On Preservation of the Union at Any Cost

[Henry]

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/11/thomas-dilorenzo/war-crimes-denial/


Happy Thanksgiving.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Your side lost. Let it go. Slavery is over. You have no right to a beautiful ownership of a human being.

 

[KLB]

Your side lost. Let it go. Slavery is over. You have no right to a beautiful ownership of a human being.

What does that have to do with the article?

 

[Henry]

What does that have to do with the article?

You may have assumed that he actually read the article or actually thinks beyond public school indoctrination.

Both are wildly optimistic assumptions.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

What does that have to do with the article?

The Lost Causers of the South will not let it go.

Continual revisionist history in order to make the North the bad guy and the Klan the heroes of the South.

You cannot own human beings. It's over.

 

[Henry]

The article has nothing to do with "the klan". To be fair, you would have to read it in order to know that.

Who owns your labor, Kirk?

 

[Webster-dl]

Your side lost. Let it go. Slavery is over. You have no right to a beautiful ownership of a human being.

Yeah...with all respect, I think you're being unfair here.

The article is just saying that someone wrote that Sherman's March was not a war on the civilian population. Extant historical records all say that is totally malarkey. It's the kind of cow-feces that only indoctrinated liberal mind-slaves would even countenance. It's just intellectually weak to make or support that argument. But this is what liberals like to do. They start from what their pseudo-intellectual dogma says, then they make up facts to "prove" their point of view, selectively ignoring the data that points to a different conclusion. Functionally, it's intellectually dishonest, and you can't converse in good faith with such people. These kind of people would rather LIE to you than allow that you might be right. And that means that they have no character -- and it is always difficult if not impossible to build understanding with the corrupt.

Why don't I just say "Stalin never ordered anyone killed" or "Mao never supported the cultural revolution". How about "Hitler was never responsible for the holocaust." "No children or civilians were ever killed by ISIL". Or "Barack Obama is the greatest tactical and strategic commander in chief in history."

Only an idiot liberal mind-slave would believe this...and only because they believe what they are told to believe.

P.S. -- historical evidence seems to indicate also that the Civil War was not about Slavery for most people. In fact, it is a fact that the Union Army continued to repatriate escaped slaves to the South throughout the war...because the Fugitive Slave Act was "established law" (as the liberals like to say about Obamacare). That was why the Emancipation Proclamation (only declared waay into the war...1/1/1863) was such a big deal...the Union Army would no longer repatriate slaves and would free any they found. This was a big deal to the south because it meant that the North was deliberately attacking their economic slave-labor base, and at the same time was inciting slave rebellion (which was the nightmare scenario to Southerners). But the crux of the Civil War was actually economic: The North, through their dominance of the Congress, was pursuing policies that were economically detrimental, and even ruinous, to the South, and the South became more angry and fearful for their economic survival. Finally, with the election of Lincoln, they saw a repudiation of what they saw as their just concerns and the election of someone who would certainly move to ruin them.

Imagine what all gun owners thought in January 2009. Remember the empty shelves? It's the same deal -- except the South was sure that Lincoln meant to drive them all to bankruptcy, ruin and starvation. And frankly they were sick of this BS from Washington. "You make policy that bankrupts me, then when I utilize slave labor as an expedient to keep my financial head above water, which is COMPLETELY LEGAL, you sit around and moralize at me!" (BTW: I said that Southerners said slavery was LEGAL, and it was...it was still immoral. Even many Southerners of that time would have agreed with the biblical foundation for the immorality of slavery -- it's pretty clear in the scripture).

So the Southern states had had enough. They said "We're out! FUYOYO!" And Lincoln, early in his presidency, suspended Habeus Corpus, imposed martial law, sent soldiers to imprison many congresspeople without trial (those who disagreed with him), and then mobilized the federal army to attack the Southern States. When he mobilized the army, a lot of our standing officers...like a certain General R. E. Lee...said "F' that!" and went home to defend their homes against the federal army.

And even then...no one could believe that the Federal Army was actually going to march on and shoot Americans (even seceding Americans). Until it happened.

And thus the war was joined.

 

[Webster-dl]

For an interesting exercise, imagine this:

Obama passes an executive order that "all coal plants and coal mines are now illegal and must shut down immediately." West Virginia says "We can't do that. Those coal mines are feeding our people and those plants are keeping them from freezing. We refuse to follow your order." Then Obama says "well, you are in rebellion. You are breaking the law. I'm going to mobilize the US Army and send them to occupy Charleston, and I am sending drones to attack anyone in the state seen carrying a firearm." And he orders the US Army to mobilize and roll on West Virginia.

What if some "historian" then said "West Virginia mounted an illegal rebellion because they hated the environment and liked polluting."

Things are never as simple as a feeble-minded Obama-fanatic liberal thinks they are. Well, I guess that can be said about any fanatic..."life is easy for the psychotically fanatic...there is only one TRUTH on everything."

 

[pitbulld45]

I have always Been taught that Sherman destroyed everything in his path. This article is actually the first claim( placed marker in Atlanta) that he only targeted military assets.
As for the negative effect on the South, I have no doubt that it did. The looser always has a high price to pay and many times never fully recover. I obviously wish the damage had been limited to the military and don't condone raping anyone or causing harm to non combatants ( which can be a very blurred line).

 

[Webster-dl]

Sherman instituted a program of total war. He destroyed assets...economic...military or otherwise. It is naive to believe an army on the march like this one, with instructions to destroy/plunder the populace didn't engage in theft and attacks on civilians. He left the people destitute and starving in his wake...which was what he intended. It was one of the first implementations of Total War...an attempt in the modern times to break the spirit of the enemy in order to destroy their will and ability to fight. Sherman was ahead of his time in that way, but was likely seen as a total monster in that time.

*sigh*

Never ask a liberal about war. Just look at Obama -- if his foreign policy isn't enough to convince you they are worse than useless...then Obama has a great medical plan to sell you! Comes with real estate in the everglades!

 

[firehawk1]

Ok, you guys win. Let's tear down the Lincoln Monument, rewrite the history books denouncing Lincoln as the worst President in US history, and admit the Civil War wasn't about slavery, happy now. Now how has that changed your/mine/anyone's lot in life in 2014? Answer it wouldn't and it never could. Besides I find it very hard to believe any President from Washington on down would have idly sat by while a state seceded from the Union. Lincoln was just the only one that had to face that happening.

Seems to me a much more intelligent use of one's time and energy would be to concentrate on the problems we face in the here and now, not what happened 150 years ago.

 

[MisterChester]

Ok, you guys win. Let's tear down the Lincoln Monument, rewrite the history books denouncing Lincoln as the worst President in US history, and admit the Civil War wasn't about slavery, happy now. Now how has that changed your/mine/anyone's lot in life in 2014? Answer it wouldn't and it never could. Besides I find it very hard to believe any President from Washington on down would have idly sat by while a state seceded from the Union. Lincoln was just the only one that had to face that happening.

Seems to me a much more intelligent use of one's time and energy would be to concentrate on the problems we face in the here and now, not what happened 150 years ago.

Thank you! These threads about Lincoln and the civil war are getting downright redundant.

 

[DanSwanky]

"History is the lie commonly agreed upon." -Voltaire

 

[HoughMade]

"History is the lie commonly agreed upon." -Voltaire

..and sometimes it's just what happened.- Houghmade

 

[Henry]

Seems to me a much more intelligent use of one's time and energy would be to concentrate on the problems we face in the here and now, not what happened 150 years ago.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
Santayana

 

[HoughMade]

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
Santayana

Those who wallow in past defeats and have broadband are trolls- Houghmade

 

[firehawk1]

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
Santayana

"God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference".

Reinhold Niebuhr

 

[ATM]

...Slavery is [STRIKE]over[/STRIKE] federalized now...

Corrected.

Still off topic, but corrected nonetheless. Slavery is alive and well.

 

[HoughMade]

Not only do we define down "tyranny" on a regular basis here, now we define down "slavery".

 

[Henry]

Corrected.

Still off topic, but corrected nonetheless. Slavery is alive and well.

Indeed.