UA-9726592-1
Showing posts with label Civil War. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Civil War. Show all posts

Thursday, August 23, 2012

County judge warns of "Civil War"

A judge advocating sedition should be removed form the bench. This man is a throwback to the Civil War.

His message is direct: vote for Mittens or risk Civil War.

Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: http://feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/UFPYA

Creative Commons License

Rightardia by Rightard Whitey of Rightardia is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.

Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at rightardia@gmail.com.

Monday, May 28, 2012

An inspirational message for Memorial Day


One of the best Memorial day messages Rightardia has seen in a long time.

Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: http://feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/UFPYA

Creative Commons License


Rightardia by Rightard Whitey of Rightardia is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.

Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at rightardia@gmail.com.

Friday, February 11, 2011

The other Union general that whipped the confederacy


Union Cavalry General Philip Sheridan

Many Americans think it was William T. Sherman's march to the sea that ended the war. The were many other great union leaders that made major contributions to the war effort such as  Philip Henry Sheridan.

Throughout the Civil War, the Confederacy sent armies out of Virginia through the Shenandoah Valley to invade Maryland and Pennsylvania and threaten Washington, D.C.

Lt. Gen. Jubal A. Early, following the same pattern in the Valley Campaigns of 1864, and hoping to distract Grant from the Siege of Petersburg, attacked Union forces near Washington and raided several towns in Pennsylvania.

Ulysses S. Grant, reacting to the political commotion caused by the invasion, organized the Middle Military Division, whose field troops were known as the Army of the Shenandoah.

He considered various candidates for command, including George Meade, William B. Franklin, and David Hunter, with the latter two intended for the military division while Phillip Sheridan would command the army.

All of these choices were rejected by either Grant or the War Department and, over the objection of Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton, who believed Sheridan to be too young for such a high post.

Sheridan took command in both roles at Harpers Ferry on August 7, 1864. His mission was not only to defeat Early's army and to close off the Northern invasion route, but to deny the Shenandoah Valley as a productive agricultural region to the Confederacy.

Grant told Sheridan:

The people should be informed that so long as an army can subsist among them recurrences of these raids must be expected, and we are determined to stop them at all hazards. ... Give the enemy no rest ... Do all the damage to railroads and crops you can. Carry off stock of all descriptions, and negroes, so as to prevent further planting. If the war is to last another year, we want the Shenandoah Valley to remain a barren waste.

Sheridan got off to a slow start, needing time to organize and to counter the reinforcements reaching Early.

Grant ordered him not to launch an offensive "with the advantage against you," yet Grant expressed frustration with Sheridan's lack of progress.

The armies remained unengaged for over a month, causing political consternation in the North as the 1864 election drew near.

Grant and Sheridan conferred on September 16 at Charles Town and agreed that Sheridan would begin his attacks within four days.
 
On September 19, Sheridan beat Early's much smaller army at Third Winchester and followed up on September 22 with a victory at Fisher's Hill.

As Early attempted to regroup, Sheridan began the punitive operations of his mission, sending his cavalry as far south as Waynesboro to seize or destroy livestock and provisions, and to burn barns, mills, factories, and railroads.

Sheridan's men did their work relentlessly and thoroughly, rendering over 400 mi.² uninhabitable.

The destruction presaged the scorched earth tactics of Sherman's March to the Sea through Georgia—deny an army a base from which to operate and bring the effects of war home to the population supporting it.

The residents referred to this widespread destruction as "The Burning." The Confederates were not idle during this period and Sheridan's men were plagued by guerrilla raids by partisan ranger Col. John S. Mosby a famous confederate raider.

A historically accurate Civil War license plate

Rightardia is tired of the southern BS about their heritage and history. The confederacy was defeated and quite frankly had no chance of winning at all.

The Civil War was fought over the expansion of slavery into new US territories. Now Mississippi wants to honor Nathan Bedford Forrest on a licence plate. He was a famous civil war general and early leader of the the Klan.

Jefferson Davis didn't talk about state's right until after the civil war had ended and the CSA Constitution had the same federal supremacy clause that the US constitution contained.

Why do neo-confederates keep bringing up the Civil War when they were quite soundly beaten! 

These are some William Tecumseh Sherman quotes Rightardia would like to see on Northern license plates. 

It's a disagreeable thing to be whipped.

My aim then was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us.

I beg to present you as a Christmas gift the city of Savannah.

I intend to make Georgia howl.

The better classes are tired of the insane howling of the lower strata and they mean to stop them.

War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want.  

source: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/w/william_tecumseh_sherman.html 

Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: http://feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/UFPYA  

Netcraft rank: 6920 http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://rightardia.blogspot.com
Creative Commons License
Rightardia by Rightard Whitey of Rightardia is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.

Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at rightardia@gmail.com.

Friday, December 31, 2010

Anniversary of the Civil War is no cause to celebrate

EJ Dionne wrote and excellent editorial about the Civil War entitled "Don’t Spin the Civil War." 

Rightardia read the editorial in the St. Petersburg Times and LtSaloon also picked it up. Dionne addresses the cause of the Civil War which was the containment of slavery in the Old South.

This year will be the 150th anniversary of this terrible war in which 618,000 Americans died.

James McPherson, a civil War historian  has noted that Confederate President Jefferson Davis, a major slaveholder, “justified secession in 1861 as an act of self-defense against the incoming Lincoln administration.” Davis said:

Abraham Lincoln’s policy of excluding slavery from the territories would make “property in slaves so insecure as to be comparatively worthless . . . thereby annihilating in effect property worth thousands of millions of dollars.

The big concern of Southerners was that slavery would not be extended in to the new territories that the US was purchasing or annexing. Lincoln never said that he planned to abolish slavery. His strategy was to contain it.

However, as the Union forces advanced into the Southland, Lincoln abolished slavery with the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 to quicken the end of the war. 

The vice president of the confederacy, Alexander H. Stephens said this on March 21, 1861 in Savannah, Georgia during his Cornerstone Speech:

African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right . . .

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition . . .

With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system . . .

We hear much of the civilization and Christianization of the barbarous tribes of Africa. In my judgment, those ends will never be attained, but by first teaching them the lesson taught to Adam, that "in the sweat of his brow he should eat his bread," and teaching them to work, and feed, and clothe themselves . . .
 
Jefferson Davis didn't start talking about State's Rights until after the Civil War ended. Of interest, the CSA Constitution had the same federal supremacy clause that the US constitution contains.

Alexis de Tocqueville commented on slavery in the United States in 1835.


When I contemplate the condition of the South, I can discover only two modes of action for the white inhabitants of those States: namely, either to emancipate the Negroes and to intermingle with them, or, remaining isolated from them, to keep them in slavery as long as possible . . .

All intermediate measures seem to me likely to terminate, and that shortly, in the most horrible of civil wars . . .

The ancients kept the bodies of their slaves in bondage, but placed no restraint upon the mind and no check upon education; and they acted consistently with their established principle, since a natural termination of slavery then existed, and one day or other the slave might be set free and become the equal of his master. 

But the Americans of the South, who do not admit that the Negroes can ever be commingled with themselves, have forbidden them, under severe penalties, to be taught to read or write; and as they will not raise them to their own level, they sink them as nearly as possible to that of the brutes.

We agree with EJ Dione. We hope the GOP will be smart enough to avoid spinning he 150th anniversary of that terrible war. The historians will be waiting for them with their long knives if Republicans try to bull shit about the real causes of the Civil War. 



souce: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?documentprint=76

Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: http://feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/UFPYA 
 http://feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/UFPYA 

Netcraft rank: 6603 http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://rightardia.blogspot.com

Tuesday, December 14, 2010

NAACP to protest South Carolina secession ball

By GINA SMITH - gnsmith@thestate.com

Members of South Carolina’s NAACP will march in protest of a “secession ball” in Charleston later this month. The ball will commemorate the 150th anniversary of South Carolina’s secession from the Union.

State NAACP leaders held two press conferences Friday, spreading the word they will protest the ball and any other sesquicentennial events that they deem disrespectful.

“We are not opposed to observances,” said Lonnie Randolph, state president of the NAACP. “We are opposed to disrespect.”

NAACP members and supporters plan to hold a peaceful march in downtown Charleston the day of the ball, on Dec. 20, followed by a meeting and question-and-answer session focusing on slavery. Participants will watch segments of “Birth of a Nation,” a 1915 silent film that portrayed Ku Klux Klan members as heroes.

Attendees at Charleston’s Gaillard Municipal Auditorium, ball, who will pay $100 a ticket, will don formal, period dress, eat and dance the Virginia Reel as a band plays “Dixie.”

The evening’s highlight will be a play re-enacting the signing of South Carolina’s Ordinance of Secession 150 years ago. This act severed the state’s ties with the Union and paved the way for the Civil War.

“This is nothing more than a celebration of slavery,” Randolph said of the event.

Members of the S.C. Sons of Confederate Veterans, a co-sponsor of the ball, say slavery was one of several issues that caused – but it was not the cause – of the Civil War.

The ball is a way to honor the brave S.C. men who stood up to an over-domineering federal government, high tariffs and Northern states that wanted to take the country in an economic direction that was not best for the South, said Mark Simpson, the S.C. division commander for the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

Simpson said his organization condemns slavery and respects the NAACP’s right to disagree and protest. But that won’t deter his group’s plans, Simpson said.
he added:

We could look back and say (the Civil War) wasn’t something to celebrate – about 620,000 died in the North and South. If you count civilians, you’re up to about a million killed in that war.

“Do we celebrate that? Heavens no,” he said. “War and death is never something to celebrate. But we do celebrate the courage and the integrity of 170 men who signed their signatures to the Article of Secession – the courage of men to do what they think is right.”

Randolph said the Civil War was about states’ rights, one in particular.

The civil war was about the expansion of slavery into the new US territories. The south tried to hold the US hostage with its values and threatened to secede if Lincoln was elected. Lincoln was elected and several states seceded. The south won that battle but lost the war.

General William T. Sherman remembered the SC acts of treason and sacked Columbia, SC during his March to the Sea. Sherman said:

The whole army is burning with an insatiable desire to wreak violence upon South Carolina. I almost tremble for her fate.

Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: http://feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/UFPYA

Netcraft rank: 7373 http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://rightardia.blogspot.com
Rightardia.blogspot.com


editor: Middle Class Warrior


Monday, September 20, 2010

Colonel Reb goes to the retirment home for politically insenstive mascots

According to the New York Times,  After many years of complaints about a mascot dressed as a Confederate soldier as the symbol of a university where 14 percent of students are black, Ole Miss is retiring  Colonel Reb for good this football season.

The white-bearded, cane-toting mascot has not been the Rebels’ official team cheerleader since 2003. But his image is still used on fan merchandise such as  T-shirts, Confederate flags and corkscrews.

This summer, Ole Miss announced a ban on the sale of any items with his image. The university will soon hold a student-run election to pick a new mascot.

It is part of a plan to change the university’s image, still tarnished by racial strife in the 1960s. Confederate battle flags were discouraged from football games years ago, and “Dixie” is no longer the unofficial fight song OF Ole Miss.

Like controversies have occurred at other colleges involving team names or mascots of American Indians.

For example, Florida State University had to sign a special agreement with the Seminole Tribe of Florida .

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has a prohibition against use of Native American logos, signs in stadiums, cheerleader and band uniforms, and mascots as presumed "hostile and abusive."

Florida State University (FSU) was exempted from the NCAA ban after the threat of litigation. FSU has an agreement with the 3,100-member Seminole Tribe of Florida. During the dispute, the Oklahoma Seminoles also endorsed FSU use of the name and image.

Rightadia congratulates Ole Miss for  discarding a a symbol of the defeated Confederacy. The GOP lack of leadership in the South and its misguided rhetoric about state's rights is responsible for a lot of this confederate nonsense.

More people died in the civil War than all other US wars combined. It is a sad period of US history that should not be esteemed or celebrated.  Indeed, the slaves were freed, but many black people did not enjoy full civil rights in the US until the 1960s.

source: The New York Times and Wikipedia
Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/IGiu


Netcraft rank: 8665
http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://rightardia.blogspot.com


Saturday, December 19, 2009

Reporter asks Senator Tom Colburn:"Do You Think We're On The Brink Of A Civil War"?



by: Hillbilly Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 17:36:44 PM EST December 19, 2009 

Senator Tom Colburn:

"The crisis of confidence in this country is now at and apex that it has not seen in over 150 years". Of course, the Civil War occurred about 150 years ago. 

Sen. Coburn is a C- Streeter and member of the Christo-fascist Family headed by Doug Coe. He also tried to broker a settlement between Sen. John Ensign and the family of a female staffers that Sen. Ensign was having an affair with.

Watch the eyes of the man sitting next to Sen. Coburn when the reporter asks Coburn  if he thinks the US is on the brink of a Civil War.


source: http://www.hillbillyreport.org/ 

Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/IGiu

Netcraft rank: 4543 http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://rightardia.blogspot.com

Monday, November 9, 2009

Liar, liar, pants on fire: The historical revisionism of the right

The right wing has been distorting American history since the United States was founded. Let's take a look at some of the biggest lies. 


1.The US was founded as a Christian nation. Most of the people who migrated here believed in God but not necessarily organized region. We call such people as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin 'deists. People who believe in organized religion are called theists.

The US Constitution does not mention God, Jesus or Christianity. The Establishment Clause or the First Amendment establishes barriers between church and state and does not allow a religious test for holding public office. In fact, the Treaty of Tripoli 1996-97 specially states the US is not a Christian nation.

2. The Founders were brilliant men who wanted static laws and courts that were strict constructionist. First of all the Founders were a diverse lot and Alexis de Tocqueville noted some startling differences between the people who settled the North and the South. De Tocqueville even predicted the people in the South might one day undermine the new nation.

Trying to make the founders into a collective noun is a mistake. There were great arguments when the Constitution was being written and sentries were placed around the hall in Philadelphia so no one could ease drop.

The Bill of Rights was an afterthought and two political parties: Jefferson's Democratic Republican party and and Alexander Hamilton's Federalist Party formed immediately after the nation was founded. If the Founders didn't allow for change, why did they create a House , a Senate and a judiciary? Why did the Founders allow the Constitution to be amended?

3. The Civil War was fought over State's Rights. The Abolitionist's in the North were certainly against slavery, but the real issue was the expansion of slavery into new US territories.

In fact, the Constitution of the Confederate States of America had the same supremacy clause that is in the US Constitution. The Confederate States had some rights to regulate and tax commerce on waterways, but otherwise the Confederate government's laws superseded state laws.

4. The Depression was caused by the Democratic Party. This is a huge lie because three Republicans were president prior to the great Depression: Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover.

The Great Depression started when Hoover was president. Hoover actually started a lot of the public works programs, but his programs were conducted on too small of a scale. The Republicans also neglected traditional black Republican voters who defected to the Democratic Party after FDR was elected.

5.The Democratic party is fascist. Again, another huge lie. Many Republicans were openly sympathetic to Hitler on the onset of World War 2 and some even continued to do business with the Nazis during the war.

There was even a right wing Nazi movement called the Bund that was active in the US. In 1934 retired Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler testified to the McCormack-Dickstein Congressional committee that a group of right wing men had approached him as part of a plot to overthrow Roosevelt in a coup. The US entered World War 2 against Japanese militarists and European fascist nations such as Germany and Italy.

Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/IGiu

Netcraft rank: 5953 http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://rightardia.blogspot.com

Wednesday, July 1, 2009

Steve Kangas FAQ on liberalism: The States' Rights Myth

Editor's Note: This is one of the Steve Kangas' weaker essays because it doesn't mention the the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution or the Civil War which really settled the limitations of states' rights. The Supremacy Clause states:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Supremacy clause is also strikingly similar to the 14th Amendment:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.

In Edgar v. Mite Corporation, 457 U.S. 624 (1982), the Supreme Court ruled

A state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid federal statute.


Myth: Current federal powers violate the 10th amendment.

Fact: The 10th amendment is a moot curiosity.



Summary

The 10th amendment says that the federal government may not assume powers not permitted to it by the Constitution. Conservatives argue that much of today's federal government exceeds its constitutional mandate, and is therefore unconstitutional. However, most expansions of federal government have been contested in the Supreme Court for their constitutionality. The court has overturned some of these expansions, and upheld others. Therefore, the state of today's federal government has passed constitutional muster.



Argument

The 10th amendment states:
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Conservatives view this amendment as a life-saver. It says that the federal government cannot assume any powers not specified by the Constitution. Expansions of federal power beyond the Constitution, then, are unconstitutional. Conservatives go on to argue that the massive expansion of the government that followed the New Deal in 1933 are a violation of the 10th amendment.

The problem with this argument is that it is trivially true, in the way that all things besides oranges are non-oranges. The constitution grants the federal government enormous powers, a fact which is not harmed by the observation that extra-constitutional powers are not constitutional. As the Supreme Court has ruled: ''The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered." (1)

So the conservative appeal to the 10th amendment only begs the question: what powers does the Constitution grant the federal government?

The vast majority of expansions of federal government have been contested before the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. Sometimes the Supreme Court has struck down these expansions as unconstitutional; sometimes it has upheld them as constitutional. What we have today, then, is a federal government that has passed constitutional muster. Conservatives may disagree with the rulings, but then they must explain what kind of system they would like that would produce the kind of rulings they desire. A Congress that passes laws without that troublesome, irritating Supreme Court? A Supreme Court that seats only conservative judges? (Denying representation to half of America, of course...) Any changes would surely be disimprovements.

A look at the history of this amendment also reveals that the Founding Fathers did not intend it to be a severe brake on federal powers. This is proven by the refusal of both Houses of Congress to insert the word ''expressly'' before the word ''delegated.'' (2) It turns out that the 10th amendment is a historical curiosity, stripped of its teeth by the politics of the time. When the anti-federalists proposed the amendment, they intended it to be a strong limitation to federal powers. But they failed; the federalists managed to pass a wording that left implied federal powers intact, as well as undefined powers "to the people." Most historians, constitutional scholars and Supreme Court rulings have regarded the 10th amendment as the unsuccessful attempt that it was.

A closer look at the history of the 10th amendment can be found at The Tenth Amendment: Reserved Powers and Scope.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

Get 30 days of free traffic analysis simply by going to Web-Stat: http://www.web-stat.com/?id=2955

Contact Rightardia: eelder1@gmail.com

Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/blogspot/Onjs