumter were among the last Federal presence . Lincoln saw that the last chance of appeasing or serving the 1860s version of the “military-industrial complex” lay in making that fort the cause for WAR. Thus rather than ordering the abandonment of that federal presence within the territorial jurisdiction of the southern state of South Carolina, he sent reinforcements by sea to the isolated garrison – knowing that such an action would in all likelihood provoke a military response. Southern officials learned of the impending reinforcement – no doubt given the information by those trying to provoke war – and thus began the bombardment of Fort Sumter.

Confederate Memorial Day 1910



The Yankee forces surrendered before the reinforcements (also bringing much-needed food and ammunition) could arrive. Interestingly, not ONE Yankee soldier was killed in that bombardment; thus it is likely that a peaceful resolution could have been reached even AFTER the surrender of Fort Sumter. But those influencing Lincoln could not allow a peaceful resolution. They had to have their tariffs enforced, their beholden cash cow back in line and buying Yankee goods. Thus Lincoln’s plan to provoke combat, and to be able to blame it on South Carolina, worked like a charm. “They fired the first shot” was the echoing cry, which carried with it the obvious implication that “the South is GUILTY, they brought this on themselves.”


The historical record shows that even Lincoln declared that the war was not about slavery (check out his SPEECHES at that time!) – at least in the first 2 years of that war – two years that were won overwhelmingly by Southern fighting men.

With sagging morale and rapidly deteriorating support from northern states grown sick of their sons coming home in body bags, a moral issue was needed. Editorials in those few Yankee papers that were still free of government control were using expressions like “let our Southern sisters go their own way; the death and destruction must stop!”

Those promoting that war upon the South then decided to use the issue of SLAVERY as the CAUSE for which they were fighting. The ploy, though nothing more than a political ruse, worked. Even European newspapers began backing the North, as they too were caught up in Lincoln’s seemingly “magnificent” Gettysburg Address. A fact very pertinent to my point that the war was not about slavery – what percent of Southern people owned at least ONE slave? My grad work research gave me that answer – 4.8%. That’s correct. That means that 95% of Southern people had NOTHING vested in the institution, all the more reason not to go off and fight a war for it!

Would poor, generally illiterate Southern men and boys go off to the horrid conditions of war to fight for slavery? Highly unlikely. BUT – if those same males were told that the Federal Government is invading Southern states by military force, would they fight to defend their states and homes? A resounding YES.

How does all this apply to the current disagreement about those Texas license plates honoring the Confederacy? It applies because of the FALSE history that has been taught due to a political/social/racial agenda since the end of that war, and the following 12 years of the horror in the period of military rule over the Southern states known as “Reconstruction.”

The winning side always writes the history, and unfortunately, that “history” is about as close to the TRUTH as a Cinderella fairy-tale. The stupid argument that the Confederate battle flag is a symbol of “racism” is strictly a post-modern twist on falsified history.

Slavery existed for 4 years under that banner as a legal institution; it existed for nearly 100 years under the Yankee stars and stripes. And even the term “civil war” as applied to that fratricidal conflict is a total misnomer. A civil war takes place when there are two (or more) factions trying to take over the central government. This was NEVER the case in the war between North and South. The South had no interest in taking over DC; those states wanted to co-exist in peace.

When the fighting started, Southern states were fighting a DEFENSIVE war against Yankee troops INVADING their homelands!! When one considers that most Southern boys fighting for their states were dirt-poor and had nothing to gain by upholding slavery – an institution that even helped perpetuate poverty among Southern whites, it does not make sense that they would leave their homes, march from Texas or Florida or anywhere to suffer the most unimaginable horrors to fight to the death to preserve the institution of slavery. But does it make sense that they would rally for 4 years to fight an INVADER threatening their homes and way of life? Absolutely! Rarely if ever is it mentioned that blacks and Indians in substantial numbers fought on the Southern side. The false image of North equals good guys, South equals EVIL, must be preserved, to justify the carnage and evil visited upon Southern people, particularly civilians, by occupying Yankee forces.


The “hurt feelings” and racist attitudes of those against honoring the Confederate battle flag and the actions of disgusting wimp politicians like Rick Perry and so many like him are the result of being taught decades of FALSE history. This issue – pretty small, actually, in the overall grand scheme of things – does illustrate the very negative effects of teaching FALSE history to a gullible, trusting, and accepting populace. Once the “fly” has been introduced into the ointment, especially in today’s phony “politically-correct” and historically blind populace, the poisoning of the minds and pushing of GUILT is extremely difficult to straighten. Our only solace is in the belief that the pendulum does not swing the same way all the time, and that the truth will eventually out.

……See also
More on how Wall Street greed provoked the South and triggered the “Civil War” – John de Nugent

A southerner on the Confederacy; truth about black slavery; if “Jade Helm” goes from drill to real – John de Nugent

LOL- everytime a Confederate fanboy wants to argue that there is nothing racist about celebrating the Confederacy- I will gladly point to your posts- since all of your posts are based upon your racist, pro-slavery, Confederate ass kissing twisted pov.

And I bet your Trump sign is still up in front of your trailer.

To begin with racism is a useless word.......)

Racism is a wonderfully descriptive word for the condition you suffer from and wish to inflict on others.

You and your fellow traitorous Confederate fanboys.

 

[Sundance508]

Nineteenth Century liberals had a long list of grievances against the South, nearly all of them based on faulty information and of course the same applies to the liberals today and their attacks on President Trump, Republicans, Conservatism and still many of them are hung up on 'sectionalism' aka hatred (still) of the South and Southerners in general...one sees this on most of the liberal boards.

Such propaganda as they espouse is pitiful. Nothing is more indicative of this than that of their comments on Southern Slavery as it it existed in that long bygone era..........obviously basing their complaints on stuff they have seen in movies or other fictional sources when actual words spoken by former slaves regarding slavery down South are available to all and online but of course they do not want the truth about that nor do they want to hear that the War Between The States Was not about slavery.

….On the real cause of the not-so-civil war

The war of 1861-65 was NOT about slavery at all, but about economic imposition upon the Southern states by the money/business dominated government in Washington, DC. The REAL reason for that war was the fact that northern manufacturers, making their clothing, farm implements, furniture, tools, etc., produced them for sale at a certain price – a HIGH price, at that. Southern states had some, but not a lot, of industry, and were in need of those very products. It just so happened that the European nations of France, Spain, England, and the Dutch, were producing and selling those same basic needs for a much LOWER price than the Northern produced goods. As the South had a lower standard of living (income, production, wages) than the North, they eagerly imported those foreign goods at each Southern port for much cheaper prices – simply because they could AFFORD to buy them at those prices. Northern businessmen and bankers put immediate pressure on the politicians in DC to make their “cash cow” (the Southern states) HAVE to buy from the North. To do that, they passed tariffs (the last straw being the Morrill Tariffs) to RAISE the price of those imported European goods, so that they would cost MORE than the Yankee goods.

The Feds passed the tariffs, of course – but the Southern states would ignore enforcing them at Southern ports (chiefly, Charleston, Savannah, New Orleans, and Galveston). So the Yankee dominated Congress – just as today, totally beholden to the Money Power – passed NEW laws, providing for FEDERAL officials (among them, military personnel) to set up federal stations in each Southern port to enforce and collect the tariffs – tariffs that would RAISE the price of those European goods ABOVE the prices of like goods produced in the Northern states. When even THAT did not produce the desired results, DC passed laws dictating that all foreign ships must FIRST enter the ports of Boston and Philadelphia before proceeding to deliver ANY goods to the South, so that the tariffs could be applied.

Faced with this economic strangulation, the South collectively decided that their own economic survival depended upon exercising their perfectly legal right to leave the Union, and set up their OWN nation, if you will. Secession was not something undertaken lightly. There were serious debates in each state about the pros and cons of leaving the Union and setting up their own association of states – a confederacy.



The plusses for such a step far outweighed the negatives, and the Southern states assured the Northern ones that in the event of any national emergency in the form of a THREAT from the outside, the Confederate states would immediately join forces with their Northern sisters in defense of the homeland. If you think that this was the FIRST instance of secession by states, I suggest you study the War of 1812, when more than one NORTHERN state threatened secession and actually SAT OUT that war rather than send forces to help their sister states fight the British. Rather strange that NOT ONE VOICE was raised at that time about secession being “illegal!” In actuality, it was not questioned at all as to its legality.


This moderate and fair stance threw the bankers and capitalists into a tizzy. European nations, very anti-slavery, in their editorials and public pronouncements, took a pro-South stance, stating that the Southern states had the more legitimate cause in the “family quarrel.” Those foreign nations would NEVER have done that if the war had been about the issue of slavery. Those “outsiders” had a much clearer view of the REAL issues, unlike Americans, caught up in the eye of the storm.


Southern states exercised their rights and dismissed the tariff-collectors from their ports. The Yankee garrison at the port of Charleston on the island and behind the walls of Fort Sumter were among the last Federal presence . Lincoln saw that the last chance of appeasing or serving the 1860s version of the “military-industrial complex” lay in making that fort the cause for WAR. Thus rather than ordering the abandonment of that federal presence within the territorial jurisdiction of the southern state of South Carolina, he sent reinforcements by sea to the isolated garrison – knowing that such an action would in all likelihood provoke a military response. Southern officials learned of the impending reinforcement – no doubt given the information by those trying to provoke war – and thus began the bombardment of Fort Sumter.

Confederate Memorial Day 1910



The Yankee forces surrendered before the reinforcements (also bringing much-needed food and ammunition) could arrive. Interestingly, not ONE Yankee soldier was killed in that bombardment; thus it is likely that a peaceful resolution could have been reached even AFTER the surrender of Fort Sumter. But those influencing Lincoln could not allow a peaceful resolution. They had to have their tariffs enforced, their beholden cash cow back in line and buying Yankee goods. Thus Lincoln’s plan to provoke combat, and to be able to blame it on South Carolina, worked like a charm. “They fired the first shot” was the echoing cry, which carried with it the obvious implication that “the South is GUILTY, they brought this on themselves.”


The historical record shows that even Lincoln declared that the war was not about slavery (check out his SPEECHES at that time!) – at least in the first 2 years of that war – two years that were won overwhelmingly by Southern fighting men.

With sagging morale and rapidly deteriorating support from northern states grown sick of their sons coming home in body bags, a moral issue was needed. Editorials in those few Yankee papers that were still free of government control were using expressions like “let our Southern sisters go their own way; the death and destruction must stop!”

Those promoting that war upon the South then decided to use the issue of SLAVERY as the CAUSE for which they were fighting. The ploy, though nothing more than a political ruse, worked. Even European newspapers began backing the North, as they too were caught up in Lincoln’s seemingly “magnificent” Gettysburg Address. A fact very pertinent to my point that the war was not about slavery – what percent of Southern people owned at least ONE slave? My grad work research gave me that answer – 4.8%. That’s correct. That means that 95% of Southern people had NOTHING vested in the institution, all the more reason not to go off and fight a war for it!

Would poor, generally illiterate Southern men and boys go off to the horrid conditions of war to fight for slavery? Highly unlikely. BUT – if those same males were told that the Federal Government is invading Southern states by military force, would they fight to defend their states and homes? A resounding YES.

How does all this apply to the current disagreement about those Texas license plates honoring the Confederacy? It applies because of the FALSE history that has been taught due to a political/social/racial agenda since the end of that war, and the following 12 years of the horror in the period of military rule over the Southern states known as “Reconstruction.”

The winning side always writes the history, and unfortunately, that “history” is about as close to the TRUTH as a Cinderella fairy-tale. The stupid argument that the Confederate battle flag is a symbol of “racism” is strictly a post-modern twist on falsified history.

Slavery existed for 4 years under that banner as a legal institution; it existed for nearly 100 years under the Yankee stars and stripes. And even the term “civil war” as applied to that fratricidal conflict is a total misnomer. A civil war takes place when there are two (or more) factions trying to take over the central government. This was NEVER the case in the war between North and South. The South had no interest in taking over DC; those states wanted to co-exist in peace.

When the fighting started, Southern states were fighting a DEFENSIVE war against Yankee troops INVADING their homelands!! When one considers that most Southern boys fighting for their states were dirt-poor and had nothing to gain by upholding slavery – an institution that even helped perpetuate poverty among Southern whites, it does not make sense that they would leave their homes, march from Texas or Florida or anywhere to suffer the most unimaginable horrors to fight to the death to preserve the institution of slavery. But does it make sense that they would rally for 4 years to fight an INVADER threatening their homes and way of life? Absolutely! Rarely if ever is it mentioned that blacks and Indians in substantial numbers fought on the Southern side. The false image of North equals good guys, South equals EVIL, must be preserved, to justify the carnage and evil visited upon Southern people, particularly civilians, by occupying Yankee forces.


The “hurt feelings” and racist attitudes of those against honoring the Confederate battle flag and the actions of disgusting wimp politicians like Rick Perry and so many like him are the result of being taught decades of FALSE history. This issue – pretty small, actually, in the overall grand scheme of things – does illustrate the very negative effects of teaching FALSE history to a gullible, trusting, and accepting populace. Once the “fly” has been introduced into the ointment, especially in today’s phony “politically-correct” and historically blind populace, the poisoning of the minds and pushing of GUILT is extremely difficult to straighten. Our only solace is in the belief that the pendulum does not swing the same way all the time, and that the truth will eventually out.

……See also
More on how Wall Street greed provoked the South and triggered the “Civil War” – John de Nugent

A southerner on the Confederacy; truth about black slavery; if “Jade Helm” goes from drill to real – John de Nugent

LOL- everytime a Confederate fanboy wants to argue that there is nothing racist about celebrating the Confederacy- I will gladly point to your posts- since all of your posts are based upon your racist, pro-slavery, Confederate ass kissing twisted pov.

And I bet your Trump sign is still up in front of your trailer.

To begin with racism is a useless word.......)

Racism is a wonderfully descriptive word for the condition you suffer from and wish to inflict on others.

You and your fellow traitorous Confederate fanboys.

Just another personal attack(apparantly that is all you are capable of)Your logical fallacy is ad hominem

 

[Slash]

You are right that Henry Louis Gates is one of the very few historians who have bought into the black confederates. When studying for the "finding your roots" episode on Bryant Gumbel, he came across a member of his family in the Louisiana Native Guard. A group of free blacks who wished to help in their cities in the South.

They had their first formal review in late November of 1861. In January of 1862 as soon as it was realized what they wished to be, it was reorganized into only ...free white males capable of bearing arms… ”. The only ones of that group with any proof that they served in ANY armed forces are the ones who joined the Union army.


When Mr Gates reached out to experts on the subject he was told that there was no proof of any sort that "these men were ever accepted into service by the Confederacy". And of course if you look through all the minutes and articles of government by the Confederacy, you can find that to be true. But that's not good TV unfortunately. So Mr Gates took the lack of evidence as a lack of proof instead, and stuck with his claim that they were black Confederate soldiers. He had been pressed to put his claim into writing for a peer review, but never has on that subject, likely because he can't find the evidence to support it.

It's this kind of fake evidence, a combination of ignoring fact, creating your own story, and embellishing other parts, that creates this Black Confederate myth. It's been used by KKK, White Nationalist, Nazi and other groups of that type in their efforts to rewrite a new history. And of course it's completely irrelevant. It goes right in the wastebasket along with the "Holocaust never happened" group. It also at best is a distraction. It doesn't change that the Civil War was about the South's desire to maintain and expand slavery. Just like Hitler having Jews serving in his forces doesn't mean the 3rd reich was "good".

 

[Slash]

Just another personal attack(apparantly that is all you are capable of)Your logical fallacy is ad hominem

While I don't know you so I can't call you a racist, what you are saying is a common trope of conspiracies and lies that are easily proven that racist groups tend to use that they somehow think defends the despicable act of slavery.

Personally I am fine with Americans fighting against the Nazi's, KKK, White Nationalists, and their ilk. They are trying to be the "nicer gentler" ones, but you still see the same sick demented beliefs come out. Shave Hitlers mustache and he's still Hitler.

If they weren't so awfully sick, I would almost feel sorry for them. I mean they got their asses kicked in the Civil War. Got stomped in WWII. Got kicked out of South Africa. Get banned across Europe. Lost the Civil Rights movement. Had their groups all labeled as hate groups by the US and international groups. Losing their monuments. It's been a really rough last 150 years for those twisted bastards. I mean Wil E Coyote is probably looking at them going "damn you guys just never win, don't you".
They've gone from a position of power in the South, able to have their lynchings and flag burnings, to having to spend their weekend signing up for renting space in a park, going down to bed bath and beyond and buying Tiki Torches, and trying to take part in the worlds largest sausage fest, or posting anonymously on internet chat boards. It really would be sad if they weren't such an evil bunch.

 

[Sundance508]

100,000 Union soldiers were boys under 15 years old


Photos of children who fought the American Civil War | Daily Mail Online

 

[Slash]

100,000 Union soldiers were boys under 15 years old


Photos of children who fought the American Civil War | Daily Mail Online

Yes they were. Age of adulthood back then was 13-16 years old across the world. In 150 years if they make it 21 to be an adult we may end up looking back at today going "holy cow, the US military had people who were only 18 in it back then!"

Not going to say war isn't hell. Not going to say there was a perfect side. But there was a side who's leaders were fighting for the perpetuity of slavery. And a side who's leaders weren't.