The Confederacy: America's worst idea

Oh yeah, Sherman and the north figured out it was much easire to destroy civilians and cities than armies. He and they are well remembered for their efforts.

Quantrill

 

I am glad they are.

Those people all willingly supported a slave culture. It is difficult to drum up sympathy for them. They could have avoided having their cities burned by simply surrendering or not seceding in the first place.

 

See, there is the difference between the yankee mind and the Southernor. Simply surrender is your solution. Not ours. Plus secession was perfectly legetimate.

How about this solution. The yankee learns to mind his own business. If you can find one, then build a statue of him.

Your presenting the yankees like they went to war to free the black man. They didn't. They didn't care for him one wit. They cared for the South's agriarian culture. Not slavery.

So, we don't need your sympathy. We just like you to get your history right.

Quantrill

 

The south secceded over slavery.
If you read Texas declaration for secession is clear.

 

Sherman's actions were proportional to the legitimate needs of the Union to win the war. We targeted civilians in the Second Boer War for precisely the same reason that Sherman targeted Southern citizens, because they put up an armed resistance.

 

General Sherman had to turn away Southern volunteers because his army was too large as it was. The majority of Southernors, especially freedmen, loved General Sherman.

It's only too bad that Lincoln was shot and that coward traitor Johnson was president. Maybe we could have hung the political apparatus of the South and not had to deal with Jim Crow and all the other sewage that infected the US because of the Southern political elite.

 

Perhaps, but they fired first upon the Union. They started a war they had no hope of finishing.

"Old John Brown’s body lies moldering in the grave,
While weep the sons of bondage whom he ventured all to save;
But tho he lost his life while struggling for the slave,
His soul is marching on.
John Brown was a hero, undaunted, true and brave,
And Kansas knows his valor when he fought her rights to save;
Now, tho the grass grows green above his grave,
His soul is marching on.
He captured Harper’s Ferry, with his nineteen men so few,
And frightened "Old Virginny" till she trembled thru and thru;
They hung him for a traitor, they themselves the traitor crew,
But his soul is marching on.
John Brown was John the Baptist of the Christ we are to see,
Christ who of the bondmen shall the Liberator be,
And soon thruout the Sunny South the slaves shall all be free,
For his soul is marching on.
The conflict that he heralded he looks from heaven to view,
On the army of the Union with its flag red, white and blue.
And heaven shall ring with anthems o’er the deed they mean to do,
For his soul is marching on.
Ye soldiers of Freedom, then strike, while strike ye may,
The death blow of oppression in a better time and way,
For the dawn of old John Brown has brightened into day,
And his soul is marching on "

Have you read any of the articles of secession? Every last one of them says they are seceding to maintain slavery in perpetuity.

 

LOL

Of course it was. Thats how the war ended. You surrendered.

According to who?

Thats what the Supreme Court had to say about it. And they get the final say.

Yeah, **** of our nation and we will mind our own business. No one is forcing you to stay here.

It is irrelevant why they went to war. The end result is the same. States cannot unilaterally secede. Thuh end.

So um...what was the point of emancipation if they didnt care anyway? Why did the US emancipate the slaves at all?

I mean, by your logic all they wanted was to retain the south and their lucrative "agriarian culture", right? If so, why would they bother releasing the slaves that they didnt care about anyway?

Your argument is retarded and makes no sense.

That is very fortunate, since you will never get it. At best, the South got what they deserved. And they may have deserved worse.

The losers dont get to decide what history is "right". Sorry. Fight harder next time.

 

Anything can be used for evil. The bible can be used for evil. Look at Jim Jones Jonestown massacre. Women and children all murdered in the name of the bible.

And what's your argument? The centralized government is pure and noble and can do no wrong? You obviously have not been a student of history.

Look at Nazi Germany. There is an example of centralized government. How did that work out.

The benefits of decentralized power is very advantages. You don't like what your government is doing, you can always move to another state.

 

No. Just as the North didn't care about the freedom of the blackman, the South was not seceeding to keep the black man a slave.

The North viewed the Southern agrarian culture as a threat to them and their westward expansion. The South was seceeding because, as I showed in Jeff Davis statement, the Norths constant efforts in not treating the Southern states as equals in the Union. " No alternative remained except to seek the security out of the Union which they had vainly tried to obtain within it. The hope of our people may be stated in a sentence. It was to escape from injury and strife in the Union, to find prosperity and peace out of it. " (Rise and Fall of Confederate Govt. p.72)

That slavery was involved in the Souths agrarian culture, yes. Making it part of the culture. There was no effort on the U.S part to develop a plan to let the slaves go free over time and compensate the slave owners for their loss. As they did years before in the North.

Just like with the emancipation proclamation. Sounds good to many. Lincloln freed the black man. But why? Not because he cared for the black man. He felt they should all be sent back to Africa. He freed the black man in the Southern controlled states hoping they would rise up and slaughter their white slave owners.

So, you see. He delcared some slaves free. Not because he cared about the slaves. You will find slavery mentioned in several states declaration of secession. Not because they want to keep the black man enslaved. But because the North is allowing the agitation over slavery by abolishonists, in order to disrupt the agrarian South.

Why would the South seceede over slavery if slavery was guranteed to be protected?

Quantrill

 

You can always say the civilians are responsible and attack them. Money and support comes from them always in some way or another. Is this what you are saying?

The North had no legetimate 'needs' to win the war. They wanted to win the war. Not for any legitimate needs. Secession was a right. Slavery was protected.

Quantrill

 

Just two of the states, I can post all if ya want.

Declaration of causes of secesion of texas:

Missisipi:

 

Oh, you like John Brown. A known murderer of 5 men and boys. Hacked up in front of their wives and mothers. Only because they were Southern slavery sympathizers, not because they owned slaves.

John Brown, a murderer, who was then allowed to roam free in the North getting money from the north for his future raid into the Southern Sates which would be known as Harpers Ferry. You can see the Norths attitude of the South written all over this man.

And the North, just like you, sit back and sing about this murderer and traitor, as if he were a god. Sing on. Sing on.

Also, the South fired on Sumter because Lincloln was reinforcing Sumter which it was agreed upon that they cannot do. Lincoln started the war sending the ships to reinforce, knowing the South would have to fire. And, of course, they and you can always say, the South fired the first shot of the war, making us the 'evil' people who fired on the 'flag'. When in reality, the North and Lincoln started that war.

Quantrill

 

Sorry pal. We did not surrender. We were beaten. Individual armies surrendered. The Confederacy never surrendered. Where are the papers of surrender/ Uh. There arn't any. Only Jefferson Davis could have surrendered the Confederacy. And he didn't.

I am in my own nation. I suggest you leave us. We won't whine and cry about it.

You say thats the end of it, but its not. We like to keep the record straight as to the real reasons for the yankee war of aggression. Because these problems don't go away. If allowed to abuse the Constitution as the North did, then how can the Constitution remain protected.

Its not irrelevant why we went to war. Its important to know that the South was right in fighting that war.

The South wouldn't have released the slaves to freedom all at once. A foolish act as seen after the war. But they could have developed a plan of release over time and compensate the slave owners for their loss in some way. No plan was considered by the U.S.

Have you ever read the emancipation. It didn't free anyone. Lincoln only freed the slaves in the Souther held states. The slaves that were in the part of the Southern States that the North had already conquered by 1863, remained slaves. Good old Master Lincoln.

The purpose of the emancipation was to encourage the slaves to rise up and slaughter their white slave owners. Which they didn't but could have. Which always disturbs the righteous yankee.

Oh yes, we can write our history. Just as we have been since that war. There are plenty of good books out there. So, if you think you are the only ones that can write, think again.

Quantrill

 

First of all, your just highlighting slavery. But as can be seen, slavery was not the only issue. There were many issues. But the cause of secession was the constant disregard of the North to treat the South equally.

Plus, yes, put every southern state up there and show the reasons for their secession.

The upper Southern states such as Tenn., Virginia, N. Carolina, would secede only because Lincoln required them to supply men to attack the lower Southern States which seceded.

Quantrill

 

Are you bored. How about this. Also, part of the declaration of secession of Texas reads:

" By the disloyalty of the Northern States and their citizens and the imbecility of the Federal government, infamous combinations of incendiaries and outlaws have been permitted in those states and the common territory of Kansas to trample upon the Federal laws, to war upon the lives and property of Southern citizens in that territory, and finally, by viloence and mob law, to usurp the possession of the same as exclusively the property of the Northern State. "

And there is much more to read. I encourage all to read the whole thing.

Who were the lawbreakers? Not the South

Who disregarded the Constitution? Not the South.

I guess that just leaves the north.

Quantrill

 

Right to have slaves , and racism is constitutional.

 

After a bunch of Slave Power sycophants had already murdered many Unionists and he was leading a retalitory raid on them.

Also, I take it you absolutely loathe Nathan Bedford Forrest, then, as an absolute monster in comparison to John Brown, right? Or are you a hypocrit?

Many Southernors wrote to him saying they were, if not abolitionists, no longer supporters of slavery due to him based on the strength of John Brown's convictions.

The Slave Power had already stolen federal arms supplies at this point and was known to be in open rebellion. The US Constitution allows for the federal government to use military force to quash rebellion and insurrection.

After they had stolen federal arms and made it well known that they were going to fight regardless.

Here's what Lincoln had to say about that: But you will not abide the election of a Republican president! In that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the Union; and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon us! That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, "Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!"


Also, here's what Senator James Mason of Virgiana had written to then Secretary of War Jefferson Davis on the matter of Southern Secession if James Fremont was elected president in 1856: I have a letter from [Virginia Governor Henry] WISE, of the 27th, full of spirit. He says the Governments of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Louisiana, have already agreed to rendezvous at Raleigh, and others will—this in your most private ear. He says, further, that he had officially requested you to exchange with Virginia, on fair terms of difference, percussion for flint muskets. I don't know the usage or power of the Department in such cases, but if it can be done, even by liberal construction, I hope you will accede. … Virginia probably has more arms than the other Southern States, and would divide in case of need. In a letter yesterday to a Committee in South Carolina. I gave it as my judgment, in the event of FREMONT's election, the South should not pause, but proceed at once to "immediate, absolute, and eternal separation."

They were already willing to visit bloodshed upon anyone to keep their slaves for all eternity (since they saw it as a positive good rather than a necessary evil) instead of going along willingly with slavery.

 

Thats right. Protected by the Constitution. Protected by the Supreme Court.

So, who is the lawbreakers?

Quantrill

 

Um, yeah. You surrendered after you were beaten. You got (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) slapped by the US.

But then, lots of nations have been (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) slapped by the US, so you're not alone. Well, assuming we were to consider the Confederacy a separate nation, which it really wasnt anyway.

The Confederacy never officially existed. Therefore it was impossible for it to surrender. It was never recognized as a sovereign nation by the US or anyone else that mattered.

LOL Slave cultures suck

None were needed since the "Confederacy" was basically just a large terrorist group. Nations officially surrender. Terrorist groups are merely brought to heel or destroyed.

Whoever is stronger gets the final say. And I think it is obvious which side is stronger.

Your premise assumes the South was right, which the vast majority of Americans do not agree with.

The South had no incentive to release slaves at all. They were morally bankrupt. I would sooner expect mercy from Hitler against the Jews. The South viewed slaves as an economic commodity, not as people.

I agree with the Radical Republicans that such compensation was never deserved. It would be like a pimp expecting compensation for the loss of his whores after prostitution is made illegal. Its a retarded idea.

They engaged in a horrific act of oppression. Their reward is that they are allowed to remain alive and free. I think that reward was extremely generous.

So what? They were still morally superior to the South who had no intention of emancipating slaves, gradual or otherwise.

Then that was a noble purpose. The slaves would have every right to do so.

Yeah, people with morals are often disturbed by things like rape and slavery. I am sure that is a foreign emotion to people like you eh?

No one else will recognize it as true or legitimate, but you are free to write it.

 

Really? When did the 'slave powers' murder a bunch of 'uionists'. John Brown was agitated over slavery period. And if they did, were they wanted for murder? Uh? Why was the murderer Brown allowed to be free in the North and plan his invasion upon the South? Why? Because the North didn't care what happened to the Southern people. The North didn't care about the South being protected by the laws of the Union.

No, I think Nathan Bedford Forrest was a great man. Great general, the north would agree as he ate their lunch and made them like it. Wouldn't you agree? Shame Sherman didn't have what it takes to go after him. He knew better.

There was no rebellion. There was secession. The North were the traitors in making war against the South. The South broke no laws. And, once you secede, whats yours is yours.

Every state has to be willing to protect itself and its property of its citizens. So? The point here in 1861 is that slavery was protected. There wasn't any reason to leave the Union to protect slavery. It was protected by law. Lincoln even offered the South a promise to make a 13 ammendment which would protect slavery forever in the South. Slavery is not why the South seceeded. The constant treatment by the North is why the South seceeded because they were not given the protections by law which were theirs.

Quantrill

 

My argument is that a centralized government is more likely to be pure and noble and do no wrong.

You mean the exception to the rule?

And if we'd had that form of government, there would probably still be slavery to this day in some states.

No thanks.

 

Tennessee only managed to secede by blocking the eastern portion of the state from participating in the vote for secession. Had the eastern portion been properly represented in a legal vote, Tennessee would have remained Union.

Further, EVERY southern state supplied at least one, if not multiple, brigades of men to fight against the Slave Power. Only the border states of the Union produced any Slave Power brigades, while states like Wisconsin, Michigan, New Hampshire, and Vermont didn't produce a single one combined. Further, Canadians joined the war on the Union side to free the slaves.

Note: the Slave Power's constitution explicitly forbade any attempts at abolition in perpetuity. They were legally bound by their own founding documents from ever being a nation where black men were free.

 

The massacres of Kansas.

Because a lot of Northernors were abolitionists and were tired of the Slave Power holding the north hostage by using things like the Fugitive Slave Act and otherwise agitating for war since the 1830s.

So, the founder of the Ku Klux Klan was a great man? A domestic terrorist who brutalized freedmen simply because they were black was great? You're a hypocrit.

The Founding Fathers would disagree. Washington, Madison, and Jefferson all said that in order for a state to break from the union required unanimous consent of all states in the Union to secede. I think they might know something about the intent of the Constitution.

Property here meaning "owning other human beings as chattel."

Not according to their secession documents.

Have you read their secession documents and every cornerpiece of their government? It was entirely and completely about the maintenance of slavery in perpetuity.

You realize the Slave Power was willing to burn down the Capitol in the 1850s simply due to the potential choice of a Speaker of the House, right? They were willing to go to war over something as simple as that to maintain slavery.