On Preservation of the Union at Any Cost

[Kutnupe14]

Who cares that Sherman enacted total war on the South? It's almost as if the article says that was a bad thing. IMO destroying both the military and civilian infrastructure during war, while freeing hundreds of thousands of slaves, is fair game.

 

[spencer rifle]

Who cares that Sherman enacted total war on the South? It's almost as if the article says that was a bad thing. IMO destroying both the military and civilian infrastructure during war, while freeing hundreds of thousands of slaves, is fair game.

Certainly, just as targeting the Japanese merchant fleet and bombing manufacturing in the Ruhr Valley were legitimate aims during in WWII.

 

[wadcutter]

Please cite what you construe as my "claim that the North fought the CSA to liberate slaves".

Mr. Freeman:

Why, Sir, it would be your very own words.

On May 10, 2003, 02:03 PM at thehighroad.org, posting under the name "El Tejon," you wrote:

"The North fought to free slaves; the South fought to keep them."

New Flag Flies Over Georgia Today - THR

Mr. Freeman, under what authority did the United States have to declare war on a foreign nation to stop a foreign nation from committing an act that was not illegal in either nation? Under what authority did the United States act to liberate slaves in 1861 when slavery was not made illegal by Congress?

Yes, Mr. Freeman, you, too, are part of history.

 

[printcraft]

I hope nobody finds my record.

 

[rambone]

Who cares that Sherman enacted total war on the South? It's almost as if the article says that was a bad thing. IMO destroying both the military and civilian infrastructure during war, while freeing hundreds of thousands of slaves, is fair game.

Yeah, it was a bad thing; one of the most disgusting parts of American history. Sherman butchered innocent civilians and committed acts of terrorism. His violence was not against the Southern leaders or the tiny minority of actual slave owners. He was cutting down helpless people caught in the middle of this political struggle.

And from the Northern perspective, the CSA was not a legitimate government. Meaning, these civilians were considered Americans. The U.S. military was happy to kill their countrymen and burn their homes to the ground.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Yeah, it was a bad thing; one of the most disgusting parts of American history. Sherman butchered innocent civilians and committed acts of terrorism. His violence was not against the Southern leaders or the tiny minority of actual slave owners. He was cutting down helpless people caught in the middle of this political struggle.

And from the Northern perspective, the CSA was not a legitimate government. Meaning, these civilians were considered Americans. The U.S. military was happy to kill their countrymen and burn their homes to the ground.

Butchered? I'm Southern, and while Sherman is to this day reviled in the south, I am unaware of him being a "butcher," at least so far as killing innocent civilians, en masse. Further, I think it's impossible to label a uniformed army, marching with purpose, seeking to destroy the enemy's capacity and will to continue fight, as terrorists. It's not like Sherman's army snuck up on anyone.

As far as "slave owners," figures vary on how many people owned slaves... but hell, why does that make a difference? It could have been 1 single person that owned all the slaves in the South, and the vast majority would still be culpable. I consider you a smart guy, so this isn't difficult to understand. The institution of slavery DROVE the southern economy. You need not be a slavery holder to reap the benefits. Surely you understand that slaves did not solely work for their owners, right? It was very common for slaves to be loaned out to non-slave owners for the financial benefit of their owners. They were cooks, nannies, forced into prostitution, worked the fields, built the homes, or any other work that needed to be done for people who didn't have the capital to own a slave themselves. And then of course, you had overseers, bounty hunters, or what have you, that made their living off the trade, but didn't own slaves themselves.

Just because a person didn't own a slave, didn't mean that they didn't take advantages of the "benefits," of have a very large populace in bondage. Do you think a non-slave holder was going to pay white guys to help build his house? He'd either be an idiot or morally superior to most.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Yes, Mr. Freeman, you, too, are part of history.

This has to be the creepiest thing I have seen on INGO.

The North fought to free slaves; the South fought to keep them."

If I have to teach you history, I will.

As the North advanced, slaves flocked to Union lines. By fighting the North freed the slaves de facto even though abolition was only a minority of the motivations of the North.

The South fought to keep their beloved slaves. It is self-evidence by the words and actions of the Antebellum South to the CSA to the revisionist Lost Cause religion.

The defense of the South is a defense of slavery and White Supremacy.

Mr. Freeman, under what authority did the United States have to declare war on a foreign nation to stop a foreign nation from committing an act that was not illegal in either nation? Under what authority did the United States act to liberate slaves in 1861 when slavery was not made illegal by Congress?

Even the Lost Causers are not so daft.

1. The CSA was not a foreign nation. It was part of the USA in a state of insurrection. An insurrection motivated by slavery and White Supremacy.

2. The United States acted to suppress the rebellion in 1861 after having war declared upon it pursuant to the Constitution. Congress did not make slavery illegal until a few years later.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Then it cried, whined and ultimately killed to try and maintain this. Every economic argument that people want to claim was the "real" reason for "secession" conveniently ignores the fact that the south's profit margin was dependent upon forced, stolen labor.

But stolen labor is the essence of Libertarianism/INGOtarianism. You understand why slavery is so fiercely defended here?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

He was cutting down helpless people caught in the middle of this political struggle.

Oh, the poor Nazis.

 

[spec4]

Keeping up with this thread but it gets old. Kirk, great job! I'm a little disappointed that any American at this point in our history can in any way support the abomination of slavery. And IMO, make no mistake, if you support the CSA, you support slavery.

 

[HoughMade]

Oh, the poor Nazis.

That's not a fair comparison. Nazis held people captive, forced them to work, broke up families, and killed people who were not useful. Confederates held people captive, forced them to work, broke up families and let people die who were not useful.

Where there may be more similarity is that both groups have starry eyed, revisionist history loving, selective memory suffering, present day supporters....and there may be some significant overlap.

 

[Rhoadmar]

The U.S. was being held accountable to the promise of it's founding. The peaceful way would have been the south giving up slavery. The way they chose resulted in war.
The CSA was about owning another human being as property.

 

[steveh_131]

Keeping up with this thread but it gets old. Kirk, great job! I'm a little disappointed that any American at this point in our history can in any way support the abomination of slavery. And IMO, make no mistake, if you support the CSA, you support slavery.

It is so hilarious to me that any rational human being could read this thread and actually think that anyone here is supporting slavery.

It would be like like reading a thread about gun control and thinking that gun rights activists are supporting murder. It is ridiculous, but the liberals slurp it up.

 

[rambone]

Butchered? I'm Southern, and while Sherman is to this day reviled in the south, I am unaware of him being a "butcher," at least so far as killing innocent civilians, en masse. Further, I think it's impossible to label a uniformed army, marching with purpose, seeking to destroy the enemy's capacity and will to continue fight, as terrorists. It's not like Sherman's army snuck up on anyone.

If Al-Qaeda marched around burning villages and killing civilians, what would you call them? That's different, right?

Terrorists target helpless civilians to instill fear and to further a political agenda. Their uniforms do not wash away their sins or guilt. Neither does terrorizing people openly instead of covertly.

As far as "slave owners," figures vary on how many people owned slaves... but hell, why does that make a difference? It could have been 1 single person that owned all the slaves in the South, and the vast majority would still be culpable. I consider you a smart guy, so this isn't difficult to understand. The institution of slavery DROVE the southern economy. You need not be a slavery holder to reap the benefits. Surely you understand that slaves did not solely work for their owners, right? It was very common for slaves to be loaned out to non-slave owners for the financial benefit of their owners. They were cooks, nannies, forced into prostitution, worked the fields, built the homes, or any other work that needed to be done for people who didn't have the capital to own a slave themselves. And then of course, you had overseers, bounty hunters, or what have you, that made their living off the trade, but didn't own slaves themselves.

Just because a person didn't own a slave, didn't mean that they didn't take advantages of the "benefits," of have a very large populace in bondage. Do you think a non-slave holder was going to pay white guys to help build his house? He'd either be an idiot or morally superior to most.

So it is OK to kill people because they had "advantages" for being white? That's not just, it is not moral, and it is not logical.

We should judge individuals as individuals, not groups. Someone's whiteness and southernness didn't make them a monster or a Nazi. Not everyone consented or approved of the crimes of their government or their neighbors. Just like today, we as individuals have little control over the culture, government, and people around us. I certainly do not want to be held accountable for the corrupt things happening in this country today. Do you? Should we be labeled guilty by association because of our citizenship, or our career paths?

I'll draw another parallel to the middle east. Do you think all muslims are guilty by association for acts of jihad? Do you think the civilian population deserves to be terrorized, burned, and killed because of how their neighbors act?

 

[Compatriot G]

The issue of slavery is more complicated than most people make of it. Today, we find it an abhorrent practice. It was an abhorrent practice. However, in 1861, it was legal. This is similar to the abortion debate today. I find it abhorrent, but it is legal. Opinions were divided on slavery, just like opinions are divided on abortion.

Interestingly, Gen. Lee freed all of the slaves he inherited in 1862. Gen. Jackson never owned slaves. He bought the freedom of two blacks while he was an instructor at VMI. He also established a black Sunday School and continued to finance it until his death. Gen. Beauregard was an abolitionist. Gen. Cleburne advocated officially raising black regiments in 1863 and 1864. Gen. Forrest took all 45 of his slaves to war with him and only one deserted. Several of his slaves were a part of his personal bodyguard.

Gen. Grant technically owned four slaves. They belonged to his wife. He didn't release them until December of 1865 when the 13th Amendment went into effect. The states of Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware and West Virginia were excluded from the Emancipation Proclamation. Slave owners in those states got to keep their slaves until December of 1865.

There are 26 black Confederate soldiers buried in Crown Hill Cemetery. They died as POW's at Camp Morton, located in Indianapolis. There are also 4 native Americans buried there, along with several Hispanic Confederates. Camp Douglas, located outside of Chicago, had a policy of shooting black Confederate POW's as soon as they walked through the gate.

In my own family, my Union ancestors owned 4 slaves, my Confederate ancestors owned zero slaves.

Slavery is not as simple as some would like to make it.

Please note: Indiana had "Black Codes" written in the 1851 Constitution which basically made it impossible for free blacks to live in this state. Some of these weren't repealed until 1881, even though they were voided by the 14th and 15th Amendments.

 

[Kutnupe14]

If Al-Qaeda marched around burning villages and killing civilians, what would you call them? That's different, right?

Terrorists target helpless civilians to instill fear and to further a political agenda. Their uniforms do not wash away their sins or guilt. Neither does terrorizing people openly instead of covertly.




So it is OK to kill people because they had "advantages" for being white? That's not just, it is not moral, and it is not logical.

We should judge individuals as individuals, not groups. Someone's whiteness and southernness didn't make them a monster or a Nazi. Not everyone consented or approved of the crimes of their government or their neighbors. Just like today, we as individuals have little control over the culture, government, and people around us. I certainly do not want to be held accountable for the corrupt things happening in this country today. Do you? Should we be labeled guilty by association because of our citizenship, or our career paths?

I'll draw another parallel to the middle east. Do you think all muslims are guilty by association for acts of jihad? Do you think the civilian population deserves to be terrorized, burned, and killed because of how their neighbors act?

Based on your definition of "terrorist," you have pretty much describe every person that's ever served in the U.S. Armed Forces. As for Al Qaeda, no I would not consider them terrorists, if they did what you described. The media likes to call ISIS terrorists, but imo, they are an army.

Further, I have not called for anyone to be killed, but I don't have any qualms stating that those that supported the system, either actively of passively, placed themselves in harm's way. Those that deny others life and liberty deserve neither themselves. But, you still have not illustrated how Sherman was a "butcher," which by the way was actually termed for Grant. Sherman made the "south howl," but he's nowhere near the person you're trying to portray.

 

[spec4]

It is so hilarious to me that any rational human being could read this thread and actually think that anyone here is supporting slavery.

It would be like like reading a thread about gun control and thinking that gun rights activists are supporting murder. It is ridiculous, but the liberals slurp it up.

Glad to provide you with what you perceive as humor. The south was big on slavery and prior to hostilities it was a big issue in the western expansion of our country. How could you join the Confederate army if you were against slavery?

 

[steveh_131]

Glad to provide you with what you perceive as humor.

Thank you.

How could you join the Confederate army if you were against slavery?

You could support your state's sovereignty without supporting slavery. You could oppose slavery in your state and locality without wanting the Federal government to overstep its bounds.

Nobody here is supporting slavery. You are being deceived by loud and dishonest people.

 

[Dead Duck]

OP Article = LewRockwell.com = Llewellyn Harrison Rockwell, Jr. = Anti-American Racist Lib

Why read any further?

Secession is only one of many ideology's that Lew Rockwel and his mentor, Murray Rothbard have been spewing for years.

 

[JettaKnight]

Why does this crap come up again and again? Especially in an INDIANA forum?

At least it's good for a laugh and helps identify INGO's wacko faction. Speaking of, Wadcutter's a member for over two years and his first posts are in this thread?