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: 2604
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 # 44.
#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.
Plans for Operation Downfall are available in great detail on the internet. Most estimates of American dead as a result of an invasion of Japan were for at least 500,000, and up to 1,000,000 wounded. The estimated time for wars end was variable, most military people thought it would be at least two more years. Japanese dead estimates were for more than 2,000,000. Our "ally" Russia was preparing their own invasion of Northern Japan, even though they had a peace treaty with Japan, one that promised they would NOT invade Japan. Many factors involved in A bombing Japan. Morality had no part in it. It was numbers, some of them die, or millions of both sides die in the carnage. Cold blooded numbers.
The Naval blockade of Japan was working and Japan was moving to surrender because of that. Dropping the bombs robbed our Navy of their victory, imo, for expansion marketing of "The Manhattan Project" -- so that nuclear development would continue to be funded and supported by the "spectacular" effects observed: Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Wikipedia Edited spelling.
#45. To: All (#44)
(Edited)
THE DECISION TO BOMB HIROSHIMA & NAGASAKI "It should be used on a military installation surrounded by houses or other buildings most susceptible to damage; "It should be used without explicit warning of the nature of the bomb." Those were the words of the "Interim Committee of the Manhattan Project" in May, 1945. This was the group in charge of building the first atomic bomb. The Target Committee of the Manhattan project believed it was desirable that the first use of the bomb be (according to notes, memos and documents formerly classified top secret for a generation) "sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it was released." Already the Japanese were looking for terms of surrender, but these approaches for peace from Japan, not made public, even to members of the Manhattan Project, were ignored. The U.S. wanted no terms, no conditions; not even the safety of the Emperor could be guaranteed (although that request was granted, after the two atom bombs were dropped). Japan had to surrender immediately and unconditionally - the U.S. knowing full well that Japan could never go for that. (Add'l evidence, in square brackets, added 1999): [That there really were surrender overtures by the Japanese was confirmed by a man who ought to know, CIA chief Allen Dulles. In an interview with Clifford Evans (1/19/63 (NY) WOR-TV), Dulles said: "I had been in touch with certain Japanese.... They...were ready to surrender provided the Emperor could be saved so as to have unity in Japan. I took that word to Secretary (of State) Stimson at Potsdam July 20, 1945...." [Just weeks later, August 6 and August 9, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed.] most of Japan's navy had been destroyed, all its Axis allies were defeated, and its hold on the Pacific had been broken. For Truman, the real issue was that only a show of actual destruction from the bomb's use would serve to warn the USSR of the new formidable military power of the U.S. No harmless academic "demonstration" far from life would do. The U.S. Congress (which is supposed to run the show) had been kept in total ignorance of the Manhattan Project, even though the War Department, by trying to disguise it in various budgets, spent $2 billion on it. As time wore on, Congress grew aggressive and suspicious. What's it all for? came the demands. On August 6th and 9th, as Einstein bitterly noted then, Truman showed Congress that it got its money's worth; At the expense of nearly a quarter-million lives (including U.S. prisoners of war in Japanese target areas), Truman's overkill took the Congressional heat off himself. On the list of possible targets were Kokura, Hiroshima, Niigata and Kyoto [My note: Nagasaki was substituted for Kyoto because Henry L. Stimson, the Secretary of War, objected to targeting the old capitol of Kyoto]. The documents read that Hiroshima "has the advantage of being such a size and with possible focusing from nearby mountains that a large fraction of the city may be destroyed." All targets on the list I were then "reserved," and no conventional bombing was to be permitted there. [My note: However, Nagasaki was a secondary target and had already been conventionally bombed about 5 times previously.] The desire was that there be little or no prior bomb damage. For example, the damage already done to Tokyo by regular bombing would detract from the "spectacular" effect and measurement of the bomb's true power. Tokyo was thus excluded from the target list.. Other targets were debated, without conscience, on how "flat" they were so as to show the full ability of the bomb's blast to spread through a city Edited formatting.
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)
#29. To: Lod, Jethro Tull (#28)
#44. To: Cynicom (#29)
(Edited)
some of them die, or millions of both sides die in the carnage.
The Target Committee stated that "It was agreed that psychological factors in the target selection were of great importance. Two aspects of this are (1) obtaining the greatest psychological effect against Japan and (2) making the initial use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it is released.
Replies to Comment # 44. The Naval blockade of Japan was working and Japan was moving to surrender because of that. Dropping the bombs robbed our Navy of their victory, imo, for expansion marketing of "The Manhattan Project" -- so that nuclear development would continue to be funded and supported by the "spectacular" effects observed:
"It should be used as soon as possible;
End Trace Mode for Comment # 44.