What do you think of the War of Northern Attrition?

[American]

Straight to the ad homs. How utterly predictable.

Go check Internet history on that, and you'll see it says precisely the opposite about Lee.

 

[Ouroboros]

This entire ****ing thread is a clinic in why we need to teach actual history and talk about systemic racism.

You indoctrinate your kids and they end up sounding like OP.

Does “actual history” include the central thesis of the 1619 Project? That thesis traces the origins of systemic racism to American colonists fighting the British to hold onto their slaves— a thesis disputed by numerous historians.

 

[coyote505]

250000

The History of Hate in Indiana: Rise of the KKK

There was a time in the 1920s when being seen as a good, upstanding Hoosier meant joining the Ku Klux Klan.

www.wrtv.com

I think that my 600,000 may be better grounded than your 250,000. My research, as a college student, was 50 years ago. There may have been some whitewashing since then. The accepted figures then were Indiana in 1st place with 600,000, Texas in 2nd with 400,000. The article you attached otherwise squares with my research. It is certainly true that some joined for social and economic reasons, just as some Saddamites did in Iraq. My college roommate told me that, in his home town, his grandfather was the Only adult white male who was Not a member. He only got away with this because he was also the only Doctor in town!

By the way, the explanation for the name Hoosier that I have seen is that it started as Husher on the riverboats. Hushers were such irascible people that others were afraid to talk to them or in their presence because they were likely to take offense at Anything you said, and punch you out.

Recently, Indiana seems to be a recruitment ground by GOP Presidential candidates looking for a VP who will not outshine them. Eg: Dan Quayle, Mike Pence.

 

[DarkWizard12]

I too, am sympathetic to democrat slavery.

 

[j brown's body]

Thomas may have been the most effective General Officer in the Union Army. In the 'Battle of Nashville'
Thomas, delivered one of the most brilliantly conceived and executed battle strategies of the entire Civil war.

However at what cost:
The only Virginian of note who refused to break his oath to the U.S.
Army and remained loyal to the Union during the Civil War was
George Thomas. Most agree he was a huge asset to the Union but at what cost.
J.E.B. Stuart, a former pupil of Thomas’ at West Point, said he deserved to
be hanged as a traitor. Even his own sister disowned him, writing that he had been,
“false to his state, his family, and to his friends.” Thomas ended the war with an unparalleled record,
but his relationships with some of his family members never recovered. When they were
sent supplies on Thomas’ behalf shortly after Lee’s surrender, his sisters are
said to have refused the offering, saying they had no brother.

Fascinating that they thought the loyalty he pledged to the army and nation that trained him meant nothing.

 

[j brown's body]

In 1860, in the states which allowed slavery, up to half of households owned at least one slave. It was lower in some states than others, but it was in no way 1% of folks having a connection to slavery.

They certainly had a connection to the white supremacy that supported it.

 

[j brown's body]

People also ask

How many people attended Forrest's funeral?

• When Forrest died in 1877 it is noteworthy that his funeral in Memphis was attended not only by a throng of thousands of whites but by hundreds of blacks as well. The funeral procession was over two miles long and was attended by over 10,000 area residents, including 3000 black citizens paying their respects.

Remembering Rutherford: Forrest was postwar activist for black civil rights

Former general addressed Memphis civil rights organization in 1875

www.dnj.com

Resolution honoring Klan leader denounced as 'underhanded'

www.tnledger.com

Nathan B Forrest's Address to the Pole Bearers

freerepublic.com

Forrest IMO has become the most controversial figure of the Civil War!
The PC agenda is N.B. Forrest is to remain as a racist, as a killer of blacks, as a Ku Klux Klan founder, the butcher of Fort Pillow, an illiterate redneck, a cruel slaver, unfaithful husband & pathological sadist.
It seems to me most SJW civil war enthusiasts in any forum are 'drive-by' shooters' with no aim whatsoever.

Like when Tiger was introduced to these facts about 2 years ago, he came up with a brilliant reason
why the blacks came to honor Forrest.
''The blacks knew if they didn't show up at Forrest's funeral they'd have a mob of thugs on their doorstep.'

I asked for a primary source supporting the assertion. I don't see one.

 

[j brown's body]

Gen Thomas sounds like an outstanding human being and citizen. I am not too familiar with his military exploits. Maybe because he fought further to the west. But it is not like my choice of Robert E Lee as the top General of the Civil War is cast in stone. Its just that I have read more of Lee's campaigns than of the others

We are mostly only familiar with Civil War generals who support the Myth of the Lost Cause.

 

[d0gbreath]

It was the war of Northern nutrition. We had to free our captured soldiers from the belly of the Devil, so that we could feed them:

 

[911Sparky]

Lincoln specifically pointed out that slavery and its extention was the primary cause of the conflict and the southern states' secession proclamations support it.

White supremacists will say the civil war was fought over "states rights". It sounds better than having to say the war was fought over the states right to own slaves.
They also wanted to expand slavery into the new territories.

 

[Indydave]

Well then another question just to see where everyone's bias is, what are your views of General Lee, because wat you think of him says a lot about a person.

Lee like all the other talented officers of the CSA was good at battle.......but he, also like the other CSA generals were stupid to fight for slavery......they knew it but they were not smart enough, with all their education and experience and their so-called religious piety; to acknowledge what they in their hearts knew; that the practice of slavery was evil and wrong...'.they had not the courage to refute the obvious and instead chose the path of mindless pride .. ..they, like Evangelicals today refused to acknowledge that Jesus would never have condoned slavery.....or war.....

their main fault was pride.....maddening ridiculous immature peer driven and religion condoned pride.....they were taught this from childhood......and across the Southland it's still the same today......I am a Southerner.....I, like all my peers was raised in the 'glory' of the Lost Cause; the 'glory' of soldiering; of the Southern culture, the 'Southern gentleman'.....Dixie was the fight song of every secondary school and college across the South......and like in 1860 it is the common man like me today who still carry this madness

 

[coyote505]

The south had no monopoly on that. Slavery was a human failing

Slavery has existed throughout the world and throughout recorded history, and still does in Africa and Asia. It also exists in the US. If a pimp keeps his working girls in line with threats and violence, what can you call him but a slaveholder? White people didn't invent slavery. White people invented abolition. Like most newfangled notions, abolition was not adopted immediately and everywhere. As with most newfangled notions, the South is usually the last region in the US to adopt. Fads first land in the "land of fruits and nuts" California, then proceed to the East Coast, then to the Midwest, and finally to the South.

Eli Whitney's cotton gin in 1791, made slavery big business. John MacCormack's combine reaper in the 1880's would have made it largely obsolete. It did result in the displacement of many sharecroppers, whose labor was no longer needed.

As the Lincoln quote earlier reveals, slavery was not initially the North's motivation for the Civil War. However, going to an Illinois farm boy and saying "we'd like you to put on this blue uniform and go fight for your right to be overcharged for fence wire and nails, while being underpaid for your crops" would not have been a major success. The fact was that the Illinois farmer and the Virginia farmer had more in common with each other than either had with a Connecticutt factory owner. Therefore, slavery was brought to the front as an issue, to turn the conflict into a Jihad against evil slavers. Union soldiers fought against slavery, while southern soldiers fought against federal tyranny.

The fact that the North has kept up the slavery as sole issue myth may well be the reason many Southerners resent Black people. They have been scapegoated as the reason for the subjugation and destruction of the South, when the North would have most likely tried to do the same thing, with or without slavery.

 

[j brown's body]

Slavery has existed throughout the world and throughout recorded history, and still does in Africa and Asia. It also exists in the US. If a pimp keeps his working girls in line with threats and violence, what can you call him but a slaveholder? White people didn't invent slavery. White people invented abolition. Like most newfangled notions, abolition was not adopted immediately and everywhere. As with most newfangled notions, the South is usually the last region in the US to adopt. Fads first land in the "land of fruits and nuts" California, then proceed to the East Coast, then to the Midwest, and finally to the South.

Eli Whitney's cotton gin in 1791, made slavery big business. John MacCormack's combine reaper in the 1880's would have made it largely obsolete. It did result in the displacement of many sharecroppers, whose labor was no longer needed.

As the Lincoln quote earlier reveals, slavery was not initially the North's motivation for the Civil War. However, going to an Illinois farm boy and saying "we'd like you to put on this blue uniform and go fight for your right to be overcharged for fence wire and nails, while being underpaid for your crops" would not have been a major success. The fact was that the Illinois farmer and the Virginia farmer had more in common with each other than either had with a Connecticutt factory owner. Therefore, slavery was brought to the front as an issue, to turn the conflict into a Jihad against evil slavers. Union soldiers fought against slavery, while southern soldiers fought against federal tyranny.

The fact that the North has kept up the slavery as sole issue myth may well be the reason many Southerners resent Black people. They have been scapegoated as the reason for the subjugation and destruction of the South, when the North would have most likely tried to do the same thing, with or without slavery.

It's a romantic notion, but Lincoln was opposed to slavery and his party was committed to ending it.

As far as those southern troops were concerned, they very much had slavery on their minds.

What This Cruel War Was Over by Chandra Manning: 9780307277329 | PenguinRandomHouse.com: Books

Using letters, diaries, and regimental newspapers to take us inside the minds of Civil War soldiers—black and white, Northern and Southern—as they fought and marched across a divided country,...

www.penguinrandomhouse.com

 

[Jason Warfield]

Well, I think that a wiser President than Mr. Lincoln would have let the South leave.

1. This would have saved the lives of more than 600,000 young men.

2. Probably the South would have eventually asked to return.

3. There would have eventually been a peaceful dissolution of slavery, for the anti-slavery movement was gaining traction throughout the world -- led by the British.

4. The newly freed slaves would have been gradually introduced into general society. Instead, Reconstruction was a shock to Southern Caucasian people and gave them the incentive to establish a system of separation that lasted until the 1960s.

5. Another President might have been able to work harmoniously with the South in setting a timetable for the abolition of slavery.

Points 3 to 4 were being pursued prior to the Civil War. Starting with The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807.

More to Point 4: the CSA Constitution firmly stated the protection of slavery. It is HIGHLY doubtful the CSA would have given up slavery, and even if it did...it would still have made them second-class citizens with the resulting problems lasting into the 1960's anyway...given their attitudes on race (and too many in the North thought not that highly of them either).

For Point 5: Every single president prior to the Civil War had been dealing with the issue of slavery to some extent or another. Hell, Washington and Jefferson wanted to get rid of slavery at the end of the Revolution and when the Framers started to put the Constitution together. Care to guess why it didn't happen? t didn't happen because the Southern slave-holding states threatened to secede and Washington knew his army wasn't strong enough to keep those states in!!!!

Point 1 would not have happened if the South hadn't attacked first.

I agree with Point 2.

Basically, I find it hilarious that your premise seems to be based on how the North did everything wrong and it was their fault the war even happened. As I pointed out about Point 5, the slavery issue had been going on since day one and the major obstacles didn't come the North or the Federal government...all the obstacles and almost all of the threats came from the Southern slave-holding states!!

Sorry, history shows us that the Southern states were NOT the victims. THEY were the ones who opposed EVERY initiative at EVERY turn and were the ones who STARTED a war that killed over 600,000.

 

[Luce]

It was the war of Northern nutrition. We had to free our captured soldiers from the belly of the Devil, so that we could feed them:




View attachment 67367492 View attachment 67367493

Those were inmates at Camp Anderson?

 

[slick]

I asked for a primary source supporting the assertion. I don't see one.

Do your own research if what I presented didn't satisfy your obvious thirst for knowledge

That’s even worse. You don’t even have the excuse of familial ties for cover for your love of white supremacist slavers.

White Supremacist Slavers?

Know this, It wasn't only those of European stock in the USA that owned slaves before the practice was abolished.
The indigenous peoples owned many slaves, yes the 1st Americans did , along with free blacks.

McGillivray the most "Anglicized" of the Creeks one of the five civilized Indian nations who
built solid houses, planted orchards, he ran a plantation (and owned about 60 slaves)
Theodore Roosevelt deemed McGillivray “perhaps the most gifted man who was ever born on the soil of Alabama.”
William Weatherford (Lum-Chate the Red Eagle) & William MacIntosh all had wealth compared
to the richest white men in the Alabama, Georgia & North Florida areas, & all had many slaves.

So not just the European settlers but also the indigenous people of the south when wealth allowed
were slave owners. Quite a few Southern FREE blacks own slaves, I'll mention just one.

William Ellison was one of the largest slave owners in South Carolina
as well as one of the wealthies was born a slave.
When he was 26 years old, he was freed by his master and began building his expansive cotton plantation.
Ellison was known to be a harsh master, and his slaves were almost starved and extremely poorly clothed. He kept a windowless building on his property for the specific purpose of chaining his misbehaving slaves. If interested I could mention 5 or 6 other blacks with similar plantations.

So in the ante-bellum South there were three distinct races & all of them who lived in the south & all without
qualms utilized the peculiar institution to accumulate wealth. I'd go easy on the 'white supremacy indignations'.
It was legal throughout Europe & South America & it sure was practiced in Africa also whether or
not there were laws there at the time. All three races, all that lived in America at the time, all that had the means,
were slave owners at the time Andrew Jackson defeated the Weatherford (Red Eagle) at Horseshoe Bend.

 

[Luce]

White Supremacist Slavers?

Know this, It wasn't only those of European stock in the USA that owned slaves before the practice was abolished.
The indigenous peoples owned many slaves, yes the 1st Americans did , along with free blacks.

So what? Is that supposed to make it okay?

 

[slick]

So what? Is that supposed to make it okay?

No! But it reveals that all 3 distinct races prevalent in the agrarian south all without
qualms when wealth allowed utilized the peculiar institution to accumulate wealth.
Slavery was rampant in the entire known world throughout world history & IMO
nastiest in harsher climates like the Caribbean & South America up until I think it was
1886 when Brazil, the last hold out finally gave it up!

So don't vilify one race with 'white supremacy indignations' at a time when it was
commonplace world over by all creatures of all races, in areas where less temperate
weather conditions existed.

Anything else?

 

[bomberfox]

Its hilarious the op actually did what i wanted him to do while telling me i have no authority to tell him he is done

 

[Luce]

No! But it reveals that all 3 distinct races prevalent in the agrarian south all without
qualms when wealth allowed utilized the peculiar institution to accumulate wealth.
Slavery was rampant in the entire known world throughout world history & IMO
nastiest in harsher climates like the Caribbean & South America up until I think it was
1886 when Brazil, the last hold out finally gave it up!

So don't vilify one race with 'white supremacy indignations' at a time when it was
commonplace world over by all creatures of all races, in areas where less temperate
weather conditions existed.

Anything else?

Yes. The South deserved 2 more Shermans.

 

[911Sparky]

Does Grant’s Tomb count?

Do you know who is buried in Grant's tomb?

 

[Ouroboros]

Do you know who is buried in Grant's tomb?

Technically no one, since the tomb is an above ground structure consisting of sarcophagi for Grant and his wife.

 

[Ouroboros]

Yes. The South deserved 2 more Shermans.

Just like Mad Libs: they will tolerate any injustice so that they can imagine themselves free of being implicated in racism.

Instead of imagining scenarios of slaughter that make you feel good, how about imagining a world where modern people aren’t responsible for the actions of their ancestors?

 

[j brown's body]

No! But it reveals that all 3 distinct races prevalent in the agrarian south all without
qualms when wealth allowed utilized the peculiar institution to accumulate wealth.
Slavery was rampant in the entire known world throughout world history & IMO
nastiest in harsher climates like the Caribbean & South America up until I think it was
1886 when Brazil, the last hold out finally gave it up!

So don't vilify one race with 'white supremacy indignations' at a time when it was
commonplace world over by all creatures of all races, in areas where less temperate
weather conditions existed.

Anything else?

All the European slavery on this continent was conceived in white supremacy.

 

[j brown's body]

Do your own research if what I presented didn't satisfy your obvious thirst for knowledge

White Supremacist Slavers?

Know this, It wasn't only those of European stock in the USA that owned slaves before the practice was abolished.
The indigenous peoples owned many slaves, yes the 1st Americans did , along with free blacks.

McGillivray the most "Anglicized" of the Creeks one of the five civilized Indian nations who
built solid houses, planted orchards, he ran a plantation (and owned about 60 slaves)
Theodore Roosevelt deemed McGillivray “perhaps the most gifted man who was ever born on the soil of Alabama.”
William Weatherford (Lum-Chate the Red Eagle) & William MacIntosh all had wealth compared
to the richest white men in the Alabama, Georgia & North Florida areas, & all had many slaves.

So not just the European settlers but also the indigenous people of the south when wealth allowed
were slave owners. Quite a few Southern FREE blacks own slaves, I'll mention just one.

William Ellison was one of the largest slave owners in South Carolina
as well as one of the wealthies was born a slave.
When he was 26 years old, he was freed by his master and began building his expansive cotton plantation.
Ellison was known to be a harsh master, and his slaves were almost starved and extremely poorly clothed. He kept a windowless building on his property for the specific purpose of chaining his misbehaving slaves. If interested I could mention 5 or 6 other blacks with similar plantations.

So in the ante-bellum South there were three distinct races & all of them who lived in the south & all without
qualms utilized the peculiar institution to accumulate wealth. I'd go easy on the 'white supremacy indignations'.
It was legal throughout Europe & South America & it sure was practiced in Africa also whether or
not there were laws there at the time. All three races, all that lived in America at the time, all that had the means,
were slave owners at the time Andrew Jackson defeated the Weatherford (Red Eagle) at Horseshoe Bend.

I didn't find any primary sources to support it, so your assertion appears to be incorrect until proven otherwise.

5 or 6 blacks don't sound like "quite a few."

What motivates you to support a slave state based on white supremacy?