Just how dumb are neoconfederates? Apparently pretty dumb.
I noticed this posting on “the Gift That Keeps On Giving” [aka, the Southern Heritage Preservation Group]:
“Slave owners did not force anyone to fight in the south. Most southerners fought because the SOUTH WAS INVADED .”
Slave owners certainly drove secession and forced the firing on Fort Sumter which started the Civil War. Slave owners were behind all the illegal acts of violence perpetrated against the United States prior to the start of the war as well. The confederacy seceded and wanted their independence in order to protect the institution of slavery. That’s what the confederacy was fighting for.
“And hypothetically, lets say the north was invaded by the south in 1860, most northerners would have fought the southerns as invaders, but not to free slaves.”
This particular non sequitur demonstrates how logic is not a part of their makeup.
“The ignorance of history is appalling in the north.”
Here we have a textbook example of the ironic statement.
“Southerners know the truth because it was burned into their collective memories.”
Apparently not, as we’ll see.
“You should come down south and explore the burned out house ruins, overgrown with brush with only a chimney marking the homes prior existence.”
So this nut would have us believe that the southern landscape is nothing more than burned out houses with only chimneys standing where the house used to be.
“It was ‘heroic war’ by Sherman and others, waged on women and children in their homes, and would be considered war crimes today.”
People who are ignorant of the law of armed conflict make the claim, but Sherman’s march wasn’t a war crime, and he didn’t wage war on women and children.
“And this is what General Sherman’s commander -in – chief once had to say about fighting for self-determination and a people’s freedom :
‘Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world’.
Abraham Lincoln, Rep. U.S. Congress, 1847”
And the confederacy wasn’t fighting for freedom or self-determination. They were fighting to keep millions of people in bondage and to deny them their self-determination.
Even dumber are some of the comments:
Apparently this mental midget has never heard of the slave ship the “Wanderer.” The “Wanderer,” perhaps the most notorious slave ship in the nineteenth century, was not owned by Northerners. It was owned by Charles Lamar, a planter from Savannah, Georgia. In November of 1858, five decades after the Atlantic slave trade was made illegal, they brought 400-500 Africans to a plantation on Jeckyll Island [spelling from a 19th-Century source], off the Georgia coast. Lamar and his two partners, John Johnson, a Louisiana sugar planter and apparently the original owner, and William Corrie of Charleston, South Carolina, owned the “Wanderer” and sailed her from Charleston to Africa, then deposited the slaves on one of Georgia’s sea islands, Jeckyll Island. She had been built in Long Island, New York as a racing schooner, but it was southerner Lamar who converted her to a slave ship. More on the “Wanderer” here, here, here, and here. Apparently this numbskull thinks slaves were forced on people. If there wasn’t a demand for enslaved people, there wouldn’t have been a slave trade and no slaves would have been transported. Finally, his assertion that two northern states had slavery until 1890 is simply ludicrous. This people will say anything.
Next we have this comment:
Here’s another Einstein who has no clue of what he’s talking about. I’ve gone into the case of US v. Jefferson Davis here. R. E. Lee, James Longstreet, Joseph E. Johnston, and other confederate officers were indicted for Treason after the war. Ulysses S. Grant had their indictments quashed because, he reasoned, they were covered by the terms of the surrender agreements.
On hearing of the indictment for Treason, Lee wrote to Grant:
Richmond, Virginia, June 13, 1865.
Lieutenant-General U. S. Grant, Commanding the Armies of the United States.
General: Upon reading the President’s proclamation of the 29th ult., I came to Richmond to ascertain what was proper or required of me to do, when I learned that, with others, I was to be indicted for treason by the grand jury at Norfolk. I had supposed that the officers and men of the Army of Northern Virginia were, by the terms of their surrender, protected by the United States Government from molestation so long as they conformed to its conditions. I am ready to meet any charges that may be preferred against me, and do not wish to avoid trial; but, if I am correct as to the protection granted by my parole, and am not to be prosecuted, I desire to comply with the provisions of the President’s proclamation, and, therefore, inclose the required application, which I request, in that event, may be acted on. I am, with great respect,
Grant forwarded this letter with his own indorsement:
HEADQUARTERS ARMIES OF THE UNITED STATES,
June 16, 1865.
In my opinion the officers and men paroled at Appomattox Court-House, and since, upon the same terms given to Lee, cannot be tried for treason so long as they observe the terms of their parole. This is my understanding. Good faith, as well as true policy, dictates that we should observe the conditions of that convention. Bad faith on the part of the Government or a construction of that convention subjecting officers to trial for treason, would produce a feeling of insecurity in the minds of all the paroled officers and men. If so disposed they might even regard such an infraction of terms by the Government as an entire release from all obligations on their part. I will state further that the terms granted by me met with the hearty approval of the President at the time, and of the country generally. The action of Judge Underwood, in Norfolk, has already had an injurious effect, and I would ask that he be ordered to quash all indictments found against paroled prisoners of war, and to desist from further prosecution of them.
U. S. GRANT,
Lieutenant-General. [OR Series I, Vol 46, Part 3, p. 1276]
Grant replied to Lee on June 20, 1865:
HEADQUARTERS ARMIES OF THE UNITED STATES,
Washington, June 20, 1865.
General R. E. LEE,
Your communications of date of the 13th instant, stating the steps you had taken after reading the President’s proclamation of the 29th ultimo, with a view of complying with its provisions when you learned that, with others you were to be indicted for treason by the grand jury at Norfolk: that you had supposed the officers and men of the Army of Northern Virginia were by the terms of their surrender protected by the United States Government from molestation so long as they conformed to its conditions; that you were ready to meet any charges that might be preferred against you, and did not wish to avoid trial, but that if you were correct as to the protection granted by your parole, and were not to be prosecuted, you desired to avail yourself of the President’s amnesty proclamation, and inclosing an application therefor, with the request that in that event it be acted, on has been received and forwarded to the Secretary of War, with the following opinion indorsed thereon by me:
In my opinion the officers and men paroled at Appomattox Court-House, and since, upon the same terms given to Lee, cannot be tried for treason so long as they observe the terms of their parole. This is my understanding. Good faith, as well as true policy, dictates that we should observe the conditions of that convention. Bad faith on the part of the Government, or a construction of that convention subjecting the officers to trial for treason, would produce a feeling of insecurity in the minds of all the paroled officers and men. If so disposed they might even regard such an infraction of terms by the Government as an entire release from all obligations on their part. I will state further that the terms granted by me met with the hearty approval of the President at the time, and of the country generally. The action of Judge Underwood, in Norfolk, has already had an injurious effect, and I would ask that he be ordered to quash all indictments found against paroled prisoners of war, and to desist from the further prosecution of them.
This opinion, I am informed, is substantially the same as that entertained by the Government. I have forwarded you application for amnesty and pardon to the President, with the following indorsement thereon:
Respectfully forwarded through the Secretary of War to the President, with the earnest recommendation that this application of General R. E. Lee for amnesty and pardon may be granted him. The oath of allegiance required by recent order of the President to accompany applications does not accompany applications does not accompany this for the reason, as I am informed by General Ord, the order requiring it had not reached Richmond when this was forwarded.
U. S. GRANT,
You really can’t make up the silly things these people believe.