The foolishness of Civil War reenactors

Discussion in 'The Furball Forum' started by Smashy, Jun 27, 2011.


  1. Agreed.

    First the Union said they were fighting to save the Union.

    After the number of dead and wounded Union soldiers started to reach unbearable numbers, into the hundreds of thousands...

    They then had come up with something more compelling to justify what they were really fighting for.

    So they changed it to fighting to free the slaves.
     

    Wanna kill these ads? We can help!
  2. This is simply not true. In 1860 New Jersey still had 18 slaves. But they changed the name of their slaves to "apprentices for life" to make everyone feel better.

    http://www.slavenorth.com/newjersey.htm
     

  3. Sam Spade

    Lifetime Member

    13,790
    85
    Fine, we'll use your numbers for discussion.

    Are you really going to sit there and claim that the entire state of NJ voted against the 13th because "They still had slaves and did not want to give them up"? Really? The need to hang onto 18 aging, irreplaceable slaves, sure to be dead in another 20 years, tops, was so important that the entire state voted to protect those few owners? The state of NJ was okay with banning the import of slaves in 1786, was okay with freeing those born to slave parents after 1810, but those 18 souls stopped Emancipation in its tracks because "They still had slaves and did not want to give them up?"

    This is a ridiculous claim and deserves to be ridiculed. Thinking back, it's the silliest claim you've ever made about slavery and the war, and that's saying something.
     
    #103 Sam Spade, Jul 3, 2011
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2011
  4. Dragoon44

    Dragoon44 Unfair Facist
    Lifetime Member

    18,316
    577
    And by the people, they meant the people as a whole, not one subdivision of them.

    The First 7 states to secede did so simply on the fact that Lincoln was elected president. They could claim no grievous injury or oppression at his hands since the seceded even before he even took office.

    President Buchanan addressed this very issue.

    “In order to justify a resort to revolutionary resistance, the Federal Government must be guilty of ‘a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise’ of powers not granted by the Constitution. The late Presidential election, however, has been held in strict conformity with its express provisions. How, then, can the result justify a revolution to destroy this very Constitution? Reason, justice, a regard for the Constitution, all require that we shall wait for some overt and dangerous act on the part of the President elect before resorting to such a remedy.” (Taken from Buchanan’s Fourth Annual Message to Congress, December, 1860.)

     
  5. Sam Spade

    Lifetime Member

    13,790
    85
    The means to alter our Perpetual Union were given: the amendment process. The means to abolish the Perpetual Union were also given: the Constitutional Convention. The South refused peaceful, legal means and appealed to force of arms. They made war on their nation, and that's the definition of treason.

    After the rebellion failed, the guys on the ground chose mercy as the more healing approach, but that decision wasn't unanimous. They got forgiveness, not vindication.
     
  6. Dragoon44

    Dragoon44 Unfair Facist
    Lifetime Member

    18,316
    577
    Neo confederates can't seem to get their stories straight. You claim that the "fight to end slavery" rallied the nation while Grey rider claims the emancipation proclamation caused riots in the North and had union states threatening to secede.

    :rofl::rofl:
     
  7. Dragoon44

    Dragoon44 Unfair Facist
    Lifetime Member

    18,316
    577
    And the loser chose to reinvent themselves and their cause, creating the Myth of the "lost cause" claiming they were fighting for freedom and liberty instead of fighting to deny freedom and liberty to millions of people born in the U.S.
     
  8. We can't get our stories straight? I claim the emancipation proclamation caused riots? You choose to ignore facts Dragoon.

    Read up on the 1863 draft riots. For four days, July 13th to July 16th New York riots destroyed millions of dollars of property and hundreds were killed by the rioters and federal troops, late of the battle of Gettysburg, who fired point blank on the rioters. It was only the largest anti government insurgency in United States history, and took a massive use of deadly force against Northern people to put down.


    "Dictator is what the Oppositon press and orators of all sizes are calling him...There is no telling how many editors and penmen have..assured him that this is a war for the Union only, and they never gave him any authority to to run it as an Abolition war....They never, never told him that he might set the negros free....that his venomous blow at the at the sacred liberty of white men to own black men is mere (empty threat) and a dead letter that will not work... the hosts of the Union will disband rather than be sacrificed upon the bloody altar of fanatical Abolitionsim."

    William O. Stoddard Secretary in charge of Lincoln's mail.

    Yes, the war was all about ending slavery. And this was from Northern newspapers and citizens. Lincoln had hundreds arrested and held w/o trial. Dozens of Northern news papers were denied the use of the mails or were destroyed by Federal troops because they spoke out about his rape of the Constutition and dictatorial misuse of power. Just more neo Confederate crap that we conjured up 150 years after the fact I suppose?



    Gray_Rider
    Deo Vindice!
     
    #108 Gray_Rider, Jul 3, 2011
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2011
  9. Maybe they knew they couldn't prove treason in a court of law as Jefferson Davis himself suggested? He wanted his chance in court to prove his case after the war. Maybe?


    Refused peacefull, legal means!!?? Lincoln refused every peace entreaty the Confederacy made and would not meet with them once! He then sent troops to reenforce Fort Sumter on the sly and called for 75,000 troops, threatening all out war if we didn't comply. We fired on the Fort to force its surrender, (after we offered them a chance to surrender) and we were invaded in early June in Western Virginia by Federal troops at the battle of Philippi.

    Study up on the rape of the Constutition by Lincoln and his minions. How he locked up the innocent w/o trial. Started a war w/o Congress' approval. He sent Union troops to the polling sites to to humble and frighten off Democrat voters. Carved a new state out of the property of Virginia against the Constitutition.


    We were the traitors?


    *Read the books I have suggested. I have yet to see the facts therein refuted by anyone here. If its all Neo Confederate crap, refute the facts these books point out.


    I'm still waiting.

    Gray_Rider
    Deo Vindice!
     
  10. Dragoon44

    Dragoon44 Unfair Facist
    Lifetime Member

    18,316
    577
    No I simply recognize that you and Natty are not on the same page. He claims turning the war into a war to free the salves united the North, you say it divided the North. You obviously cannot BOTH be right.

    No, the souths illegal secession by force of arms was the largest anti government insurrection in the history of the United States.


    Let me see if I understand you correctly, You are presenting the response of newspapers to the emancipation proclamation in 1863 as evidence that the war was about ending slavery though the war started in 1861 is that right?

    No one has claimed those things didn't happen, but I will point out they had absolutely NOTHING to do with why the south seceded or why the South started the war.

    And while we are at it we might mention that Jefferson Davis suspended Habeus Corpus as well. Guess that made him a dictator huh?

    And long before the War southern states were intercepting and destroying abolitionist material entering their states thru the mails.

    in 1836 the "slave power" which dominated the House of representatives due to the slavers "property being counted for purposes of state representation in the House of Representative passed the "gag Rule" which forbid any debate, or any resolutions, etc on slavery.

    John Adams fought against it as a violation of Constitutional rights.

    Virginia had a law on the books that made it a criminal offense to say that a slave owner did not have a property right in his slaves.
     
  11. Dragoon44

    Dragoon44 Unfair Facist
    Lifetime Member

    18,316
    577
    you keep regurgitating this BS post the "Facts" you claim have not been refuted and I am sure Sam or I will be happy to discuss them. I for one am not going to by a book by a Neo Confederate just to read it and critique it.
     
  12. Sam Spade

    Lifetime Member

    13,790
    85
    Grey, you think DiLorenzo is a credible source. That alone disinclines me from following any of your other bunny trails. Sorry, he's the Radley Balko of Civil War writing.
     
  13. Slavery still worked when nothing else did in 1700's America, and we are STILL kissing the rumps and licking the sandals of the greatest slave dealers-buyers-makers in the last 1500 years. You hate slave holders dead and gone that lost their slaves forever 150 years ago but the most powerfull nation on earth licks the boots of modern day slavers and murderers while our government forces us to sit on billions of barrels of our own oil.

    All I see here is white guilt and selective indignation. This wouldn't be happening today in the South (and probably the North) had we won. And. I think you know it. Funny how slavery ended everywhere else, but would have continued in the South. I don't see you condeming the North Koreans or Chinas use of REAL SLAVERY either come to think of it.

    If the South "lost" and the slaves "freed" whats all the fuss over her flag about? Who should care where it flies or why if the Confederacy is a moot point and a 'defeated nation'? I think the truth about the war is gaining a foothold and you know it. If not what are you Confederate haters afraid of? Limited government? Lower taxes? Thats also what we fought for....and what your victory cost this nation, and ours.

    Gray_Rider
    Deo Vindice!
     
  14. Others are not so closed minded. And I think Mr. D has a lot of the Lincoln cult quaking in their boots. The other books? One, "War for What?" was written decades before the others I have mentioned. The book "War crimes against Southern Civilians" is largely a compliation of eyewitness accounts of the victims and offical records of the pillagers and war criminals. I'm sure thats all neo Confederate pap too? How the Southern dead were disenterned and robbed of their jewelry? Black slaves and white housewives raped into insanity? Old, sick, children, infants, and infirm turned out into the winter while their homes burned behind them? What are you afraid of? Truth? Others are, shall we say, more curious?

    Gray_Rider
    Deo Vindice!
     
  15. dherloc

    dherloc X-Nuc

    1,258
    0
    Grey,

    Pretty sure what you are describing is total war. Happens in every war that has happend throughout history.

    Don't get involved in a war and it doesn't happen. Or win it...thats an option too.
     
  16. We asked to be left in peace. To go in peace. Read the books. What are you afraid of? The truth? Of course you won't follow up. I never expect you to. Easier that way.

    But many, many others will. Tens of thousands already have. And thats my point of the many posts. And thats what you and the others are afraid of. People reading the facts and making up their own mind. Thats all I asked of you and or any others. Quite the crime isn't it? I still see only white guilt and selective indignation.

    I ask again? What are you afraid of?

    Gray_Rider


    "I have heard. You are the gray rider. You would not make peace with the bluecoats. You may go in peace."

    "We hoist on high the Bonny Blue flag..."

    "We could have pursued no other course without dishonor. And sad as the results have been, if it had to be done again, we should be compelled to act in precisely the same manner"

    General Robert E. Lee
     
  17. Governor Stockdale....Those people choose, for whatever reason I know not, to hold me as a representve Southerner; hence, I know they watch my words and...what I say would be caught up by their speakers and newspapers, and magnified into a pretext to adding to the load of oppression they have placed on our poor people; and God knows, that load is heavy enough now...Governor; if I had forseen the the use those people designed to make of their victory there would have been no surrender at Appomattox Courthouse; no, sir, not by me. Had I forseen the results of subjugation, I would have preferred to die at Appomattox with my brave men, my sword in this right hand."

    General Robert E. Lee to then Governor Stockdale of Texas, 1870

    "I am with the South in life or in death, in victory or in defeat....I believe the North is about to wage a brutal and unholy war on a people who have done them no wrong, in violation of the Constitution and the fundamental principles of government."

    General Patrick Cleburne CSA

    Gray_Rider
    Deo Vindice!
     
  18. RWBlue

    RWBlue Mr. CISSP, CISA
    CLM

    22,574
    177
    Hmm, It is kind of like NAZI Flags flying in Germany. A reminder of a nation that stood for something that others stood to put down because it was wrong.

    And even if it wasn't for what happened in the war, how it was used after the war (Klan) ....
     
  19. Dragoon44

    Dragoon44 Unfair Facist
    Lifetime Member

    18,316
    577
    More of your red herrings, when you can't answer or refute you start whining about slavery elsewhere. But this thread is not about slavery in General it is about the AMERICAN civil war, and what brought it about.

    The dispute is over what the confederate flag actually stands for, to some that have swallowed the neo confederate kool aid it stands for "states rights" and "freedom and liberty". To those that have not swallowed the "lost cause myth" it stands for treason and insurrection, and a society that believed it had the right to own other human beings denying them the "Liberty and freedom" that they afterwards claimed they were fighting for. And that they started the war not only to preserve slavery in their own states but to expand it.

    I challenge you to provide your evidence that the confederacy fought for limited Govt. and lower taxes. In ANY statement by Southern leaders concerning their secession BEFORE the war. Their leaders statements, articles of secession and the speeches of the secession commissioner's speak loud and clear as to why the south seceded. And in them there is not ONE WORD about lower taxes or more limited Govt.

    THe South was not the least bit interested in Limited Govt. When they controlled the Govt. they were the best friend of centralized federal power.

    In the revision of the "fugitive slave act" of 1850 they demanded and got the greatest expansion of Federal power in the History of the union that was unmatched until Roosevelt's "New deal". they demanded and got the Federal police power to be employed nationwide to protect their "property rights in slaves.

    IN the Confederate constitution they denied member states to decide the issue of slavery for themselves, they also denied states the right of trading between themselves without the central govts. approval.

    When in the union they declared the central govt had no right to interfere in the issue of slavery within the states. When they formed the confederacy they declared no state had the right to interfere with the central govts protection of slavery.
     
  20. Sam Spade

    Lifetime Member

    13,790
    85
    You keep saying that. Anyone thinking critically has to ask, "Worked at what, exactly?"

    Slavery "worked" to concentrate wealth among a new American aristocracy. It "worked" to tie future hopes to the land, turning away from modernization and industy. In order for it to "work" it had to provide disproportionate political power to those landed few, shutting down proper representation for the people in the nation as a whole. So yeah, if you aspire to the gentry caste, I can see it "working" and can see why you'd advocate for it. Except....

    Except that those things weren't the purpose of our nation's founding. The nation was founded to secure our rights, using just power granted by the governed. "Our rights" mean the rights of all men, not merely the new aristocrats nor even all white men. Those were the rights granted us by our Creator, and the field n****r did not stem from a different God, and was not out there with the mark of Ham.

    So, no sir. Slavery did not "work", not when you measure it against what this country was intended for.
     

Loading...
Similar Threads Forum Date
The foolishness of Civil War reenactors The Okie Corral Jun 27, 2011
Register civilian guns to shoot on post Gun-Control Issues Sunday at 12:45 AM
civil unrest Survival/Preparedness Forum Jul 8, 2015
Religous freedom as a civil servant Religious Issues Jul 6, 2015
Civilian LE fail Cop Talk Jul 4, 2015

Share This Page

Duty Gear at CopsPlus