Confederacy & Civil War

[R.M. Schultz]

You know — all of these crypto Hitler fans sound more and more to me like the Southern crypto racists that we have here in the U.S. of A.! For all of you Europeans who have never run into one of these unregenerate Confederates, these are the sort of lies they try to pass off:

— That the "Yankees" started the "War Between the States" and invaded the South. (That it was not a matter of suppressing a slave-holder's insurrection, but an act of "Yankee aggression.")

— That the war was about "States Rights" and not about slavery. (Try pointing out that the right those states wanted was the right to hold slaves and they will answer that slavery was still somehow irrelevant …)

— That the South's "Peculiar Institution" (i.e. slavery) was somehow humane / beneficial to the Negro / something other than a morally repugnant racist institution.

— That slavery was "dying anyway," as if men would fight and die for an institution they did not wish to save.

— That the Confederate Battle Flag is not the flag of slavery / racism / segregation but is somehow an emblem of "Southern heritage."

These Southern apologists also idealise their rather second-rate military leaders, but at least these Confederate partisans don't speak of international conspiracies of Negroes that control banking, the press, and are holding Marcus hostage and forcing him to ban all true Southern Patriots from the Third Reich Forum!

[JohnRayTaylor]

R.M. Schultz you are right about most of them but not all.Some are just to hardheaded to realize they lost.
JohnRayTaylor stuck in tennessee

[Scott Smith]

You know — all of these crypto Hitler fans sound more and more to me like the Southern crypto racists that we have here in the U.S. of A.! For all of you Europeans who have never run into one of these unregenerate Confederates, these are the sort of lies they try to pass off:

— That the "Yankees" started the "War Between the States" and invaded the South. (That it was not a matter of suppressing a slave-holder's insurrection, but an act of "Yankee aggression.")

There was no insurrection before the election of Lincoln and the victory of the increasingly-Radical Republicans--and Lincoln had no plans to outlaw slavery. He did, however, choose to strengthen (centralize) the union though the use of force, which led to an insurrection. The states had every right to secede from the union they had voluntarily entered as a free people.

— That the war was about "States Rights" and not about slavery. (Try pointing out that the right those states wanted was the right to hold slaves and they will answer that slavery was still somehow irrelevant …)

The war had little to do with slavery except that plantation slavery was less viable than northern industrialization fueled by the exploitation of expendable immigrants at less than slave wages. Slaves had to be cared for as they were expensive commodities. Free-laborers were not and they had to compete with the cheap labor of slaves in the South and immigrants like the famine-Irish in the North. The root of the problem was the tariff, which a nascent manufacturing North wanted but an exporting agricultural South in decline didn't.

— That the South's "Peculiar Institution" (i.e. slavery) was somehow humane / beneficial to the Negro / something other than a morally repugnant racist institution.

By comparison to what? Slavery as practiced by the British and the French perhaps? This was to work them to death in the sugar cane fields because you could always import more from Dutch shippers, who could always buy more from the Arabs (Islam permits the enslavement of Infidels), who could always buy them from other victorious African tribes for some beads and trinkets. Few of the Founding Fathers supported slavery but they would be appalled at going to war to stop it, and indeed this is not why Lincoln went to war. I never said that slavery was a benevolent institution. At least the wage-slave (worked until he could work no more and then tossed into the garbage can without a job) had the chance, whatever that was, of overcoming his condition. The chattel-slave rarely could.

— That slavery was "dying anyway," as if men would fight and die for an institution they did not wish to save.

Few Confederates owned slaves and I have a letter from my great-grandfather who died in a Union POW camp disgusted by slavery and the provincialism of Southern politics. However, he fought the invaders as any good man would.

— That the Confederate Battle Flag is not the flag of slavery / racism / segregation but is somehow an emblem of "Southern heritage."

Of course it is the symbol of Southern heritage, you stupid twit. It did not become a symbol of racism until the Civil Rights era of the 1960s. (And if anybody doesn't like it they can kiss off.)

These Southern apologists also idealise their rather second-rate military leaders,

The Southern sharpshooter inflicted far more casualties upon a far larger, better armed and equipped Northern army. Mostly the Yankee generals were poor except for Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan, believers in scorched-earth and Total War. Grant is easily a war-criminal for ending POW exchanges, which condemned thousands to die of starvation and disease in Southern and Northern POW camps. U.S. Grant was the first to dabble with the vice of Unconditional Surrender, thus making peace predicated upon annihilation rather than diplomacy, and a preface for uglier things to come. Lincoln also suspended habeas corpus and locked away political prisoners, those critical of his Administration and the war. Sheridan was another believer in political/demographic-war, and is attributed the famous slogan: "The only good Indian is a dead Indian."

but at least these Confederate partisans don't speak of international conspiracies of Negroes that control banking, the press, and are holding Marcus hostage and forcing him to ban all true Southern Patriots from the Third Reich Forum!

Well, I wouldn't put it like that but the TR forum, as great as it is and as accepting of divergent views, must still follow Swedish law and prevent Holocaust Denial or it would be shut down. There are certain political realities that must be followed. Marcus gets death threats as it is because people think he is a Nazi. It is amazing that he allows as much as he does because of the potential for flame-wars. So that is just the way it is. No conspiracy-theory needed.

[R.M. Schultz]

These Southern apologists also idealise their rather second-rate military leaders,

The Southern sharpshooter inflicted far more casualties upon a far larger, better armed and equipped Northern army. Mostly the Yankee generals were poor except for Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan, believers in scorched-earth and Total War. Grant is easily a war-criminal for ending POW exchanges, which condemned thousands to die of starvation and disease in Southern and Northern POW camps. U.S. Grant was the first to dabble with the vice of Unconditional Surrender, thus making peace predicated upon annihilation rather than diplomacy, and a preface for uglier things to come. Lincoln also suspended habeas corpus and locked away political prisoners, those critical of his Administration and the war.

At the time of the Slaveholder's Rebellion the tactical advantage was with the defence (as it would be even more in the Great War). All the South had to do was to prevent the North from invading and subjugating the whole of the Southland, yet they persistently launched ill-conceived invasions of Kentucky, Maryland, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania. Before the South squandered it's resources they could muster about 2/3 of Union manpower and this should have proved sufficient given the tremendous advantage that the tactical defence enjoyed at the time. Of all Southern generals only Longstreet had the strategic vision to see and understand this.

Northern generals poor? Compared to such mutton-heads as Bragg, Hood, or Jeff Davis himself? Southern leadership stagnated during the war while Northern leadership grew and progressed. Grant never made the same mistakes he made at Shilo again, yet Lee made the same mistakes at Cheat Mountain, Antetam, and Gettysburg. In a time of overwhelming tactical advantage to the defence, Union leadership learned how to undertake strategic offensives and win the war while Southern leadership could not even bring to bear the natural advantage of the defence.

Scorched earth — yes! Wars are fought until combatants are incapable of continuing. Truces, armistices, half-measures only delay resolution of the issues. Total war is shortest war.

Of course Grant ended POW exchanges because they only served to offset the Union advantage in manpower. Blaming Grant for conditions in Southern POW camps is like blaming Roosevelt for Dachau.

Unconditional Surrender is a radical measure and I am for it. Do you think Germany would have surrendered unconditionally in 1918? Absolutely not! It was only the empty promises of the 14 Points that tricked her into an armistice and made future war all but inevitable.

Of course Lincoln suspended habeas corpus; THERE WAS AN INSURRECTION GOING ON!

And by the way, Grant was from Illinios, Sherman from Ohio, and Sheridan from New York. None of them are "Yankees!" Yankees are from New England!

[Scott Smith]

These Southern apologists also idealise their rather second-rate military leaders,

The Southern sharpshooter inflicted far more casualties upon a far larger, better armed and equipped Northern army. Mostly the Yankee generals were poor except for Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan, believers in scorched-earth and Total War. Grant is easily a war-criminal for ending POW exchanges, which condemned thousands to die of starvation and disease in Southern and Northern POW camps. U.S. Grant was the first to dabble with the vice of Unconditional Surrender, thus making peace predicated upon annihilation rather than diplomacy, and a preface for uglier things to come. Lincoln also suspended habeas corpus and locked away political prisoners, those critical of his Administration and the war.

At the time of the Slaveholder's Rebellion the tactical advantage was with the defence (as it would be even more in the Great War).

There is a nominal advantage with a prepared defense but statistical studies such as the models from Trevor Dupuy show that the German and Confederate forces were consistently better at the unit level.

All the South had to do was to prevent the North from invading and subjugating the whole of the Southland, yet they persistently launched ill-conceived invasions of Kentucky, Maryland, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania. Before the South squandered it's resources they could muster about 2/3 of Union manpower and this should have proved sufficient given the tremendous advantage that the tactical defence enjoyed at the time. Of all Southern generals only Longstreet had the strategic vision to see and understand this.

Yes, but time was the enemy and defensive wars are lost on attrition if yours is the weaker side. The failure to win a panacea victory like Gettysburg or something similar cost them British recognition which they needed to break the Union strategic blockade.

Northern generals poor? Compared to such mutton-heads as Bragg, Hood, or Jeff Davis himself? Southern leadership stagnated during the war while Northern leadership grew and progressed. Grant never made the same mistakes he made at Shilo again, yet Lee made the same mistakes at Cheat Mountain, Antetam, and Gettysburg. In a time of overwhelming tactical advantage to the defence, Union leadership learned how to undertake strategic offensives and win the war while Southern leadership could not even bring to bear the natural advantage of the defence.

Lee was a military engineer who was brilliant on defense, but commanders were trained in Napoleonic concepts of maneuver and operational art, which Lee was also reasonably good at. Only behemoths like the United States can win wars on logistics alone (and tactical ineptitude).

Scorched earth — yes! Wars are fought until combatants are incapable of continuing. Truces, armistices, half-measures only delay resolution of the issues. Total war is shortest war.

Total War means war against the population, because noncombatants are the economic sinews of the war, and yet you decry "Genocide."

Of course Grant ended POW exchanges because they only served to offset the Union advantage in manpower. Blaming Grant for conditions in Southern POW camps is like blaming Roosevelt for Dachau.

The Northern POW camps were not any better and had similar death rates. The Union was in the driver's seat as it was economically stronger so it placed this pressure on the South and to hell with prisoners and noncombatants.

Unconditional Surrender is a radical measure and I am for it. Do you think Germany would have surrendered unconditionally in 1918? Absolutely not! It was only the empty promises of the 14 Points that tricked her into an armistice and made future war all but inevitable.

Germany did surrender unconditionally in 1918; it just wasn't called that. Wilson demanded regime-change and complete demobilization for an Armistice. And the new-regime was not invited to the peace talks and signed an Unconditional Surrender. Because the peace Dictate also carried unilateral war-guilt the Republican regime discredited itself from the start with the people.

Of course Lincoln suspended habeas corpus; THERE WAS AN INSURRECTION GOING ON!

Yes, but not among U.S. Citizens. Of course it was a convenient way for the regime to silence its critics. But then again, FDR interned Japanese-American citizens on account of the race--because there was a war on. And Hitler interned and killed Jews because there was a war on.

And by the way, Grant was from Illinios, Sherman from Ohio, and Sheridan from New York. None of them are "Yankees!" Yankees are from New England!

A matter of semantics. Southerners were not Rebels either; they were defending their own country. My great-grandfather was from Illinois and bought land with his two brothers in Arkansas in the 1840s. His parents were Copperheads from a suburb of Alton, Illinois where he died on Smallpox Island Union death-camp on February 8, 1865.

Btw, I don't know anybody who flies a Confederate flag, but if it pisses people off then it must be flown, otherwise Southern heritage is flushed down the Memory Hole just like brainwashed Germans who are forbidden to fly their real flag. Only the lunatic fringe can get away with it because the Bundestablishment cannot lock them all away.

If the Left were smart they would join their nominal enemies of the Rechtsextreme and fight the Thoughtcrimes laws, because they are the traditional targets of reactionary governments. And this would be the wages of being true to their own liberal principles.

[Germanica]

This thread has changed topics far too many times to keep a consistent track, but I will attempt to make light of the current argument in progress.
As far as I see it, you cannot hold every German citizen to ransom over the actions of certain members of their political and military establishments of 1939-45...just like I strongly disagree with the tarring of career soldiers with the "murderer" brush. A method such as this is simply impractical to one studying military history and attempting to reach sound conclusions. Simply because if you tar the whole area, then you won't!

Btw, I don't know anybody who flies a Confederate flag, but if it pisses people off then it must be flown, otherwise Southern heritage is flushed down the Memory Hole just like brainwashed Germans who are forbidden to fly their real flag.

As far as I know the Confederate Flag is flown to exert a feeling of pride in one's Southern heritage, and the only one's who'll see wrong in that are the anti-patriotic, politically correct liberal-left...so yes, I agree with you Scott.
As far as Germany goes, both the NPD (Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands) and the DVU (Deutsche Volksunion) fly the old Imperial German War Ensign on parades and rallies, but no ensign from the Third Reich Era. If the Bundestag has a problem with this, then that's just pitiful...

The Soviets killed numbers of people who could not become integrated into Stalinist Communism and this too is morally unacceptable. But, unlike the Jews who could never become Gentiles, the Kulaks and bourgeois elements could have chosen to become part of the Soviet system

Stalin would never have accepted the Kulaks as part of the Soviet system. In warped, dillusional little mind, self-sufficiency and initiative meant that you suddenly became an "enemy of the people".
Also, what about the military purges of the 1930s? The military leaders had done nothing to agitate the Communist ideal, and yet Stalin set out on a systematic drive to murder every last one of his competant officers - 90% of the Soviet Officer Corps in all.

[R.M. Schultz]

As far as I know the Confederate Flag is flown to exert a feeling of pride in one's Southern heritage, and the only one's who'll see wrong in that are the anti-patriotic, politically correct liberal-left...so yes, I agree with you Scott.

If the Stars and Bars are just an emblem of Southern heritage, and not the banner of racism, then why don't any Negroes fly it?

Not any?

Not ever?

[R.M. Schultz]

How about this: America was indeed unilaterally guilty of slavery!

Yes, absolutely! And it makes me sick that there are still racists in America who will defend the Confederacy!

[John W]

How about this: America was indeed unilaterally guilty of slavery!

Yes, absolutely! And it makes me sick that there are still racists in America who will defend the Confederacy!

You know what you just did? You equated Abe Lincoln et al with the likes of those who own/support slavery.

Mr. Medland: You criminal swine! You even married into a family of murderers! Wait till I get my hands on you! You tell 'em Sir. you tell 'em.

Regards,
John

[R.M. Schultz]

How about this: America was indeed unilaterally guilty of slavery!

Yes, absolutely! And it makes me sick that there are still racists in America who will defend the Confederacy!

You know what you just did? You equated Abe Lincoln et al with the likes of those who own/support slavery.

Lincoln did not defend the Confederacy, he fought against it! (You can look it up!)

And that is what moral men do! They identify evil and do their utmost to resist it! They do not "go along with the program," make excuses, deny the existence of evil, they confront it and resist it to the face!

[R.M. Schultz]

That the Confederate Battle Flag is not the flag of slavery / racism / segregation but is somehow an emblem of "Southern heritage."

Of course it is the symbol of Southern heritage, you stupid twit. It did not become a symbol of racism until the Civil Rights era of the 1960s. (And if anybody doesn't like it they can kiss off.)

All of this talk of Southern Heritage and the sacred Battle Flag has got me to thinking: Just what is Southern Heritage?

It is not the Revolution, the Bill of Rights, Patrick Henry, or even slavery itself, for this heritage belongs to all of us as Americans.

I suppose it would be John Calhoun who pushed for secession. It would be Moon Pies and Crispy Creme doughnuts, Jim Crow and Lynch Law, riots at Ole' Miss' when a black man tried to enrol, moon-shine and stock car races, "Niggers who know their place," slave dealers like Nathan Bedford Forrest who are held up as heroes, little girls blown up in Church bombings, literacy tests and poll taxes, a whole body of racist distortions like "Gone With The Wind" and "Birth Of A Nation," and poor whites who are kept so busy "keeping the nigra in his place" that they can never see their own exploitation at the hands of a degenerate oligarchy.

Yes — go and fly your flag of Southern heritage!

[CHRISCHA]

How about this: America was indeed unilaterally guilty of slavery!

Yes, absolutely! And it makes me sick that there are still racists in America who will defend the Confederacy!

You know what you just did? You equated Abe Lincoln et al with the likes of those who own/support slavery.

Lincoln did not defend the Confederacy, he fought against it! (You can look it up!)

And that is what moral men do! They identify evil and do their utmost to resist it! They do not "go along with the program," make excuses, deny the existence of evil, they confront it and resist it to the face!

Although I agree with you, isn't this the problem? What one man believes to be evil, another may see it as the right, moral thing to do.

Unfortunately different views on a subject (or indeed religion, race, etc.) can lead to bloodshed.

[Caldric]

You guys are getting Slavery and Civil War mixed up as though North and South went to war over Slavery. That my friend is the biggest myth of the 19th Century... Sorry.

[Lord Gort]

Secession wasnt it?

[R.M. Schultz]

You guys are getting Slavery and Civil War mixed up as though North and South went to war over Slavery. That my friend is the biggest myth of the 19th Century... Sorry.

The facts of the matter are clear. The tremendous rise in sectional tensions before the war were over the issue of whether slavery would be allowed to spread. The Mexican War, Bleeding Kansas, Dread Scott, the Fugitive Slave Law, the beating of a Senator in the senate chamber itself, all of this shows that slavery represented an "Irrepressible Conflict." It is plain that, just as the war began when a president pledged against the expansion of slavery was elected, so too did slavery end with the war. It is a pious fraud, used to sanitised the Southern record, that the underlaying cause of sectional conflict wasn't the South's "Peculiar Institution."