As a Patriot, when folks like lincoln and Bush, (I voted for Bush twice, I had no other choice. I would have voted for a Demorat if I thought he was better)rewrite the Constitution to suit ther needs then there is where I draw the line.

I want you to watch this Youtube video and see what America as I know it stands for. Not what lincoln or Bush thinks it should stand for. What Washington, Hancock, Thomas Jefferson and the brave Patriots, their wives and children stood for and died for.

Here it is. Watch it and weep if you believe...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwsq7frSB5Q

Now, do you love our country or do you love what lincoln claimed he had to do to hold it together? Actually all lincoln had to do to preserve our country is make it known he was giving his presidency to the next in line.

Travis

quote:

Originally posted by travisab1:
As a Patriot, when folks like lincoln and Bush, (I voted for Bush twice, I had no other choice. I would have voted for a Demorat if I thought he was better)rewrite the Constitution to suit ther needs then there is where I draw the line.

I want you to watch this Youtube video and see what America as I know it stands for. Not what lincoln or Bush thinks it should stand for. What Washington, Hancock, Thomas Jefferson and the brave Patriots, their wives and children stood for and died for.

Here it is. Watch it and weep if you believe...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwsq7frSB5Q

Now, do you love our country or do you love what lincoln claimed he had to do to hold it together? Actually all lincoln had to do to preserve our country is make it known he was giving his presidency to the next in line.

Travis

I do love my country, and I do support what Lincoln did to keep it together. As far as Lincoln "giving his presidency to the next in line", why would he have done that? He won the election legally. What kind of precedent would it have set if a legally elected president resigned because some states objected and threatened to secede?

quote:

I do love my country, and I do support what Lincoln did to keep it together. As far as Lincoln "giving his presidency to the next in line", why would he have done that? He won the election legally. What kind of precedent would it have set if a legally elected president resigned because some states objected and threatened to secede?

Marty;

lincoln knew while he was running that if he should become president that the South would seceed. He only won by 40%. At least two Demorats ran against him. Hindsite is 20/20. This was a well calculated win.

Why, what was going on in this lawyers mind and did he know he was going to have to kill a shtpile of people if he accepted office? Did he abide by the Constitution. I don't think you understand what America stands for. What other right are you willing to give up to...lets say live free? Your right to vote, go to your church of choice, freedom of speech? What else? Once the government finds out all the rights its citizens are willing to give up...what's left? A kigdom maybe.

Travis

P.S....Watch the video will ya?

For those of you who want to really go deep into the Civil War and bang heads check this site out...You'll be amazed and some of you will come to your senses...I hope.

Here 'tis...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/574028/posts

Travis

Let me make myself very clear. I'm a Southerner, born in a time when the names Grant, Sherman, and especially Lincoln were spoken it was customary and acceptible to preface them with an obscenity. When I graduated from high school in 1968 the next day I started growing a beard...not because I was a hippie, a protester, but as an homage to Lee, Jackson, Stuart.

As I became an adult and read more and more into the period. I began to understand the true grandeur of Lincoln. Sure he started out as a political hack, but the man had a capacity for growth and he understood what was important--the preservation of the Union. To quote a later President this country today, the country which he preserved has been for a century "a shining city on the hill".

I hate to tell you but if Washington had been President he would have headed the army himself and a great many Southern governers would have felt a noose around their necks. And I truly shudder to think what Jackson would have done.

It has been said that Winston Churchill saved Western civilization during WWII. Had Lincoln not prevailed there would have been nothing to save. There would have been no great American collussus to go eyeball to eyeball with World Communism and consign it to the ash heap of history. There would have been no Arsenal of Democracy to shatter the Nazis and Japanese. There would have no doughboys charging in at the last moment to avert defeat in WWI. The Pacific would be the modern Mare Nippon--from the Phillipines to Hawaii to Australia dominated by Japan.

Instead you would have had a truncated US oblivious to the rest of the world, totally focused on its southern border. You would have had a pitiful excuse for a nation in the independent CSA. In 10 to 20 years they would have been hit by the boll weavil catastrophe and their only cash crop going up in smoke. We would not be talking today about Mexican ambitions to get back their stolen northern provinces, because with French assistance they might have accomplished that feat in the the late 1880's or 90's.

So a word of advice. I do feel your pain. As there is nothing you can do about this pitiful excuse of a nation that we exist in, send me your address and I'm pretty sure I can get a bucket of Jonestown coolade. Drink the coolade, please drink the coolade.

quote:

Originally posted by AnchoritSybarite:
I hate to tell you but if Washington had been President he would have headed the army himself and a great many Southern governers would have felt a noose around their necks. And I truly shudder to think what Jackson would have done.

I too am a southerner and I have to say, this is a very good point. I believe Washington and Jackson would have shown absolutely zero tolerance for secession.

Travis, OK watched the Francis Scott Key video, and like it, but what does that have to do with NeoRebs from night of the living dead, still trashing the preservation of the UNION of all the states, 150 years after the fact? Are you in the KKK? If the south suceeded in secession on the pipedreams of those lame-brained southern politicians who led you into that massacre: then nowadays the likes of MI6 would certainly be doing your wives and daughters while hanging you by the balls. Just like carpetbaggers and scaliwags eventually did when you "geniuses" left family unprotected way back then for the "glorious right to own men". Travis, get a life and don't quit your day job. Maybe check out that school Atlanta Braves sent John Rocker to.

Back off Joe! This is not a street corner to rage at. Its also not a college campus where you have a bunch of young minds drifting to find a reason for something to believe in.
Too many of us on here have seen the real prices of freedom and suffering to keep you free to spout this "Stuff!" If you have been in the ranks fine, but lay off the hard core rhetoric, most of it bores us to death!

Sorry, Darryl what part of my "hard core rhetoric" is bothering you? Is Travis unable to answer? What is up here? I, nor my immigrant family(First World War), was not in the civil war but i spent thirty something years working in the south, cussed at up and down every which way but loose because i simply happened to be born in a nothern state.

What is up with this civil war grudge? Don't ya'll realize we have REAL enemies that are scheming and conniving to take all those freedoms you and all Americans since George Washington fought for - away from you?
Don't you recognize that disgruntled civil war outcome is similar to bloods and crips fighting over eastside turf or westside 15 blocks? And Abe Linclon is not responsible for what those addle-brained southern politicians got all their finest young men into. Please explain to me what part of this i do not understand.

My heart has been crying in face of the carnage since i visited, Shiloh, Fredericksburg, Chicamagua, Mechanicsburg, Vicksburg, Atlanta, Kennisaw Mountain, etc. back in the 90's. I sought to understand and only found out what i posted here. Tell me the parts i do not know about; i am truly interested...especially the role of international bankers who have financed both sides of every war since we came out of the dark ages.

Joe you dont understand the real reason why the war was fought.You know only what you were told.Dig into the real truth like some of us have done.I once was blind like you.

David thank you for service you did for this country. I owe you Sir. You see, you and i went to draft day nov 1969 on same day. They drafted to 195 that year because fellows over there were doing their job in spite of westmorland, macnamara, etc. and my birthday came up #210 on the ping pong ball, undrafted. I thank all men who made that vacation possible for me and do feel i owe ya'll, my life if need be. But would prefer to pay back in other ways if possible.

Yes, have been studying this civil war since ninties and have drawn no conclusions except the fact that plenty of southern men hold grudge against us if we are born in the north, currently, which is ludicrous since we had nothing to do with it. Not only that... there are many, many more pressing issues that want to murder us, requiring current thought processes, rather than to be pissed off about something that happened 150+ years ago.

So i been digging around, visiting the battlefields, reading some. The feelings of sadness at the battlefields early in morning or other not-busy times, has stayed with me these 10 years.

Blind you say, more than likely...however, some truths are self evident...like the farce about state's rights - a nice way of saying the rebels want black folk to continue doing slave labor...is difficult to swallow...

I knew no real prejudice till i moved to a southern state in 1975. That blindness in my little yankee world was kinda nice. What blindness do you speak of, David? I am all ears.
Joe

State's Rights isn't a code word for anything. It isn't a religion either: there was more to our "Second War for Independence" (- Chesty Puller) than simple political ideology.
Northern apologists want to hide behind the anti-slavery cause only because it gives them a cheap opportunity to call anyone else 'racist,' but if you must use that as an excuse, consider this: It was never Lincoln's idea to have a society of free blacks. The only one with that way of thinking - peaceful end of slavery - was a southerner, Robert Carter. Robert Carter was no abolitionist. Far from it, in fact, since abolitionists were radicals who were despised even in the north for their terrorist ideations and rhetoric. Lincoln's solution was to exploit the slaves for propaganda value and then ship them "back to Africa," despite the fact that they were not from there. How could they have been, since the slave trade had been defunct for years? The slave trade had been profitable for a while.....mostly to the North, which had no qualms about enslaving people as long as they could get rid of them and transfer any guilt associated with them. Why also did Lincoln, in the desperate early days of the war, offer to trade continued subjugation for the protected status of slavery? More importantly, why did the Confederate government reject him? Because that was never our cause. Why does the Northern apologist/revisionist ignore all other history and assume that the South wanted to preserve something which was not to continue even in the much more extreme example of Brazil? One answer is obvious: they will believe anything about us as long as it is bad.....it comes from a lifetime of having us play the villain in their minds.

I don't care what hate you claim to have experienced thirty years ago when you came to my home, but I've seen enough of your hate my entire life to know that we will never be accepted as Americans and that we will constantly be a scapegoat and a pariah for a hypocritical people to use. The only choices available to us are to continue to educate ourselves and others on the truth of our history - that we were just in our cause and that we are good citizens.

Sorry you feel that way, Adam. You see i didn't know i was a yankee when i grew up in the north. That was about something that happened 150 years ago and was really something we all yankees thought was settled. Not only that but my grandparents were immigrants to this nation so my family didn't have anything to do with your Civil War anymore than it did with the Greek-Pelopinishian wars so i just studied it like all the other wars in history.

And we do not hate Southerners, we don't think there is any reason to continue a 150 year old wound. I am sorry if you met some prejudice yankees in your day, there are some wicked people around here, i can vouch for that. But it was after i moved to the south for 30something years, that i was re-educated with the fires that love to hate. This is how odd this is: you hate yankees more than you hate Russians, more than you hate VietCong and more than you hate alQueda. One thing you got going for you, you are a bunch of haters who thinks your sh*t don't stink.

So OK, go for it, Adam if that's what makes you happy. i hold no animosity against you. i wish we could see eye to eye on some of this nightmare you seem to be living but frankly, Scarlett, i don't give a damn if you hate me.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: JoeProphet,

If standing up for yourself when cast as the villain is hating, then call me a hater all you want. It isn't like we are keeping the fire going: The enemy constantly tries to stir up trouble and ignorant hatred against us by any means. It isn't just the selected literature read by eccentric "civil war buffs" that try to whitewash Sherman's actions or deflate the accomplishments of Southern soldiers - PBS gets special funding to teach people a mythological version of the war, focusing on the Fort Pillow "massacre" (where Northern officers blocked the black troops, commissar style, and then cried foul after losing the battle) and Andersonville (where Union prisoners were given the same rations as Confederate soldiers in the field - in contrast to the deliberately starved Confederate prisoners in the various Northern prison camps). These are the kinds of facts that are officially wrong and unknowable, even though they are the truth. In a country where the standard college textbook vilified American soldiers and their cause in all conflicts, including the Revolution, the Northern Soldiers in the Civil War become grandiose crusaders who can do no wrong.
Visit any battlefield park and see how balanced a view the park-nazis will give you. In the minds of you people, it was Americans VS evildoers.....and that must be the only way you can understand it because this isn't your home. It isn't right and it isn't true, and call me anything, I know that I'm not evil to love my own country.

Good post Thrust.

quote:

Originally posted by Thrust_0311:
If standing up for yourself when cast as the villain is hating, then call me a hater all you want. It isn't like we are keeping the fire going: The enemy constantly tries to stir up trouble and ignorant hatred against us by any means. It isn't just the selected literature read by eccentric "civil war buffs" that try to whitewash Sherman's actions or deflate the accomplishments of Southern soldiers - PBS gets special funding to teach people a mythological version of the war, focusing on the Fort Pillow "massacre" (where Northern officers blocked the black troops, commissar style, and then cried foul after losing the battle) and Andersonville (where Union prisoners were given the same rations as Confederate soldiers in the field - in contrast to the deliberately starved Confederate prisoners in the various Northern prison camps). These are the kinds of facts that are officially wrong and unknowable, even though they are the truth. In a country where the standard college textbook vilified American soldiers and their cause in all conflicts, including the Revolution, the Northern Soldiers in the Civil War become grandiose crusaders who can do no wrong.
Visit any battlefield park and see how balanced a view the park-nazis will give you. In the minds of you people, it was Americans VS evildoers.....and that must be the only way you can understand it because this isn't your home. It isn't right and it isn't true, and call me anything, I know that I'm not evil to love my own country.

Adam calm down, brother. Park-nazis, that's very funny. I did visit quite a few parks but try to go early in morning on weekdays when hardly no one is around. Those visits changed me in a way that is very hard to describe. I can assure you nobody i grew up with in NJ, thought anything about hating anybody from the south because of the Civil War. We really had/have a lot of other way more pressing issues on our minds commanding our complete attention for present day survival.

i agree with you, on many of your points, as well as things you do not mention...so does everyone. I mean for example for Grant to shell the women and children in the town of Vicksburg in order to get your Vicksburg army to surrender and come down off that mountain next to the town is outright horrible.
Hell, it was war in another time, brother. It's not like they had TV or computer to reflect and say, "what was i thinking?" And besides that i read where Grant was a drinker, thereby drowning his conscience. Would you even get into a car with a Jack Daniels brain behind the wheel, let alone put him in charge of tens of thousands of armed men?

War is hell, brother, it's happening all over the world for since forever. We got over world war 2 didn't we? How many men died in battle of the bulge in one night blows ones mind. We got over the atrocities and are best of buds with Japan now because we know men are way out there when under fire under extreme stress and duress. But we try anyway to get over it. We try to heal best we can. That's just sanity. Would you agree that insanity is Jihading against Isreal because Ishmael didn't get the same deal like Issac did from father Abraham or Prince Habib got killed back in the 1700's so we are still pissed off at the Kurds? or whatever fuels all that idiotic hatred.

Listen to yourself, Adam, it's history, and i hate revised history as much as you do! I think that secretary of health education and welfare should be prosecuted for allowing history to get butchered up, and we pay tax dollars to get lies taught to our children. But folks in charge got ulterior motives that we will never know about until we get to the other side. i mean i am finding out that it is being taught in public schools that D-Day was UN orchestrated. How does that make you feel? And i felt bad all day at work that i smart mouthed you, and i apologize. I do care if you or anyone hates me. I do not want to do/say things to cause anyone to hate me. I really just want to do my work, and not cause any hard feelings. If you want to tell the historical events i am sure listening. And i never really saw anyone condone what Sherman did. But i do believe that he did what he thought best at the time to end the war as fast as possible. Kinda like dropping H-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Now i don't expect those people to say thanks, yank either. But they did sell me a very dependable mitsubishi eclipse that i like a lot. God Bless you, brother. Joe

quote:

Joe you dont understand the real reason why the war was fought.You know only what you were told.Dig into the real truth like some of us have done.I once was blind like you.

And what would the "real truth" be?

A lot of bad things were done during the war but it isn't that question which really drives most rational minded people....I would think. It is the glorification of Sherman's actions as "brilliant" or similar whitewashes which dishonor the memory of the dead. In hindsight, Stalin was right to order all civilians to be held in Stalingrad in order to make the 62nd Army want to fight even harder to protect them - In the view of someone like VD Hanson (a virulent Sherman apologist and social abstractionist), Stalin would not only be "brilliant" but the civilians would be villains for even wanting to escape.

quote:

How many men died in battle of the bulge in one night blows ones mind. We got over the atrocities and are best of buds with Japan now because we know men are way out there when under fire under extreme stress and duress. But we try anyway to get over it. We try to heal best we can. That's just sanity. Would you agree that insanity is Jihading against Isreal because Ishmael didn't get the same deal like Issac did from father Abraham or Prince Habib got killed back in the 1700's so we are still pissed off at the Kurds? or whatever fuels all that idiotic hatred.

It would be one thing to hate the Japanese today, for me anyway. My Grandfather will always hate them in some way because they killed his brother. I don't share that view but that is his personal struggle and he has sufficient reason. However, if Noam Chomsky's books were required reading in public school - where he acts as apologist to the Imperial Japanese (among others) - AND WW2 Sailors and Marines were portrayed as fat, stupid hicks or whatever, then I probably would have reason to feel that we are treated wrong. This is exactly the case with The war which stripped entire towns of its male population and which affected everyone else in some way - We are portrayed as evil in an age where the same teacher will glorify the Viet Cong. It is unjust but the revisionist types go a step further: Not only were we evil, ugly, obscene monsters who only wanted to win so we could go back to being fat, drinking whiskey, and beating slaves (or something to that effect), we also fought poorly. Now this would have been laughed at by any professional soldier in the world, seventy years ago (including Imperial Japan which thought us to all be inferior), but it is commonly believed and written about by the strange revisionists of today. Check out the magazine of the "Civil War Society" - It is one article after another about how we just 'got lucky' in every campaign/battle we won, fought a stupid hack of a general, or really didn't win even in battles where the Official Records (written by the veterans themselves) say otherwise. If not that, it's another diatribe on how stupid and evil we were/are or a shallow dismissal of our contentions.....ussually these are not through actual arguments but through satire, irrelevant and unrelated facts and half facts, and/or garish period paintings and woodcuts from the Northern side. I mean, the boot-est *** lieutenant could tear that to shreds but professional historians preach it like it's the gospel.
And for what? Well that's the question that really needs an answer.

Stalin was wrong, no matter what. He and his spiritual cousin, Hitler, were murderers like their father, the devil. It's too bad these demon possessed types get to legally walk around and even get promoted in the land of the living.

Revisonist historians are sooo queer. And why would anyone even consider reading what a liar has to say? After all, his father is also the devil, who is the father of lies.

Funny tough, all the history i read and heard from the park rangers was how McClellan didn't want to lose any men so was the non-confrontational general...Burnside needs to get dug up and his remains sent to the local garbage dump...the Rebs where fighting for home and values with their hearts, therefore more ferocious battle after battle against an army of, for the most part, conscripts,(whose hearts are never into it),... Bedford Forrest was one of smartest tactics-tician most anyone can figure...and everybody respects the brains of Stonewall Jackson and Jeb Stuart and valour of their men... History according to Jeff Sharra father/son history team is well received by the critics and dosn't seem to be skewered...and it is our outsider yankee observation that Southern towns were stripped of their men because Southern politicians fueled for and declared a war that they knew was unwinnable against a superior weapons manufacturing producer with almost unlimited manpower. i mean, in the first place, if given a choice like Southern politicians had, who in their right mind would send their young men to certain death with muskets and rifles of different bores and limited production against an army carrying large factory produced rifles and large factory produced revolvers with interchangable ammunition?
Does not simple bible advice say to consider the enemy with superior forces and seek to make peace with him before battle? The bible that both sides read?

And a shocking curious thing i heard was that many, many southern preachers committed suicide after the war. Is that true? What do you suppose drives a preacher to commit suicide besides giving very, very bad advice that added to reason young men were stripped from Southern towns?

And maybe you don't have animosties against yankees, (just these queer history writers that i never heard of nor want to), but the rest of the Southern population i met, (as i worked in 27 states including all that were in the Southern Republic), sure does. And none of them ever quoted any of what you said but rather have an attitude similar to what your grandfather thinks of the Japanese, (which is understandable being how he lost his brother), but that being how many generations removed from civil war times!!!??? I mean you, of two generations do not carry your grandfather's hatred of the Japanese. But instead i surely worked where whole towns of Southerners who carry the hatred of a great-great-great grandfather aganst yankees and therefore me, in particualar, as well as the entire present day yankee population. i am sorry... that is just sounding a little too Ayatolla Iohmaniac and Jihadist to this displaced yankee.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: JoeProphet,

Joe, your last piece is much better than some of the others but I have to disagree on two points.
"Burnside needs to get dug up and his remains sent to the garbage dump." and "McClellan didn't want to lose any men so was the non-confrontational general."
First, that's very unfair to the man, Burnside. He did no worse than Hooker, Pope or Mcclellan.
The man had the guts and the foresight to tell the higher-ups that he lacked the ability to do the job as Army of the Potomac commander even before they appointed him. That is something must historians in their axe to grind bios tend to forget. The man didn't want the job and said so. Nobody listened.
Second, McClellan became a coward after his first battle. He got away with being that way under the theories of Jomeni being it would be a battle of manuver to avoid the final fateful battle. Under the Jomenian theory of war the generals and not the government controls the war.
I also firmly believe that once he had control of the vast Federal forces his personal vanity and taste for power was getting very close to military dictatorship. He couldn't dispatch the thing he created for fear of losing men, which meant he'd lost his control over Lincoln and the government. And, he couldn't face the fact of seeing or having the carnage of the battlefield he saw earlier. The man took special pains to insulate himself from those horrors.
To a degree, yes, noncofortational, but the loss of control and personal power to be the savior of the Union, yes indeed.
Something that is scaring me, personally, right now is we have a politican who sees themselves as the savior of the nation and does not have the good sense to get out of the race and concede to a someone else. They believe them- selves to be the most electable, but can't see what the average American thinks about them. Oh Boy!!