[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

There hasn’T been ... a single updaTe To This siTe --- since I joined. "This Is Not What Authoritarianism Looks Like" America Erupts… ICE Raids Takeover The Streets AC/DC- Riff Raff + Go Down [VH1 Uncut, July 5, 1996] Why is Peter Schiff calling Bitcoin a ‘giant cult’ and how does this impact market sentiment? Esso Your Butt Buddy Horseshit jacks off to that shit "The Addled Activist Mind" "Don’t Stop with Harvard" "Does the Biden Cover-Up Have Two Layers?" "Pete Rose, 'Shoeless' Joe Reinstated by MLB, Eligible for HOF" "'Major Breakthrough': Here Are the Details on the China Trade Deal" Freepers Still Love war Parody ... Jump / Trump --- van Halen jump "The Democrat Meltdown Continues" "Yes, We Need Deportations Without Due Process" "Trump's Tariff Play Smart, Strategic, Working" "Leftists Make Desperate Attempt to Discredit Photo of Abrego Garcia's MS-13 Tattoos. Here Are Receipts" "Trump Administration Freezes $2 Billion After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands"on After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands "Doctors Committing Insurance Fraud to Conceal Trans Procedures, Texas Children’s Whistleblower Testifies" "Left Using '8647' Symbol for Violence Against Trump, Musk" KawasakiÂ’s new rideable robohorse is straight out of a sci-fi novel "Trade should work for America, not rule it" "The Stakes Couldn’t Be Higher in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court Race – What’s at Risk for the GOP" "How Trump caught big-government fans in their own trap" ‘Are You Prepared for Violence?’ Greek Orthodox Archbishop gives President Trump a Cross, tells him "Make America Invincible" "Trump signs executive order eliminating the Department of Education!!!" "If AOC Is the Democratic Future, the Party Is Even Worse Off Than We Think" "Ending EPA Overreach" Closest Look Ever at How Pyramids Were Built Moment the SpaceX crew Meets Stranded ISS Crew The Exodus Pharaoh EXPLAINED! Did the Israelites Really Cross the Red Sea? Stunning Evidence of the Location of Red Sea Crossing! Are we experiencing a Triumph of Orthodoxy? Judge Napolitano with Konstantin Malofeev (Moscow, Russia) "Trump Administration Cancels Most USAID Programs, Folds Others into State Department" Introducing Manus: The General AI Agent "Chinese Spies in Our Military? Straight to Jail" Any suggestion that the USA and NATO are "Helping" or have ever helped Ukraine needs to be shot down instantly "Real problem with the Palestinians: Nobody wants them" ACDC & The Rolling Stones - Rock Me Baby Magnus Carlsen gives a London System lesson! "The Democrats Are Suffering Through a Drought of Generational Talent" 7 Tactics Of The Enemy To Weaken Your Faith Strange And Biblical Events Are Happening Every year ... BusiesT casino gambling day -- in Las Vegas Trump’s DOGE Plan Is Legally Untouchable—Elon Musk Holds the Scalpel Palestinians: What do you think of the Trump plan for Gaza? What Happens Inside Gaza’s Secret Tunnels? | Unpacked Hamas Torture Bodycam Footage: "These Monsters Filmed it All" | IDF Warfighter Doron Keidar, Ep. 225 Status: Not Logged In; Sign In United States News See other United States News Articles Title: Goldi-Lox Explains the Civil War Source: [None] URL Source: http://69.164.197.124/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=287235&Disp=13#C13 Published: Apr 9, 2010 Author: Goldi-Lox Post Date: 2010-04-09 19:08:35 by Skip Intro Keywords: None Views: 18563 Comments: 145 THAT is bullshit. The civil war was all about MONEY. The South wanted to sell their crops to Foreign Nations and use their own ports. FEDGOV said NO. You have to ship them up North, and let our middlemen sell them to nations WE choose at prices we select. The South was getting HOSED. One of the reasons they had slaves was due to the North imposing these rules on them. They couldn't afford to pay wages. Now, some of them were very greedy, no doubt...and that is evidenced in the grand homes they built. However, many southern farmers were barely breaking even and were sick and tired of it. They wanted to use the ports in SC and GA to ship their products and wanted to sell to France and others at better prices than they were getting. FEDGOV imposed rules on them....so they seceded in order to run their own farms. However, once fighting broke out, and a civil war was in place Lincoln decided to break the backs of the South, by freeing the slaves who he hoped would fight them in their own towns and plantations. That didn't happen. Lincoln used Slavery as an excuse for a lot of the actions he engaged in. He was as bad as Obastard...he imprisoned the entire Maryland Assembly (Govt) including the Governor, so they could not vote to seceed. He kept them imprisoned in Fort McHenry for MONTHS. He committed a lot of atrocities. He is no hero. He was a jerk - and an abuser of our Constitution. In fact, read the words of the state song "Maryland my Maryland" - where it says "The tyrants food is on our shores/neck"...that tyrant was Lincoln. Most blacks who were slaves were well treated, and did not want to leave their homes...and most didn't. Those who were mistreated did, and flooded the cities in the north...from which they have never recovered. But few slaves - or freedmen - were engaged in the fighting. Booth was a hero to the South. And still is today. Goldi-Lox posted on 2010-04-09 18:57:04 ET Reply Trace Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 129. #1. To: Skip Intro (#0) oh my...I'm so glad I'm not associated with stormfront lite. Somebody should tell this silly woman it was about State Rights. The primary Right the South asserted was to allow Slavery. Hence its being codified within the CSA's Constitution, cleary...consisely..and beyond any doubt of even a total idiot. Which is why the CSA never could obtain an intervention from any civilized nation, and lost the war. More to it, obviously...but given Sally's small mind, figure I'd keep it simple. What a fuckin nutcase. Badeye  posted on  2010-04-09   19:22:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #4. To: Badeye (#1) Somebody should tell this silly woman it was about State Rights. Somebody needs to tell YOU that State's Rights include the right to export goods without having to go through a central government. Goldi is pretty much correct with everything she wrote. sneakypete  posted on  2010-04-09   19:32:38 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #16. To: sneakypete (#4) Ah...no. You have nothing to export from the Antebellum South without SLAVES. Thats simply fact. Without the RIGHT to OWN SLAVES, everything Sally writes is IRRELEVANT. What you are citing is the infamous 'Lost Cause Theory' thats so ridiculously discredited by historians from both the North and the South its amusing anyone clings to it in the year 2010. You're actually bird talking Jubal Early's defense of The South from the 1868 - 1880's. Early concocted this ridiculous revisionist history in an attempt to paint the South in 'glory' but also to discredit that evil Republican, former General James 'Pete" Longstreet, who despised each other til the day they died. I'm not making any of this up, you can read it in dozens of legitimate historical texts, or the letters and books from the particpants themselves. Badeye  posted on  2010-04-10   1:30:14 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #27. To: Badeye (#16) Ah...no. You have nothing to export from the Antebellum South without SLAVES. Thats simply fact. Without the RIGHT to OWN SLAVES, everything Sally writes is IRRELEVANT. Not true. We (the original colonies)started out exporting goods to Europe before slavery existed here. We used indentured servants,both black and white. In fact,it was a former indentured servant that created slavery as a legal institution by going to court and having his indentured servant declared to be his property. This man was black and the indentured servant he enslaved were both black. Slavery was just more profitable at that time. A condition which would have changed as machinery became available to do the work more efficiently and cheaply. After all,the slaves all had "free health care,free housing,free food,and free clothing". Hell,they even had a retirement plan that allowed them to sit around and still be fed and housed once they got too old to work. Slavery was a wet dream come true for the left,and Obama is trying to bring it back to thundering applause from them. The only difference is he wants the whites to be the slaves. sneakypete  posted on  2010-04-10   9:00:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #100. To: sneakypete (#27) Sorry, sneaky, but the fact is the South wanted slavery to continue. If it had not been THE issue throughout the 1850's, the Civil War would not have occured. 'The Lost Cause' myth says it was a war about 'States Rights'. What was the 'primary Right' the South desired above all others? As the CSA Constitution Clearly STATES - the Right to maintain SLAVERY as a institution. Had the CSA abolished slavery, THEN fired on Ft Sumter, they would have won. Badeye  posted on  2010-04-12   9:02:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #102. To: Badeye (#100) Sorry, sneaky, but the fact is the South wanted slavery to continue. If it had not been THE issue throughout the 1850's, the Civil War would not have occured. Sorry Badeye, but you are dead wrong. You simply do not understand the Southern psyche. Southerners are a very proud group, and the aristrocrats by the time of the CW had already decided slavery was morally wrong, but in spite of that they were not about to allow outsiders to push something down their throats. GarySpFC  posted on  2010-04-12   10:15:54 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #109. To: GarySpFC (#102) Sorry, but those 'aristocrats' codified it in the CSA Constitution, as a post way up above quoted exactly. I understand the 'Southern psyche' quite well. I also know today its based on the Lost Cause bullshit thats been utterly discredited by historians from both Northern and Southern perspectives. The South today likes to either pretend it 'wasn't about slavery' or pretends the war never happened (See Atlanta - who's historical time line ends in the 1850's and picks back up in the 1870's). Your statement is further 'gutted' by the simple fact that the notion of arming 'blacks' in the South to bolster the vastly outnumbered CSA forces was considered by a vast majority within the legislature to be 'treason'. Or suicidal, take your pick. And tell me, if they had decided it was 'morally wrong' and only resisted because 'they wouldn't allow it to be pushed down their throats'....ah, morally wrong is MORALLY WRONG. What you state here is something I noted way up above, the South - like the British Empire of that ear, would rather 'lose the war than admit the mistake'. They could have won. The decision to codify Slavery in their Constitution was in the end the deciding factor. It prevented any possibility of the worlds great powers from siding with the CSA. It gave Lincoln a huge advantage in the North to 'define' the war as it was taking place, not only taking and holding the 'moral highground' of the era, but to this day. Not saying he was fighting the war over slavery, thats simply not true as his own words up until his assasination clearly demonstrate. But the fact is the CSA died of a theory. The theory was they could suceed from the Union AND keep a Institution (Slavery) without repercussions that doomed it to failure. The simple fact of this matter is the Union, despite all of its advantages in manpower, and manufacturing, couldn't get out of its own way til Grant was promoted to command of ALL Union forces, in both theaters. The war shouldn't have lasted more than 18 months, tops, given the disparity in military and economic forces. It was only due to Union incompetence the war lasted four years in my view. Badeye  posted on  2010-04-12   11:05:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #114. To: Badeye (#109) Have you considered what percentage of Southerners owned slaves? GarySpFC  posted on  2010-04-12   12:10:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #115. To: GarySpFC (#114) Have you considered what percentage of Southerners owned slaves? Yep. Which is why your comment about 'artistocrats' previously simply doesn't hold water. It wasn't the vast majority of Southerners that fought and died in that war that 'codified Slavery' in the CSA Constitution. The average Southerner didn't own slaves. They were sold on supporting the war as a 'states rights' issue, and it was adroitly played by that aristocratic class as a 'matter of honor' to the hilt. But it doesn't change the facts as written by the CSA's own hand in its Constitution. Yep, States Rights was a central, key theme. But the next question after that acknowledgement is 'States Rights to do WHAT?' And the answer cannot be denied. 'To maintain the Institution of Slavery'. The Federal Government was doing what it does to this day, taxing unfairly. No dispute. But there is a way to deal with that, via the Constitution. If that was the only issue, there would never have been a Civil War in my view. Badeye  posted on  2010-04-12   12:29:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #117. To: Badeye (#115) The average Southerner didn't own slaves. They were sold on supporting the war as a 'states rights' issue, and it was adroitly played by that aristocratic class as a 'matter of honor' to the hilt. But it doesn't change the facts as written by the CSA's own hand in its Constitution. Yep, States Rights was a central, key theme. But the next question after that acknowledgement is 'States Rights to do WHAT?' And the answer cannot be denied. 'To maintain the Institution of Slavery'. Why? Once again, because outsiders were cramming their views down the Southerner's throats. The Federal Government was doing what it does to this day, taxing unfairly. No dispute. But there is a way to deal with that, via the Constitution. If that was the only issue, there would never have been a Civil War in my view. Let's take a look at something interesting.' In 1703, 42 percent of New York's households had slaves; the only city with more was Charleston, South Carolina. By 1775, in New York there were 3,100 slaves, accounting for 30 percent to 40 percent of the city's workforce. Slavery was part of every American colony until Vermont got rid of it in 1777; emancipation "came grudgingly and not completely" in New York until 1827." http://www.newyorkology.com/archives/2005/10/slavery_in... The point being the South knew slavery was a dying institution. Yes, they codified it in their Constitution, and that due to hostility from the North. Likewise, prior to the Civil Rights movement I frequently heard many declare segregation was wrong. However, the CRM set progress back 30-40 years. Older Southern blacks will admit this as being true. GarySpFC  posted on  2010-04-12   13:57:47 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #118. To: GarySpFC (#117) Okay...they 'knew' and did it anyway. And that act ensured they'd never get any support, or recognition, as a seperate nation when they suceeded. Any way you cut it, they FUCKED UP on that one issue, and it doomed them. As I noted, Lincoln didn't set out to 'free the slaves'. He took that tac when he needed to. I'm aware that slavery existed in the North and that the change came slowly. Still doesn't contradict my noting Slavery as a codified institution doomed the CSA from day one. Badeye  posted on  2010-04-12   14:10:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #120. To: Badeye (#118) Still doesn't contradict my noting Slavery as a codified institution doomed the CSA from day one. I don't doubt that. However, once again, slavery was not the root cause of the CW. In fact many of the Founding Fathers were slave holders, and were still respected even though deceased prior to the breakout of the CW. BTW, I live close to where John Brown lived and started his killing. The man was not respected in the area. GarySpFC  posted on  2010-04-12   14:30:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #125. To: GarySpFC (#120) BTW, I live close to where John Brown lived and started his killing. The man was not respected in the area. (chuckle) Most nutcases aren't respected. ONe of my favorite ironies is that it was then Lt Colonel Robert E Lee, along with some captain named JEB Stewart that captured John Brown at Harpers Ferry. Badeye  posted on  2010-04-12   15:32:48 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #127. To: Badeye (#125) Grant's total war policy makes Iraq and Vietnam look like cake bakes. He would be condemned by both conservatives and liberals today. GarySpFC  posted on  2010-04-12   16:23:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #128. To: GarySpFC (#127) No more than Truman for nuking. Lincoln would have been condemed for appointing each of the Generals that proceeded Grant, for not removing Halleck and Stanton, and for not replacing the head of procurement for the Army of the Potomac. Badeye  posted on  2010-04-12   16:27:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #129. To: Badeye (#128) (Edited) Grant's total war policy makes Iraq and Vietnam look like cake bakes. He would be condemned by both conservatives and liberals today. No more than Truman for nuking. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets, with civilians in the area. Grant not onlyi targeted supplies the Confederates could use, which I understand, but he also took or destroyed anything women, children, and the aged could eat. He also destroyed their homes. GarySpFC  posted on  2010-04-12   17:01:26 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   Replies to Comment # 129. #135. To: GarySpFC (#129) You are confusing Grant with Sherman here. In effect, two very different theaters of operation. Grant had a magnificent supply base, the largest ever created in the history of warfare up to that time, located at City Point. Shipping came directly from the Atlantic to the docks there. Trains had access as well. Grants 'supply line' was measured in YARDS more or less, from the point supplies were embarked upon the docks, or train yards. Sherman's supply lines were more or less none existent once past Kennesaw Mountain, and measured in hundreds of miles. To execute the 'March to the Sea' from Atlanta, his only option was to 'live off the land'. Yes, it was his intention to 'make Georgia/south Carolina howl' and he did. Most don't realize the deep South was in fact vitually 'untouched' by the affects of the war on the front lines. Mary Chestnut's diaries make it very clear, once she left Richmond in that final eight months. The Union controlled New Orleans, but not the countryside around it. The Union blockaded Charleston, but never controlled it throughout most of the war. Same for every other Atlantic port, til Sherman took them from LANDWARD. As for taking from the population...see Lee's second invasion of the North, see Jubal Early's late foray into the Washington DC vicinity near the end of the war. They did the same thing, more or less. Though they didn't burn to the ground storage facilities, rail yards, etc. You bet Sherman burnt to the ground the Aristocrats gigantic homes when he came upon them. As we discussed earlier, it was they that insisted on codifying slavery in the CSA Constitution. It was they that benefited from it the most. Badeye  posted on  2010-04-13 10:32:08 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   End Trace Mode for Comment # 129. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com