Poll: The Civil War, which side was right?

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by eric_b, Sep 7, 2002.

  1. eric_b

    eric_b
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://home.nc.rr.com/robotplot/tiny_eri

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    442
    Likes Received:
    0
    Okay, so which side was right in the Civil war?

    Eric
     
  2. Monergist

    Monergist
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    1,122
    Likes Received:
    0
    It WAS the war of Northern Aggression !! [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  3. GrannyGumbo

    GrannyGumbo
    Expand Collapse
    <img src ="/Granny.gif">

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2002
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Another great poll! [​IMG]

    Deo Vindice! THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT! Resurgam!

    "Fly me proudly. I am your inheritance."
     
  4. pinoybaptist

    pinoybaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    8,123
    Likes Received:
    1
    Wasn't born in this country. Ain't white, blond, or blue-eyed. I speak with an accent so terrible
    I myself flinch when I listen to my own voice.
    BUT if I were born here, I'd have been in the Confederate Army.... [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  5. Jude

    Jude
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/scott3.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2001
    Messages:
    2,680
    Likes Received:
    0
    Born in the midwest, ancestors from North Carolina, and yet...I must say that I believe that the 'North' was 'more right' than the South, yet...the South had very-real issues as well...and, well, ultimately, the whole-thing was such a tragic waste. Isn't this interesting, that the 'question' of the legitimacy of one side or the other is STILL raised in 2002! Perhaps the wounds have not yet healed?
     
  6. Maverick

    Maverick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    960
    Likes Received:
    0
    Brother Jeff Davis said that a question settled by violence, or in disregard of law, must remain forever unsettled. Both instances happened in the War of Northern aggression. No one is perfect so yes the South had some issues. However, secession was originally a Yankee idea and NJ threatened 3 times to leave and no one promised troops to stop her from going. The union was nothing more than a contract among sovereign states or else they were not sovereign. A contract can be broken by either party. Horace Greeley in his NY paper said, "Farewell our Southern Sisters!" No one but the Lincolnites had a problem with the secession. Interetsing since it 1844, he had said that it was the divine right of a people to seek a government that would represent them if the one they had did not. As president, he changed his tune. He suspended the writ of habeus corpus and imprisoned folks without regard law and overstepped his constitutional powers. You might want to get the book, "The South Was Right." and there are plenty of sites where you can find history not published in the Yankee schools.

    They kept Davis unlawfully in prison for two years seeking treason charges and found out that they would be in big trouble if they tried to do that and might well lose in the courtroom what they had won on the battlefield so they left him go.

    All they proved is if I outnumber you four to one and I am well supplied and you are not I can kick your butt in FOUR years. Had the South fought like the North in the beginning they would have won. All it would have taken is at the 1st battle when the Yanks were sent running in total disarray would have been to follow them into Washington DC, burned it to the ground and taken Abe prisoner and it would have been over. All they wanted was to keep the yanks out and go on, but Abe would not hear of it and hence the bloody four years. Sherman was a genocidist who wanted to completely exterminate the Southern people (any wonder why the Indians were almost exterminated with him still around) and that makes him and Abe who condoned his actions no better than Hitler and Himmler. The South paid for their food and supplies when they were in PA and even helped some civilians when the troops were low on supplies. Sherman practiced scorched earth.

    Then we come to 10 years of oppression called Reconstuction when it was really a cold war where the Yanks pillaged everything they could. They feared a Black and White retaliation so they did things like tell Black folks that if they went to a White person and they did not give them what they wanted then the Black could burn the White man's house down. Gee, and I wonder how racial problems started in the South.

    Even today, the aggression goes on. Every time a Southerner is deplicted he is always a inbred, ignorant, racist and most likely a crazed snake handler or a "fundamentalist." AOL even had a commercial that showed that stereotype until enough people protested. Had they done that with any other group they would have had to pay damages and publically apologize not just pull the commercial.

    The South is supposed to be full of racial tension and hate groups yet Klanwatch reports that 65% of all hate groups are HQed in the North and more racial incidents happened up North than in the South in the years that I looked at but usually only the ones in the South get heavy press.

    It is an issue today because it will always be an issue. The North never got over winning a war that equals to a 35 year old man taking 3 hours to beat up a ten year old and hence the South never got over losing it. As long as the lies and hate keeps coming from the North and others the wounds will never heal.
     
  7. Maverick

    Maverick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    960
    Likes Received:
    0
    My son submitted this as a class project in college. Surprising the professor gave him an A though he called it an "interesting alternative viewpoint."

    Northern Aggression and Southern Scars

    For some the conflict of the 1860s is known as the War Between the States. This is not an accurate title since once the Southern states seceded they were another country and thus this was not a battle among states, but between two separate countries. It has been called the Civil War, but there was nothing civil about it. The War of Southern Independence or The War of Northern Aggression are more appropriate terms for this conflict. For indeed, the South was fighting to maintain its independence and the North was the aggressor.

    It has been said that the South has never gotten over losing the war and hence the holding on to the various symbols and the battle cry of "The South shall rise again." It is more probable that the North has never gotten over winning it or more likely, has never gotten over the guilt of it and hence the persistent vilification of the South until this day.

    Recently, a black journalist out of Baltimore decried the defense of car tags issued to the Sons of the Confederate Veterans that bore their symbol which includes a Confederate battle flag. He claims that they should be denied on a basis of patriotism because the flag represents a caste of traitors and a failed rebellion. This is an interesting concept considering that none of the leaders of the Confederacy were ever brought to trial on treason. Since secession was their right and denied them by military force it, would not have fared well for the heroes of the Republic to bring to light their own crimes by seeking to prosecute the innocent.

    We are a nation founded by secession. We seceded from England. Just read the Declaration of Independence and you will see that the founding fathers were not advocating an "indivisible" union. The first sentence reads :

    "When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station. To which the laws of Nature and Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the cause which impel them to the Separation."

    Where in this do you see a precedence for an everlasting Union? They saw the Political Bands between England and themselves as a contract that could be broken. So how could we think the bands between the North and South should be any different just because a new continent is involved. We live in a nation of broken contracts. There are lawyers who specialize in contract law and with all the fine print and red tape, suits, etc. A contract can be broken. What is inviolate about a political contract? Nothing except that generations of Americans have been taught that it was so in order to cover the tyranny of the Lincoln Republicans.

    The very next sentence sets up the everlasting status of the first. If you have unalienable rights and one of those is the ability to alter or abolish your government, where in the effort to do so can there be treason? It cannot be possible in principle. It can be possible in practice when dishonorable men who claim to uphold the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the precepts of our Founding Fathers deny them and suppress by force the free exercise of another's unalienable rights. They can call it treason, but in reality, the men who suppress the right are the traitors and guilty of treason against the foundational principles of the land in which they govern. It is they who should be tried and convicted. Lincoln should have been impeached and the South allowed to go its way in peace. I submit that the leaders of the Confederacy are falsely charged with treason, as are their admirers. The South was and is slandered unjustly until this day.

    The question of slavery is always a vibrant one when speaking of the South and the late unpleasantness. The accusation that the South had slaves is a fact. However, the South did not invent this practice. Their have been slaves since the Ancient Near Eastern times. The history of the Hebrews has been one of slavery and freedom. There were slaves in the days of Rome. They were called serfs in Europe. The African slaves were brough from their African owners. No one is innocent in the issue of slavery. Even the Native Americans practiced it. Iriqouis Indians of the New York region had African slaves. Free blacks practiced slavery. Most of the ships that brought them had Northern ports of call, hence the name Yankee Clippers. Yet, the Confederacy and the Southern people bear the burden and vilification as a slave owning, racist, hateful people. I do not condone slavery now nor do I justify it then. I do strongly resent it being a "Southern thing".

    Due to the slavery issue, all who fought for the Cause are made out to be evil, demonic, pre-evolutionary savages. When in reality, a very small portion of the Southern populace actually owned slaves. The Southern Baptists have recently apologized about the slave issue. Ironically, their only sin was their theological intepretation since most of the Southern Baptists at that time were far too poor to own anything so expensive as a slave. The expense itself would lend to the exaggeration of the abuse of slaves by their Southern owners. Frankly, they could not have afforded a slave for very long. Our society of the "bottom line" should understand that. I am not denying that there were abuses and even atrocities, but not to the extent that some would declare to be true. It would have been poor business and one cannot mantain an extravagant plantation by exercising poor business practices.

    Since it has been taught that the primary reason for the Civil War was slavery, then the battle flag has become a symbol of racial hatred. This has not always been so, and it is not the same in other countries. True, the battleflag has been used by the Klan and racists, but so has the American flag. On the cover of a 1981 issue of Triad magazine, published in North Carolina, there is a full body shot of a Klansman in his robe standing in front of an American flag holing the Bible and a shot gun. Therefore I submit that if the Confederate battle flag is a symbol of racial hate, then so is the American flag and we should seek to ban it as well as the Bible and shot guns. Although there have been movements against the Bible and guns for many years, I have yet to see one on the American flag since the Klan like to wrap itself in it. The abuse of a symbol does not make the symbol itself evil. Men fought and died under that flag for states rights and principles of freedom as honorable as those at the Concord Bridge or Valley Forge. Their memory and their symbols should not be banished because of the ignorance and hatred of present maniacs.

    Recently, the Dallas Morning News, carried a picture of students protesting in Belgrade carring a Rebel battle flag. Afghanistian freedom fighters flew a battle flag during the Russian oppression of their country. To other countries it is a noble symbol of brave men fighting for a just cause, even though it be lost. Only since the NAACP declared war on it ten years ago has it truly been labeled a symbol of hate. Most Yankees would just call it a Southern flag and if you eat lunch at the Old Orleans restaurant in Edinburgh, Scotland you will see a sign that says "Welcome to the Home of Southern Hospitality" and you will find a Confederate Battle Flag on its dessert menu. The flag is just that - a symbol of the Southern culture and heritage, nothing more. It is brutually attacked by people of Northern culture and heritage and by Southerns who have purchased belief in their propaganda.

    There are wounds that have never healed from the War of Northern Aggression. Many of these wounds are being rubbed with salt even today. Politicians in New York and Pennsylvania have removed the Georgia state flag from their displays and authored legislation to rebuke Georgia. Obviously all the children in New York and Pennsylvania are well educated and fed frequently, there is no crime, and their economy is perfect. At least it appears to be so, since they have nothing better to discuss or fight then another sovereign state's banner.

    We are still fighting the primary issue of the War of Northern Aggression, and that is state's rights. Slavery was an ethical issue that needed to be dealt with by the individual states, not by centralized mandates, especially when it only pertained to some states and not all. Definitely so, since General Grant maintained slaves until four years after the war whereas General Lee freed immediately those he received through marriage. A state flag is that, a state flag and only that state's business. Desegregation should have been a state issue, not a Federal one. If the North had been so concerned about slaves in the 1860's, they could have shared their technology rather than using it to exploit the South, and slavery would have ceased by the sheeer fact of economic expediency. Slavery was moving in that direction and would have possibly been extinct by the 1870's without Lincoln's intervention. Again, please note that the great Liberator only liberated Southern slaves in his Emancipation Proclamation. Also note the near genocide only a few years later of the Native Americans. I really do not see a program of Civil Rights in the victor's policy. They enslaved the Native americans on reservations. Reservations or plantations, there is no difference. I'm sorry, but slavery was not a real issue in the war, it was only a smokescreen.

    I close with quotes about Afro-Confederates as an admonition to those who would desecrate the memory of white Confederates. When you unjustly abuse the South, you abuse not only whites, but blacks, and reds who fought for the Cause. I salute those white, black and red men who were willing to die for their beliefs and their homeland.

    "To the majority of the Negroes, as to all the South, the invading armies of the Union seemed to be ruthlessly attacking independent States, invading the beloved homeland and trampling upon all that these men held dear." - Charles H. Wesley 1.

    Some Negroes, however, soon became disillusioned because of the hardships they experienced during the early months of their freedom. Nine hundred freedmen assembled at Mobile on August 13, 1865, and by a vote of seven hundred to two hundred declared that the realities of freedom "were far from being so flattering as their imaginations had painted it, that the prejudices of color were not confined to the South, but stronger and more marked on the part of the strangers from the North." - Robert D. Reid 2.

    Former mayor John Dodson ... presented them with a Confederate flag, assuring them that when they returned they would "reap a rich reward of praise, and merit, from a thankful people." Charles Tinsley, a bricklayer and a "corner workman," acted as a spokesman for the Negroes. His remarks in acceptance of the flag were brief: "We are willing to aid Virginia's cause to the utmost of our ability ... There is not an unwilling heart among us, not a hand but will tell on work before us: and we promise unhesitating obedience to all orders that may be given us." - Benjamin Quarles 3.

    Endnotes

    1. Wesley, Charles H. "Quotations on Black Confederates," Credenda Genda Volume 9
    Number 1, Moscow, Idaho, Community Evangelical Fellowship, pg.2.

    2. Reid, Robert D. "Quotations on Black Confederates," pg.2.

    3. Quarles, Benjamin "Quotations on Black Confederates," pg2.

    Bibliography Page

    1. Flags of the World, E.M.C. Barraclough, copyright 1971 by Frederick Warne & Co,LTD.
    London, England.

    2. Quotations on Black Confederates, Credenda Genda Volume 9 Number 1, Community
    Evangelical Fallowship, Moscow, Idaho.

    3. A Short History of the United States, Allan Nevins and Henry Steele Commager, Fifth
    Edition,copyright 1968 by Alfred A. Knopf,Inc.

    4. The International Flag Book, Christian Fogd Pedersen, copyright 1971 by Blandford Press
    Ltd.

    5. "Britain Looks South," Oran P. Smith, Southern Partisan Volume XVI, Second Quarter
    1996.

    6. The Union Sundered, T. Harry Williams, The Life History of the United States Volume 5:
    1849-1865, copyright 1963 by Time Inc.

    7. The Union Restored, T. Harry Williams, The Life History of the United States Volume 6:
    1861-1876, copyright 1963 by Time Inc.
     
  8. Maverick

    Maverick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    960
    Likes Received:
    0
    By the way, in the morning I am preaching at a Black Church. I was there two weeks ago because the church that has been supplying them with preachers until they get a pastor had nobody who was able to go so their pastor contacted mine and I went and we had a great time together and they asked if I would get added to the rotation and I was glad to do it. We have a James 5 prayer service and I am looking forward to a grand time with them tomorrow.
    Not bad for an ignorant, inbred, Rebel boy.

    God save the South and anyone else who will listen!!!
     
  9. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    I had the advantage of not being born here and studying the subject when I was young from an outside point of view.

    My view is the Federal Government was within their right to keep the US whole, and that States were not within their rights to secede.
     
  10. Jude

    Jude
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/scott3.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2001
    Messages:
    2,680
    Likes Received:
    0
    I must say that I 'hear' a lot of pain in the above articles. Being a 'northerner' you can guess my 'bias', but never-ever have I viewed the Confederate flag as a racist symbol. I have said, for years, that it is, for those in the 'South' a symbol of pride and patriotism. I still say...that war was an utter tragedy. How surprised I am to hear the pain of my brothers in Christ from the South, and it makes me sad.
     
  11. Maverick

    Maverick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    960
    Likes Received:
    0
    And so, the 137 cold war goes on. By the way, you must not be native to where you list cuz that was a territory during the late unpleasantness.
     
  12. Farmer's Wife

    Farmer's Wife
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2002
    Messages:
    308
    Likes Received:
    0
    Of course, THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT!...just as our forefathers in the 1700's were RIGHT when they seceded from England!

    Even Lincoln said, when rehearsing the start of the Mexican War, "Any people anywhere being inclined and having the power have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government...This is a most valuable, a most sacred right - a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world." It's a shame that he soon forgot his own words and the cause for which the patriots of the 1700's shed their blood! :(
     
  13. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,074
    Likes Received:
    102
    Eric, Eric, what have you done? This can of worms is open again.
    ;)

    Sigh. The North was more right. [​IMG]
     
  14. tyndale1946

    tyndale1946
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    6,179
    Likes Received:
    226
    Neither side was!... What is your definition of right... Brother against brother?... Father against son?... Who won?... What was the cost?... One of the darkest hours in the history of our country!... Was there really a winner?... Think again?... The thing that really counts are the dead bodies a tragedy of humanity!... Brother Glen :(
     
  15. eric_b

    eric_b
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://home.nc.rr.com/robotplot/tiny_eri

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    442
    Likes Received:
    0
    Are you kidding? This is tame compared to the KJVO debates... at leat in these discussions people are only angry at people who are long dead. No matter what Abraham Lincoln's eternal destination is (I don't know whether he was saved), he's certainly beyond caring about a little trash talk thrown his way... And the same goes for Jefferson Davis, etc, etc

    Eric
     
  16. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,074
    Likes Received:
    102
    Just kidding, Eric.

    But the KJVO threads are a perfect example of why I refuse to post at all on some topics.
     
  17. Maverick

    Maverick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    960
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is believed that Abe truly became a Christian after Gettysburg and that may have been what got him killed. He may have wanted to repent and go easier on the South than his party wanted to be and may have even suggested revealing some of the dirty deeds done and that would have cost the party for sure. This is another grassy knoll. Did his own people hire JWB? Possibly. Did LBJ have JFK shot, more than probable. If the South had really wanted Abe dead they could have gotten him many times from 1860 on. Many of his officers were dolts and would have never seen the plot.
     
  18. eric_b

    eric_b
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://home.nc.rr.com/robotplot/tiny_eri

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    442
    Likes Received:
    0
    Maverick, you have a truly fascinating view of history. Have you ever read any Harry Turtledove?

    Eric
     
  19. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,074
    Likes Received:
    102
    There is not a shred of evidence that Lincoln ever converted, though he attended a Presbyterian church and his thinking became more and more predestinarian as he went along.

    LBJ had JFK killed? He had enough trouble stealing an election, much less having a president killed.
     
  20. DocCas

    DocCas
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    And I thought I was the only Harry Turtledove fan! His "Guns of the South" was great! And the second civil war series was fantastic! As were all the sequels. And I have learned to really love his Byzantine empire series! Great writer!
     

Share This Page

Loading...