?????????

[AUloggerhead 2,227]

The war is over people. I feel like this thread has torn us all asunder and pitted brother against brother.

Happy belated birthday to the Great Man, Robert E. Lee. Hope all state workers in Arkansas, Mississippi & Alabama enjoyed the state holiday. And now, with apologies for paraphrasing a former president:

With malice towards none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up this forum's wounds.

[homersapien 11,357]

Grant was guilty of genocide, as was Sherman, of civilian populations...

Genocide? That is a heck of an accusation! Would you mind sourcing your thoughts on this? I'm genuinely curious.

...his tactics set the stage for some of history's bloodiest moments of the 20th century

One could argue the entire war merely showed us what was coming. Horrible combination of new weapons and old tactics. Odd bit of post-hoc reasoning to suggest that it was their tactics that led to the ugliness of twentieth century warfare.

Here is a snippet written by Murray Rothbard the founder of the modern libertarian party.

Sherman’s infamous March through Georgia was one of the great war crimes, and crimes against humanity, of the past century-and-a-half. Because by targeting and butchering civilians, Lincoln and Grant and Sherman paved the way for all the genocidal honors of the monstrous 20th century.

There has been a lot of talk in recent years about memory, about never forgetting about history as retroactive punishment for crimes of war and mass murder. As Lord Acton, the great libertarian historian, put it, the historian, in the last analysis, must be a moral judge. The muse of the historian, he wrote, is not Clio, but Rhadamanthus, the legendary avenger of innocent blood. In that spirit, we must always remember, we must never forget, we must put in the dock and hang higher than Haman, those who, in modern times, opened the Pandora’s Box of genocide and the extermination of civilians: Sherman, Grant, and Lincoln.

I have a hard time buying that it was Sherman, Grant, and Lincoln that started the idea of genocide, which is basically what Mr. Rothbard suggests. Please don't confuse this with condoning Sherman's March. My point of contention merely lies with the small historical framework that this person chooses to use as a basis for his argument. Genocide has been happening for centuries (Spanish Conquistadors, The Crusades, American colonists vs American Indians, etc). To solely put the blame for opening "Pandora's Box" on Union officials is careless and shows an ignorance of history, some of which was relatively recent.

The idea that the U.S. invented "total war" is ludicrous. Most wars throughout the history of mankind were "total wars".

Sherman was correct in his belief the South had to be totally and unequivocally subjugated. Otherwise, the war would have continued even if as a guerrilla war. And don't moralize about it. We took the same attitude in WWII.

And as an interesting historical note, Stonewall Jackson recommended the exact same "total war" tactics to be waged against the North.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Destructive-War-Stonewall-Americans/dp/0679738789

[homersapien 11,357]

And Dr. Clyde Wilson whom you quoted is an interesting character:

The Southern Poverty Law Center has listed Wilson among the "ideologues" of the neo-Confederate movement, claiming that he told Gentleman's Quarterly in 1998 that "We don't want the federal government telling us what to do, pushing integration down our throats... We're tired of carpetbagging professionals coming to our campuses and teaching that the South is a cultural wasteland."

^{http://en.wikipedia....Clyde_N._Wilson}

The Southern Poverty Law Center has it's own bias. At the end of the day only Liberty and true freedom can help lift people out of their plight. Give them the chance to control their own destiny, provide a stable and opportunistic environment, and most will find a way to succeed.

Yeah, freedom, liberty and justice. Anyway, that doesn't change the facts about Clyde Wilson.

When asked what criteria the Southern Poverty Law Center uses, "Heidi Beirich, the law center’s director of research and special projects and a frequent contributor to its Hatewatch blog, acknowledged in an e-mail that 'we do not have a formal written criteria.'” That my friend changes everything. Talk about bias. Where is the justice? I don't agree with you, so I put you on a hatewatch listing? Seriously?

So where did you see that the SPLC "put Clyde Wilson on a hate watch" list? They said he was an ideologue in the neo-Confederate movement. (It's right up there in the above quote.)

Once again, you are making things up to argue against. (Surprise, surprise. :-\ )

Excerpts from various publications............

The SPLC has an entire listing of so-called "hate groups." Admittedly, some are serious, others not so much. Regardless, if they disavow your beliefs they can place you on one of the aforementioned list.

The SPLC is the subject of much debate and criticism. While they've certainly had their share of success, they've had many failures..........

So to answer Homer, Wilson was placed on one of these lists characterized by the SPLC as hate groups. Now what was made up exactly?

You have yet to show where the SPLC has placed Clyde Wilson, much less neo-Confederates on a "hate watch list".

Your saying so carries no weight with me whatsoever. (That's what happens when you have a record of acting dishonestly.)

[AUDub 11,143]

homer.......let it go. Everybody is tired of all your yada yada and nobody cares. Enough is enough. It's time top move on. Everyone has had ample opportunity to express their views/opinions and hopefully everyone agrees it's time to quit and move on to some other discussion.

Actually, it's a pretty good learning exercise and I'm having a great time.

I actually purchased a biography on the man this morning. :-P

[homersapien 11,357]

Homer....to answer one of your questions.....TexasTiger very early in the thread said REL was a traitor and still says it's a fact. To be a traitor you have to be convicted of treason. REL WAS NOT. So it remains TT's opinion. As others have pointed out, you won't find many (if any) hitorians calling Lee a traitor. Maybe a few radical unionists. But the liberals have chosen to rewrite the history of the Civil War to suit their own tastes in the last 20 or so years. Believe what you want. Everyone is entitled to their opinion even if it is wrong. My opinion of REL is cast granite and anyone can make a 1000 posts here and it won't change my opinion one iota. If you have time to waste be my guest.

Well, if all you have is opinion, why are you trying so hard to establish that REL was "NOT" guilty of treason?

Given REL's actions one could certainly justify the conclusion he was guilty of treason. It's fine if you want to think otherwise, but you are flogging a losing battle to prove (definitively) he wasn't. You can insist that one has to be actually convicted of treason to be guilty of treason, but I don't think you are going to get much agreement over that sort of legalistic argument. :-\

It sounds to me like you are just butt hurt because not everyone agrees with you.

[homersapien 11,357]

.....How the times have changed — and suddenly. The official doctrine of the MSI (Mainstream Intellectuals) now condemns Lee as a traitor and oath-violator and his cause as little better than Hitler's. This interpretation rests upon either a deliberate or a vastly ignorant misinterpretation of everything important in American history. The orchestrated blackening of Lee and his cause exhibits the triumph of Marxist categories in American historiography and public discussion. The War to Prevent Southern Independence has become not a great, tragic, historic drama of Americans, but a matter of the destruction and continued demonization of a "class enemy." This now semi-official view warps the understanding not only of The War but of all of American history — which is its purpose.

Nice post.

Thank you! Glad you enjoyed it. My hope is that it opened some eyes and quite possibly changed some minds.

Little wonder that Japan would appreciate such a delusional rant. He could have written it. :-\

......This whole Southern demonization thing is a creation of the last 40 years....and purely politically motivated....

Correcting the revisionist history of southern members of the "Progressive School" of historiography is hardly "demonization".

I'd say it it was the inevitable result of honest assessment of the historical record by historians without an ax to grind:

"During the first half of the twentieth century the argument that slavery had little to do with the growing polarization between the North and South that led to secession found a great deal of support among professional historians. The "Progressive school" dominated American historiography from the 1910s to the 1940s. "Merely by the accidents of climate, soil, and geography," wrote Charles A. Beard, doyen of the Progressive school, "was it a sectional struggle" - the accidental fact that plantation agriculture was located in the South and industry mainly in the North. Nor was it a contest between slavery and freedom. Slavery just happened to be the labor system of plantation agriculture, as wage labor was the system of Northern industry. The *real* issues between the North and the South in antebellum politics were the tariff, government subsidies to transportation and manufacturing, public land sales, financial policies, and other types of economic questions on which industrial and planting interests had clashing viewpoints.

This interpretive analysis, so powerful during the second quarter of the twentieth century, proved a godsend to a generation of mostly Southern-born historians who seized upon is as proof that slavery had little to do with the origins of the Confederacy. The Nashville Fugitives, an influential group of historians, novelists, and poets who gathered at Vanderbilt University and published the famous manifesto "I'll Take My Stand" in 1930, set the tone for the new Southern interpretation of the Civil War's causes. It was a blend of the old Confederate apologia voiced by Jefferson Davis and the new Progressive synthesis created by Charles Beard.

An offshoot of this interpretation of the Civil War's causes dominated the work of academic historians during the 1940s. This offshoot came to be known as revisionism. Revisionism tended to portray Southern whites, even the fire-eaters, as victims reacting to Northern attacks; it truly was a "war of Northern aggression".

While one or more of these interpretations remain popular among the Sons of Confederate Veterans and other Southern heritage groups, few professional historians now subscribe to them. Of all these interpretations, the states-rights argument is perhaps the weakest. It fails to ask the question, state's rights for what purpose? States rights, or sovereignty, was always more a means than an end, an instrument to achieve a certain goal more than a principle. In the antebellum South, the purpose of asserting state sovereignty was to protect slavery from the potential hostility of a national majority against Southern interests - mainly slavery."

pp. 3-12(excerpts) "This Mighty Scourge - Perspectives on the Civil War" by James M. McPherson

Sorry Homey, but this really doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand. I don't think anyone in this thread said slavery was not a cause....and I believe just about every argument I have put forth had the Southern defense of slavery as a central tenant. Article 4, etc., was about protecting Southern states "property" rights against an increasingly aggressive effort by the Northern states to ignore their obligations.... So where exactly is this thread intended to take the discussion?

If you go back and check, I was responding to this statement regarding the historiography of the civil war:

......This whole Southern demonization thing is a creation of the last 40 years....and purely politically motivated....

My post explained the actual "history of the historiography". In other words, it refutes the idea of a "Southern demonization thing that is a creation of the last 40 years...and is purely politically motivated".

So I am not "taking" the discussion anywhere. I am following it.

[homersapien 11,357]

.....How the times have changed — and suddenly. The official doctrine of the MSI (Mainstream Intellectuals) now condemns Lee as a traitor and oath-violator and his cause as little better than Hitler's. This interpretation rests upon either a deliberate or a vastly ignorant misinterpretation of everything important in American history. The orchestrated blackening of Lee and his cause exhibits the triumph of Marxist categories in American historiography and public discussion. The War to Prevent Southern Independence has become not a great, tragic, historic drama of Americans, but a matter of the destruction and continued demonization of a "class enemy." This now semi-official view warps the understanding not only of The War but of all of American history — which is its purpose.

Nice post.

Thank you! Glad you enjoyed it. My hope is that it opened some eyes and quite possibly changed some minds.

Little wonder that Japan would appreciate such a delusional rant. He could have written it. :-\

Homey, I usually find your logic flawed; well, because usually there is no logic; but just because you don't like the guys answer doesn't make it delusional; this ones even over the top for you....blah blah blah

Well, I suppose well just have to disagree on whether or not the following is delusional thinking:

"The orchestrated blackening of Lee and his cause exhibits the triumph of Marxist categories in American historiography and public discussion. The War to Prevent Southern Independence has become not a great, tragic, historic drama of Americans, but a matter of the destruction and continued demonization of a "class enemy."

The fact you and some others consider such wacko rhetoric as representing a rational, factual argument certainly explains a lot of the tension on this forum.

What does the "triumph of Marxist categories in American historiography" even mean? And who exactly is this "class enemy" that is being demonized?

The Class is white Southerners....or anyone wishing to fly the Stars and Bars...or anyone who finds the notion that the civil war was a great American drama, that those traditions should be honored...that the war service of their ancestors was noble and should be revered, etc... vs the current left's interpretation of it all as a hate crime writ large. That is the difference that has occurred in the last 40 years.

My goodness! What a victim you are!

That is truly wacko rhetoric.

[homersapien 11,357]

BigBen...with all due respect, that's ridiculous IMHO. I think you are smart enough to realize what you are saying is ridiculous. You can't be guilty of treason unless you are convicted of treason.....except in your OPINON. It's my opinion that Casey Anthony is guilty of murder but the jury decided otherwise. I can accept that your opinion is that REL was guilty of treason but it's nothing more than your opinion.Why is that so hard to admit?

So you really don't think OJ Simpson committed murder?

[homersapien 11,357]

It is certainly arguable whether or not Robert E. Lee was a hero. However, it would be difficult to argue that he was not a great man. Personally I admire him. I believe he knew that he was fighting for a lost cause and a dying institution. I believe, he did not believe the Civil War was necessary nor worthwhile. I can understand how a man's loyalties might favor his friends and neighbors over his government. I believe that he would probably not call himself a hero. I would guess he would say there are no heroes from the Civil War because, in such a conflict, the only possible hero would be the man who prevented it.

If memory serves me, after the war, he embraced former slaves, in church. He actually brought them to the alter and prayed with them. That sort of display of love and understanding makes him very special to me. Interesting that in contrast, Abraham Lincoln, favored a plan to return former slaves to Africa.

I can picture General Lee near the end of the war, sitting atop Traveler, looking rather old, tired, disillusioned but, a man who did not serve a political party or ideology but a man of faith and principle who although brilliant, realized that men and their ideas are corruptible and fallible and all you can do is stand on principle and know that in the end you still will not always be correct.

Like I have always said, morality is relevant. Thus it is possible - in our minds - for someone like Lee who fought for an evil cause to be considered a great man.

If Benedict Arnold had succeeded and the British had won the war, we'd be celebrating him as a great hero.

[homersapien 11,357]

Did someone fart?

I am so sorry you can't stand up to my persistence.

I am not being deliberately relentless, I am just catching up on the thread. I start where I left off and work forward, posting whenever I have a response.

Anyway, please don't feel you have to respond to my posts, but if you do, it would be nice to make it substantive. (It also would make you seem less like someone who resorts to weaseling because they can't hold their own.)

[Elephant Tipper 430]

I keep hearing pissing in the wind.

Hey PT, dump some of your old messages. I tried to pm you but your box is full.

[Elephant Tipper 430]

ET....I deleted a bunch of PMs so try again.

Tried again to pm you. Said that you "cannot receive any new messages".

[AUDub 11,143]

ET....I deleted a bunch of PMs so try again.

Tried again to pm you. Said that you "cannot receive any new messages". :dunno:/>

Did you try finagling the thingamajig?

[TheBlueVue 177]

Here is an excellent, my favorite, quote from Confederate Patrick R Cleburne. It is insightful into the mindset of southerners in general concerning the Civil War, its beginning and its end

"Every man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late... It means the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern schoolteachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision... It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties."

--- Maj. General Patrick R. Cleburne, CSA, January 1864, writing on what would happen if the Confederacy were to be defeated.

[AUFAN78 3,894]

And Dr. Clyde Wilson whom you quoted is an interesting character:

The Southern Poverty Law Center has listed Wilson among the "ideologues" of the neo-Confederate movement, claiming that he told Gentleman's Quarterly in 1998 that "We don't want the federal government telling us what to do, pushing integration down our throats... We're tired of carpetbagging professionals coming to our campuses and teaching that the South is a cultural wasteland."

^{http://en.wikipedia....Clyde_N._Wilson}

The Southern Poverty Law Center has it's own bias. At the end of the day only Liberty and true freedom can help lift people out of their plight. Give them the chance to control their own destiny, provide a stable and opportunistic environment, and most will find a way to succeed.

Yeah, freedom, liberty and justice. Anyway, that doesn't change the facts about Clyde Wilson.

When asked what criteria the Southern Poverty Law Center uses, "Heidi Beirich, the law center’s director of research and special projects and a frequent contributor to its Hatewatch blog, acknowledged in an e-mail that 'we do not have a formal written criteria.'” That my friend changes everything. Talk about bias. Where is the justice? I don't agree with you, so I put you on a hatewatch listing? Seriously?

So where did you see that the SPLC "put Clyde Wilson on a hate watch" list? They said he was an ideologue in the neo-Confederate movement. (It's right up there in the above quote.)

Once again, you are making things up to argue against. (Surprise, surprise. :-\ )

Excerpts from various publications............

The SPLC has an entire listing of so-called "hate groups." Admittedly, some are serious, others not so much. Regardless, if they disavow your beliefs they can place you on one of the aforementioned list.

The SPLC is the subject of much debate and criticism. While they've certainly had their share of success, they've had many failures..........

So to answer Homer, Wilson was placed on one of these lists characterized by the SPLC as hate groups. Now what was made up exactly?

You have yet to show where the SPLC has placed Clyde Wilson, much less neo-Confederates on a "hate watch list".

Your saying so carries no weight with me whatsoever. (That's what happens when you have a record of acting dishonestly.)

Crack?

[japantiger 4,051]

Here is an excellent, my favorite, quote from Confederate Patrick R Cleburne. It is insightful into the mindset of southerners in general concerning the Civil War, its beginning and its end

"Every man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late... It means the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern schoolteachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision... It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties."

--- Maj. General Patrick R. Cleburne, CSA, January 1864, writing on what would happen if the Confederacy were to be defeated.

What you; I mean he, said...

[homersapien 11,357]

Here is an excellent, my favorite, quote from Confederate Patrick R Cleburne. It is insightful into the mindset of southerners in general concerning the Civil War, its beginning and its end

"Every man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late... It means the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern schoolteachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision... It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties."

--- Maj. General Patrick R. Cleburne, CSA, January 1864, writing on what would happen if the Confederacy were to be defeated.

What you; I mean he, said...

Shame he left out the parts about how southerners are descended from English nobility while northerners comprise the dregs of Europe. :-\

(But I love the part about understanding the "meaning of subjugation" coming from the general of a country founded on the basis of preserving legal slavery.)

[homersapien 11,357]

And Dr. Clyde Wilson whom you quoted is an interesting character:

The Southern Poverty Law Center has listed Wilson among the "ideologues" of the neo-Confederate movement, claiming that he told Gentleman's Quarterly in 1998 that "We don't want the federal government telling us what to do, pushing integration down our throats... We're tired of carpetbagging professionals coming to our campuses and teaching that the South is a cultural wasteland."

^{http://en.wikipedia....Clyde_N._Wilson}

The Southern Poverty Law Center has it's own bias. At the end of the day only Liberty and true freedom can help lift people out of their plight. Give them the chance to control their own destiny, provide a stable and opportunistic environment, and most will find a way to succeed.

Yeah, freedom, liberty and justice. Anyway, that doesn't change the facts about Clyde Wilson.

When asked what criteria the Southern Poverty Law Center uses, "Heidi Beirich, the law center’s director of research and special projects and a frequent contributor to its Hatewatch blog, acknowledged in an e-mail that 'we do not have a formal written criteria.'” That my friend changes everything. Talk about bias. Where is the justice? I don't agree with you, so I put you on a hatewatch listing? Seriously?

So where did you see that the SPLC "put Clyde Wilson on a hate watch" list? They said he was an ideologue in the neo-Confederate movement. (It's right up there in the above quote.)

Once again, you are making things up to argue against. (Surprise, surprise. :-\ )

Excerpts from various publications............

The SPLC has an entire listing of so-called "hate groups." Admittedly, some are serious, others not so much. Regardless, if they disavow your beliefs they can place you on one of the aforementioned list.

The SPLC is the subject of much debate and criticism. While they've certainly had their share of success, they've had many failures..........

So to answer Homer, Wilson was placed on one of these lists characterized by the SPLC as hate groups. Now what was made up exactly?

You have yet to show where the SPLC has placed Clyde Wilson, much less neo-Confederates on a "hate watch list".

Your saying so carries no weight with me whatsoever. (That's what happens when you have a record of acting dishonestly.)

Crack?

Your record is safe.

[AUFAN78 3,894]

And Dr. Clyde Wilson whom you quoted is an interesting character:

The Southern Poverty Law Center has listed Wilson among the "ideologues" of the neo-Confederate movement, claiming that he told Gentleman's Quarterly in 1998 that "We don't want the federal government telling us what to do, pushing integration down our throats... We're tired of carpetbagging professionals coming to our campuses and teaching that the South is a cultural wasteland."

^{http://en.wikipedia....Clyde_N._Wilson}

The Southern Poverty Law Center has it's own bias. At the end of the day only Liberty and true freedom can help lift people out of their plight. Give them the chance to control their own destiny, provide a stable and opportunistic environment, and most will find a way to succeed.

Yeah, freedom, liberty and justice. Anyway, that doesn't change the facts about Clyde Wilson.

When asked what criteria the Southern Poverty Law Center uses, "Heidi Beirich, the law center’s director of research and special projects and a frequent contributor to its Hatewatch blog, acknowledged in an e-mail that 'we do not have a formal written criteria.'” That my friend changes everything. Talk about bias. Where is the justice? I don't agree with you, so I put you on a hatewatch listing? Seriously?

So where did you see that the SPLC "put Clyde Wilson on a hate watch" list? They said he was an ideologue in the neo-Confederate movement. (It's right up there in the above quote.)

Once again, you are making things up to argue against. (Surprise, surprise. :-\ )

Excerpts from various publications............

The SPLC has an entire listing of so-called "hate groups." Admittedly, some are serious, others not so much. Regardless, if they disavow your beliefs they can place you on one of the aforementioned list.

The SPLC is the subject of much debate and criticism. While they've certainly had their share of success, they've had many failures..........

So to answer Homer, Wilson was placed on one of these lists characterized by the SPLC as hate groups. Now what was made up exactly?

You have yet to show where the SPLC has placed Clyde Wilson, much less neo-Confederates on a "hate watch list".

Your saying so carries no weight with me whatsoever. (That's what happens when you have a record of acting dishonestly.)

Crack?

Your record is safe.

I am privileged to do volunteer work for Bham at-risk teens. These kids often display a clouded mind with little ability to function on its own. They reveal skewed judgmental skills and difficulty distinguishing right from wrong. Oftentimes, the common denominator is crack.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Here is an excellent, my favorite, quote from Confederate Patrick R Cleburne. It is insightful into the mindset of southerners in general concerning the Civil War, its beginning and its end

"Every man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late... It means the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern schoolteachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision... It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties."

--- Maj. General Patrick R. Cleburne, CSA, January 1864, writing on what would happen if the Confederacy were to be defeated.

What you; I mean he, said...

Shame he left out the parts about how southerners are descended from English nobility while northerners comprise the dregs of Europe. :-\

(But I love the part about understanding the "meaning of subjugation" coming from the general of a country founded on the basis of preserving legal slavery.)

Cleburne had no interest in preserving slavery. you cannot decide what he meant with his loyalty to the Confederacy..his words speak volumes

"I am with the South in life or in death, in victory or defeat. I never owned a negro and care nothing for them, but these people have been my friends and have stood up to me on all occasions. In addition to this, I believe the North is about to wage a brutal and unholy war on a people who have done them no wrong, in violation of the Constitution and the fundamental principles of the government...We propose no invasion of the North, no attack on them, and only ask to be let alone". Patrick R. Cleburne

If Lincoln had waged war to simply put an end to slavery why did he wait til 1863 to issue his Executive Order freeing slaves in rebellion states only. The Emancipation Proclamation did not even free slaves in states under Northern controlled. Slavery there was not ended until the passage of the 13th Amendment. When Lincoln was asked why didn't he just let the Southern states go, he replied, "I cant just let them go, who will pay for the government.?" Lincoln himself was not even in the war to end slavery so it is absurd to suggest the south was only in it to preserve it.

[AUDub 11,143]

Cleburne had no interest in preserving slavery. you cannot decide what he meant with his loyalty to the Confederacy

His motives were irrelevant.

[homersapien 11,357]

And Dr. Clyde Wilson whom you quoted is an interesting character:

The Southern Poverty Law Center has listed Wilson among the "ideologues" of the neo-Confederate movement, claiming that he told Gentleman's Quarterly in 1998 that "We don't want the federal government telling us what to do, pushing integration down our throats... We're tired of carpetbagging professionals coming to our campuses and teaching that the South is a cultural wasteland."

^{http://en.wikipedia....Clyde_N._Wilson}

The Southern Poverty Law Center has it's own bias. At the end of the day only Liberty and true freedom can help lift people out of their plight. Give them the chance to control their own destiny, provide a stable and opportunistic environment, and most will find a way to succeed.

Yeah, freedom, liberty and justice. Anyway, that doesn't change the facts about Clyde Wilson.

When asked what criteria the Southern Poverty Law Center uses, "Heidi Beirich, the law center’s director of research and special projects and a frequent contributor to its Hatewatch blog, acknowledged in an e-mail that 'we do not have a formal written criteria.'” That my friend changes everything. Talk about bias. Where is the justice? I don't agree with you, so I put you on a hatewatch listing? Seriously?

So where did you see that the SPLC "put Clyde Wilson on a hate watch" list? They said he was an ideologue in the neo-Confederate movement. (It's right up there in the above quote.)

Once again, you are making things up to argue against. (Surprise, surprise. :-\ )

Excerpts from various publications............

The SPLC has an entire listing of so-called "hate groups." Admittedly, some are serious, others not so much. Regardless, if they disavow your beliefs they can place you on one of the aforementioned list.

The SPLC is the subject of much debate and criticism. While they've certainly had their share of success, they've had many failures..........

So to answer Homer, Wilson was placed on one of these lists characterized by the SPLC as hate groups. Now what was made up exactly?

You have yet to show where the SPLC has placed Clyde Wilson, much less neo-Confederates on a "hate watch list".

Your saying so carries no weight with me whatsoever. (That's what happens when you have a record of acting dishonestly.)

Crack?

Your record is safe.

I am privileged to do volunteer work for Bham at-risk teens. These kids often display a clouded mind with little ability to function on its own. They reveal skewed judgmental skills and difficulty distinguishing right from wrong. Oftentimes, the common denominator is crack.

Do they ever admit to making a mistake?

[AUFAN78 3,894]

And Dr. Clyde Wilson whom you quoted is an interesting character:

The Southern Poverty Law Center has listed Wilson among the "ideologues" of the neo-Confederate movement, claiming that he told Gentleman's Quarterly in 1998 that "We don't want the federal government telling us what to do, pushing integration down our throats... We're tired of carpetbagging professionals coming to our campuses and teaching that the South is a cultural wasteland."

^{http://en.wikipedia....Clyde_N._Wilson}

The Southern Poverty Law Center has it's own bias. At the end of the day only Liberty and true freedom can help lift people out of their plight. Give them the chance to control their own destiny, provide a stable and opportunistic environment, and most will find a way to succeed.

Yeah, freedom, liberty and justice. Anyway, that doesn't change the facts about Clyde Wilson.

When asked what criteria the Southern Poverty Law Center uses, "Heidi Beirich, the law center’s director of research and special projects and a frequent contributor to its Hatewatch blog, acknowledged in an e-mail that 'we do not have a formal written criteria.'” That my friend changes everything. Talk about bias. Where is the justice? I don't agree with you, so I put you on a hatewatch listing? Seriously?

So where did you see that the SPLC "put Clyde Wilson on a hate watch" list? They said he was an ideologue in the neo-Confederate movement. (It's right up there in the above quote.)

Once again, you are making things up to argue against. (Surprise, surprise. :-\ )

Excerpts from various publications............

The SPLC has an entire listing of so-called "hate groups." Admittedly, some are serious, others not so much. Regardless, if they disavow your beliefs they can place you on one of the aforementioned list.

The SPLC is the subject of much debate and criticism. While they've certainly had their share of success, they've had many failures..........

So to answer Homer, Wilson was placed on one of these lists characterized by the SPLC as hate groups. Now what was made up exactly?

You have yet to show where the SPLC has placed Clyde Wilson, much less neo-Confederates on a "hate watch list".

Your saying so carries no weight with me whatsoever. (That's what happens when you have a record of acting dishonestly.)

Crack?

Your record is safe.

I am privileged to do volunteer work for Bham at-risk teens. These kids often display a clouded mind with little ability to function on its own. They reveal skewed judgmental skills and difficulty distinguishing right from wrong. Oftentimes, the common denominator is crack.

Do they ever admit to making a mistake?

Rarely. Ponder your statement.

[AUFAN78 3,894]

And Dr. Clyde Wilson whom you quoted is an interesting character:

The Southern Poverty Law Center has listed Wilson among the "ideologues" of the neo-Confederate movement, claiming that he told Gentleman's Quarterly in 1998 that "We don't want the federal government telling us what to do, pushing integration down our throats... We're tired of carpetbagging professionals coming to our campuses and teaching that the South is a cultural wasteland."

^{http://en.wikipedia....Clyde_N._Wilson}

The Southern Poverty Law Center has it's own bias. At the end of the day only Liberty and true freedom can help lift people out of their plight. Give them the chance to control their own destiny, provide a stable and opportunistic environment, and most will find a way to succeed.

Yeah, freedom, liberty and justice. Anyway, that doesn't change the facts about Clyde Wilson.

When asked what criteria the Southern Poverty Law Center uses, "Heidi Beirich, the law center’s director of research and special projects and a frequent contributor to its Hatewatch blog, acknowledged in an e-mail that 'we do not have a formal written criteria.'” That my friend changes everything. Talk about bias. Where is the justice? I don't agree with you, so I put you on a hatewatch listing? Seriously?

So where did you see that the SPLC "put Clyde Wilson on a hate watch" list? They said he was an ideologue in the neo-Confederate movement. (It's right up there in the above quote.)

Once again, you are making things up to argue against. (Surprise, surprise. :-\ )

Excerpts from various publications............

The SPLC has an entire listing of so-called "hate groups." Admittedly, some are serious, others not so much. Regardless, if they disavow your beliefs they can place you on one of the aforementioned list.

The SPLC is the subject of much debate and criticism. While they've certainly had their share of success, they've had many failures..........

So to answer Homer, Wilson was placed on one of these lists characterized by the SPLC as hate groups. Now what was made up exactly?

You have yet to show where the SPLC has placed Clyde Wilson, much less neo-Confederates on a "hate watch list".

Your saying so carries no weight with me whatsoever. (That's what happens when you have a record of acting dishonestly.)

Crack?

Your record is safe.

I am privileged to do volunteer work for Bham at-risk teens. These kids often display a clouded mind with little ability to function on its own. They reveal skewed judgmental skills and difficulty distinguishing right from wrong. Oftentimes, the common denominator is crack.

Do they ever admit to making a mistake?

Rarely. Ponder your statement.

End of quibble. Peace and love. Sorry homey.

Now back to the OP which has been awesome! Carry on...

[AUFAN78 3,894]

What was the title of this thread. It was 29 pages ago and I have forgot. :-\

My apologies PT if I played a role in your memory lapse. I was just having fun at the expense of those not interested. My wife told me to write "I won't .........again" 1000 times on the board!