For All African-Americans Bitching About “Whitey”… 320,000 White American Men Died For Your Freedom, But You Forget That…
American troops fought 80 Iraqs on our own soil to free the Black Man.
I was going over some video clips that were on my hard drive that I uploaded here to determine what I could keep and what I should delete to free up some space and I came across several clips of the Jeremiah Wright vomit, and the father Fagler puke, some Louis Farrakhan crap, some of that militant New Black Panther Party bullshit and suddenly it struck me.
Not all, but many African-Americans talk about reparations. They talk about being entitled to compensation for the suffering endured by their ancestors in the first centuries of our great nation.
Yes, they were wronged by White American Men.
Yes, White American Men did horrible things to them.
Yes, they were wrongfully bought, sold, and traded as personal property by White American Men.
Yes, yes, yes.
But you know what? I know of about 2.5 million white American men that took up arms and became willing to shed their blood to free enslaved African-Americans from the bondage they suffered.
I know of 360,000 soldiers, members of the Union Army, who fought and died on the battlefields that took more American lives than all of our wars combined. Of those 360,000 Union Army soldiers that fought, bled, and died to help end the injustices perpetuated upon Black America, many were Black, yes…40,000 Black Union Soldiers died in that war.
So did 320,000 white American Men.
For every Black Man that paid the ultimate price to free the slaves, there were eight…8…eight white men bleeding and dying with him.
I would respectfully ask that many African-Americans so angry at “Whitey” consider those numbers.
Deeply consider those numbers.
That is 80 times…eighty times…80x…80 fucking times the number of American troops that gave their lives in the Iraq War over the last 5 years.
80 Iraqs to free the Black Man.
During the civil rights movement, there was no casualty count as one might find in the record books of America’s War History. But there were many many many White people who marched, who protested, who petitioned, who voted, who locked arms with Black Men…and women, in the struggle to say to our fellow Americans of African descent: “You are an American, equal to me.”
Equal opportunity. Indisputable. Even beyond equal, at times, when you consider some extreme uses of Affirmative Action.
So I just want to know why the African-American preachers like Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan have never, to my knowledge, acknowledged the 320,000 White American Men who fought, bled, and died for their freedom from slavery.
What about them? I bet most of you didn’t even know that particular number before reading it just now, or you had learned it so long ago it had been forgotten. Or maybe you did know it. I didn’t.
I do now.
320,000 White American Men died for the Black Man’s Freedom.
320,000 WHITE AMERICAN MEN DIED FOR THE BLACK MAN’s FREEDOM.
320,000 White American Men.
80 Iraqs.
215,000 gallons of White American Male blood.
Think about that.
Be respectful of others and their opinions. Inflammatory remarks and inane leftist drivel will be deleted. It ain’t about free speech, remember you’re in a private domain. My website, my prerogative.
If you can't handle using your real email address, don't bother posting a comment.
Well done, Bash.
June 20th, 2008 at 4:31 pmI second that Bash. well done
its a very powerful point to make. nobody EVER mentions that fact. wonder what the equivalent of 320,000 would be in todays population? there were alot fewer of us in this country back then
June 20th, 2008 at 4:37 pmThe U.S. population in 1865 was roughly 35 million. We have about 10 times the population today. Use that same multiplier on the 320,000 casualties. The equivalent casualties if the war were fought today would be three million two hundred thousand casualties in a five year period…..roughly…..
We should take the reparations mongers on a tour of Gettysburg or Antietam, make them spend some time in bloody Lane or the Wheatfield and let them justify their “victimhood” to the spirits of those brave men who died for their ancestors. something tells me those Billys and Johnnies wouldn’t be too receptive.
…….Mine eyes have seen the glory……..
June 20th, 2008 at 4:56 pmtears in my eyes Bash. I new this - they used to teach it in school.
June 20th, 2008 at 5:01 pmthanks for the backup on the numbers. so it would be 3.2 million people if the same war were fought today. and yeah the reparation mongers need a history lesson it seems
nuff said…
June 20th, 2008 at 5:06 pmActually if you factor in the number that later died from their wounds and those that died from diseases, the number actual number is greater than three times that. By far, the Civil War was the most deadly of any other war our brave soldiers have ever fought.
June 20th, 2008 at 5:18 pm“According to the New York Times Almanac, the population of the United States in 1860 was 31,443,321. The population of the nation ten years later, 1870 (the census is taken every ten years), was 38,558,371.”
From http://www.census.gov
U.S. 304,393,834
00:59 GMT (EST+5) Jun 21, 2008
So we have about ten times the population today.
320,000 then would be 3,200,000 today. If you don’t count the states in rebellion, it’d be even higher. The North was predominately white and had three times the population of the South, which was about 60% white and 40% black (mostly slaves). Even the border states that had slavery but remained loyal were over 80% white.
And one thing worth mentioning is that more black men were killed by other black men during the crack wars in the 1980’s than were lynched during a century of Jim Crow.
In the last fifty years, most of the harm inflicted on the ‘black community’ (whatever the hell that is; I’ve never heard anyone use the phrase white community) has been either self-inflicted or done by people professing that they were doing it for their own good.
June 20th, 2008 at 5:19 pmSo true. Reperations? You want to take food off my table because of the color of my skin? I will not stand for it, there will be violence if that injustice is forced upon me.
This post is a result of the obama campaign. obama and his long and spiritual connection with hateful racists is an insult.
June 20th, 2008 at 5:25 pmThat such a shallow inexperienced person may become the next President based on his skin color angers many, including me.
great job breaking that down.
should be no question why i love this site.
but yeah you’re right. if you were to break down union only states the population would be alot lower still. good point.
and about the ‘black community’. another democrat phrased term, just like the term ‘the black vote’. I dont know about you guys but im sick and fucking tired of being labeled racist just because im white and republican. We’re the party of Lincoln, this shit needs to end and the blacks who speak about all this nonsense need to wake up and realize that they have been duped.
June 20th, 2008 at 5:30 pmThe Civil War was NOT fought to end slavery.
Released in 1862 the Emancipation Proclamation only “freed” the slaves in the South, it did nothing to free slaves in northern states.
Case in point, West Virginia was admitted into the Union in 1863 as a SLAVE state.
June 20th, 2008 at 6:14 pmSo, in the middle of the Civil War, supposedly to end slavery, W Virginia was admitted as a slave state.
But reparations?
June 20th, 2008 at 6:17 pmI don’t believe the Federal Gov’t, or any state gov’ts owned any slaves.
Nor has anyone living today.
West Virginia seceded from Virginia because Virginia fought for the Confederacy.
June 20th, 2008 at 6:32 pmAfrican-Americans?
June 20th, 2008 at 6:44 pmTime for them to choose… either African or American.
Yes, because had they joined the Confederacy and the North won they would be forced to give up their slaves.
June 20th, 2008 at 7:05 pmThey went for admission into the Union under the pretense that they could keep their slaves.
I don’t usually get into the comments on the boards. But read what you just wrote:
“Yes, because had they joined the Confederacy and the North won they would be forced to give up their slaves.”
Dude, the people that formed West Virginia were VIRGINIANS. Virginia fought for the CONFEDERACY. They did not want to do that, they never “joined” the Confederacy, they were a PART OF the Confederacy and LEFT IT.
This whole “Under the pretense that they could keep their slaves” and all that other stuff is bullshit.
You are a victim of revisionist history. The original version of the 13th Amendment to abolish slavery was initially in the works in 1863, when West Virginia seceded from Virginia. They knew it was coming down the pike. They didn’t join up under the pretense that they could keep their slaves.
The thirteenth Amendment was intially proposed that December and the boys from the new state of WV new it was coming.
You’re getting bad info on your history, dude.
June 20th, 2008 at 7:21 pmNot exactly. WV agreed to a ‘gradual’ abolition of slavery. Even Lincoln thought admitting West Virginia was not the right thing to do either personally or constitutionally but it was a good way to quiet rather quickly a rather large swath of ‘gun-clingers’.
June 20th, 2008 at 7:26 pmAsk Barry Obamasma about Lincoln. He’s one of Barry’s favoritist Presidents. I suspect more for his willingness to resort to political expediency than Lincoln’s many other very fine qualities which Barry could in no way hope to possess himself.
Look, you guys probably know far more than I do about the history of the Civil War. This was not the point of my article.
It may not have been the sole cause of the war, but Slavery was one of the reasons it was fought.
You want to get into all the political ports and tariffs stuff and all of that that’s fine, Lincoln not a purist for freeing the slaves, fine, whatever.
But how many of those 320,000 White American Men do you think went out on that battlefield believing they were fighting for ports and tariffs and all of that other shit?
I believe most of them felt they were fighting for a just cause, not greed, not business gain, not financial politics.
Most of them boys couldn’t even read.
The bottom line is…The Black Man attained his Freedom from Slavery in this country as a result of that war and they have 320,000 White American Men to thank for that.
What? You think they didn’t know that they were fighting to help free the slaves? That they were just “following orders”?
Fuck hindsight armchair history quarterbacking.
320,000 dead white men resulted in freedom for the slaves…among other things.
June 20th, 2008 at 7:39 pmCome on guys, is this how you want to start your weekend.
Personally, I recommend the 7 pm photo on Pat’s Deep Thought’s thread
Opinions anyone ?
June 20th, 2008 at 7:53 pmI thought I was agreeing with you Bash. Just clarifying for BB and my post got posted after you when it was intended to go before you. Should have stayed out.
June 20th, 2008 at 7:59 pmI took and agree completely with the point of the thread.
After re-reading I see that, heh heh…
Pat told me last July, he said “Save yourself a bunch of headaches and don’t get into the debates on the threads.”
I’ve been doing pretty good at that, LOL. Til tonight…
Weird night.
June 20th, 2008 at 8:04 pmNah… no need to stay out Bash unless you want. Your perspective is great.
Now… about that gun clinging Israeli honey… some days i wish i was a Pooh bear
June 20th, 2008 at 8:11 pmGood job Bash.
June 20th, 2008 at 8:50 pmAnd that is why I belong to the SUVCW to honor my Great-Great Uncle William Pike (my Grandpa Stockwell’s uncle) who died at the Battle of Antietam which was the battle that more Americans died 24,000 in one day than any other one day military action in our great nation’s history.
Private William Pike was only 25 and in the army for just 2 months in the 35th Massachusetts.
God bless his soul for helping to right a wrong.
To G-G Uncle William, God bless you.
______________________________________
What? I haven’t a clue about that…help a clueless guy out will ya?
June 20th, 2008 at 8:58 pmLa retraite de Sully devant les gros bras, hahaha, où sont les couilles que Monsieur montre aux dames ?
June 20th, 2008 at 9:28 pmGo back to bed franchie.
June 20th, 2008 at 10:07 pmIt’s called a hangover.
It’ll pass.
“… help a clueless guy out will ya?”
Ask franchie… she’ll splain it to ya…. sumthin bout “long arms” and “testicles” for the “ladies”. LMAO!!
Grande coquilles!!!!
June 20th, 2008 at 10:12 pmGreat stuff, Bash!
June 20th, 2008 at 10:33 pmO.K., Franchie has proved his intelectual superiority by commenting in Francais.
Wow, Franchie you are my hero.
Just sayin’
You don’t know if black Americans cared or not if the North cared or not?
IF, 320,000 white soldiers cared or not, we don’t know.
To use this example as a call to arms is just that, a call, to arms.
For you to actually make the claim that every single white man that died in the defense of the Union was opposed to slavery and gave his life for that cause is not quite right, I meant to say something a ittle more derogatory, but the yellow box below keeps my faggoty ass from doing so.
That’s right I said faggoty ass. I need a dick to suck.
June 20th, 2008 at 10:35 pmGrande coquilles!!!!
Im Thomas alike, I only believe in what I can see, so…
big baratin aka Sarko
June 20th, 2008 at 10:36 pm________________________
In English please, you and Sully are killn’ me here
Give a PIC American a break will ya?
June 20th, 2008 at 10:40 pmMy last comment is being edited.
June 20th, 2008 at 10:43 pmThat is the extent of free speech on this site?!?!?!
You expose your bias exponentially (and I say this partially)
My initial thoughts have been lost in the ether.
Who is responsible for that loss is anybodies guess.
Oh wait, I’m too stupid to think that maybe there isn’t a 24 hour employee clearing out the smainator every three minutes.
Bash’s thought is great.
I do ask though, why has my point of view been stifled?
Oh yeah, I forgot, just wrote it two seconds ago, comments go into the spaminator and sit there until they get cleared out.
I don’t know what’s wrong with me tonight. I apologize profusely…I can be a real asshole sometimes.
June 20th, 2008 at 10:55 pmI apologize to Pat.
My assumptiopn was Assumptive, as usual.
I made an ass out of u and me.
June 20th, 2008 at 11:01 pmMost comments this time of night go into a spam folder and may not post for 15 to 45 minutes until someone reads them and then posts it, be patient.
Hell, I’ve had stuff I thought was great disappear into the spam folder never to be seen again.
So, don’t take it personally.
PS - carefully read the text in the yellow box below…it may or may not help.
June 20th, 2008 at 11:04 pm“For you to actually make the claim that every single white man that died in the defense of the Union was opposed to slavery and gave his life for that cause is idiocy.”
Uh OK…. let’s split the difference. How’s 160K work for ya? Deal?
June 20th, 2008 at 11:08 pmIn an all too common propoganda campaign, many copperheads in the North, the Civil War equivalent of ANSWER and moveon, claimed that the Federal effort was a ‘rich man’s war and a poor man’s fight.’ Some grievous errors by the government, especially how they handled the draft, added fuel to the fire.
However, the Southern cause really was a rich man’s war, although the quasi-aristocrasy was actually over represented in the Army. While State’s Rights and a sense of being Carolinians/Georgians/Texans, etc., was the motivation of the rank and file, and most of them would’ve been deeply insulted at the suggestion they were fighting and dying to preserve slavery, the cold hard fact is that they were.
The ones who actually engineered the secession were motivated by greed, because their fortunes were made on the backs of slaves, and fear that freed blacks would do unto them as the plantation owners had done unto them. A not uncommon reaction. The SS, the Orange bastards in Ulster and the Baathists in Iraq fought, at least in part, for the same reason.
They never fully grasped that although most Northeners, while abolitionists, were reluctant to go to war to ablolish slavery, but they would fight to preserve the Union. The Civil War is an Oedipan tale of an outcome directly coming about because of the very actions mean to stop it.
As for West Virginia,they seceeded from Virginia and the Confederacy because they considered themselves Americans first, and slavery was never very popular in the mountains, Senator Byrd notwithstanding. Virginia very nearly remained in the Union, and Robert E. Lee was offered command of the Army of the Potomac. History would have been very different, and much less bloody, if Virginia had stayed in the US or Lee put his loyalty to the Constitution and America above his love of Virginia.
Lee was like many good men in the Confederacy, fighting honorably for their homes, but in the service of a dreadful cause.
June 20th, 2008 at 11:08 pmdisplaced ched head
Sorry man, Im not an expert in your civil war, I mostly know it through Hallywood movies, (ie “Gone with the wind”…)
)
June 20th, 2008 at 11:23 pmnot quite though, I understand that this is also a painful memory for a lot of people of your country.
But if I want to get a trustful idea of it, I also understand that it’s not here that I’ll find it, too partisan (
How does this:
“The ones who actually engineered the secession were motivated by greed, because their fortunes were made on the backs of slaves, and fear that freed blacks would do unto them as the plantation owners had done unto them.”
Jibe with this?:
“Lee was like many good men in the Confederacy, fighting honorably for their homes, but in the service of a dreadful cause.”
June 20th, 2008 at 11:28 pmmike3481
OK
woah, a Sully’retreat in front of Popeye’s big arms, ahahah, Where are the nuts that this smart Sir is in use to show to the ladies ?
June 20th, 2008 at 11:29 pm__________________________
Well said, Thank you.
June 20th, 2008 at 11:30 pmLee was a soldier, not a politician. And he was not a pro-secession; he argued against it. But when Virginia did secede, he placed his loyalty to his state higher than his loyalty to his nation. Like many, he was a good man fighting a bad war.
Personally, I feel the Constitution is more important than any piece of land. But millions didn’t, and don’t, feel the same way. Lee was one of them.
June 20th, 2008 at 11:48 pmI think that dramatically oversimplifies Lee. His struggle was much more about the principles that Constitution was based upon; primarily in the rights of the states.
June 21st, 2008 at 12:13 amThe Constitution really doesn’t provide much Federal power and that was Lee’s struggle IMHO. A struggle of states rights vs. Federalism which he and many other Southerners (and Northerners as well) looked upon much the same way many of us look upon the Socialism which our present day Democrats wish to impose. Actually MOST Federal power is the result of judicial activism by Supreme Court decisions.
Lincoln’s objective was to preserve the Union. In whatever manner he could. If making the ‘poor white southern boys’ actually doing the fighting believe they were fighting over slaves dulled their will to fight (which it did) AND got the abolitionists off his back AND created a more ‘lucid’ cause for boys to fight for then he was going to emancipate them. He did not go into the war to end slavery. All Congress or Lincoln ever believed MIGHT be accomplished was to halt the SPREAD of slavery to new territory.
Was greed a factor at all? Sure. It factors into almost everything. Was that and slavery the primary reason the South seceded? Nope.
They were not going to have a President make himself a King and tell all the states what they could and could not do.
Anyway, that’s my take on it FWIW.
Bash’s premise that a large number of American boys died to free slaves is a valid one IMO.
Throughout History, you will find again and again some very smart and or very good people with some very bad ideas, which people, which ideas…opinions will always vary.
Good night.
June 21st, 2008 at 12:25 amTo think that some poor SOB came here from europe just before the Civil War (1861) to start a new life and winds up a casualty in the union army only to have a hyphenated american (140 years later) demand restitution from his lineage, really pisses me off.
June 21st, 2008 at 5:32 amYeah and whitey put in place the method and laws for overcomming slavery…It’s called the Constitution and The Bill Of Rights.
It was whitey Republicans who declared war on slavery in the first place…just like whitey did in England. That war was led by Evangelicals.
In addition to which it was whitey-ass Republicans who joined LBJ and voted for the 1964 and 1965 Civil Rights bills when Blue-Dog Democrats refused to do so.
Compensation? How about fuck you. Every race on this planet has at one time had slavery as an institution. Who compensates them?
“For ALL have sinned and come short…..”
And slavery continues in the Sudan to this day. Interesting that the race is Black and the mindset is Islam in the Sudan.
Hmmmm…Its whats waiting for you white-ass Dhimis in the west.
June 21st, 2008 at 8:02 amfranchie will probably turn to dailykos to get the “real story” behind the civil war.
June 21st, 2008 at 8:39 amBash once again you hit the nail on the head! Unfortunately I did not know this stat before I read your essay.
The only point that is continually overlooked when talking about slavery and reparations is who actually sold the African Africans into slavery? I’ll be damned if it wasn’t other African Africans! Maybe Rev.’s Wright, Jackson, and Sharpton should demand reparations from the African tribes that sold Africans into slavery!!
One other point, if all “whitey’s” are evil because of slavery, does this make all blacks gang banging drug dealers?
June 21st, 2008 at 8:41 amTommy, don’t repeat what the elder tells you, sometimes he is beyond his thought, his mind gets out of order by speeding on one sided orientation
June 21st, 2008 at 8:52 amAnyone who has doubts about the Civil War might want to read the words to the Battle Hymm Of The Republic sometime.
It was the #1 song in the North at the time.
The Unionists saw the war a “religious” obligation to rid this country of slavery. And whitey succeeded.
Some might find it interesting that one of Lincoln’s top advisors was a black man: Frederick Douglass.
It was Douglass who said of Lincoln at his funeral that “…his memory will be precious forever…”
And he was right. Too bad many of Mr Douglass’s bretheren aren’t as smart as he was.
Anyone who thinks that brother Abraham wasn’t adament about getting rid of slavery doesn’t know much about the abolishionist movement of the time of which Mr Lincoln was a member in good standing.
Next time someone has negative feelings about Lincoln, try reading his Gettsburg Address…..then put down the hash pipe.
June 21st, 2008 at 8:56 amFranchie:
June 21st, 2008 at 9:05 ammanger la merde
doubleglock
bon appetit
June 21st, 2008 at 9:36 amholla
June 21st, 2008 at 9:44 am“Next time someone has negative feelings about Lincoln, try reading his Gettsburg Address…..then put down the hash pipe.
”
Since I’m the only one that even brought up Lincoln here I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say that’s a shot across MY bow.
Those whom feel the need to deify Mr. Lincoln and frame every reference to him in religious terms probably should relax and maybe even try the pipe once or twice themselves. Not my ‘cup of tea’ but hey, it helps quite a few Californians so maybe……
I’m a huge admirer of Mr. Lincoln and a student of American History and I’m not aware of any evidence that Lincoln was a “member in good standing” of the Abolitionist Movement.
Nor that “Unionists saw the war a religious obligation to rid this country of slavery”. The Abolitionists did and, despite your attempt to conflate the two, they are not the same.
Were many Abolitionists ALSO Unionists? Yes. But they were anti-slave first and most of them (including Lincoln)supported repatriation of the Africans to Africa. There were VERY few Abolitionists that even dreamed of the possibility of integration.
So until a more evidentiary rebuttal is provided, I’ll stick to my original comments. Which are not in any way defamatory to Mr. Lincoln, they just don’t tow the line of Lincoln as a God or whatever.
He was a good man and a VERY astute politician.
Which, I suppose, is one reason Obamasama is trying to morph himself into a Lincoln.
As for “The Battle Hymn of The Republic” it did not appear in its present form until 1862. A year into the war after the North had been having its ass handed to it. It’s popularity as a ‘fighting song’ grew exponentially after Gettysburg.
June 21st, 2008 at 1:51 pmI’m gonna give a link that will give a true history of the Civil War and not the revisionist history that has been taught in the last 40 plus years.
This is at Wallbuilders.com
It’s called “Confronting Civil War Revisionism: Why The South Went To War”
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=92
Here is just a taste of it.
David Barton - 03/21/2006
WallBuilders not only seeks to present an accurate view of American history but through our strong reliance on primary source documents also seeks to expose and rebut instances of revisionism. The dictionary defines revisionism as advocating “the revision of an accepted, usually long-standing view, theory, or doctrine; especially a revision of historical events and movements.” 1 Many special interest groups over the past sixty years have urged upon the public a revisionist view of history in a manipulative attempt to justify their particular agenda.
For example, those who rely on activist courts to advance an agenda they are unable to pass through the normal political process frequently defend their misuse of the courts by asserting three historically unfounded doctrines: (1) the judiciary is to protect the minority from the majority; (2) the judiciary’s primary purpose is to review and correct the acts of Congress and the presidency; and (3) the judiciary is best equipped to determine and meet the needs of an ever-changing society. These three errant doctrines are disproved by scores of original writings from the Founding Era, especially in The Federalist Papers. (See also our book, Restraining Judicial Activism.)
Similarly, those who aggressively pursue a secular public arena also invoke a revisionist view of history, frequently arguing that: (1) the Founding Fathers were atheists, agnostics, and deists; and (2) the Founders wrote into the Constitution a strict separation of church and state that requires the exclusion of religious influences and expressions from the public arena. These assertions are also easily rebuttable through hundreds of the Founders’ own writings and public acts and laws. (See also our book, Original Intent.)
Another prominent example of modern historical revisionism involves an inaccurate view of the Civil War, asserting that: (1) the secession of the southern states at the start of the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery; and (2) slavery was not a significant issue in the conflict. (Irrefutable Confederate documents disproving this assertion will be presented shortly.)
One example of this type of Civil War revisionism can be found in a plaque displayed in the Texas State Capitol, declaring:
PLAQUE HANGING IN THE TEXAS STATE CAPITOL
Because we desire to perpetuate, in love and honor, the heroic deeds of those who enlisted in the Confederate Army and upheld its flag through four years of war, we, the children of the South, have united together in an organization called “Children of the Confederacy,” in which our strength, enthusiasm, and love of justice can exert its influence. We therefore pledge ourselves to preserve pure ideals; to honor our veterans; to study and teach the truths of history (one of the most important of which is that the war between the states was not a rebellion nor was its underlying cause to sustain slavery), and to always act in a manner that will reflect honor upon our noble and patriotic ancestors. (emphasis added)
Other sources make this same false claim, 2 instead blaming the war on what they claim was the federal government’s incessant lust for power and what they consider its unconstitutional intrusiveness into what they believe to be solely states’ affairs. Regrettably, the acceptance of this revisionist view of the Civil War is actually gaining strength among many Americans.
To disprove their errant assertion, one need proceed no further than just three Confederate documentary sources: (1) the secession documents of the southern states setting forth their reasons for leaving the Union and forming the Confederacy; (2) the famous speech of Confederate Vice-President Alexander Stephens delivered just after the formal creation of the Confederacy, identifying its philosophical foundations; and (3) the Confederacy’s own constitution. All three Confederate sources unequivocally prove that the South’s desire to sustain slavery was a significant reason for the formation of the Confederacy.
June 21st, 2008 at 3:08 pm“All three Confederate sources unequivocally prove that the South’s desire to sustain slavery was a significant reason for the formation of the Confederacy.”
OK. Who said the desire to sustain slavery WASN’T “a significant reason” for secession. It certainly was.
The assertion made the author of your link that one need go no further than the three documents he cites is wishful thinking on his part. Perhaps he’s hoping that we ignore the facts PRECEDING the writing of those documents and the struggle between Federalists and advocates of states rights *PRIOR TO* Fort Sumter.
As far as “revisionism”, it is abundantly apparent to exist on both sides.
June 21st, 2008 at 4:26 pmEvery ethnicity,religion,BLAH,BLAH,BLAH has been persecuted at one time or another.GET FUCKING OVER IT,PUSSY ASS WHINEY MOTHER FUCKERS of any race or religon.Only sorry ass people have themselves to blame for their sorry ass status in society.Get a FUCKING JOB!!!!!!
June 21st, 2008 at 5:53 pmSully is not your typical product of the georgia school system.He paid attention.Well said
June 21st, 2008 at 6:00 pm@sully
You’re wrong dude. That wasn’t a shot across anyone’s bow. I didn’t even bother to read your comments before posting my own. So WTF are you talking about.
Put down the pipe dude.
June 21st, 2008 at 7:36 pm@ Dan:
My bad then.
June 21st, 2008 at 7:57 pm@sully
Good man. Have a beer on me.
June 21st, 2008 at 8:06 pm@Dan:
As for the balance of the post re Lincoln I’ll stand by that as ‘wtf i’m talking about’ however. Care to comment?
June 21st, 2008 at 8:06 pm
June 21st, 2008 at 8:06 pm@Sully
I stand by mine as well. I’ve always been a great admirer of Lincoln and still am. Don’t really care what others say about him.
From my own study about him, he wasn’t great in his time.
Don’t care. He made the right decision to go to war against the South.
The fact remains it was a white Republican that ended slavery as an institution. It was a whole bunch of white dudes that died to help him do so.
And it was white Republicans that swayed the Civil Rights legislation in 64 and 65.
White people already gave their compensation to blacks in the form of thousands of dead Union soldiers in the Civil War.
There was one song that was more popular than the Battle Hymm or When Johnnie Comes Marching Home or even Dixie…it was Lorena.
June 21st, 2008 at 8:30 pmkudos
June 21st, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Wow finally, signs of intelligent life! I have enjoyed reading all. For those who continue to blame whitey for keeping them down, “I have a dream” a mass education of the truth “according to Bash”. I would love to make a million copies of that post and puy it up every where I go!
June 21st, 2008 at 9:49 pmI think it was Ronald Regan who said “the best way to get on your feet is to get off your ass”.
” Since the independence, the USA has followed a spectacular path of growth on all sides ( politics, economy, social life…). Therefore, America attracted a huge number of foreign visitors whom have studied the situation of the country especially during the mid 19th century. Although, all the world was marveled by it’s vitality and strength but one big black spot that turned to critics all the complements that should have been conceded, it is slavery. ”
” By 1850, the American society included 23 million people in a union comprised 31 states. During that time the USA reached a high level of development; The northern part especially New England & the middle Atlantic states were a great centers of manufacturing, commerce and finance they produces textile, lumber, clothing, implements… by the same time shipping was a big sector that has prospered, vessels from the United states were crossing the whole world. The south from the Atlantic to the Mississippi River and beyond was a relatively compact political unite featuring an economy centered on agriculture. The southern states produced cotton, tobacco, wheat, meat… All this crop was produced by slaves working in plantations. Thereof, slavery was a fundamental base of the southern economy. ”
“Southern political leaders wanted to consolidate slavery system by getting additional slave states as the expansion to the west went on. So northerners saw a conspiracy in the southerners thoughts to set a slavery enlargement pattern and to offset the admission of new free states”
http://library.thinkquest.org/C007803/american_civil_war.htm
So the northern economy was based on education and industrialisation, (thus an approach based on reasonnements, and without surprises), that brought richness
the southern economy was based on agricultural economy that need more hands at work to bring “richness”, the agriculture merchandises also depends on more aleatory factors, such as weather, crops plagues… cheap labor costs were needed as economy motor
progress vs tradition : the new US psyche needed that “progressive” image to expend their merchandises trade towards the old world of Europe, that had already abolished the slave trade since a few decades ;
June 22nd, 2008 at 2:20 amkind of moral “education complex” vs the “enlightened” former motherland ! though, Europe had no “moral” problem to exploit its colonies “in the US southern ways”, BUT, that wasn’t on its SOIL, so the moral dilemn of slavery didn’t bother anyone there anymore.
I agree with the sentiment of your article, but we went to war to preserve the Union! The free the slaves move was designed to sow discontent and economic havoc in the confederacy!
June 22nd, 2008 at 6:29 am“…All this crop was produced by slaves working in plantations….”
So there were no farmers in the South that farmed land without benefit of slave labor? That’s just not true.
June 22nd, 2008 at 7:38 amAnd in case anyone is curious, I’m also a great admirer of Robert E Lee. I have a print of him wearing a Union Col’s uniform just before the Civil War hanging in my living room wall about 5 feet away from my print of Abraham Lincoln.
People can say what they want about both men. Each had personal attributes worth emulating; each fought on different sides in the war.
The military tactics of Lee and even Rommel are worth studying. Though both fought on the wrong side of history, each has admirable qualities as leaders worth a second look.
Lee stands head and shoulders above many great Americans. His only sin is that he fought forthe Confederacy. Had he fought for the Union, he’d be remembered in the same vain as Grant.
Lee made the wrong choice in fighting for the south. His personal life, his letters and his deportment as a military officer….his leadership style…is nevertheless stellar.
June 22nd, 2008 at 8:03 amI share your view of Lee.
June 22nd, 2008 at 8:29 amSidenote relative to recent news:
As a graduate of West Point in engineering and assigned to the Chief Engineer’s Office he worked on many of the levees, locks, docks, etc. along the Mississippi, particularly around St. Louis. His journals and letters reveal his lamentation even then that the Federal government would not allocate the money necessaary to secure the land for future development.
“So there were no farmers in the South that farmed land without benefit of slave labor? That’s just not true.”
of course, there were also poor “whiteys”, uh, according to W. Faulkner, their situation had nothing to compare with the aristocratic Scarlett ; they had problems of consanguinity due to the promiscuity : a whole family had to live in the same room… but you have certainly more references than me for illustrating that
June 22nd, 2008 at 8:32 am@sully
One thing about Lee that also stands out is that not once in any of his letters and correspondence have I ever read the word “niger”. Considering the time he lived in and the geographic location of his abode; it would have been easy for him to have used that derrogative term for blacks and gotten away with it as Lincoln did in at least one speech I read.
Lee was a special human being. His conduct was above reproach. And for a man of his time he was an man of great character encouraged no doubt by his personal beliefs in Jesus Christ.
I’d be willing to wager that while Grant is in hell, Lee is not.
History has not treated Lee well, but God isn’t so inclined.
His work as an Engineer is still discussed among Comabt Engineers and Corps of Engineer-types today. Many also have a pic of Lee on their office walls and have studied his efforts as a member of the Union Engineer Corps.
I refuse to throw the baby out with the bathwater as libistan History profs are want to do. Lee was a good man
June 22nd, 2008 at 9:05 amwho made just one mistake. That mistake does not cancel out the rest of life’s accomplishments nor does it diminish the man that he was in my opinion.
@ Dan:
June 22nd, 2008 at 9:11 am@ franchie:
” there were also poor “whiteys”, uh, according to W. Faulkner… had problems of consanguinity due to the promiscuity… ”
wtf?
June 22nd, 2008 at 9:15 amget a clue.
WTF, your the missing clue
June 22nd, 2008 at 9:23 am@Frenchie
WTF is your problem? You can discuss Lebanon in a compitent, sentient manner and make good points, and on other issues remain clueless and make no points worth reading whatsoever.
Cutting and pasting or tossing in French words does nothing for your arguments nor does it show that you know the subject. Neither does being a smart ass.
Why don’t you try an intellectual approach like you do with the situation in Lebanon?
If you don’t know the subject being discussed, read about it before discussing the matter. At least your arguments will be sound and logical, instead of mere emotional jibberish.
Vous pouvez faire mieux, chu chu.
June 22nd, 2008 at 10:04 amchuchu, actually I was quoting Faulner who is not known for being an idiot, I acknoledge that you can only make a hiss stattement
were not the irish immigrants also entering in the “poor” casts that were contempted by the era rules ?
June 22nd, 2008 at 10:47 am@Frenchie
What the heck is a hiss statement? And who is Faulner? Or did you mean Faukner.
And what does poor casts have to do with anything? The US was never a “caste” society.
The issue is Black-White schism and the US Civil War.
Nothing you’ve said to this point adds to the debate.
Try a little more intellect and a little less European elitism. If you can?
Like I said before, you did well on the Lebanon issue. Too bad you are doing so poorly on this one. Oh well. Ce La Ve.
June 22nd, 2008 at 11:31 amFaulkner??
If you’re going to be here arguing for the proletariat view of the American Civil War, why not just use Karl Marx?
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1861/us-civil-war/index.htm
At least you’ll feel more ‘at home’.
June 22nd, 2008 at 11:42 am“The issue is Black-White schism and the US Civil War.”
it’s along time that the subject has been deviated, C’est la Vie !
I am not waiting anymore from a further explanation on that subject from you… ou, alors, enlèves tes oeillères Mr Horse
June 22nd, 2008 at 11:45 am“Yep. The very same ‘intellectual elites” that are talking right
“Over time, this means Americans are ever less exposed to contrary views. In a book called “Hearing the Other Side”, Diana Mutz of the University of Pennsylvania crunched survey data from 12 countries and found that Americans were the least likely of all to talk about politics with those who disagreed with them”…
…”America, says Mr Bishop, is splitting into “balkanised communities whose inhabitants find other Americans to be culturally incomprehensible.” He has a point. Republicans who never meet Democrats tend to assume that Democrats believe more extreme things than they really do, and vice versa. This contributes to the nasty tone of many political campaigns.”
http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?source=hptextfeature&story_id=11581447
June 22nd, 2008 at 12:03 pm@Frenchie
Ah, poor chu chu. You just keep making my points for me. Even trying to pay you a compliment is a waste of time. Take your own blinkers off you pinhead.
June 22nd, 2008 at 12:11 pmpinhead.
dickhead 
June 22nd, 2008 at 12:14 pm““Yep. The very same ‘intellectual elites” that are talking right…”
Think of it this way.
June 22nd, 2008 at 12:34 pmI no longer have to drink a whole glass of bad milk to know whether it’s going to make me sick. If it smells bad, it is.
Saves on my own health care expenses. In this instance, my mental health.
“you think intellectual is analogous to smart.”
the problem with such an “intellectual” is that he also pretends to teach morals
http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/1172/pee2yq5.jpg
June 22nd, 2008 at 12:53 pm