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: 4593
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
Comments (1-68) not displayed.
.
.
.
#69. To: StraitGate (#67)
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."
Don't regret that! Hard to say which reply is better. Brevity is definitely the soul of wit. I don't regret writing Capra. Got his autograph ;-)
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. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
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. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Tell us what will be the real consequences you perceive, good or bad.
150 foreign countries will dance a jig, and we'll have a huge influx of wonderfully talented, capable, experienced all-Americans added to the work force where they've belonged this whole time. The percentage of amerikans in our home population will rise by some imperceptible but very meaningful degree. Tons of them are sex criminals, but we're not supposed to think about that -- and in today's gliberalized world, when you think a politically- correct thought (such as "our military are normal healthy mature responsible people") it instantly becomes reality! Ha, "Philippine–American War" -- NEWSPEAK IS ALIVE!!! en.wikip edia.org/wiki/Philippine%E2%80%93American_War Look at this - we're even in Bulgaria!?! "Under the agreement, no more than 2,500 U.S. military personnel will be located at the joint military facilities.... The Bezmer Air Base is expected to become one of the major US strategic airfields overseas, housing American combat aircraft" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bul...ican_Joint_Military_Facil ities USA! USA! USA!.....
Always good to hear from you war. You're a nice reminder of the 50% that rank below the mean on the normal curve of the intelligence scale. It's OK though, these days the government is squarely in the corner of the less intellectually fortunate. So you've got that going for you.
Yeah, it's amazing how most people seem to want to be fooled. They've been trained like dogs to sit around that propaganda machine that spews filth 24/7 when it's not spewing lies, which is part of the root of the problem. I rarely watch anything that was created post-1980.
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. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
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? ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
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. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Now look, amigo, I'm going to ask you again and I want an answer -- where is there any war going on today except what we and our Siamese twin the UK are causing? It's almost as if humanity's finally learned its lesson. You've deuced it again, amigo. It's only a few people in the world who itch to carry a big stick that bring war. It's countries with your essentially paranoid attitude -- and the golems they systematically create -- that cause aggressions, always claiming we have to to "escape wide destruction". This is a direct mirror of the Jew mindset.... well, in this case the manifestation of it in a country that's been thoroughly Jewed. It's healthy for nations and individuals to review their own track record before calling others criminals. Israel is incapable of this and thinks it's totally righteous and totally persecuted, now Washington's the same way. You say Japan was this big global threat in the 1940s. Japan had wanted to close itself off from the rest of the world in the 19th century, and who was it that pointed cannons at her and forced her to start trading ergo modernizing, unfortunately with an ancestor of mine on board? U.S., of course. I've pointed out before that there never would have been a USSR without a USSA building and financing it every step of the way -- well, without key kosher individuals cannibalizing amerika's miraculous prosperity for it. And how without Versailles there would have been no Reichstag fire. Only a Jewed Christendom hates and tortures Germany! So there go the three big bugaboos you're concerned with. Voicing the spirit of the founding era, John Quincy Adams wrote "Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy", a policy that actually worked. But for half our history amerika's been ruled by (?) people who create monsters -- real and imagined -- to save us from. You seem to think it's a raving success. Some of us disagree.
For those that think NN's a bit hard on "our" military.... www.dailystormer.com/our-dead-gay-army/ If there is a benefit of America’s late stage spiritual cancer, it’s that institutions that are likely to be turned against us in the near future have been severely damaged by the spreading rot and will be a lot less effective at enforcing the tyranny than might have otherwise been the case. We see it in our 90 I.Q. police force that’s baffled by the most straightforward of investigations, their hands tied by cultural marxism and the inferior individuals they now focus on recruiting and retaining. The military, the American Golem that serves Israel, has been steadily transformed into a weak and embarrassing mass of dark flesh and mentally defective perverts who are almost completely reliant on technology and still manage to come out losers in conflicts with goat herding jihadans. I swear, honest, that I only just saw that -- not before writing #84 above. Please go to the Stormer link and see the picture! Por favor... I'm begging you... for anything our friendship has ever meant to you :-)
Chyea...but @ *49* I'm still @ a comfortable 4x's higher than you. Have no fear...you do still rank quite high on the not normal scale of the intelligence curve. Here's a helpful hint: When you want to insult someone over their level of *intelligence* either learn how to write a clear and concise sentence or find someone to ghost for you...I'm sure that the G-Man who is watching you from inside of your closet will be *happy* to *help*. It's OK though, these days the government is squarely in the corner of the less intellectually fortunate. Oh...he already is...carry on... --Fuck your breath.
Kentucky was *neutral* until southern state based insurgents invaded it and then, when pushed out, continued to raid and pillage it. --Fuck your breath.
I'd bet you money that your IQ is not within 20 points of mine. Either way, yet one more classic post by you demonstrating that your ability to focus and coordinate thoughts is abjectly defunct.
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.
I'm rich enough on my own, thanks. Either way, yet one more classic post by you demonstrating that your ability to focus and coordinate thoughts is abjectly defunct. I'm not the one who composes impotent, stilted sentences in a failed effort to come off as a pedantic snot. On the other hand, I am the one who composes poignant and well written sentences in a successful effort to come off as a pedantic snot. --Fuck your breath.
One sign of intelligence (non-sarcastically, now) is not making he same mistake over and over... like getting into it with war.
We're in it now. --Fuck your breath.
She never does. She's simply trying to get by on her wit with obvious results. --Fuck your breath.
LMAO You definitely do not lack self-esteem. Well, that I'm pretty sure that everyone in 4um will agree with the last part of that. Again, LMAO on the first part.
Have a nice weekend...(;^D --Fuck your breath.
I'm bored, actually looking for a little one-upper contest here. There's nothing real to debate, the poster's a fool thru and thru. I'm not biting on anything worth discussing. war is a fantastic example of the average American. The AA believes what he sees on TV, does little if any independent research to validate it because it came from his favorite and chosen "news" network, and then believes that he's well informed despite no validation of any of it and while ignoring the error rate of reported "news," which is nothing more than TV for fools and gullible people. Then, when challenged, he becomes frantic, adversarial, refuses to consider anything else while insisting that he/she is open-minded. Classic Americanism.
You too!
Then why do you bite, instead of like posting more of your vital news links? Merely curious. If you all won't argue with him he'll stop. Nobody listens to me. I'll converse with him within reason, but that's 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. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
When even war agrees with us on this, Cyni, you know you're in trouble. You thought you would peddle your fetish to less frisky targets than me, but it's not working out so well, huh. On one thread, you -- big man -- couldn't take the heat, so you ran out of the kitchen! You risked your life how many times for President Rosenfeld, but sometimes don't show much valor here.
When did that happen? The issue was slavery, not neutrality. Many of the southern states wanted to be neutral, too, after South Carolina seceded all by itself -- until Lincoln moved to invade. Major Anderson (Kentuckian) at Fort Sumter, though, was not only Pro-Slavery but Pro-Secession -- just a Union loyalist. Was friends with Jefferson Davis and Gen. Beauregard (who had been one of his West Point students, iirc). Edits to add parenthesis #1 + for spelling. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Um...can you be more specific? There were several bits of fact in my response. --Fuck your breath.
war: Kentucky was *neutral* until southern state based insurgents invaded it and then, when pushed out, continued to raid and pillage it. How about you being more specific with some dates?: for 1. how long Lincoln thought Kentucky could be neutral, if it wanted to be and 2. when you're asserting that Kentucky was attacked by southern based "insurgents" to change their neutrality status, in your opinion. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Awww man...you want me to BACK UP what I said? Doesn't that violate the #1 rule of the internet? history.ky.gov/landmark/k...ity-during-the-civil-war/ when you're asserting that Kentucky was attacked by southern based "insurgents" to change their neutrality status, in your opinion. 4th September 1861, Leonidas Polk took Columbus, KY to gain a high ground vantage point over the banks of the Mississippi. They were the first troops to enter Kentucky. Union troops entered to protect the Kentuckians from this blatant and egregious violation of sovereignty. The legislature convened and asked only for the insurgents to leave. --Fuck your breath.
Just to defend myself here, if it's not hockey or a movie or, maybe a Law & Order or M*A*S*H rerun, I'm not watching TV at all. --Fuck your breath.
Makes it even more puzzling how you come up with your conclusions then since so many mirror the establishment side. In fact, as I see it, the only way that you would come up with what you believe is in fact by either watching the "news" or reading the MS newsprint papers.
Yep, the less teebee, the better.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
Okay...so then I'll just assume that you get your Moonbat theories frm Moonbats on the internet. See how that works? The US government did not attack the US on 9/11. The Holocaust happened. Whether you accept the AMPLE, independent evidence that is available for both is not my concern, --Fuck your breath.
Comments (109 - 204) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#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.
#71. To: StraitGate (#70)
(Edited)
#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?
#76. To: Cynicom (#75)
#77. To: war, All (#64)
#78. To: StraitGate (#66)
Even here in the South the brainwashing has been extremely effective. When I asked a former boss of mine who had attended government schools from K-12 in Georgia, "What did they teach you about Abraham Lincoln?", he answered, "That Abraham Lincoln was the greatest president in U.S. history."
#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.
#84. To: Cynicom (#82)
In the recorded history of man, there has never been peace in this world.
#85. To: All (#84)
#86. To: Katniss (#77)
(Edited)
You're a nice reminder of the 50% that rank below the mean on the normal curve of the intelligence scale.
#87. To: GreyLmist (#68)
Major Anderson at Fort Sumter was Pro-Slavery and from Kentucky -- one of the Union's slave States throughout the war.
#88. To: war (#86)
(Edited)
#89. To: GreyLmist (#83)
The only way to win World War III is to prevent it.
#90. To: Katniss (#88)
I'd bet you money that your IQ is not within 20 points of mine.
#91. To: Katniss (#88)
#92. To: Cynicom (#89)
Since 1945 have we had WWIII?
#93. To: NeoconsNailed (#91)
One sign of intelligence (non-sarcastically, now) is not making he same mistake over and over... like getting into it with war.
#94. To: war, All (#90)
I'm not the one who composes impotent, stilted sentences in a failed effort to come off as a pedantic snot.
On the other hand, I am the one who composes poignant and well written sentences in a successful effort to come off as a pedantic snot.
#95. To: Katniss (#94)
LMAO on the first part.
#96. To: NeoconsNailed (#91)
One sign of intelligence (non-sarcastically, now) is not making he same mistake over and over... like getting into it with war.
#97. To: war (#95)
Have a nice weekend...(;^D
#98. To: Katniss (#96)
There's nothing real to debate, the poster's a fool thru and thru. I'm not biting on anything worth discussing.
#99. To: Cynicom (#89)
(Edited)
Since 1945 have we had WWIII?
#100. To: Cynicom (#89)
#101. To: war (#87)
(Edited)
Kentucky was *neutral* until southern state based insurgents invaded it and then, when pushed out, continued to raid and pillage it.
#102. To: GreyLmist (#101)
When did that happen?
#103. To: war (#102)
Um...can you be more specific? There were several bits of fact in my response.
#104. To: GreyLmist (#103)
(Edited)
How about you being more specific with some dates?:
#105. To: Katniss (#96)
war is a fantastic example of the average American. The AA believes what he sees on TV, does little if any independent research to validate it because it came from his favorite and chosen "news" network, and then believes that he's well informed despite no validation of any of it and while ignoring the error rate of reported "news," which is nothing more than TV for fools and gullible people.
#106. To: war, All (#105)
#107. To: war (#105)
#108. To: Katniss (#106)
Makes it even more puzzling how you come up with your conclusions then since so many mirror the establishment side.
.
.
.