America lost its mind 146 years ago and hasn’t been the same since. Or rather, it’s been a different country ever since.
A psychotic, self-referential, duplicitous country – largely ignorant of its own history and convinced of its messianic role in word affairs. A country not merely content to live – and let live. But one determined to to force others – everyone – to live its way.
At bayonet point, if need be,
It all goes back to the events of 1861-1865. The struggle for Southern independence, which the modern histories dishonestly – not merely mistakenly – call the “Civil War.”
Which it was not.
The Southern states had no desire to dominate the Northern states, nor to control the government of the North. (Which is what the “federal” government had become by 1861, as the Northern states and Northern corporatist cartels controlled it; Lincoln was the front man for these corporatist interests – a shyster lawyer and born grifter who would do anything – to anyone – in the service of his paymasters.)
No, the Southern states simply wished to exercise that right which the American colonists themselves had exercised in 1776 (and which some Northern states had themselves threatened to exercise on prior occasions, for similar reasons). The right to withdraw from the voluntary union entered into by each sovereign state at the time of the ratification of the federal Constitution. The motives were no different – and no less honorable or legitimate: The Southern states, like the American colonies, had come to regard the central authority as distant, unrepresentative and increasingly tyrannical. It no longer served their interests. It no longer represented them. And to paraphrase the author of the original Declaration of Independence, when a government no longer operates in the best interests of the people as they see those interests; when it no longer represents them; and when its actions evince a systematic effort to subjugate them, when other remedies have not proved fruitful, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish the government – and start over.
More
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
It would be a much better country if we would have let them leave. The south drags this country down.
ReplyDeleteamusing to read ,another moron who failed history and cant stand the fact that the civil war ended the way it did. This Eric noname should take a few history lessons. Hopefully he will crawl back under the rock he lives under...
ReplyDeleteLOL, can you be any funnier? The south wanted to practice their perceived "right" to subjugate an entire race of people so that their "corporations" (farms, plantations, and all the businessmen involved) could continue to thrive off the blood, sweat, and freedom of others. Whats funnier is that so many of you actually believe the super revisionist Bachman-like narrative spouted in this article.
ReplyDeleteWhat are we waiting for!!!!
ReplyDeleteHell we are all becoming slaves to the so called government!
Voting can't change it anymore! The votes are fixed! That was proven in the last election.
I truly can't believe that you provided a link to an article that compares Abe Lincoln to Adolf Hitler. Freaking unbelievable. Well done. This is easily the dumbest thing I've ever read. The author has no idea about history whatsoever, and I'd be ashamed to have it on my website. Hell, I'm ashamed I wasted 2 minutes of my life reading that garbage.
ReplyDeleteTo me, the civil war is the point in history when Democrats and Republicans joined ranks to wage war on the American People. The democrats and republicans are waging that war still and forcing us to pay for it.
ReplyDeleteThere's no point replying to individual comments because they are ALL so wrong! NO, I am not agreeing with the author either.
ReplyDeleteYes, I am a Southerner. I am a Southerner who believes that we deserved to lose the war because the South was perpetuating a vile, evil institution - chattel slavery. (Of course, y'all probably don't know there is more than one kind).
Most of those who fought for the "glorious cause" did not own slaves. They just wanted to be left alone. They didn't want the Federal government telling them how to live. They were right.
FYI - the author did not compare Lincoln to Hitler. Try reading next time. He called Generals Sherman and Sheridan war criminals and said they would have served well in the armies of either Hitler or Stalin.
Just so you know, Gen. Sherman is one of my favorite generals. He hated war and did what he did in the hopes that all involved, soldiers, sailors, and civilians (North and South) would suffer less than in a war that dragged on.
Contrary to what you Yankees believe, it wasn't "all about slavery". You sound like my Southern brethren who insist on flying the battle flag and claim that is was "all about states' rights".
first of all the war was 85% about slavery.You can say what you believe but the real truth is this, The south had too much to loose. without it they would all have to work and get their hands dirty. All forms of slavery are vile!. the money the slaves generated for the south was the final straw they couldnt afford to loose.The people fighting for the south were angry our government was telling them no more slaves. Even long after the war the south treated freed slaves like they owned them making up ignorant laws to keep them enslaved so to speak. This practice went on even into the 1900's. Yes our government is way out of control and untill WE THE PEOPLE take it back it will remain that way.
ReplyDeleteWOW. I'm ALWAYS amazed by the revisionist spins put on the Civil War when an article discussing it appears anywhere. But G.A, I'm also surprised at your assertation that Sherman was as vicious and heartless as he was because "he didn't want people to suffer in a "long, drawn-out struggle"... yeah, I can see the logic there. Why let people go hungry for weeks at a time or live in shacks and unkempt houses? Best to raid their farms and houses and steal every bit of food and supplies for your troops and just for luck, burn their houses and barns to the ground before you leave, thereby alleviating their "long drawn-out suffering". You tend to die pretty quick without food and shelter, which may have been his point. Machevelli said the only 2 ways to subdue an enemie's territory was to 1)occupy and populate it with your own citizens/army or, 2) totally annihilate it. Sherman was a very competent general, but he left fear, desolation, and destruction in his wake. And was PROUD OF IT. Remember, he was killing southerners, but according to the Federal government, they were still U.S. citizens. too.
ReplyDeleteThe South will rise again b/c of Obama...
ReplyDelete2:05 PM
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with you yet again G.A. Most do not even know what the 'civil war' was about or it's causes.
And like you state, it's pointless to try to explain all the intricacies to these blockheads.
They believe what they believe because they believe it. Facts are of little consequence.
Yankees still think they are somehow superior to southerners, as evidenced by some of the ignorant comments posted here.
I just wish there was a magic pill to educate them or just simple shut them up until they get educated.
But I fear that is a long time coming.
Imclain -
ReplyDeleteYou only looked at half the statement about Sherman. He wanted to end the war for BOTH sides. He wanted to break the South's will to fight.
Sherman actually loved the South. Prior to the War he served as the Supt. of the Louisiana State Military Academy (the precursor to LSU).
As I stated before, Sherman hated war. He knew what a horrible thing it was. Too many Southerners romanticized the concept of war. When SC seceded, Sherman remarked to a friend:
"You people of the South don't know what you are doing. This country will be drenched in blood, and God only knows how it will end. It is all folly, madness, a crime against civilization! You people speak so lightly of war; you don't know what you're talking about. War is a terrible thing! You mistake, too, the people of the North. They are a peaceable people but an earnest people, and they will fight, too. They are not going to let this country be destroyed without a mighty effort to save it... Besides, where are your men and appliances of war to contend against them? The North can make a steam engine, locomotive, or railway car; hardly a yard of cloth or pair of shoes can you make. You are rushing into war with one of the most powerful, ingeniously mechanical, and determined people on Earth—right at your doors. You are bound to fail. Only in your spirit and determination are you prepared for war. In all else you are totally unprepared, with a bad cause to start with. At first you will make headway, but as your limited resources begin to fail, shut out from the markets of Europe as you will be, your cause will begin to wane. If your people will but stop and think, they must see in the end that you will surely fail."
********************************
Anon 1419 -
Who can say that it was 85% about slavery. For some it was 100%. For the vast majority it was near 0%. Many Southerners did not own any slaves at all. Many more only owned a house servant or two.
Before you criticize me for that last statement ("only owned"), it's tied to your comment about all forms of slavery being vile. I am certainly not defending the institution, but non-chattel (or indentured) slavery is not vile at all. In fact, many of the early settlers of this land were indentured (and that is a form of slavery). Chattel slavery considers the slave akin to livestock. The slave's children are also slaves, etc.
FYI - there were MANY more issues besides slavery that riled up folk in the south. Tariff and trade issues were just as (or more) important to many, many Southerners as the slavery issue.
The bottom line is, the South economy would never have survived long term under the chattel slavery model. It probably would have been moot in another 20 - 25 years.
Again, I am not defending the institution of slavery. I certainly don't defend what was done post-Reconstruction concerning African-Americans. However, I will point out that many of those same issues were just as prevalent in the North. Just ask folk in Boston when they had to de-segregate their schools.
12:33 what rock have you spent your life under? do you really believe the bs you just wrote? slavery in any form is vile one is not better than the other.Its easy for you to say that as you are free. I guess the slaves owned themselves as according to you most people in the south didnt own them REALLY? please go back under your rock....the south new that the loss of slavery was the MAIN reason the war happened along with the attitude towards the government.The south continued to "enslave" blacks long after the war into the early 1900's just do alittle resaerch and you will truly see.
ReplyDelete