Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Surrender at Appomattox.

http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2...-nuremberg-april-18-1946-gustave-gilbert

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war, neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, (Goering replies) but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them that they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

I actually didn't mean votes of the British Parliament, but that is a good point.

What hampered the war effort against the American Revolution in England was internal division with respect to the justice of the war, and widespread sympathy for the Colonial cause. King George III hisself, who by his uncompromising stance had prob'ly done more than any other to provoke open rebellion in the first place, is said to have applauded out loud when he heard George Washington had voluntarily relinquished the Presidency.....

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/man-who-would-not-be-king

Give the last word to Washington’s great adversary, King George III. The king asked his American painter, Benjamin West, what Washington would do after winning independence. West replied, “They say he will return to his farm.”

“If he does that,” the incredulous monarch said, “he will be the greatest man in the world.”

By the 1780's the British Government had about 120,000 men under arms, just 8,000 of those (a large number by American Rev. War Standards) were bottled up at Yorktown and surrendered under Cornwallis, about 6,000 had been previously captured after their defeat at Saratoga under Burgoyne. Paltry numbers compared to the usual scale of 18th Century European Warfare.

What really happened was that the embarrassment at Yorktown allowed the Whigs to take a majority in Parliament, said majority voting against continuing to prosecute the war.

But as to the votes of the subject colonies themselves....

The British Empire was just getting warmed up in 1783, the big expansion wouldn't begin for another thirty years and by the end of the 19th Century nearly a quarter of the World's population lived under its rule.

All fell apart in the 20th Century, especially after WWII. By then, the innate injustice of one country being allowed to forcibly subjugate another was just too apparent, and yes, one by one subject nations were allowed to vote themselves independent although IIRC most chose to remain in the British Commonwealth.

Ironic thing is is was the Brits themselves who spread that expected level of decency around the world.

Birdwatcher

Well of course, why would a sitting king want a self made king as a competitor?

The fact that you take the position you do on the Civil War and then make that statement without a hint of irony, is quite telling.

Geeze! Lincoln pulled a Goering an made all them Union soldiers think it was all about Secession whereas the Southern States really weren't going to secede!!!

Brilliant, diabolical but brilliant. Now I unnerstand why folks hate Lincoln so much...

http://www.amazon.com/Soldat-Reflections-German-Soldier-1936-1949/dp/0440215269

Germans thought they were freeing the oppressed. Easy to do when the information is controlled, as should be the case.

I support Lincoln just like you do.

It was all about slavery! The "right" that the eleven states wanted to protect was the "right" to own and keep slaves.

Quoting from Lincoln's first inaugural address:

"In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it."".

There is no doubt that Lincoln was much smarter, politically speaking, than the entire political leadership of the CSA. Maybe he suckered the CSA into firing the first shot of the Civil War, therefore taking and holding the high moral ground.

Now, you're just being ridiculous. You know the point. Lincoln wanted to save the Union alright, because the he couldn't lose the revenue from Southern ports. Customs and duties were the SOLE source of federal income in those days. Likewise, the Southern Constitution outlawed them, so Lincoln knew what would happen to northern ports if the south went free.

Yes, of course, Lincoln wanted to save the Union. He needed the money.

Um, since we're playing word games, when exactly was India or Kenya considered part of the UK such that they needed to secede???

Nowhere here have I said the North was "right" and the South was "wrong", I have merely been attempting to cut through the usual hogwash here and merely cite the causes for which they fought as elucidated in the words of the actual participants themselves.

But of course they were all deceived by that diabolical Lincoln...

Birdwatcher

My original home state DEMONSTRABLY did not secede over slavery.

So he got the Southern States to secede and made them think THEY were doing it.

Got it.

Lincoln was a great man.

http://www.abilitymagazine.com/abe_story.html

Once again, tell us why the last four states to leave left the Union.

I cannot begin to count the times that I have heard people here say. My Daddy was a Democrat, and my Grand Daddy was a Democrat, and my Great Grand Daddy was a Democrat, so by God I will vote Democrat as long as I am alive. This was because the Lincoln and the Re-construction was Republican. This runs deeper than you can imagine, if you are not from here. miles

Need to take a quick glance at your "hog-wash cutter" credentials Sir.



Continuation of the matter, along with original placement of the Negro, pre-Yankee ship ride, geographically speaking, would be a better answer than any I have heard...

I ain't my credentials you need to look at, just those authors who were there on the scene at the time.

You may want to check the back ground of those authors.. as well as their politics.

It ain't my job to enable your passive aggression I guess <shrug>

This is why I ignored your previous similar statements. Post 'em yerself you lazy twerp.

Meanwhile lets take a look at the new Constitution ALL the Confederate States ratified and swore to uphold, as seen through the eyes of the Confederate VEEP hisself, Alexander Stephens, right after they wrote it.

Yep, his infernal "Cornerstone Speech", a plague upon Lost Causers everywhere....

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/cornerstone-speech/

The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization.

This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact.

But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day.

Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong etc... etc.... etc.... (what follows is several paragraphs defending the moral virtues of chattel slavery)

Not coincidentally, slavery was considered essential to cotton production......

Birdwatcher

Well Stevens MAY have been a Lincoln/Bolshevik plant I guess...

...but google on "The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States", same story.

Whoops, almost left out the best part...

Stephens again....

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.

Like I said, slavery just happened to be regarded as essential in the production of what was far and away the South's major cash crop....