See other Editorial Articles
Title: The Fall of the South: A Sesquicentennial Wake By Bill Buppert
Source:
ZeroGov
URL Source: http://zerogov.com/?p=3964
Published: Apr 10, 2015
Author: Bill Buppert
Post Date: 2015-04-10 12:45:59 by X-15
Keywords: None
Views: 4137
Comments: 204
“So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interests of the South. So fully am I satisfied of this, as regards Virginia especially, that I would cheerfully have lost all I have lost by the war, and have suffered all I have suffered, to have this object attained.” -Statement to John Leyburn (1 May 1870), as quoted in R. E. Lee: A Biography (1934) by Douglas Southall Freeman. On this day, 9 April in 1865, the Lincolnian project to enslave the entire nation under the yoke of Union supremacy, central planning and a country administered by national political fiat and the naked fist of government aggression prevailed. The South and the Confederacy for all it flaws died at Appomattox. Lee is often erroneously quoted as saying the following: “Governor, if I had foreseen 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 foreseen these results of subjugation, I would have preferred to die at Appomattox with my brave men, my sword in my right hand. Supposed made to Governor Fletcher S. Stockdale (September 1870), as quoted in The Life and Letters of Robert Lewis Dabney, pp. 497-500.” No lesser literary luminaries and historians have said this is false than Douglas Southall Freeman, Shelby Dade Foote, Jr. and Bruce Catton. This appears to be historical myth-making by Mr. Dabney. My casual research and interest in Lee find this simply does not fit in his character; now there were certainly Confederate worthies who professed such sympathies. Lee is certainly one of the greatest captains of arms in the history of the West. A far more competent and talented warrior than the base incompetency and abject martial malpractice of George Washington; he joins the ranks of Douglas Haig (WWI) and Pompey (Rome) for an exaggerated sense of warrior skills untethered to reality. Lee was at the forefront of a Confederate high tide that was destroyed by the Gettysburg debacle and worsening political travails in the South as Davis tried to emulate the Sovietized system of the Union to salvage a victory. At least the South fought to fight a just war in defending their own soil from invasion. I am amused at Union apologists who claim that the South fired the first shot at Fort Sumter. Let me employ a tortured analogy; you buy a house and the owners refuse to vacate and bring friends with guns to ensure you can’t possession of your rightful property. Such was the case in Sumter where the Fort commanded the entry and exit to richest transportation hub in the south employing constant threats against the indigenous community it sat in the middle of. The War Between the States was a Second American Revolution, the last gasp of trying to unshackle the nation from the Constitutional straitjacket that extinguished liberty at every turn. Alexander Stephens, the Vice president of the Confederacy had other ideas. He is no hero of abolition nor a moral man in regards the disposition of humans in chains: “Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.” Lincoln claimed this was his only disagreement with Stephens but the curious ability of Lincoln to free all slaves outside his legal jurisdiction and maintain it within his control regime. Historian Clarence Carson has astutely commented: “It should be noted, however, that as of the moment it was issued and to the best of Lincoln’s knowledge, the proclamation did not free a single slave. It did not free a slave in Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, West Virginia, nor in any state or portions of a state within the Confederacy occupied by Union troops…In short, Lincoln freed only those slaves over which he had no control. No doubt that was by design.” As Al Benson Jr. notes: “What it amounted to was, that, as an effective propaganda tool, the proclamation freed only those slaves that the North had no jurisdiction over and it didn’t free any slaves over which the North had some jurisdiction.” Author Webb Garrison, a former dean of Emory University noted that: “…the Emancipation Proclamation was a war measure – not an edict issued in a dramatic move to better the lives of blacks. No one knew this better than the author of the proclamation. Nine months after it was issued, he told Salmon P. Chase ‘The original proclamation has no constitutional or legal justification except as a military measure’.” There was no major politician except Charles Sumner on either side interested in the least in emancipation much less abolition of black chattel slavery. Sumner would famously ask Lincoln: “Do you know who is at this moment the largest slaveholder in the United States?” Sumner informed Lincoln that he was the largest slaveholder because the President “holds all the slaves of the District of Columbia.” This ended on paper in 1862. This war was about slavery but not in the commonly held beliefs that permeate the nonsense about the conflict in the government school systems. This war was about the Union grasp at codifying a new kind of slavery just as awful as chattel or indentured servitude. The object was to chain tax cattle to a regime that could rob them at will and ultimately using every power at its disposal to drain a person’s resources and at worst cage and murder them when it saw fit. The essential result of the horrific conflict was to out everyone on the plantation under any Constitutionally protected” territory or state. Go guerrilla indeed, what would the future have wrought? Poster Comment: "The birth of Empire. Not a damned living soul has lived under the Constitution as it was intended in 1787-1791 – or at least as it was said to be intended."
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 110.
#5. To: X-15 (#0)
The essential result of the horrific conflict was to out everyone on the plantation under any Constitutionally protected” territory or state. The above is about all I can agree with. The author doesn't like Lee's "No, Sir, not by me" quote -- why? Even if it's true about Lee and Gettysburg, he appears to buy the notion that slavery was this huge evil deal. "The disposition of humans in chains" -- please. The point is that the entire war was the embodiment of yankee arrogance and hypocrisy and totally unnecessary. It itself is a stain much bigger and blacker on our history than slavery will ever be -- and it's really a blotch on the New England states and the covert Jew from hell they elected in 1860 and '64. Nota bene, I value a good Northerner as much as anybody and treasure the many of them who have supported the modern Southern rights movement. But they're not yankees, they're present and former Northerners -- major difference. Many of them, however, have had to work to shake off the diversity dementia most people are born with beyond Dixie's borders. The Yankee Problem in America http://archive.lewrockwell.com/wilson/wilson12.html
I got into a typical war-like debate with war on this very topic not long ago here. It was of course laden with the typical reading comprehension issues and challenges in logic that war seems to be perpetually faced with. Debating with him is like watching a dog chase its tail in circles but never catching it. Lincoln worship in this country is akin to Churchill worship in England. Both men were personally responsible for doing tremendous damage to the moral basis of their very nations, in one case terminally for an empire, in the other the forerunner of the nation that we've become and on the cusp of the destruction of a similar empire.
Lincoln worship in this country is akin to Churchill worship in England. Both men were personally responsible for doing tremendous damage to the moral basis of their very nations, in one case terminally for an empire, in the other the forerunner of the nation that we've become and on the cusp of the destruction of a similar empire. Very astute. I'd say there's no point even dialoguing with war anymore -- in some thread I asked him doggedly whether it's true he's an Obongo-loving "progressive" who was banned from here once, and he doggedly didn't say one word in response -- so even if he should do so henceforth, he's already admitted it in my book. EVERYBODY LISTEN TO YOUR FRIEND NN -- don't waste any more time debating war! What do you say we just stonewall the gliberals who come around here? Churchill worship.... anybody looked at Imprimis lately? It seems to be one big fossilized Churchill and Reagan worship cult. ewwww, GROSS! BTW, I have to agree with Cynicom's and X-15's answers to you here. "Why not firebomb Berlin, Hanover, Frankfurt, Stuttgart, etc. too then?" The Jew world order makes sense sometimes but not others. Could be the world was so shocked by Dresden they didn't want to repeat it. Remember, Nagasaki and Hiroshima happened to have unusually large Christian presence for Japan.
Don't forget about the first person of their unholy trinity: Abraham Lincoln. For several years, 4 of every 5 editions were dedicated at least in part to exalting that mass murderer. Then a couple of years ago they switched over to Reagan/Churchill idolatry, and I thought that perhaps their formerly incessant philosiminianism was only a case of temporary monkey love. But the latest issue (March 2015) disabused me of that foolish notion, and it appears that they were only recoiling a little that they might strike the better. Lincoln is again the Supreme One, from whose mouth and pen flow rivers of wisdom and righteousness. The ape and/or his memorial are mentioned 16 times. And in the spirit of trinitarian propriety, Churchill and Reagan also garner a couple of mentions each. Oh, and the statue of liberty -- "the greatest light since the Star of Bethlehem." Have a five gallon emetic bucket handy when you read it, especially the last two sentences: ".. the moral regeneration of America that (Frank) Capra had hoped to bring about will require more than a Capra. It will require a Lincoln."
Whew, Strait, that's the limit!!! You've trumped them all in exposing perfervid Lincolnolatry! I see it here -- thanks https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/frank-capras-america-and-ours/ I was overwhelmed by Mr. Smith Goes to Washington seeing it as a teenager and wrote the director. Would be afraid to look at it now. He was both extremely right about the American ideal and drastically wrong about amerikan reality even then. Uggghhhh...... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_We_Fight Well! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Capra#Political_beliefs Every man has his price, huh.... I see Mr. Smith was released 10/17/39, ironically enough a few weeks after America declared its WW2 neutrality and a few days before the "First meeting of the U.S. Advisory Committee on Uranium under Lyman James Briggs, authorized by President Roosevelt to oversee neutron experiments, a precursor of the Manhattan Project." Yes I'll readily opine we never should have messed with nukes. Never! Just another way we've led the world into more instead of less misery and death. OK, somebody, hit me with your best shot. Fire away.
But, without nukes "we" might not have been able to win WWJew for the communists! The US was almost out of conventional bombs near the end of the war; that's why "we" could drop only about 14 billion tons of them on Dresden. What are you, some kind of anti-semite, or something? Note: I use "we" in quotation marks not for emphasis, but to indicate that I do not consider the armed forces of the US government to be mine.
Are you being sarcastic? ;-) Amen brothah! 'I use "we" in quotation marks not for emphasis, but to indicate that I do not consider the armed forces of the US government to be mine' -- I am so sick of seeing patriots use quotation marks for emphasis I could spit. (Old bumper sticker: Walk with "Jesus" and you'll never walk alone, arrrggh.) "Support our troops in Operation XYZ".... I enjoy telling jingoists that they're not mine or even amerika's. We used to say they were really the UN's, I guess now they're just Bibi Satanyahu's.
I'm right there with you, brother. Just as you now cringe at what you wrote to Frank Capra in another life long ago, I now regret how -- about 10 years ago -- I answered the jewspaper editor who asked me, "Do you support our troops?" I said, "Yes, when they are deployed in the defense of the United States in accordance with the U.S. Constitution... blah, blah, blah." If interviewed today, I would simply answer, "I don't have any troops."
They're all mine and every Constitutionalist's of our Republic. I've said many times, "All troops home now!" but those messages might have been intercepted by foreign system(s) agents.
Consequences?
Consequences? They'll get many mailed thank you notes for their service from our foreign friends? Or maybe not if we don't have any.
Tell us what will be the real consequences you perceive, good or bad.
Firstly, they could help the States as Military advisors and instructors for their Militias. Ask the Governors if they'd like some help patrolling our borders. The rest of the Western world might ask NATO and UN Forces to act on their behalf, if needed. Ukrainians might decide to get along better with their Russian neighbors (which they were a part of anyway until the Bolshevik Commies traded away its territories to our WWI foes for international recognition of their government-overthrow). Israel might try more to get along better with its neighbors too. Trade would likely improve. Americans who don't think of our country as our Military's also (except as a home base from which to deploy abroad) might have some attitude adjustment issues but I'm not really seeing any downsides about our troops coming home. How about you? Parentheses #1 edit + next to last sentence.
I see no mention of geo/political changes within the world we would be withdrawing from. No mention of a world power vacuum. Should we assume there would be none?
I see no mention of geo/political changes withing the world we would be withdrawing from. No mention of a world power vacuum. Should we assume there would be none? Don't you think NATO and UN Forces would be enough geo/political vacuum managers? I do. It's not like we wouldn't still be a superpower. You're a Korean War Vet. We're still over there but South Koreans are well able to defend themselves against North Korea -- from China, Japan and/or Russia probably not but I don't think we actually have to be there to advise those nations (or whichever) that it would be an unwise move on their part to try and invade, do we?
In the recorded history of man, there has never been peace in this world. Newtons third law of action and reaction comes to mind. We play nice, the rest of the world will play nice? That has never happened, will never happen, as long as there are evil men in this world. I lived thru the depression and the isolationist era that accompanied it. No one was for war, stay home mind our own business, we will all live happily ever after. Little did we know, we were wrong, others in the world were plotting and planning to destroy us. At that time the oceans were our main line of defense, that no longer exists. We barely escaped wide destruction in WWIII, we will not escape in the next one.
Don't you think NATO and UN Forces would be enough geo/political vacuum managers? I do. In the recorded history of man, there has never been peace in this world. Newtons third law of action and reaction comes to mind. We play nice, the rest of the world will play nice? That has never happened, will never happen, as long as there are evil men in this world. I lived thru the depression and the isolationist era that accompanied it. No one was for war, stay home mind our own business, we will all live happily ever after. Little did we know, we were wrong, others in the world were plotting and planning to destroy us. At that time the oceans were our main line of defense, that no longer exists. We barely escaped wide destruction in WWIII, we will not escape in the next one. You like Pres. "Ike" Eisenhower, as I recall, so here are two quotes from him: We seek peace, knowing that peace is the climate of freedom. Our real "climate change" problem is from peace to war and it's not been about America's war issues much, since before I was born, but wars everywhere being assigned to us to destroy our freedom. That's being destroyed from within and our Military being dispersed worldwide isn't deterring that like it could. Quite the opposite. In a way, our Military being globalized for the world's warrings is our WWIII already and their being elsewhere isn't helping, as might have been thought, to make the world play nice because they should do that in their own best interests. It's helping them think they don't have to if they don't want to, as long as America is in league with them. So, to win this virtual WWIII, we must (imo) move towards preventing it from continuing as it has by getting back on the path of peace. Gandhi said there is no path to peace. Peace is the path. Now here we are and that's my two cents. Edited spelling.
Since 1945 have we had WWIII? Ike also asked for and was denied UNIVERSAL MILITARY TRAINING. A draft for every American born, NO EXCEPTIONS. Good heavens no, let those less worthy do it.
Technically, in the sense of America's Military being globalized for the World's Wars rather than our own, our defacto WWIII entry began when WWI did. That root then branched towards the Arctic, continuing as something more than an aberration with the onset of the Korean War; after the WWI and WWII chapters had officially closed. During WWI, when our troops were sent into Russia to help fight against the Communist takeover, Wilson (unprecedentedly at the time) even placed most of our Polar Bear troops there under foreign, British command. Edited to include link and parenthesis notation.
Me at #99: Technically, in the sense of America's Military being globalized for the World's Wars rather than our own, our defacto WWIII entry began when WWI did. That root then branched towards the Arctic, continuing as something more than an aberration with the onset of the Korean War; after the WWI and WWII chapters had officially closed. During WWI, when our troops were sent into Russia to help fight against the Communist takeover, Wilson (unprecedentedly at the time) even placed most of our Polar Bear troops there under foreign, British command. Cross-referencing Posts from the topic linked above for info sources and potential discussions: Cynicom at #14 and #16: [Perspectives on U.S. and other Foreign Intervention in Russia's Civil War circa WWI and also re: Russia's interference in our Civil War militarily to make sure the North won] FormerLurker at #17 [Wikipedia: Russian involvement in the American Revolutionary War] Lod at #18 [analysis/commentary of geopolitics in the 1860s at voltairenet.org: U.S. Civil War: The US-Russian Alliance that Saved the Union by Webster G. Tarpley]
There are no replies to Comment # 110. End Trace Mode for Comment # 110.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestThis war was about slavery but not in the commonly held beliefs that permeate the nonsense about the conflict in the government school systems. This war was about the Union grasp at codifying a new kind of slavery just as awful as chattel or indentured servitude. The object was to chain tax cattle to a regime that could rob them at will and ultimately using every power at its disposal to drain a person’s resources and at worst cage and murder them when it saw fit.
#7. To: NeoconsNailed (#5)
#18. To: Katniss (#7)
(Edited)
I got into a typical war-like debate with war on this very topic not long ago here. It was of course laden with the typical reading comprehension issues and challenges in logic that war seems to be perpetually faced with. Debating with him is like watching a dog chase its tail in circles but never catching it.
#55. To: NeoconsNailed, Katniss (#18)
Churchill worship.... anybody looked at Imprimis lately? It seems to be one big fossilized Churchill and Reagan worship cult. ewwww, GROSS!
#56. To: StraitGate (#55)
#67. To: NeoconsNailed (#56)
Yes I'll readily opine we never should have messed with nukes. Never! Just another way we've led the world into more instead of less misery and death. OK, somebody, hit me with your best shot. Fire away.
#69. To: StraitGate (#67)
#70. To: NeoconsNailed (#69)
"Support our troops in Operation XYZ".... I enjoy telling jingoists that they're not mine or even amerika's. We used to say they were really the UN's, I guess now they're just Bibi Satanyahu's.
#72. To: StraitGate (#70)
If interviewed today, I would simply answer, "I don't have any troops."
#73. To: GreyLmist (#72)
"All troops home now!"
#74. To: Cynicom (#73)
"All troops home now!"
#75. To: GreyLmist (#74)
They'll get many mailed thank you notes for their service from our foreign friends?
#79. To: Cynicom (#75)
(Edited)
Tell us what will be the real consequences you perceive, good or bad.
#80. To: GreyLmist (#79)
(Edited)
but I'm not really seeing any downsides about our troops coming home. How about you?
#81. To: Cynicom (#80)
but I'm not really seeing any downsides about our troops coming home. How about you?
#82. To: GreyLmist (#81)
Don't you think NATO and UN Forces would be enough geo/political vacuum managers? I do.
#83. To: Cynicom (#82)
(Edited)
#82. To: GreyLmist (#81)
The only way to win World War III is to prevent it.
#89. To: GreyLmist (#83)
The only way to win World War III is to prevent it.
#99. To: Cynicom (#89)
(Edited)
Since 1945 have we had WWIII?
#110. To: Cynicom, FormerLurker, Lod (#99)
Cynicom at #89: Since 1945 have we had WWIII?
Replies to Comment # 110.