Archive for April 2011

The South call it the War of Northern Aggression

April 14, 2011

Starting from Nathan Bedford Forrest, we get to this issue on the US Civil War.

I was raised north of the Mason-Dixon, in Illinois, the “Land of Lincoln”. I spent my childhood and young adulthood under the understanding that you “nasty, racist, evil southerners” fought the in the “Civil War” for slavery. You know, the standard victor’s propaganda and all… I studied the War, was a Yankee (and occasional Confederate) re-enactor, and the funny thing was, in spite of my in-depth knowledge of trivial matters such as AP Hill’s favorite shirt (red fireman style), dates and casualties, as well as the sequence of most of the major battles, and the gear, weapons and equipment, used, I never delved into the war from the South’s perspective, until recent years.

Although I live almost as far north as an American can live, I consider my self a Southerner “in spirit”. Whether thay flies with any of you south of the Mason-Dixon, well, that might be another story.

Here’s the question I have, and I would like to hear personal stories, family stories, I would like to get recommendations of websites and offline books to read, to help me better understand.

What is it like? Really?

-ArcticPatriot

While I’ve been in the South for more than a decade, it’s interesting to see what those with generations of family have to say. They are mostly classified by me as being in the Jacksonian camp. Not particularly interested in long term strategic consequences, but with virtues to go with their deficiency. Of course, I count myself in the Jacksonian camp as well, but I don’t have the subjective bias that comes with having generations of family going back to the Civil War on the side of the South. This allows me to see things from more than one perspective. Not the Leftist history of the US Civil War but not the South’s biased view either. I have to do the work of research myself, combining sources from everywhere. But hey, that’s why they call it a work ethic. Because hard work by itself is its own virtue, regardless of the outcome.

In other news, this is a good view of Leftist ideology and what their cult members think. Not only what, but how as well.

My best friend in the world (not “some of my friends”, but my best friend) is a conservative Republican who loves Anne Coulter. Meanwhile, I’m looking for a good price on a “2L4O” (Too Liberal for Obama) shirt. Why is he my best friend? Because time and time again he has demonstrated that he is one of the best, most honorable men I know. Human decency can transcend political differences.

It’s a good contrast view with Southern perspective. Some Southern perspective. It shows how closed off people can be, regardless of their personal circumstances or political ideology. Are humans as amazingly slow and parochial as presented here? Why yes. But they can still be useful for the purposes of society and the nation. Useful doesn’t mean they are right in their views.

My comment reply to various things in the comment section:

Either Thomas Jefferson and Jefferson Davis were right about secession or King George and President Lincoln were. It can’t be true that both Jefferson and Lincoln were right about Secession.

Both were right. Thomas Jefferson didn’t ever say you could secede without fighting a damn war, now did he. In fact, Jefferson did in fact, you know, fight a war on secession. He didn’t just think, for he was no fool, that removing himself from the political protections of a system (British monarchy) would also confer upon them the protections, minus the costs, of the system.

Lincoln said the South couldn’t seize Ft. Sumter and union property or take captives of those that are in union forts which happened to be in Southern states to protect the various harbors and routes of the US from external enemies. The Southern states disagreed, so they went and started sieging various union forts, notably Sumter. Georgia declared secession causes on January 1861, Sumter started to fall in April of that same year. This, remember, was without the concurrence of the entire Confederacy. No vote was taken. The Southerners acted as individuals, believing the North would simply allow them to do as they pleased. The Southern states believed they could remove themselves from the authority of the US Constitution, while also having some kind of “natural right” protections from said Constitution, after having fired cannons at union soldiers, who refused to return fire for hours given what they knew of the political situation.

Pure foolishness on the part of Southern leaders. They primarily did so because they believed Northerners were too gutless to fight, like good Southern gentlemen. That’s a cultural conceit that paid what it was worth in the events afterwards. War, ladies and gentlemen, is no tea party where you can bow out when you are full of it. At least not the non-peacekeeping total war.

If I ever get seriously back into re-enacting the war, I will never put on that blue uniform again.

You’re making the mistake of what is often seen in fast converts. They were 100% convinced the Other was alien and to be hated, then they converted to the Other and now they are 100% convinced that the new Other is faulty, bad, and to be hated. Both are distorted views and both are ideologically flawed.

It’s not a balanced view taken with comprehension of all the factors of the war. It’s just choosing one side to portray well, while ignoring the rest.

Slavery was on the way out. All of the horror and death of the War shortened it only by a bit.

Let’s put that to the test. Give Obama 4 more years by voting for him. Since he’s going to be out anyways, why go to all the trouble of campaigning for and voting for conservatives. Go ahead. Vote for Obama in 2012. In fact, just vote for Reid and the other Congress Demoncrats. He’s going to die off, sooner or later. Take that 100 dollar out of your ATM machine, and give it to Democrats. If you really believe that it doesn’t matter how long they are in power.

What’s the difference. They’re not going to be in power forever right. So why not. Just like slavery, it was going to go away, right. So why fight against it. Why pay the cost. Why trouble yourself over nothing.

Oh, I know why not. Because deciding to allow others to suffer, who you neither know nor care about, is much easier than making the decision to allow a bad state of affairs to persist for your own existence. Isn’t it. Human mortality and vices are more prevalent then most would like to believe.

Since we’re on this topic of historical laziness and taking golf vacations the Obama Way, the KGB and the Soviets were going to go away anyways. So what’s up with Reagan trying to get the world nuked and using extreme rhetoric like “evil empire”. Why don’t you chill and let things die out in a generation or two. Well, why didn’t conservatives chill out about John Walker Lynn, Jane Fonda, Vietnam, and the Soviet Union? Vietnam was going to be lost anyways, why even worry about the Communist invasion. Just let history takes its course. The Soviet Union was going kaput soon anyways, so why worry about traitors giving out Navy encryption codes for their communiques world wide.

This, of course, has nothing to do with the virtues of honor, duty, courage, or hard work. But then again, treason never required such.

Why wouldn’t the Republicans live up to their wartime promises of providing land or other economic opportunities to African-Americans, e.g. forty acres and a mule?

President Johnson vetoed all the Radical Republican bills that was intended to secure the actual protection of civil liberties for freed blacks in the South. This delayed things for long enough that the KKK and other Democrat affiliates began to alter the political balance in the South, restoring Democrat politicians to their rightful place. Bedford Forrest was forced to disband the KKK he personally created, which resulted in the KKK splintering like terrorist cells, which ultimately ended up in the various hanging incidents for blacks. Without black votes in the South for Republicans, Republican politicians fell. And Democrat Jim Crow replaced them. The rest was history. The Democrat party stoked up and maintained Southern resentment for more than a century, before Reagan finally broke them free of it. The Dems kept the Southerners in a hutch much like the Dems do with blacks today.

Johnson was a Democrat. Lincoln selected him as a sort of compromise with Southern Democrats believing Lincoln was out to get them. Johnson was not just a Democrat, he was a Southern Democrat.

Wouldn’t that be better than butchering hundreds of thousands of your fellow countrymen?

The South at the time would have seen it as another aspect of Northern Aggression to be taking property that wasn’t theirs. In fact, the whole slavery issue with Georgia and other states was that the North weren’t returning their property: i.e. their slaves running off to the North even though the federal government had laws that said they must, but the Northern states often ignored the letter of the law. Besides, the South could not give up their plantations and the nobility installed upon them. The plantation masters had too much political influence, too much arrogance, to ever take a hand out from the North for their slaves and switch their ENTIRE ECONOMIC SYSTEM.

That’s like you going to the local teacher’s unions and telling them to “quit” and “stop their Democrat BS”. You think that would work. Their entire lives are based upon union salaries, and you think they would change just because somebody told them to or had cash on hand for em? The South was even more intricately woven around the plantation economy.

Switching an entire economy to something else is always traumatic and people will resist it. It’s not as easy and breezy as people wish to believe.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.