Tempers-flare-over-removal-of-confederate-statues-in-New-Orleans

1246789

Replies

  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,851 Senior Member
    tennmike wrote: »
    It's your side of the aisle, represented by the ANTIFA groups that are arming up, that are making this one different. The primary, secondary, and university school systems have turned out fools that are taught WHAT TO THINK rather than HOW TO THINK, and the results are there for anyone to see. Summer is almost here, and all those ANTIFA that are students now will be out there causing mayhem. If a few of them start popping off rounds into a crowd of conservatives, then the 'stuff's on' and it will be as ugly as Rosy O'Donnell before it's over. The old Black Panthers back in the '60s and '70s talked about revolution but nothing came of it. This ANTIFA bunch seems ignorant and foolish enough to start something they can't possibly finish. It will finish when they start shooting, and the rest of the country 'fires two 30 round magazines and then goes home for a steak dinner' finale.



    And, again, No, it wasn't 'just about slavery'.
    I'll provide this link for the umpeenth time knowing you won't read it, but someone else might and gain a little enlightenment from it.

    http://www.ashevilletribune.com/archives/censored-truths/Morrill%20Tariff.html

    UNDERSTANDING THE CAUSES OF THE UNCIVIL WAR

    A Brief Explanation of the Impact of the Morrill Tariff

    By Mike Scruggs for the Tribune Papers



    Most Americans believe the U. S. “Civil War” was over slavery. They have to an enormous degree been miseducated. The means and timing of handling the slavery issue were at issue, although not in the overly simplified moral sense that lives in postwar and modern propaganda. But had there been no Morrill Tariff there might never have been a war. The conflict that cost of the lives of 650,000 Union and Confederate soldiers and perhaps as many as 50,000 Southern civilians and impoverished many millions for generations might never have been.



    A smoldering issue of unjust taxation that enriched Northern manufacturing states and exploited the agricultural South was fanned to a furious blaze in 1860. It was the Morrill Tariff that stirred the smoldering embers of regional mistrust and ignited the fires of Secession in the South. This precipitated a Northern reaction and call to arms that would engulf the nation in the flames of war for four years.



    Prior to the U. S. “Civil War” there was no U. S. income tax. Considerably more than 90% of U. S. government revenue was raised by a tariff on imported goods. A tariff is a tax on selected imports, most commonly finished or manufactured products. A high tariff is usually legislated not only to raise revenue, but also to protect domestic industry form foreign competition. By placing such a high, protective tariff on imported goods it makes them more expensive to buy than the same domestic goods. This allows domestic industries to charge higher prices and make more money on sales that might otherwise be lost to foreign competition because of cheaper prices (without the tariff) or better quality. This, of course, causes domestic consumers to pay higher prices and have a lower standard of living. Tariffs on some industrial products also hurt other domestic industries that must pay higher prices for goods they need to make their products. Because the nature and products of regional economies can vary widely, high tariffs are sometimes good for one section of the country, but damaging to another section of the country. High tariffs are particularly hard on exporters since they must cope with higher domestic costs and retaliatory foreign tariffs that put them at a pricing disadvantage. This has a depressing effect on both export volume and profit margins. High tariffs have been a frequent cause of economic disruption, strife and war.



    Prior to 1824 the average tariff level in the U. S. had been in the 15 to 20 % range. This was thought sufficient to meet federal revenue needs and not excessively burdensome to any section of the country. The increase of the tariff to a 20% average in 1816 was ostensibly to help pay for the War of 1812. It also represented a 26% net profit increase to Northern manufacturers.



    In 1824 Northern manufacturing states and the Whig Party under the leadership of Henry Clay began to push for high, protective tariffs. These were strongly opposed by the South. The Southern economy was largely agricultural and geared to exporting a large portion of its cotton and tobacco crops to Europe. In the 1850’s the South accounted for anywhere from 72 to 82% of U. S. exports. They were largely dependent, however, on Europe or the North for the manufactured goods needed for both agricultural production and consumer needs. Northern states received about 20% of the South’s agricultural production. The vast majority of export volume went to Europe. A protective tariff was then a substantial benefit to Northern manufacturing states, but meant considerable economic hardship for the agricultural South.

    The "ANTIFA" are nothing more than a sideshow. A tiny fringe group of flipping idiots who get a lot of attention through their criminal activity, but not much else. They're about as relevant as the KKK, Jonesboro Baptist Church, or The New Black Panthers. About their only purpose is to give the opposition something to go crazy about. They're great business for partisan media though!
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • sgtrock21sgtrock21 Senior Member Posts: 1,694 Senior Member
    Woman intimidated after asking about Portland store's Confederate flag rug (graphic language)

    Lizzy Acker | The Oregonian/OregonLive By Lizzy Acker | The Oregonian/OregonLive

    on May 11, 2017 at 2:46 PM, updated May 12, 2017 at 8:29 AM

    Warning: Graphic language

    Updated: May 11, 2:46 p.m.

    A Portland liquidation store has removed Confederate flag rugs and hopes to apologize to a woman who filmed employees of the store intimidating her after she asked about the rugs.

    On Wednesday morning, according to Heather Franklin, 33, she dropped one of her children off at school and took another, as well as a child she was babysitting, to Everyday Deals Extreme on Southeast 146th Avenue. Franklin said she goes to the store, which is a discount liquidator that carries a variety of different products, as often as twice a week, and she was shocked when she noticed a Confederate flag rug on display.

    Even more surprising was the reaction of several store employees when she asked them about the rugs. Franklin said Wednesday over the phone that she began filming the store's employees after they dismissed her concerns about the rug.

    Dozens turned out to protest, bicker over Confederate flag in Southeast Portland

    A demonstration protesting the actions of two suspended employees at a Portland liquidator drew dozens to Southeast Portland on Thursday.

    "Don't care about having hate flags on your wall?" Franklin says in the video.

    "How's that a hate symbol?" asks one man in a blue shirt.

    "Read your history," he adds as he walks away.

    As Franklin was filming the store and walking out with what she said was on toddler on her back and one holding her hand, another man in a red shirt who later identified himself as an employee, flips her off and says, "Bye bitch. Get your kids out of here."

    Then, the man in the blue shirt reappears, now filming Franklin. "Look at this liberal," he says.

    "Yeah look at this liberal whiny bitch here," the man in the red shirt responds.

    "Hillary supporter? Bernie supporter?" he asks. "Which one did you vote for that lost. Is that why you're in a bad mood?"

    In a second video, the two men and Franklin yell at each other across the parking lot. Franklin said the men were approaching her in the parking lot.

    "I felt like they were going to come and physically hurt me," Franklin said later.

    In the video, Franklin becomes visibly distressed and the two men mock her for crying.

    Andrew Toolson, the CEO of Everyday Deals, said over the phone Wednesday that he does not condone the behavior of his employees or the Confederate flag rugs.

    Toolson said the inventory of Everyday Deals is in constant flux.

    "We receive thousands of different products," Toolson said, including a load of a 150 rugs this week.

    "On that load were a few of these rugs with symbol of Confederate flag," he said.

    Toolson said the rugs had been taken down, adding, "We've contacted the rug supplier and said please don't send us those."

    Toolson said that since the videos went up on Wednesday morning, he has received calls from across the country.

    "I was sick to my stomach when I saw that video," he told us. He said that he considers his company to be "as far from a racist organization" as it can be.

    "I've talked to those employees," he said. "They've handled it very poorly."

    Toolson told KGW on Thursday that the employees involved in the incident are on indefinite leave. He said that he had reached out to Franklin and hopes to apologize.

    "I just want everyone to know that's not who we are and what represent here at all," he said.

    Franklin, however, remains concerned. She said the men in the parking lot were taking pictures of her license plate and that she has seen employees sharing her video and mocking her on social media.

    When asked if she would ever shop there again, Franklin responded, "Never"

    http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2017/05/woman_intimidated_after_she_as.html

    I wonder why she didn't purchase a couple of the small rugs to use as door mats so she could wipe her muddy feet on the "hate flags"?
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 15,379 Senior Member
    tennmike wrote: »
    And, again, No, it wasn't 'just about slavery'.
    I'll provide this link for the umpeenth time knowing you won't read it, but someone else might and gain a little enlightenment from it.
    Link to it a billion times. Cut and paste it here.... it still doesn't matter. All it says is that there were other issues at play. Economic issues. Nobody is saying that this was some noble and just quest to release the slaves from bondage-- that is a complete crock of crap. Slavery was a huge issue and a major factor leading to secession. Note in South Carolina's declaration of secession that their reasons had a whole lot to do with the issue of slavery and very little to do with tariffs...
    http://www.civil-war.net/pages/southcarolina_declaration.asp
    Were taxes a factor? Certainly-- the whole damn mess was over economic issues. Was slavery the defining issue? Yes.
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 15,379 Senior Member
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 10,370 Senior Member
    There are always a number of issues in any war. However, there are MAIN issues in any war, and in the Civil War the main issue was slavery.
    Not too many problems you can't fix
    With a 1911 and a 30-06
  • FisheadgibFisheadgib Senior Member Posts: 5,736 Senior Member
    This issue started the ball rolling. Now there's a movement to remove a 100 year old statue of a Confederate soldier from Lake Eola Park in Orlando. The statue honors Confederate soldiers that died in the war and it's a generic soldier with no name or reference to a specific battle. So now Southerners aren't allowed to honor their fallen countrymen?
    snake284 wrote: »
    For my point of view, cpj is a lot like me
    .
  • knitepoetknitepoet Senior Member Posts: 19,111 Senior Member
    Fisheadgib wrote: »
    . So now Southerners aren't allowed to honor their fallen countrymen?
    Nope, unless you want to be called a racist Sarcasm.gif
    Seven Habits of Highly Effective Pirates, Rule #37: There is no “overkill”. There is only “open fire” and “I need to reload”.


  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,948 Senior Member
    Jermanator wrote: »
    Link to it a billion times. Cut and paste it here.... it still doesn't matter. All it says is that there were other issues at play. Economic issues. Nobody is saying that this was some noble and just quest to release the slaves from bondage-- that is a complete crock of crap. Slavery was a huge issue and a major factor leading to secession. Note in South Carolina's declaration of secession that their reasons had a whole lot to do with the issue of slavery and very little to do with tariffs...
    http://www.civil-war.net/pages/southcarolina_declaration.asp
    Were taxes a factor? Certainly-- the whole damn mess was over economic issues. Was slavery the defining issue? Yes.

    I tend to agree with you Jerm. I believe slavery was the ultimate cause of the conflict, because slavery was so ingrained in the culture in the South that it affected about every facet of life there at the time. Yeah, we can say, NO, it was about State's Rights! But ask yourself why? What did states rights have to do with slavery? Because people in the South thought it wasn't the North's business whether the southern states had slaves or not and that to free the slaves in one massive stroke would put the South in a very precarious position economically.

    The whole country, every state, even those in the North, had benefited from slavery for so long nobody was really looking into alternatives. Yeah, I'm one Southerner that admits slavery was wrong and we should have gotten rid of the concept when Jefferson pinned the Declaration of Independence. I guess that looked pretty hypocritical.

    We had some abolitionists but most people didn't even think of blacks as human back then. It was the times. I'm not saying that slavery was right, most reasonable people know better nowadays. But back then, and you have to consider how times change, people thought differently about this subject. It was an accepted practice then and that predominate thought was contagious. Hence, it was the accepted belief back then among most people.

    I believe the abolitionist were right. Slavery was very wrong, BY TODAY'S standards. You have to keep in mind that people's thoughts and beliefs change as the world changes. The standards at the time were much different than today. You can't judge people that lived in 1860 by 2017 standards and you can't fast forward and say what we did then was wrong and we never should have done that. This is one of those things where you have to keep in mind that history is what it was, not what it is. It wasn't viewed as wrong at that time, at least in the minds of the Majority. Abolitionist only represented a small segment of society, and a coming change in thought, and not the thinking of the majority at the time.

    If there was a majority large enough to make a difference at the time they should have been working harder to solve the problems of raising agricultural crops on such a large scale. There was some work being done on a mechanical cotton picker but I don't believe there were enough people that thought it was wrong to put enough emphasis on it. Also, many people on the fence felt that if they looked the other way the problem would go away. But it didn't. However, the number of people at the time that hated slavery and felt it was wrong was growing, not shrinking.

    Personally, I believe that Slavery is a very flawed concept. However, I believe Lincoln and the North should have given the South time to do away with the practice. This extra time have might have allowed the creation of mechanical means to work the fields and harvest the cotton without the use of human slave labor.

    Also, as shown by the Britts, things could have gone smoother after the war if when they(the Britts) gave any groups of people their freedom or independence, they made a fair effort at preparing those people for it. They didn't just turn them loose on society, as was the case here. They saw to it they had some education and were more ready for freedom.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,765 Senior Member
    I don't see much objectivity in any comments on this subject. Everyone is obviously going to state their own personal morality, based on their own upbringing and education. I don't exempt myself from this pronouncement. I obviously feel the need to justify my ancestors, just like anyone else.

    But, I at least recognize, objectively I think, that politics do not always accurately reflect the perceptions of the public. Most of the public hate politics, for its hypocrisy, and refuse to analyze any issue, in very much depth. Politicians depend on this in their calculations. The evil element in politics consists of finding bits of truth that can be exploited in a way that presents unconnected truths in a way to make them appear to be the consensus of thought. Find out what the noisiest among us want to believe, and assemble a circumstantial case for it being a broad consensus. Then, inject a few rabble-rousers to tell carefully crafted lies and shout down the voices of reason, and we're off to the races.

    It doesn't take a genius to understand that the same things we witness daily in our current political climate were happening in a similar fashion, 150 years ago. We can do all of that again, if enough of us listen to and believe the radical voices.
  • FisheadgibFisheadgib Senior Member Posts: 5,736 Senior Member
    bisley wrote: »
    I don't see much objectivity in any comments on this subject. Everyone is obviously going to state their own personal morality, based on their own upbringing and education. I don't exempt myself from this pronouncement. I obviously feel the need to justify my ancestors, just like anyone else.

    But, I at least recognize, objectively I think, that politics do not always accurately reflect the perceptions of the public. Most of the public hate politics, for its hypocrisy, and refuse to analyze any issue, in very much depth. Politicians depend on this in their calculations. The evil element in politics consists of finding bits of truth that can be exploited in a way that presents unconnected truths in a way to make them appear to be the consensus of thought. Find out what the noisiest among us want to believe, and assemble a circumstantial case for it being a broad consensus. Then, inject a few rabble-rousers to tell carefully crafted lies and shout down the voices of reason, and we're off to the races.

    It doesn't take a genius to understand that the same things we witness daily in our current political climate were happening in a similar fashion, 150 years ago. We can do all of that again, if enough of us listen to and believe the radical voices.

    I think that a lot of the opinions voiced are based on the erroneous assumption that everyone involved knew what it was all about and were all fighting for a common cause. In the rural south, they didn't have good internet coverage in the 1860's so a lot of folks weren't aware of the whole plantation owners, slaves, secession, taxes, and union issues. All they knew was that a bunch of soldiers in blue came on their property, took all of their livestock and food, and burned what was left, along with shooting anyone that resisted. That activity inspired many people in the south to take up arms against the Yankee aggressors. While the wealthy plantation owners wanted to keep their slaves, the poor folks that were fighting just wanted to keep their homes and way of life intact. How many instances were there of Confederate armies invading the North?
    snake284 wrote: »
    For my point of view, cpj is a lot like me
    .
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    Fisheadgib wrote: »
    How many instances were there of Confederate armies invading the North?

    The panicky union retreat after the first battle of Manassas in 1861 (Bull Run to the yamdankees) could have resulted in the capture of Washington DC, but for inept leadership of the Confederate forces. That one failure to take advantage of a win probably changed the course of US and world history. People from Washington had actually made their way to the area with picnic lunches, etc. to watch the rebels get spanked- - - - -wrong move! Things turned into a headlong rout with the union army forces fleeing in terror.
    Jerry
    Hide and wail in terror, Eloi- - - -We Morlocks are on the hunt!
    ASK-HOLE Someone who asks for advice and always does something opposite
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,851 Senior Member
    Fisheadgib wrote: »
    I think that a lot of the opinions voices are based on the erroneous assumption that everyone involved knew what it was all about and were all fighting for a common cause. In the rural south, they didn't have good internet coverage in the 1860's so a lot of folks weren't aware of the whole plantation owners, slaves, secession, taxes, and union issues. All they knew was that a bunch of soldiers in blue came on their property, took all of their livestock and food, and burned what was left, along with shooting anyone that resisted. That activity inspired many people in the south to take up arms against the Yankee aggressors. While the wealthy plantation owners wanted to keep their slaves, the poor folks that were fighting just wanted to keep their homes and way of life intact. How many instances were there of Confederate armies invading the North?
    Most of the battles of the war were fought within about 120 miles if Washington DC on both sides of the Mason Dixon line, with the exception of a few battles along major rivers out in the western parts of the confederate states. It wasn't until Sherman started his victorious march to bring the south to their knees that most southerners would have seen a union soldier. I would venture to guess that the actions of Sherman are virtually single handedly responsible for the vast majority of the negative feelings in the south that persist until today. What he did was the 19th century equivalent of dropping the bomb on Japan.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,765 Senior Member
    Nobody was ready to fight that battle. They won because they had Stonewall Jackson and a few good officers who would lead from the front. It was basically Virginia vs the US Army, at that point, and the Virginians were defending their home ground. This was technically the first blood drawn, since the new Confederate government probably considered Fort Sumter to be a police action (with no man killed) to remove union soldiers from SC sovereign territory.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,765 Senior Member
    Most of the battles of the war were fought within about 120 miles if Washington DC on both sides of the Mason Dixon line, with the exception of a few battles along major rivers out in the western parts of the confederate states. It wasn't until Sherman started his victorious march to bring the south to their knees that most southerners would have seen a union soldier. I would venture to guess that the actions of Sherman are virtually single handedly responsible for the vast majority of the negative feelings in the south that persist until today. What he did was the 19th century equivalent of dropping the bomb on Japan.

    Try reading some history, instead of just scanning the Cliff's Notes. It will help you finish your political science training. It is a fascinating story, stranger than fiction, and the subject deserves much more attention than the political hacks who selected your curriculum wanted you to have.

    The Japan analogy doesn't wash, because Sherman had the necessary forces to destroy the remains of the southern infrastructure, without victimizing the civilian population to such a degree. Japan still had a million soldiers under arms, and was arming the civilian population for suicide attacks with pitchforks. An invasion would have caused horrendous casualties on both sides. Iwo Jima and Okinawa proved that, beyond any doubt, at least to the Democrat president who checked off on dropping the bomb.
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    I would venture to guess that the actions of Sherman are virtually single handedly responsible for the vast majority of the negative feelings in the south that persist until today.

    You would be wrong, as usual. Your liberal indoctrination is shining as bright as a searchlight looking for WW II bombers over Germany.

    Sherman didn't camp in Greenbrier Tennessee and harvest my ancestors' crops, slaughter their livestock, and steal everything that wasn't nailed down (from noncombatant civilians). The troops who did that with the permission and encouragement of their officers then went on to capture Nashville and do the same thing to the residents there, including looting my great-great grandfather's tobacco shop to the bare walls. Then they went on to Franklin Tennessee to fight a huge battle with major casualties on both sides. Middle Tennessee is close to 700 miles from Washington- - - -I drove that trip a month ago. Fort Negley was built in Nashville to enforce the atrocities of "reconstruction" on the city. Try reading some of the diaries and other writings of the people of Tennessee who survived the post war occupation like I have, before you spout any more revisionist lies, OK?
    Jerry
    Hide and wail in terror, Eloi- - - -We Morlocks are on the hunt!
    ASK-HOLE Someone who asks for advice and always does something opposite
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,948 Senior Member
    Jermanator wrote: »
    Link to it a billion times. Cut and paste it here.... it still doesn't matter. All it says is that there were other issues at play. Economic issues. Nobody is saying that this was some noble and just quest to release the slaves from bondage-- that is a complete crock of crap. Slavery was a huge issue and a major factor leading to secession. Note in South Carolina's declaration of secession that their reasons had a whole lot to do with the issue of slavery and very little to do with tariffs...
    http://www.civil-war.net/pages/southcarolina_declaration.asp
    Were taxes a factor? Certainly-- the whole damn mess was over economic issues. Was slavery the defining issue? Yes.

    I tend to agree with you Jerm. I believe slavery was the ultimate cause of the conflict. It was the catalyst of the conflict. Because slavery was so ingrained in the culture in the South that it affected about every facet of life there at the time. Yeah, we can say it was about states rights, but why? What did slavery have to do with states rights have to do with slavery? Ask yourself why? Well, other than each of the Southern states felt it was the heart of their prosperity and because people in the South thought it wasn't the North's business whether the southern states had slaves or not and that to free the slaves in one massive stroke would put the South in a very precarious position economically. Also, the North East states was where most of the more prominent abolitionists were from.

    The whole country, every state, even those in the North, had benefited from slavery for so long nobody was really looking into alternatives. Yeah, I'm one Southerner that admits slavery was wrong and we should have gotten rid of the concept as soon after Jefferson pinned the Declaration of Independence as possible. I guess that looked pretty hypocritical to the rest of the world to write such a document talking about God given Inalienable rights and keeping his slaves.

    We had some abolitionists then but most people didn't even think of blacks as human. It was the times. I'm not saying that slavery was right, most reasonable people know better nowadays. But back then, and you have to consider how times change, people thought differently about this subject. It was an accepted practice and that predominate thought was contagious. Hence, it was an accepted practice back then among most people.

    I believe the abolitionist were right. Slavery was very wrong, BY TODAY'S standards. You have to keep in mind that people's thoughts and beliefs change as the world changes. The standards at the time were much different than today. You can't judge people that lived in 1860 by 2017 standards and you can't fast forward and say what they did then was wrong and they never should have kept slaves. This is one of those things where you have to keep in mind that history is what it was, not what it is. It wasn't viewed as wrong at that time, at least in the minds of the Majority. Abolitionist only represented a relatively small segment of society, and a coming change in thought, and not the thinking of the majority at the time.

    Before the Civil War began and before the anti slavery movement got big enough to spark trouble, there should have been more emphasis on farm implement advances. They should have been working harder to solve the problems of raising agricultural crops on such a large scale before the Northern conscience changed. There was some work being done on the mechanical cotton picker but I don't believe there were enough people that thought slavery was wrong to put enough emphasis on it to make a difference.

    Also, many people on the fence felt that if they looked the other way the problem would go away. But it didn't. However, the number of people at the time that hated slavery and felt it was wrong was growing, not shrinking.

    Personally, I believe that Slavery is a very flawed concept. However, I believe Lincoln and the North should have given the South time to do away with the practice in a practical way. This extra time given them might have allowed the creation of mechanical means to work the fields and harvest the cotton without the use of human slave labor, which might have averted the war.

    Also, as shown by the British, things could have gone smoother after the war if they would have followed the British lead that when they(the Britts) gave any groups of people their freedom or independence, they made a fair effort at preparing those people for this new found freedom before hand. They didn't just turn them loose on society, as was the case here after the Civil War. They(the Britts) saw to it they had some education and were more ready for freedom and/or independence.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,948 Senior Member
    Teach wrote: »
    The panicky union retreat after the first battle of Manassas in 1861 (Bull Run to the yamdankees) could have resulted in the capture of Washington DC, but for inept leadership of the Confederate forces. That one failure to take advantage of a win probably changed the course of US and world history. People from Washington had actually made their way to the area with picnic lunches, etc. to watch the rebels get spanked- - - - -wrong move! Things turned into a headlong rout with the union army forces fleeing in terror.
    Jerry

    This reflects my view of what the South should have done. I never believed we should have just split up the Union and left it two countries. Whatever happened to "United We Stand, Divided We Fall!" My idea of what should have happened was the South should have been more aggressive on the tail of these first Victories and taken Washington, signed an armistice, and brought back states rights and then worked to resolve the issue of agriculture technology to the point they didn't need slaves. The North, or rather the nation as a whole, should have worked together to solve the problems that necessitated the need for slavery.

    There was a school of thought on both sides that believed we should have done away with slavery and the ex slaves taken back to Africa. I believe these people were what were called Emancipationists.

    There was so much that could have been done, but it reminds me of Washington, and the whole country, today. Nobody works together, not even within the separate parties. You would think that now that the Republicans have the Political Power advantage right now, they would get together and build themselves up to where they could beat the Democrats in any election. No, they'd rather split up into several factions with no compromise and fight within their own party getting none of the promises they ran and got elected on done, until the Dummcraps will slaughter them in the mid term elections taking back both houses and shutting down any Republican president who may be in power. Same ol' verse, same ol' song.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,948 Senior Member
    Most of the battles of the war were fought within about 120 miles if Washington DC on both sides of the Mason Dixon line, with the exception of a few battles along major rivers out in the western parts of the confederate states. It wasn't until Sherman started his victorious march to bring the south to their knees that most southerners would have seen a union soldier. I would venture to guess that the actions of Sherman are virtually single handedly responsible for the vast majority of the negative feelings in the south that persist until today. What he did was the 19th century equivalent of dropping the bomb on Japan.

    Before or after Gettysburg, Lee didn't go around burning civilian homes and businesses and terrorizing them. Like Bisley so aptly points out, Sherman had the men and resources to take down the Southern Military, but he chose to burn and pillage civilian interests. 1000 years from now that's what he'll be remembered for. Not what he actually did that helped win the war. Other wise Sherman was a great general, but he decided to play on emotions, a big mistake on his part. History will never give him the credit for his talents he may have deserved.

    Also you libs seem to forget, or maybe you have never read about what the Japanese did to our sodiers taken prisoner. And maybe you don't realize what we were facing getting Japan to surrender.

    WWII was a Democrat operation from the get go til the end. It started with the U.S. behind in Technology and not ready for what was coming. Sound familiar? So rather than kicking ass on subordinate countries like Japan and Germany, we suffered big set backs. I had an Uncle that never came home from the Philippines, having died from disease in Camp Cabanatuan when the Japanese had the medicine there that could have saved his life. Things like that happen when you let yourself get into a position of weakness, rather than standing on strength. The Bullies of the world think twice before leaping if they think they may get their plow cleaned., unless, of course they're plumb crazy like that nit wit in North Korea, Kim Jung No No.

    Also, if you check out the unrevised history of the A Bomb affair with Japan, you will see that dropping an A-Bomb or two was a whole lot more humane than the fire bomb raids on several of Japan's major cities that in some cases were killing more people in one night than either of those A-Bombs caused, and that was happening every night. However, the Atom Bombs were so swift and instantaneous they got their attention quicker and caused the Japanese to come to their senses. I look at the A-Bomb raids as a necessary evil. And the American leadership knew they would have massive support for doing it because the average American and Brit citizen remembered all too the treatment of the American and British POW in places like Singapore and Bataan. They could have dropped an A bomb every night on each Japanese city and most people wouldn't have given a Rat's Ass about how cruel the A Bomb was. The Japanese militarists wrote the book on cruelty.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • VarmintmistVarmintmist Senior Member Posts: 6,590 Senior Member
    snake284 wrote: »
    Before or after Gettysburg, Lee didn't go around burning civilian homes and businesses and terrorizing them. Like Bisley so aptly points out, Sherman had the men and resources to take down the Southern Military, but he chose to burn and pillage civilian interests. 1000 years from now that's what he'll be remembered for. Not what he actually did that helped win the war. Other wise Sherman was a great general, but he decided to play on emotions, a big mistake on his part. History will never give him the credit for his talents he may have deserved.

    Wait one.

    There has been truth in this thread, but some revisionist history.

    At Gettysburg, they took everything that wasnt nailed down, and then some. I have the records from the family history of what was taken. Subsistence farms cleaned out. Might as well burn it. They didnt get everything though. My great grandmother hid two of the horses at 14 y/o. They still took everything down to the fences and whatever was still growing. Two farms west of the peach orchard, if I pieced it together correctly. Still this was pre Sherman and another little incident.

    I love how Sherman is always brought in to these without ever a discussion of what changed the practice of sticking to military targets that was done on both sides. Both side burnt and looted some, but NEVER as a organized plan that wiped out a town or a lively hood, until the Rebs burned Chambersburg. They had raided Chambersburg often enough that it was becoming a not uncommon thing, however this time they torched the whole town on 30 July 1864. The raiders were caught and defeated 7 Aug in WV.
    Some like to say it was in retaliation to the Union burning "several" homes of rebel sympathizers in the Shenandoah Valley in the beginning of the summer, Gen Early (CSA) decided to burn Chambersburg in the north or get reparations for the houses of the rebel sympathisers.
    Once the Rebs let the genie out of the bottle, Sheridan burned the Shenandoah Valley crops, homes, and everything in Sept.
    It wasnt until November of 64 that Sherman made his march to the sea, and UNLIKE the burning of Chambersburg, his OP order called for taking everything and destroying the ag, and industrial base of the South and to avoid taking out farms. Those that did get cleaned out, well, the rebs were raiding since the beginning of the war and they looted everything they could get hold of during Gettysburg. It just happened that Sherman did in in the backyard.
    As to great generalship, http://www.historynet.com/shermans-march-to-the-sea

    One side came in with the intent to take reparations for some friends, then burn a city, the other went to destroy any war making ability of any civilian infrastructure.


    http://explorepahistory.com/hmarker.php?markerId=1-A-202
    Shermans Op order
    http://cwnc.omeka.chass.ncsu.edu/items/show/145

    ...............

    All that said, no jackwagon should EVER take those statues down.
    It's boring, and your lack of creativity knows no bounds.
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,851 Senior Member
    snake284 wrote: »
    Before or after Gettysburg, Lee didn't go around burning civilian homes and businesses and terrorizing them. Like Bisley so aptly points out, Sherman had the men and resources to take down the Southern Military, but he chose to burn and pillage civilian interests. 1000 years from now that's what he'll be remembered for. Not what he actually did that helped win the war. Other wise Sherman was a great general, but he decided to play on emotions, a big mistake on his part. History will never give him the credit for his talents he may have deserved.

    Also you libs seem to forget, or maybe you have never read about what the Japanese did to our sodiers taken prisoner. And maybe you don't realize what we were facing getting Japan to surrender.

    WWII was a Democrat operation from the get go til the end. It started with the U.S. behind in Technology and not ready for what was coming. Sound familiar? So rather than kicking ass on subordinate countries like Japan and Germany, we suffered big set backs. I had an Uncle that never came home from the Philippines, having died from disease in Camp Cabanatuan when the Japanese had the medicine there that could have saved his life. Things like that happen when you let yourself get into a position of weakness, rather than standing on strength. The Bullies of the world think twice before leaping if they think they may get their plow cleaned., unless, of course they're plumb crazy like that nit wit in North Korea, Kim Jung No No.

    Also, if you check out the unrevised history of the A Bomb affair with Japan, you will see that dropping an A-Bomb or two was a whole lot more humane than the fire bomb raids on several of Japan's major cities that in some cases were killing more people in one night than either of those A-Bombs caused, and that was happening every night. However, the Atom Bombs were so swift and instantaneous they got their attention quicker and caused the Japanese to come to their senses. I look at the A-Bomb raids as a necessary evil. And the American leadership knew they would have massive support for doing it because the average American and Brit citizen remembered all too the treatment of the American and British POW in places like Singapore and Bataan. They could have dropped an A bomb every night on each Japanese city and most people wouldn't have given a Rat's Ass about how cruel the A Bomb was. The Japanese militarists wrote the book on cruelty.
    Although I wasn't alive in 1860, based on the responses here and my experience with southerners, they can and will give the Japanese a run for their money in terms of tenacity and unwillingness to give up. Grant may have broken their army, but it wasn't until Sherman broke their spirit that victory could be achieved. Sure, today he would be tried and hanged in the Hague for his actions and his name will be cursed in the south forever, but without him the war would have waged on much longer. And not in just the rhetorical way it continues to rage to this day.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • earlyearly Senior Member Posts: 4,950 Senior Member
    I don't even like to think about what the Gettysburg area was like for the rest of the year or even beyond. I bet a quiet person can still feel it.
    My thoughts are generally clear. My typing, not so much.
  • Diver43Diver43 Senior Member Posts: 8,825 Senior Member
    early wrote: »
    I don't even like to think about what the Gettysburg area was like for the rest of the year or even beyond. I bet a quiet person can still feel it.

    My wife grew up there. You might be surprised by the things that some see, hear and feel.
    Logistics cannot win a war, but its absence or inadequacy can cause defeat. FM100-5
  • RugerFanRugerFan Senior Member Posts: 1,850 Senior Member
    early wrote: »
    I don't even like to think about what the Gettysburg area was like for the rest of the year or even beyond. I bet a quiet person can still feel it.

    Recently I was looking at some period photographs of a Civil War battleground(can't remember which 1)taken a year after the battle and there were skulls and bones scattered on the ground.
  • DanoobieDanoobie Member Posts: 95 Member
    zorba wrote: »
    This is complete, and utter PCBS. Send them to California...
    I agree, these are our heroes, our Honored Dead.
    Each statue also represents thousands of soldiers who gave their lives under the commands
    of these great leaders, whose commitment to these icons of our heritage was absolute.
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 15,270 Senior Member
    early wrote: »
    I don't even like to think about what the Gettysburg area was like for the rest of the year or even beyond. I bet a quiet person can still feel it.

    Few years ago I was on "The Wheatfield" and Little Round top on a late summer evening.....yes...you can still feel it....it's like an energy..it made the hair on my arms stand up...Every time I have been there I get the same weird feeling....
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,948 Senior Member
    RugerFan wrote: »
    Recently I was looking at some period photographs of a Civil War battleground(can't remember which 1)taken a year after the battle and there were skulls and bones scattered on the ground.

    Yeah, that happened in all the major battles. Bones were left to bleach in the sun because the numbers of bodies were more than could be dealt with in a timely manner and burial parties were overwhelmed. I think it was Antietam where burial parties came back the next year to clean the place up and bury the by then bleached bones. I've seen pictures of some of the major battle fields where there were bones like that 3-4 years after the battle. Those battles were some gruesome affairs.

    As for the burning and pillaging I guess both sides have their stories. But why then is Sherman known so well for it?
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • VarmintmistVarmintmist Senior Member Posts: 6,590 Senior Member
    snake284 wrote: »

    As for the burning and pillaging I guess both sides have their stories. But why then is Sherman known so well for it?
    Because it was the first time the north brought the war in all its nastiness to the deep south and there was no leadership to stop him and he did whatever he wanted to. It was a rout and a embarrassment so the years have changed it from "we didnt have our poop together" to a "evil overwhelming force". He was much more effective at it than Lee was. Chambersburg, the rebs were caught and decimated, Gettysburgh, which was Lees and the Souths "March to the sea" was stopped and he was beaten. Gettysburg was not the destination, its where all those great generals did their own thing.

    When Shermans troops burned Colombia in 65, it was a "outrage". However unlike Chambersburg, they were not under orders to do so, but he didnt stop them.
    “Though I never ordered it and never wished it, I have never shed any tears over the event, because I believe that it hastened what we all fought for, the end of the War.”
    http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/sherman-sacks-columbia-south-carolina
    It's boring, and your lack of creativity knows no bounds.
  • FisheadgibFisheadgib Senior Member Posts: 5,736 Senior Member
    This behavior is starting to snowball. Now there is a group pushing to remove a statue of General Robert E Lee from Charlottesville VA.
    snake284 wrote: »
    For my point of view, cpj is a lot like me
    .
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,948 Senior Member
    I generally agree about that the current effort to remove any statue, monument, or memorial to Confederate soldiers or leaders is wrong. It is part of history and people should remember it.

    I do disagree with your other point though. There are literally tens if not hundreds of thousands of buildings, monuments, streets, etc. Named after Washington. I can't go 2 blacks(I think you meant Blocks) in the capital city named after Washington without running into something else named after him. I didn't know who Drew was, but after looking it up, yes it seems like pioneering medical procedures that saved the lives of thousands of soldiers in WWII is the type of thing that is deserving of having a school named after you.




    Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

    Yeah True! The guy is something of a national hero and does deserve a school or hospital or at the very least a few parks named after him, even a street or hiway or two, but wait til you build a new one. Don't take it away from anybody else deserving. Renaming is tacki

    On a side note, Drew had a tragic ending. He wasn't quite 46 years old and died in a car wreck. After reading about his life I have no problem with naming something after him, but stand by what I said about renaming something named for another great American. There's just too many opportunities for having something named for you to take it away from someone else. I always hated that practice and it cheapens his accomplishments in my view.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    How about if we make a fair trade? For every Confederate memorial that's removed, how about renaming something like a street, a building, or something similar honoring a philandering rabble-rouser who traveled around the country with a harem of nubile young groupies, stirring up racial tensions in the 1960's.
    :uhm:
    Jerry
    Hide and wail in terror, Eloi- - - -We Morlocks are on the hunt!
    ASK-HOLE Someone who asks for advice and always does something opposite
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.