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: 4381
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 # 33.
#1. To: X-15 (#0)
If one stands at Gettysburg, where Lee stood, when he ordered Picketts men charge the Yankee line, one would not agree. Pickett did not agree. Hundreds of soldiers died in one of the most callous waste of human life ever ordered by any General.
Pickett did not agree. Hundreds of soldiers died in one of the most callous waste of human life ever ordered by any General. At least the vast majority of those that died were armed. That war was the first major stepping stone in the creation of a nation that would over the decades make that waste of lives look like chump change compared to the infinitely more callous waste of civillian human lives in operations that began with the systematic fire bombing of a city named Dresden in WWII and which have escalated into calling systematic killing "collateral damage" in Newspeak.
The A bomb was intended for Germany, not Japan. Jew operation from day one. They wanted to eradicate as many Germans as possible. Fire bombing was the next best.
And your point is?
Restate the obvious... World Jewry built the A bomb for Germany. They were dismayed that the war was ending before the A bomb was ready, thus the fire bombing.
What's your evidence for this? Why not firebomb Berlin, Hanover, Frankfurt, Stuttgart, etc. too then?
This is not a trial. Thank heavens, I would be shot for having a brain. General Harris gave his reasons in his book. He ordered it, I was not there.
Thank heavens, I would be shot for having a brain. General Harris gave his reasons in his book. He ordered it, I was not there. No, it's not a trial, so what does that mean, that we need to simply believe what you say? Why would anyone here have read that book? Try not to be so pretentious and condescending as if anyone who's anyone has read some obscure book. Try recommending it instead. Otherwise, you're so far off on your takes of Churchill and the root causes from WWII based on our conversation in another thread that if I were to defer to simply what you say I'd be considered a fool. Frankly, that's exactly why I was asking.
I would say take his word for it, Katniss -- because Bomber Harris is known in the truth movement as one of the big, shocking genocidal maniacs, a sort of Churchill Junior. Britons are as stupid as amerikans on average, but when a Harris statue (with pillar?) was ceremoniously unveiled a few yeas back there was considerable public denunciation of it on this above basis. For many, "Bomber" is not meant as praise for the fiend. Think of that -- even in Britain where many people still worship the Holy Jew War, there's some understanding that Britain's obliteration of Dresden was one of the darkest days in moral history. When the statue was done up our pundits too the occasion to bring out the hideous truth on this forgotten World War Jew monster. But Cynicom, please explain something -- " the Brits and Americans fire bombed Dresden to destroy the military network..." One of the main points about Dresden was that it had no military significance and was indeed an art city full of civilian refugees. No?
Ya think? I don't see that understanding here anyway.
To me, the destruction of Dresden was just as gratuitous as was that of Japan.
Even more so because the entire intent, and for the first time in history therefore breaking an unwritten rule of warfare, a civilian populace was deliberately targeted for no military or strategic reason whatsoever. It was purely to demoralize the populace. In Japan the intent was to end the war, which of course it did. It's debatable, given the unknown death tallies, whether it saved lives or did not. Insofar as Dresden goes, there's no debate about much of anything there except for how big a psychos the allies are, particularly given that it breached a barrier that today has seen the few remaining barriers of decency and civility eradicated entirely.
There are no replies to Comment # 33. End Trace Mode for Comment # 33.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestLee is certainly one of the greatest captains of arms in the history of the West.
#6. To: Cynicom (#1)
If one stands at Gettysburg, where Lee stood, when he ordered Picketts men charge the Yankee line, one would not agree.
#8. To: Katniss (#6)
#9. To: Cynicom (#8)
#10. To: Katniss (#9)
And your point is?
#12. To: Cynicom (#10)
#15. To: Katniss (#12)
What's your evidence for this?
#22. To: Cynicom (#15)
This is not a trial.
#25. To: Katniss (#22)
#27. To: NeoconsNailed (#25)
there's some understanding that Britain's obliteration of Dresden was one of the darkest days in moral history.
#28. To: Katniss (#27)
#33. To: Lod (#28)
To me, the destruction of Dresden was just as gratuitous as was that of Japan.
Replies to Comment # 33.