Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Battle flag uproar

There hasn't been any serious drive for secession other than in support of slavery during all of U.S. history.

You don't even bother to read the posts in the thread. I already posted in this thread a lengthy excerpt from Georgia's declaration of secession in which they explained that in their view, sectionalism revolved around northern financial interest who had hijacked and supported the abolitionist movement in order to weaken the south and render it powerless so that they could then centralize government and instituted a mercantilist system.

*SIGH*... where did I defend Grant's wife Julia owning slaves....

Sherman's March? An informative read.....

http://www.amazon.com/Southern-Storm-Shermans-March-Sea/dp/0060598689



..and I find the fact that you keep trying to make this thread about me, personally, to be quite telling.

Do you have a PhD in "snide." ?

Well, of course, there hasn't been a serious drive for secession since 1865. Duh...people don't want to be invaded, raped, maimed, and pillaged by federal troops.

But, still you are wrong. There was a serious drive for secession in New England that culminated in a convention where their grievances were discussed and secession was narrowly avoided. Andrew Jackson's victory at New Orleans nipped it in the bud by ending the War of 1812, their opposition to that being their most immediate reason for wanting secession.

Just advanced degrees and actual research and university level teaching experience in History.

"The real tragedy is IMHO is that all those good and brave men in the South were fighting to defend a Constitution that was built upon African slavery."

Dammit, Mike.......... The guys fighting on the Southern sides are just like the guys that have done the fighting in ALL Civil Wars. They joined the battle to protect "hearth and home" and then fought for the guy standing beside them.

Abstract ideas, such as "saving the Union", or "States rights" have no place on a battlefield, so your comment about " defending a constitution" is ludicrous.

Take it back.

Why not go by Sherman's words as he wrote them then? It seems to be your fall back for everything; so long as it supports your position, that is.

Given that your position is only defended by your intellectual dishonesty, I do keep bringing that up as it is valid.

That Sir, is a brilliant post

We should all bookmark it.

...and thank you for increasing my knowledge of this man, so sadly wasted at Franklin.

Birdwatcher

If I were you I would post them myself. That does require some effort.

Just checking in to see that the war between the states is still alive and well.

FWIW, perhaps our efforts would be more fruitful focused on more recent events?

This isn't about slavery today. The promoters would love for us to think it is though.

Can't be; Birdwatcher has told us time and again that it was all only about slavery and any other points or evidence is disregarded out of hand.

The Orwellian level of the propaganda he spouts is very high. Ol' George was a prophet, not a novelist.

...and Snide

Can't. Birdwatcher and the Soros Brigades want to rewrite history and obliterate any remembrance of opposition to a central gov't.

Frankly, a little more acknowledgement that men would actually take up arms in defense of their own freedom rather than a majority view a slavery or fear of free range negroes would have shortened the thread a lot and been more productive in gaining perspective on current events.

If Sherman was a War Criminal for his March to the Sea, so was Nathan Bedford Forrest for his role in the Fort Pillow massacre. Neither man was ever held accountable for his actions by his peers, who given their access to first-hand testimony, would have been in a better position to judge them than any of us who are so far removed from the situation.

That's counter to the .gov propaganda machine, RWE. What the Hell do you expect a public HS (damn, does that start meaning horseschit more every day) teacher to support?

???

Where did I do that?

I have stated truthfully that...

1) The Southern Constitution, their very self-declared identity as a people, was specifically written to enshrine and perpetuate slavery.

and....

2) In all five cases where the leaders of a Confederate State actually sat down and enumerated causes for posterity, slavery was listed front and center.

Birdwatcher

Thanks for yet more info...

..but you must be aware that "almost" doesn't count, 'cept in horseshoes.

You'll also note from the quote that it was a reference to a common sentiment OF THE TIME. Even then, Confederates were responding to the charge that it was all about slavery and denying it.

Really, it boggles the mind. You made mention of some traitorous scum in Texas who abandoned his friends and neighbors and left them to the scourges of the Yankee invaders because he could not bear to fight against the country his father fought for in the American Revolution.

Well, if you want a list of prominent Confederates who had fathers, grandfathers, and uncles who were prominent men in the Revolution the list would surely run into the high dozens. If you include common men, it would be in the tens of thousands. So these men with DIRECT familial connection to the Revolution and an understanding of its principles learned not from books, but from words of their fathers and grandfathers at the fireside, chose to fight for the Confederacy as their fathers had fought for the colonies before them. Do you accuse them of being illiterate? Do you accuse them of abandoning their much beloved country for insufficient reason? Do you accuse them of betraying their fathers and grandfathers? Or does it make more sense that they believed, as it was in their understanding, that their fundamental rights and liberties were at stake and that steeped in the spirit of their revolutionary fathers, they chose to fight for them rather than see them lost without a whimper?