On Preservation of the Union at Any Cost

[mbills2223]

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?

I don't think it's unreasonable to discuss historical happenings just because this is a forum based in Indiana...

I also think it's a bit ridiculous to call people that believe it may, from time to time, become "necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another" part of INGO's wacko faction...


I'll see myself to the door now.

 

[rambone]

Based on your definition of "terrorist," you have pretty much describe every person that's ever served in the U.S. Armed Forces.

I'm sure the military has done its share of murdering and terrorizing but I would not be so quick to condemn "pretty much every person that's ever served." That's ludicrous and insulting.

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.

This is the same logic used by the Chris Dorners of the world, and I don't think it leads to a good place.

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.

The lowest estimates suggest that 1,000 American civilians were killed during the month-long march. Is that not enough butchering to earn the title? That's ignoring the great suffering caused by starvation and homelessness that followed.

Sherman wrote his wife that his purpose in the war would be "extermination, not of soldiers alone, that is the least of the trouble, but the people" of the South. In 1864 he announced that "to the petulant and persistent secessionists, why, death is mercy." [1]

Here is an illustration.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I'm sure the military has done its share of murdering and terrorizing but I would not be so quick to condemn "pretty much every person that's ever served." That's ludicrous and insulting.



This is the same logic used by the Chris Dorners of the world, and I don't think it leads to a good place.



The lowest estimates suggest that 1,000 American civilians were killed during the month-long march. Is that not enough butchering to earn the title? That's ignoring the great suffering caused by starvation and homelessness that followed.

Sherman wrote his wife that his purpose in the war would be "extermination, not of soldiers alone, that is the least of the trouble, but the people" of the South. In 1864 he announced that "to the petulant and persistent secessionists, why, death is mercy." [1]

Here is an illustration.

It is insulting to compare a soldier to a terrorist, but if you standby the way you described terrorist, and use Sherman and his troops as an example, then you are indeed encompassing most of US military history. As far as the causality numbers you posted, I'd appreciate a better source, or one that actually gives a figure. I'm pretty confident, that as far a civilian casualties are concerned, 1000 is a grossly inflated number. I'm telling Rambone, Sherman wasn't some sort of evil mass murderer. He razed the south for sure, and said some questionable things... Heck, I even go so far and say he did some questionable things, but nothing you're asserting, at least on the a large scale is documented by either soldiers or victims.

 

[JettaKnight]

I don't think it's unreasonable to discuss historical happenings just because this is a forum based in Indiana...

Let's not kid ourselves. A discussion of historical happenings is something we as Hoosiers can have. What's going on here is not a discussion of historical happenings but a blatant attempt to rewrite it it.

I also think it's a bit ridiculous to call people that believe it may, from time to time, become "necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another" part of INGO's wacko faction...

Again, I'm not buying your attempt to paint these arguments in a noble light.

Trying to make the CSA out to be oppressed victims is one method of admittance into the faction. Digging up ten year old internet posts of other members is another. Setting up trip wires and shotguns to shoot tax assessors is yet another. There's many ways to join, Kirk can probably make you some copies of the newsletters.

 

[steveh_131]

This topic really serves to illuminate the simple-minded among us.

I know it is in our nature to try to cram every issue into a little box. That way we can apply a label to it and never bother giving it a second thought.

This issue just isn't going to fit in that box, no matter how much you insult the people who try to think outside of it.

Lincoln didn't enter into this war because of his beliefs about slavery. That's not really what this war was about.

 

[mbills2223]

Let's not kid ourselves. A discussion of historical happenings is something we as Hoosiers can have. What's going on here is not a discussion of historical happenings but a blatant attempt to rewrite it it.

Again, I'm not buying your attempt to paint these arguments in a noble light.

Trying to make the CSA out to be oppressed victims is one method of admittance into the faction. Digging up ten year old internet posts of other members is another. Setting up trip wires and shotguns to shoot tax assessors is yet another. There's many ways to join, Kirk can probably make you some copies of the newsletters.

Alright

 

[rob63]

This topic really serves to illuminate the simple-minded among us.

I know it is in our nature to try to cram every issue into a little box. That way we can apply a label to it and never bother giving it a second thought.

This issue just isn't going to fit in that box, no matter how much you insult the people who try to think outside of it.

Lincoln didn't enter into this war because of his beliefs about slavery. That's not really what this war was about.

Your second part proves your first part.

 

[steveh_131]

Your second part proves your first part.

Are you saying that I am incorrect? That Lincoln entered the war for the purpose of abolishing slavery?

 

[rob63]

Are you saying that I am incorrect? That Lincoln entered the war for the purpose of abolishing slavery?

No. However, it is simple minded to think that proves the war wasn't about slavery.

 

[rambone]

It is insulting to compare a soldier to a terrorist, but if you standby the way you described terrorist, and use Sherman and his troops as an example, then you are indeed encompassing most of US military history.

Soldiers can be terrorists. Terrorists can be soldiers. The evil does not disappear when they put on a uniform and obey.

Torching villages fits with any definition of terrorism. Here is the legal one.

(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping
​

I don't think that nearly every American soldier deserves to be lumped in with those who burned Atlanta.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Soldiers can be terrorists. Terrorists can be soldiers. The evil does not disappear when they put on a uniform and obey.

Torching villages fits with any definition of terrorism. Here is the legal one.

(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping
​

I don't think that nearly every American soldier deserves to be lumped in with those who burned Atlanta.

Could they be lumped in with the Army Air Corps guys that bombed Dresden?

 

[steveh_131]

No. However, it is simple minded to think that proves the war wasn't about slavery.

I suppose then that we should define our terms. What do we mean when we discuss what a war is 'about'?

In my mind, a war is 'about' whatever factors motivate the Government to engage in that war. In the instance of the Civil War, the President made it clear that slavery was not that factor.

Which part of that do you disagree with?

 

[rambone]

Could they be lumped in with the Army Air Corps guys that bombed Dresden?

I wrote that people should be judged on their individual actions. So I'll leave the lumping to someone else. The majority of American soldiers have done no such things.

 

[spencer rifle]

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?

Many Muslims themselves consider themselves "blessed" by association, since jihad is incumbent on the ummah (whole Muslim community), but may be fulfilled on their behalf by a small fraction of the ummah. So says Muslim fiq (jurisprudence).

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.

The way non-slaveholders were still forced to fight was through CONSCRIPTION, imposed in the Confederacy a year before it was used by the Union. Unless you owned 20 or more slaves - then you were exempt from conscription.

Lincoln didn't enter into this war because of his beliefs about slavery. That's not really what this war was about.

Lincoln didn't enter into the war - it was forced upon him by slave-holding fire-eaters, who did enter the war because of their beliefs about slavery. Lincoln had to respond to the destruction and theft of Federal property and the rebellion of some states who attacked first.

I don't think that nearly every American soldier deserves to be lumped in with those who burned Atlanta.

I, for one, would have been proud to be lumped in with them. Anything that makes the war be over sooner saves the lives of brothers in arms. Think Hiroshima/Nagasaki. How about those Confederate commerce raiders, cruising the oceans under false flags and destroying unarmed merchant ships?

 

[rambone]

Sherman, American hero

"I'm going to march to Richmond... and when I go through South Carolina it will be one of the most horrible things in the history of the world. The devil himself couldn't restrain my men in that state." -- General William T. Sherman

"There is a class of people (in the South), men, women and children, who must be killed or banished before you can hope for peace and order." -- General William T. Sherman, to General Thomas Ewing (Order #11)

"May all Southerners be driven like swine into the sea. May we carry fire and sword into their states till not one habitation is left standing." -- Mrs. William T. Sherman

"I begin to regard the death and mangling of a couple of thousand men as a small affair, a kind of morning dash." -- General William T. Sherman, in a letter he wrote his wife in July 1864 while in northern Georgia

 

[spec4]

Maybe it's time to review the activities of Quantrill's raiders in this thread. Kind of a counterbalance to the comments about Sherman.

 

[wadcutter]

If I have to teach you history, I will.

Mr. Freeman:

Before you do that, Sir, please answer the question that you ignored:

"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?"

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.

Mr. Freeman, you are saying that Lincoln's plan to free the slaves was to create a war and free slaves through periodic intervals of collection and release? What a horribly ill-conceived, inefficient, and frankly revisionist mechanism for accomplishing a goal. And, as slavery was legal in the United States, you still have to answer the question of what authority the United States had to effect such a plan.

You said "The North fought to free slaves." But why fight to accomplish this goal? It was asked of you five times whether Abraham Lincoln ever sent Jefferson Davis correspondence of any sort assuring the Confederate States of America that they would permanently be free from all interference or intrusion by the North if the CSA were immediately to abolish slavery. You refused to answer the question five times. If this matter was so central to the North's desire for war, why was such a bargain never presented to the CSA in an attempt to avoid war with a minimal loss of life?

If, as you claim, the North merely wanted to free the slaves in the South, why did the North not extend the South an offer that if the slaves were immediately freed, the South would be free to live as they wished, free from northern interference?

If the goal of the North was, as you claim, merely to free the slaves, why did Lincoln kill 400,000 citizens of the North without the slightest bit of diplomacy to accomplish his goal?

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.

Was the South given an option to drop the slaves but keep their country?

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

You keep repeating this tired and long-disproven SPLC talking point. The simplistic, ritualistic, persistent polarization of the Civil War is a defense of Northern Liberalism. Your positions are repetitions of what the low-ratings hosts of MSNBC say at the mere display of CSA insignia.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChF29R8OW08

With all due respect, Mr. Freeman, I must say that your positions on the Civil War bear a striking identity with the positions of Karl Marx. Some do not know that Karl Marx was a champion of the Union, lover of Lincoln, hater of the CSA, and creator of the spin that the Civil War should be discussed only in terms of slavery as a ploy to conceal the North's true motives. Marx frequently wrote letters to the New York Times as well as other publications, in North America and abroad, in support of the Civil War. Marx was fawning in his adulation of Lincoln.
The International Socialist Review has a page on Marx’s support of the Civil War that reads like a paraphrasing of your comments.

Karl Marx and the American Civil War | International Socialist Review

As a European Socialist, Marx was a strong advocate of large central government, and the Civil War was largely a dispute about the size of a central government.

 

[spencer rifle]

It also may be time to review the activities of Confederate interior troops, who confiscated food from their own people and tortured the families of deserters to try and get them to betray their own family members.

 

[rambone]

Making Georgia howl

A Union gang-rape: "The poor negroes were terribly victimized by their brutal assailants, many of them . . . being left in a condition little short of death. Regiments, successive relays (emphasis by the author), subjected scores of these poor women to the torture of their embraces, and – but we dare not farther pursue the subject – it is one of such loathing and horror... Two cases are described where young negresses were brutally forced by the wretches and afterwards murdered – one of them being thrust, when half dead, head down, into a mud puddle, and there held until she was suffocated." -- Historian William G. Simms (1806-1870)

"The women of the South kept the war alive - and it's only by making them suffer that we can subdue the men." -- Union Lt. Col. Jeremiah Jenkins, replying to a Columbia woman who accused him of making war on women and children

"There was a grim determination on the part of the men in the ranks to visit a severe judgement on South Carolina. We practically burned a swath 60 miles wide across. The Commanders were powerless. This destruction of property was a matter of revenge." -- Private John C. Arbuckle, Company K, Fourth Iowa Veteran Volunteeer Infantry

The Burning of Columbia: "Such an awful sight! The street filled with a throng of men, drunken, dancing, shouting, cursing wretches, every one bearing a tin torch or a blazing lightwood knot. The sky so dark a half hour before, was already glowing with light, and flames were rising in every direction." -- Harriott H. Ravenol (South Carolina Women in the Confederacy)

 

[spencer rifle]

Two words:
Fort Pillow.

I would love to address wad's concerns, but