Song of the South Revisited

Main discussion area is here. Reply to a message to continue a discussion thread, or create your own new Topics.
User avatar
Wise One
Posts: 1898
Joined: 2007 Nov 02 09:33

Re: Song of the South Revisited

Postby Wise One » 2015 Jul 07 09:35

Flaggers and their bigoted ilk lie and lie. It's what they do.

It's usually simple to catch and expose them, but the stupid among us have developed no critical skills. They swallow the bilge hook, line and sinker.

:coffee:
"If your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like Donald Trump."

User avatar
1Centrist
Posts: 243
Joined: 2015 Mar 07 10:03

Re: Song of the South Revisited

Postby 1Centrist » 2015 Jul 08 10:07

I found this article quite interesting, How Endless War Helps Old Dixie Stay New. Just a little food for thought on a rainy day.
:coffee:

Cheers all

User avatar
Neck-aint-red
Posts: 347
Joined: 2008 Apr 08 14:08

Re: Song of the South Revisited

Postby Neck-aint-red » 2015 Jul 08 10:54

Thank you for calling an interesting read to our attention.

:surrend:

User avatar
fangz1956
Posts: 1124
Joined: 2007 Jul 07 10:16

Re: Song of the South Revisited

Postby fangz1956 » 2015 Jul 10 07:53

A great piece written by Patterson Hood of Drive By Truckers. He very eloquently captures the complexities that go along with being raised a Southerner and the tangled, garbled mess that the flag has created.

The South's Heritage Is So Much More Than A Flag


:thumbup:
Ever looked at someone and thought "the wheel is turning but the hamster is dead"?

User avatar
Coondog
Posts: 1557
Joined: 2008 Jul 08 15:14

Hey hey na na goodby

Postby Coondog » 2015 Jul 10 11:39

It would be nice to believe that, now that this despised symbol of hate and racism has been expunged from the State House grounds in SC, hate and racism is now officially gone from the hearts and minds of Americans for good. It would be nice to believe in the Big Rock Candy Mountain.

There are a lot of feel good, fuzzy emotions over how much has been accomplished by the removal of this memorial symbol from it's place of prominence, and for the people of South Carolina, that's presumed to be a good thing. Sanctioned governmental display of such symbolism is agreeably questionable and, in essence, defeats the intended nebulous rebellious connotations embraced by those who view the flag more fondly and less bitterly than those who carry the chip of both racism and resentment of slavery on their shoulders.

Unfortunately, this brew-ha-ha has relegated, on a wider basis, negative connotations to everyone.......even those who don't particularly subscribe to the extreme factions who embrace or distain the confederate flag for reasons of hate and racism.

Aside from a few neo skinheads and residual southern good ole boys, nobody believes that slavery was an honorable institution, but it was condoned by the nation, as a whole, for a very long time.....and to the benefit of all (except the slaves). A moral issue wrapped up in economics was certainly a large part of the ensuing hostilities, but to consign the entire conflict to a battle over slavery simply denies the complexity of the divide and mischaracterizes the motivations of a lot of dead people no longer able to express themselves.

If boiling down the Civil War into a conflict between those willing to die to end slavery and those willing to die to preserve slavery (no matter how unbelievable that may sound) does anything to put racism to bed, then so be it. Americans are unsophisticated enough to trade truth for warm and fuzzy any day.

We suspect it be as unifying as electing a Black President.

Coondog :surrend:

User avatar
fangz1956
Posts: 1124
Joined: 2007 Jul 07 10:16

Re: Song of the South Revisited

Postby fangz1956 » 2015 Jul 11 07:44

As an addendum to Mr. Hood's written piece. :pat:

Ever looked at someone and thought "the wheel is turning but the hamster is dead"?

User avatar
Neck-aint-red
Posts: 347
Joined: 2008 Apr 08 14:08

Re: Song of the South Revisited

Postby Neck-aint-red » 2015 Jul 17 00:00

southrise.jpg
southrise.jpg (86.23 KiB) Viewed 1695 times

User avatar
Juggler
Posts: 671
Joined: 2007 Jun 11 03:51

Re: Song of the South Revisited

Postby Juggler » 2015 Jul 23 15:45

rightwing.jpg
rightwing.jpg (64.35 KiB) Viewed 1679 times


User avatar
Neck-aint-red
Posts: 347
Joined: 2008 Apr 08 14:08

Re: Song of the South Revisited

Postby Neck-aint-red » 2015 Aug 25 22:16

Here is a fact that illustrates perhaps more clearly than anything else just how racist, stupid, and uninformed southern rednecks are about the world.

Because he is black, they blame Obama for poor performance during an event ... before he was elected president and for which GW Bush was clearly responsible!

Idiot white southern Republican racists ... a pox on all of 'em. They are consumed by rage that an uppity black jes' don't know his place.

:hair:

User avatar
Buck Turgidson
Posts: 105
Joined: 2011 Mar 10 22:48

Re: Song of the South Revisited

Postby Buck Turgidson » 2016 Jun 29 02:17

It's hilarious how southerners, the dumb ones, trumpet fictions about the civil war.

This article is great at shining some light on revisionist history as told by stars and bars wavers.

User avatar
Crux
Posts: 3085
Joined: 2010 Dec 16 19:44

R.W. Bray

Postby Crux » 2016 Aug 24 15:13

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzYtZ3RZdt8

10 minutes. I have said it HERE for years. Black Conservatives will be a healing in our Nation.

User avatar
Amy Probenski
Posts: 437
Joined: 2007 Aug 28 17:06

Re: Song of the South Revisited

Postby Amy Probenski » 2017 Apr 17 15:33


User avatar
fangz1956
Posts: 1124
Joined: 2007 Jul 07 10:16

Re: Song of the South Revisited

Postby fangz1956 » 2017 May 24 07:27

Ever looked at someone and thought "the wheel is turning but the hamster is dead"?

User avatar
Neck-aint-red
Posts: 347
Joined: 2008 Apr 08 14:08

Re: Song of the South Revisited

Postby Neck-aint-red » 2017 Dec 30 11:08

This piece is another debunking of the myths.

Any notion that the Civil War was not rooted in owning other people as property is ridiculous.

Racist revisionist history is wrong, and cruel. Stop it.

User avatar
Kevsky
Posts: 120
Joined: 2013 Sep 24 07:32

Debunking the Debunking

Postby Kevsky » 2017 Dec 31 16:16

Neck Aint Red stated:
Any notion that the Civil War was not rooted in owning other people as property is ridiculous.


No one argues that slavery was not a major issue for the Civil War. But it was certainly not the only issue.

Those who support the Southern soldiers' memorials and flag are merely wanting to memorialize the struggle the soldiers faced and their dedication to their country, state and family. Bebunking the Liberal's View of the Civil War

The letters of Confederate soldiers are filled with patriotism for their new country and a desire to fight for their independence as well as for their homes; not to sacrifice everything on the altar of slavery, but on the “altar of my country,” said one Georgia Confederate.

An Alabama soldier wrote home in 1862, after hearing of the death of one of his children: “If it were not for the love of my country and family and the patriotism that burn in my bosom for them I would bee glad to come home and stay there but I know I have as much to fite for as any body else.” A Georgia private wrote his wife that “if I fall it will be in a good Cause in the defence of my Country defending my home and fire side.”

A Tennessee private wrote home upset that his mother was “left there and Exposed to there insults and perhaps take what little you have got. I feel stronger Determination never to quit the field untill they are driven from that beautiful land.” Others referred to the invading Yankees as “fiendish vandals,” an “insolent invader,” and Lincoln’s “hireling horde.”

Letters such as these are numerous. Yet you can find no letter from a Confederate soldier boasting of his pride in fighting for slavery. And it’s the letters themselves, stating categorically what they did fight for, that flies in the face of the history we’ve been sold for 150 years.


It is only in the deranged totalitarian liberal mindset that history must be erased, graves must be desecrated and dug up and memorials to brave men must to destroyed to placate the egos of the lunatic liberal.

User avatar
Wise One
Posts: 1898
Joined: 2007 Nov 02 09:33

Re: Song of the South Revisited

Postby Wise One » 2017 Dec 31 16:29

I'm not persuaded.

EXACTLY the same sentiments were expressed by a large fraction of the German army and general population during World War 2.

And they were wrong.

The heroes were those who resisted the fight for a dishonorable cause, and who foreswore the glorifying of their failed effort after the war.

:coffee:
"If your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like Donald Trump."

User avatar
Kevsky
Posts: 120
Joined: 2013 Sep 24 07:32

Re: Song of the South Revisited

Postby Kevsky » 2017 Dec 31 20:33

The heroes were those who resisted the fight for a dishonorable cause, and who foreswore the glorifying of their failed effort after the war.


And you than believe that the intentional destruction of cities, the looting of private property, houses, farms, and the killing of civilians by the Northern Armies was somehow honorable than?

Sherman ordered his army of 62,000 men with 64 cannons to march from Atlanta 300 miles southeast to Savannah, Georgia and destroy absolutely everything in their path, especially the railroads. They ripped apart the ties, heated and wrapped the rails around trees, dynamited factories, and burned down towns, farms, banks and courthouses.


Whether the march itself constitutes a war crime is still a fiercely contended subject. It is effectively the same form of warfare as dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was understood in both cases that the civilians, not just the military, would suffer terribly, and civilian outcry would help put an end to the war. But Sherman had no intention of deliberately killing civilians and the march must be left open to debate because of this.

Nevertheless, Sherman knew that civilian deaths would be unavoidable and explained himself in a speech after the war with the statement, “War is Hell.” Uncorroborated reports exist of a massacre of 200 civilians north of Columbia, South Carolina a few months before the march commenced, so Sherman knew full well what his men would do whenever no responsible eyes watched them. Three days after Atlanta was fully evacuated, Sherman ordered the city’s unburned sections shelled to ruins. One shell passed down through a house and blew off the legs of a man named Warner. The same shell cut his daughter in half.

Sherman personally saw his men rape and murder unyielding slaves throughout the march and gave no order to stop this. Those slaves who accepted the offer to enlist were given unarmed porter duties and treated comparatively well, but could only rely on food and water provisions when they were in surplus after the army was satisfied. Sherman also ordered the execution by firing squad of a 50-year-old man accused of espionage. He was most likely not guilty but was given no trial. All crops were either consumed or burned, as were all livestock slaughtered. It is surmised that 50,000 civilians were killed during the war, and possibly 1,000 of them died during the Savannah Campaign at the hands of soldiers unlawfully entering their houses to pillage. The 3rd and 4th Amendments to the Constitution prohibit this.


http://listverse.com/2013/03/17/10-war-crimes-of-the-us-civil-war/

Sheridan operated under Grant's previous orders to Hunter "to eat out Virginia clear and clean … so that crows flying over it for the balance of the season will have to carry their provender with them." What resulted has come to be called "The Burning." For nearly two weeks Sheridan's cavalry, numbering approximately 5,000 horsemen, laid waste to Augusta, Rockingham, Shenandoah, and Page counties in one of the war's most notorious examples of hard-war practices. A later message from Grant solemnly reinforced Sheridan's mission: "If the war is to last another year, we want the Shenandoah Valley to remain a barren waste." He specified, however, that the private homes and properties of widows, single women, and orphans were not to be damaged, and Sheridan generally complied. His primary goal, after all, was to defeat Early. Hard war served as a means to that end by demoralizing Confederate civilians in the Valley, as well as denying Early's forces the ability to live off the land.

Sheridan's men did not always exercise restraint. On October 3, 1864, as Union forces moved through Harrisonburg, Confederate scouts shot and killed Union lieutenant John Meigs. Believing that local residents, and not Confederate partisans, were responsible for the killing, Sheridan ordered the small village of Dayton, along with every house within a five-mile radius, burned. The following day, on October 4, Sheridan rescinded the order to burn Dayton, but directed the 5th New York Cavalry to burn the surrounding area as originally instructed. This was the sort of small-scale destruction that tended to accompany guerrilla warfare, and indiscriminate destruction in Virginia never surpassed this scale.

By mid-October Sheridan had largely accomplished his mission of destroying the Valley. He reported the destruction of more than 2,000 barns, 70 mills, 3 iron furnaces, and several railroad buildings. Union troops had systematically destroyed thousands of bushels of wheat, oats, corn, and various other plantings and had herded away thousands of sheep and cattle. An area newspaper, the Staunton Vindicator, proclaimed that Sheridan's troops had "behaved with their characteristic vandalism, insulting women, stealing, plundering, and burning."

With the onset of winter weather, Valley residents struggled to survive. Many became refugees, loading themselves and what was left of their belongings onto wagons and riding north from Harrisonburg. To what extent Sheridan's raid caused Valley residents and Virginians more generally to lose faith in the war effort is a matter of debate. Considerable evidence suggests that Sheridan's hard-war tactics failed to cause Valley residents to lose hope, but instead increased their loyalty to the Confederacy and the effort to defeat "barbarian Yankees."


https://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Hard_War_in_Virginia_During_the_Civil_War

So let me get this straight. You believe men who saw an invading force coming their way intent on destroying their homes, their towns, their families and decided to stand up to them, these men were dishonorable? Men who fought an army that indiscriminately bombed civilian areas, destroyed the food stores of the populace to leave it to starve, these men who fought against this were not heroes but dishonorable?

By the same token, were the men in the Union Army who committed these atrocities honorable? Were the commanders who were involved in the carnage, the destruction of private property, communities and the civilians food sources and the deaths of civilians honorable? Were these atrocities not similar to what we would have expected from the Nazi's during World War 2

And we are not to allow families and communities to honor the soldiers and family members who fought against this evil?