• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

North Carolina Falls

As I mentioned before, I had family fight for the south. None ever owned slaves. To them it was about the rights of the state to decide their own way and southern pride. It still is to many of them.
Tearing down monuments commemorating war dead and sacrifice, from any war, is simply not right imo.
 
As I mentioned before, I had family fight for the south. None ever owned slaves. To them it was about the rights of the state to decide their own way and southern pride. It still is to many of them.
Tearing down monuments commemorating war dead and sacrifice, from any war, is simply not right imo.


And as in every war, the majority of fighting and dying was done by boys who go to war for the same reasons boys have always gone to war. To tear down a monument that memorializes the 'Confederate Dead', and their sacrifice, is wrong. Just as it would be wrong to tear one down for northern dead.
 
Don't worry. We remember. Every. Single, monument and flag that has been defiled or insulted by the woke scum. Every single one. One day this will be settled one way or another.

We will play the patient game. Whether 1 year, 10 years, or 100 years. All debts will be settled.

Keep making a mockery of our traditions and heritage. Just because I smile and nod at you whenever I see your little rallies or pass by your stupid little cider taverns does not mean that I am actually wishing you well...
 
As I mentioned before, I had family fight for the south. None ever owned slaves. To them it was about the rights of the state to decide their own way and southern pride. It still is to many of them.
Tearing down monuments commemorating war dead and sacrifice, from any war, is simply not right imo.


I had a number of ancestors who fought for the south. Some have the Confederate Flag engraved on their tombstones. Some owned slaves, but they weren't passed down to me.
 
What was the cornerstone of the Confederacy?


For me, it is home, family, traditions. A warm fire and a pot of stew on a cold day and a beautiful face to greet me and say "I love you" to. Being able to hunt and fish and walk and drive the roads unmolested. Being able to stroll around the neighborhood with my sweetheart and look at everybody's Christmas decorations. Knowing that I have a handgun in my haversack and a rifle above the fireplace if I ever need it to save the people who I care about. Bluegrass and banjo music. Oak aged whiskey and corrugated tin roofing. We who support those crisscross bars and thirteen stars all have different definitions of what the Confederacy means to us. For me, it is home, and the ability to defend it, and have my voice represented.

What is home? General Robert E. Lee, Commander, Army of Northern Virginia CSA. December 13, 1862.

 
You should probably read more history instead of fantasy. The cornerstone of the confederacy was slavery and it is the reason for secession.
 
I had a number of ancestors who fought for the south. Some have the Confederate Flag engraved on their tombstones. Some owned slaves, but they weren't passed down to me.


In the Union army, African American recruits fought in separate, segregated units. Whites, Native Americans, and blacks fought together in Confederate armies. 'Nuff said...
 
Our's is next...
They just have to figure out how to do it without getting anybody killed.

p419_orig.png


5219315811_5c3fec78f0_b.jpg
 
Our's is next...
They just have to figure out how to do it without getting anybody killed.

p419_orig.png


5219315811_5c3fec78f0_b.jpg


Question: Is that monument, or any others located on PRIVATE property? If so, I do not see why lethal force cannot be used to keep trespassers away from them. Motion sensors, infrared monitors, and a scoped .300 Win Mag kept at the ready on a 2nd floor window or ledge tends to rectify a lot of irritations...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dewey7271
Question: Is that monument, or any others located on PRIVATE property? If so, I do not see why lethal force cannot be used to keep trespassers away from them. Motion sensors, infrared monitors, and a scoped .300 Win Mag kept at the ready on a 2nd floor window or ledge tends to rectify a lot of irritations...

The patch of ground that the monument stands on was donated, by the Parish, to the United Daughter's of the Confederacy back at the turn of the century for this monument, and the monument was built in 1905. Caddo Parish is now denying that the donation ever took place. So, it's been in court for several years now, and the US Supreme Court refused to hear the case...the bunch of cowards.

It's also listed as a historic landmark. I believe to destroy it would be breaking federal law.
 
You should probably read more history instead of fantasy. The cornerstone of the confederacy was slavery and it is the reason for secession.
Not intending to antagonize and while agreeing that slavery was a major reason for the divide; the major cause was states rights(which I still actually support).
To be clear I abhor slavery in any form and always will. It’s a reprehensible practice imo. Although a worldwide problem currently. I would also classify human trafficking as slavery currently and that still exists in this country today.
While post war the end effect was the end of slavery certain questions make the choice of slavery as the sole cause a bit disingenuous.
If the cause was slavery then why were Maryland, Missouri, Delaware and Kentucky still slave owning states but in the Union?
Why did the Emancipation Proclamation only free slaves in states NOT part of the Union? (The answer is obviously fear of losing the border states to the South)
For what it’s worth, I don’t read fantasy and am well versed in history.
 
It's also listed as a historic landmark. I believe to destroy it would be breaking federal law.
Caddo Parish Confederate Monument
Yessir, but we all can probably guess in the current climate all it will take is a bunch of SJW’s screaming and crying about their feelings and down it will come unfortunately.
Or maybe Crapperdink will take it on as his latest reason to be offended?
 
You should probably read more history instead of fantasy. The cornerstone of the confederacy was slavery and it is the reason for secession.
Not intending to antagonize and while agreeing that slavery was a major reason for the divide; the major cause was states rights(which I still actually support).
To be clear I abhor slavery in any form and always will. It’s a reprehensible practice imo. Although a worldwide problem currently. I would also classify human trafficking as slavery currently and that still exists in this country today.
While post war the end effect was the end of slavery certain questions make the choice of slavery as the sole cause a bit disingenuous.
If the cause was slavery then why were Maryland, Missouri, Delaware and Kentucky still slave owning states but in the Union?
Why did the Emancipation Proclamation only free slaves in states NOT part of the Union? (The answer is obviously fear of losing the border states to the South)
For what it’s worth, I don’t read fantasy and am well versed in history.


This!

Well stated.

As for the question of the south’s cornerstone.

If was agriculture.

It was achieved ( by large) with the use of slaves.

The false narrative that it was fought based on slavery has been spoon feed to us.

It was fought on states rights.
 
When people read the hand written journals and letters of both sides of the war THEN you really see what the Civil War was all about. There's PLENTY of Union soldiers that cared less about slaves.

I've read plenty of history from different sources, there's PLENTY to say about both sides regarding "intent".
 
You should probably read more history instead of fantasy. The cornerstone of the confederacy was slavery and it is the reason for secession.

You should pick up an actual book every now and then. You couldn't be more wrong. The South seceded from the Union because the Presidency was won without carrying a single southern state - they didn't want a government that didn't represent them. The North fought to preserve the Union. End of story.

Here's a fun question: when did slavery end in the North? Surely when they went to war with the South, right? No. Well then it clearly it was outlawed when Lincoln delivered the Emancipation Proclamation two years later! Wrong again, dipshit. If you actually listened to what was spoken, the Emancipation Proclamation only applied to slaves in the South. And guess what? When the Civil War was officially ended ~2 years later, slavery in the North was STILL not outlawed. In fact, the last Northern state didn't outlaw slavery until WELL AFTER THE CIVIL WAR WAS OVER. So tell me again, how could the war be over slavery when it was still legal on the North the entire time.

Next time you think about accusing someone of being uneducated, you might pick up a book yourself instead of spewing your own personal fantasy bullshit.
 
Who ever said the north went to war to free the slaves? They didn’t. They went to war after war was made on them.
The north went to war because a group of States decided to desolve their alliance to the union. A right those States absolutely had. But congrats, the side of supremacy of centralized gov in dc prevailed. Enjoy it while it lasts, you dc stroker.
 
You should pick up an actual book every now and then. You couldn't be more wrong. The South seceded from the Union because the Presidency was won without carrying a single southern state - they didn't want a government that didn't represent them. The North fought to preserve the Union. End of story.

Here's a fun question: when did slavery end in the North? Surely when they went to war with the South, right? No. Well then it clearly it was outlawed when Lincoln delivered the Emancipation Proclamation two years later! Wrong again, dipshit. If you actually listened to what was spoken, the Emancipation Proclamation only applied to slaves in the South. And guess what? When the Civil War was officially ended ~2 years later, slavery in the North was STILL not outlawed. In fact, the last Northern state didn't outlaw slavery until WELL AFTER THE CIVIL WAR WAS OVER. So tell me again, how could the war be over slavery when it was still legal on the North the entire time.

Next time you think about accusing someone of being uneducated, you might pick up a book yourself instead of spewing your own personal fantasy bullshit.
The emancipation proclamation was about seizing war goods. Lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bob2650
You should probably read more history instead of fantasy. The cornerstone of the confederacy was slavery and it is the reason for secession.
Who ever said the north went to war to free the slaves? They didn’t. They went to war after war was made on them.
^^^^^^^™A quality public education on full display^^^^^
 
This!

Well stated.

As for the question of the south’s cornerstone.

If was agriculture.

It was achieved ( by large) with the use of slaves.

The false narrative that it was fought based on slavery has been spoon feed to us.

It was fought on states rights.

The right of some people to own other people?

Bullshit, it was about slavery, and I live in Virginia and have family history here back to 1640 and claim distant (damn near everybody here can) relation to Bobby E. Lee. You want cornerstone, try Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Henry, Yorktown, then Richmond, Lee, Jackson, Mananas, 1st and 2nd Bull run. Shall I continue?

It was about slavery and the RIGHT of one man to OWN another man. Period. Anybody that says different is an idiot and denying the simple truth to make him or herself feel self righteous.
 
It was about slavery and the RIGHT of one man to OWN another man. Period. Anybody that says different is an idiot and denying the simple truth to make him or herself feel self righteous.

Nations go to war for a very finite number of reasons. Saving an oppressed people is not among them. It does however make the real reasons more palatable.
 
The right of some people to own other people?

Bullshit, it was about slavery, and I live in Virginia and have family history here back to 1640 and claim distant (damn near everybody here can) relation to Bobby E. Lee. You want cornerstone, try Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Henry, Yorktown, then Richmond, Lee, Jackson, Mananas, 1st and 2nd Bull run. Shall I continue?

It was about slavery and the RIGHT of one man to OWN another man. Period. Anybody that says different is an idiot and denying the simple truth to make him or herself feel self righteous.
Lincoln himself stated that his goal was to preserve the union, regardless of the outcome of any slaves. It was fought to inforce the will of dc on the States and the people.
 
What was the cornerstone of the Confederacy?

The cornerstone of the Confederacy was cemented in place by John Brown and his raid on Harpers Ferry. Before that, the whole militia and secessionist movement had been basically a joke. After Harpers Ferry Raid, 1859. That set the fuse burning. He was a radical abolitionist... and so it is not hard to argue that the fuse was lit over slavery.

For the North, the war was initially about keeping the union together... and avenging Ft. Sumter. Both sides thought it would be a 30 day war.

For the South, it was about the independence of the individual states (so much so that they NEVER became a confederacy...). And the issue that they were terrified of was the economic impact of losing slave labor. The slavery issue was not one of morality... it was one of economics. And the South did not believe they could make "King Cotton" pay without slave labor. Plus something like 1/3rd of the tangible asset wealth in the South... was slaves. And 'losing' these assets would bankrupt many citizens. Their collateral for loans would evaporate... they could never image life without those assets...

It was a moral crusade, early on, for a small segment of noisy abolitionist Northerners. The Antifa of 1860. It was about keeping the union together for everyone else in the North. Only late in the war did the 'freeing the slaves' become a moral tipping point. Not early. And even late in the war, the copperheads were utterly against emancipation... and against the integration of freedmen into a Northern economy. These Freedmen would displace the Irish and Italian immigrants... who were at the bottom of the totem pole and didn't want competition.

If Lincoln could have kept the Union together without freeing a single slave, he would have done it. He ran on a platform of Union. Not abolition.

But the early days were about economics for the South. Follow the money.

Sirhr

P.S. One of the reasons they had little or no chance was that they were statists first... Confederates... about third! At the end of the war, State of North Carolina had tens of thousands of uniforms and massive stores of arms and power available. But they would not share with 'the Confederacy' because they were stores for North Carolina troops. This was true all over the South. States first, Jefferson Davis... could suck a lemon.

P.P.S. One of my friends has his family's diaries from c 1900. in New York. His great, great, hatever Grandfather was a 'sand hog' who helped dig subways and trollys. In his diary is a map of the 'camp' they lived in. Which was segregated by race. In one corner was the place where his ancestor lived. His housing area was labeled "ni@@ers and wops." America was a tough town in those days.
 
It's interesting to do some reading on who was profiting from the cotton industry, and the impact it had on all areas of the American economy. Especially the North's.

What do you imagine may have happened to that economy if the South had managed to secede?
 
Lincoln himself stated that his goal was to preserve the union, regardless of the outcome of any slaves. It was fought to inforce the will of dc on the States and the people.

As I recall, Lincoln wasn't all keen on abolishing slavery. My memory of what I have read (decades past) may be a little fuzzy. Sucks gettin' old.

Maggot, my family, in this country can be traced back to 1622 so I'm pulling rank.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Maggot
The cornerstone of the Confederacy was cemented in place by John Brown and his raid on Harpers Ferry. Before that, the whole militia and secessionist movement had been basically a joke. After Harpers Ferry Raid, 1859. That set the fuse burning. He was a radical abolitionist... and so it is not hard to argue that the fuse was lit over slavery.

For the North, the war was initially about keeping the union together... and avenging Ft. Sumter. Both sides thought it would be a 30 day war.

For the South, it was about the independence of the individual states (so much so that they NEVER became a confederacy...). And the issue that they were terrified of was the economic impact of losing slave labor. The slavery issue was not one of morality... it was one of economics. And the South did not believe they could make "King Cotton" pay without slave labor. Plus something like 1/3rd of the tangible asset wealth in the South... was slaves. And 'losing' these assets would bankrupt many citizens. Their collateral for loans would evaporate... they could never image life without those assets...

It was a moral crusade, early on, for a small segment of noisy abolitionist Northerners. The Antifa of 1860. It was about keeping the union together for everyone else in the North. Only late in the war did the 'freeing the slaves' become a moral tipping point. Not early. And even late in the war, the copperheads were utterly against emancipation... and against the integration of freedmen into a Northern economy. These Freedmen would displace the Irish and Italian immigrants... who were at the bottom of the totem pole and didn't want competition.

If Lincoln could have kept the Union together without freeing a single slave, he would have done it. He ran on a platform of Union. Not abolition.

But the early days were about economics for the South. Follow the money.

Sirhr

P.S. One of the reasons they had little or no chance was that they were statists first... Confederates... about third! At the end of the war, State of North Carolina had tens of thousands of uniforms and massive stores of arms and power available. But they would not share with 'the Confederacy' because they were stores for North Carolina troops. This was true all over the South. States first, Jefferson Davis... could suck a lemon.

P.P.S. One of my friends has his family's diaries from c 1900. in New York. His great, great, hatever Grandfather was a 'sand hog' who helped dig subways and trollys. In his diary is a map of the 'camp' they lived in. Which was segregated by race. In one corner was the place where his ancestor lived. His housing area was labeled "ni@@ers and wops." America was a tough town in those days.
You may have left out the economic reasonings behind the norths actions.
 
As I recall, Lincoln wasn't all keen on abolishing slavery. My memory of what I have read (decades past) may be a little fuzzy. Sucks gettin' old.

Maggot, my family, in this country can be traced back to 1622 so I'm pulling rank.
My memory is getting a little fuzzy to. If I recall correctly, Lincoln wanted to send the slaves to the jungles of South America because Africa wouldn't have them back and they were incompatible with the US.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bob2650
The cornerstone of the Confederacy was cemented in place by John Brown and his raid on Harpers Ferry. Before that, the whole militia and secessionist movement had been basically a joke. After Harpers Ferry Raid, 1859. That set the fuse burning. He was a radical abolitionist... and so it is not hard to argue that the fuse was lit over slavery.

For the North, the war was initially about keeping the union together... and avenging Ft. Sumter. Both sides thought it would be a 30 day war.

For the South, it was about the independence of the individual states (so much so that they NEVER became a confederacy...). And the issue that they were terrified of was the economic impact of losing slave labor. The slavery issue was not one of morality... it was one of economics. And the South did not believe they could make "King Cotton" pay without slave labor. Plus something like 1/3rd of the tangible asset wealth in the South... was slaves. And 'losing' these assets would bankrupt many citizens. Their collateral for loans would evaporate... they could never image life without those assets...

It was a moral crusade, early on, for a small segment of noisy abolitionist Northerners. The Antifa of 1860. It was about keeping the union together for everyone else in the North. Only late in the war did the 'freeing the slaves' become a moral tipping point. Not early. And even late in the war, the copperheads were utterly against emancipation... and against the integration of freedmen into a Northern economy. These Freedmen would displace the Irish and Italian immigrants... who were at the bottom of the totem pole and didn't want competition.

If Lincoln could have kept the Union together without freeing a single slave, he would have done it. He ran on a platform of Union. Not abolition.

But the early days were about economics for the South. Follow the money.

Sirhr

P.S. One of the reasons they had little or no chance was that they were statists first... Confederates... about third! At the end of the war, State of North Carolina had tens of thousands of uniforms and massive stores of arms and power available. But they would not share with 'the Confederacy' because they were stores for North Carolina troops. This was true all over the South. States first, Jefferson Davis... could suck a lemon.

P.P.S. One of my friends has his family's diaries from c 1900. in New York. His great, great, hatever Grandfather was a 'sand hog' who helped dig subways and trollys. In his diary is a map of the 'camp' they lived in. Which was segregated by race. In one corner was the place where his ancestor lived. His housing area was labeled "ni@@ers and wops." America was a tough town in those days.

All the uniforms and money were no good with out the one necessary thing, bodies to put them in. Thats largely why the south lost, they were outnumbered. I never could understand, being the intelligent man he was, why lee though he could succeed at invading the north with an army of, what was it, 55,000 men? Sheer folly as much as Hitler invading Russia facing the Russian winter. Suicide.

But when you take away all the extra stuff, it boils down to 'The south had slaves and that was the basis of their economic system.' Take away the slave you take away the profit.
 
All the uniforms and money were no good with out the one necessary thing, bodies to put them in. Thats largely why the south lost, they were outnumbered. I never could understand, being the intelligent man he was, why lee though he could succeed at invading the north with an army of, what was it, 55,000 men? Sheer folly as much as Hitler invading Russia facing the Russian winter. Suicide.

But when you take away all the extra stuff, it boils down to 'The south had slaves and that was the basis of their economic system.' Take away the slave you take away the profit.
Lee was trying to create enough FUD in the North to ensure Lincoln did not get re-elected. If McLellan and the copperheads had won the 1864 election, there would have been a negotiated partition.

By 1863, Lee knew that all he could do was drive the Union to the negotiating table and the thought was that by moving North, he would draw pressure off the South (the Shenandoah and Richmond) and scare the North into bargaining. Instead, it proved to be the high-watermark... because Lee violated his own principles and sent in Pickett when he knew it was a losing call.

As for the NC Uniforms... and arms... NC didn't have the bodies. Their troops were largely bled out. But Lee's Army of Northern Virginia (which included North Carolinians at this stage... but not many of them) was still large, dangerous and highly capable. But they were largely living in rags and on food scraps. Can you imagine their effectiveness if they had good uniforms? Shoes? Enough ammo? There were bulging warehouses in the South with all manner of supplies... even at the end. But states-rights politicians across the confederacy would never release to 'not' their troops.

They could not standardize railroad gauges... you had to take everything off a train leaving Georgia... into South Carolina. Because they didn't have the same train tracks. And guess what... you had to do it again in Virgina!

The Southern states were their own worst enemy. They were so afraid of Union that they could not even handle 'Confederacy.' The Northern states had more people, more foundaries, more resources, more people. But they also had a guy named Stanton... who made damn sure everyone marched to the same tune.

There are some GREAT books coming out on the economics of the Civil War. It's a hot topic. One is called Ironmaker to the Confederacy, about the Tredegar Iron Works. Another is called Civil War Barons. About industrializations and finance in the War. Also, American Ulysses about Grant goes into a lot of detail.

Cheers,

Sirhr
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dewey7271
My memory is getting a little fuzzy to. If I recall correctly, Lincoln wanted to send the slaves to the jungles of South America because Africa wouldn't have them back and they were incompatible with the US.

He actually was thinking mainly Liberia... Monrovia (named after President Monroe) was the capital. And it was a piece of Africa re-settled/taken over by former American Slaves. It was their 'dream' to have their own country back in Africa. Lincoln would have happily sent them there. Until the 'abolitionists' got all in his face and he backed off that idea.

I think it was Frederick Douglas who referred to Lincoln, after hearing his relocation plan, as "A first-rate, second-rate man!."

In the end Douglas got what he wanted...

Sirhr
 
Lee was trying to create enough FUD in the North to ensure Lincoln did not get re-elected. If McLellan and the copperheads had won the 1864 election, there would have been a negotiated partition.

By 1863, Lee knew that all he could do was drive the Union to the negotiating table and the thought was that by moving North, he would draw pressure off the South (the Shenandoah and Richmond) and scare the North into bargaining. Instead, it proved to be the high-watermark... because Lee violated his own principles and sent in Pickett when he knew it was a losing call.

As for the NC Uniforms... and arms... NC didn't have the bodies. Their troops were largely bled out. But Lee's Army of Northern Virginia (which included North Carolinians at this stage... but not many of them) was still large, dangerous and highly capable. But they were largely living in rags and on food scraps. Can you imagine their effectiveness if they had good uniforms? Shoes? Enough ammo? There were bulging warehouses in the South with all manner of supplies... even at the end. But states-rights politicians across the confederacy would never release to 'not' their troops.

They could not standardize railroad gauges... you had to take everything off a train leaving Georgia... into South Carolina. Because they didn't have the same train tracks. And guess what... you had to do it again in Virgina!

The Southern states were their own worst enemy. They were so afraid of Union that they could not even handle 'Confederacy.' The Northern states had more people, more foundaries, more resources, more people. But they also had a guy named Stanton... who made damn sure everyone marched to the same tune.

There are some GREAT books coming out on the economics of the Civil War. It's a hot topic. One is called Ironmaker to the Confederacy, about the Tredegar Iron Works. Another is called Civil War Barons. About industrializations and finance in the War. Also, American Ulysses about Grant goes into a lot of detail.

Cheers,

Sirhr
Let's ponder how long it took the 13 colonies to work things out when considering how the Confederacy handled their newfound independence.
 
Let's ponder how long it took the 13 colonies to work things out when considering how the Confederacy handled their newfound independence.

I believe that it was Thomas Jefferson who said of the slavery question... "It's like having a wolf by the ears. You don't like it, but you don't dare let it go!"

There was a relatively peaceful status quo until the Westward expansion started to add new states. And disturb the balance of free- vs. slave-states in the Congress. The South was terrified that the North would soon outnumber them in the Senate (in particular) and that the Northern Senate would restrict their 'way of life.'

Came to a head with the admission of Kansas and Missouri... with those states were allowed to choose whether they would be free or slave.

The term "Bleeding Kansas" described the border bloodshed that went on for years...

1783 -- the Treaty of Paris and Independence... until 1789,,, to ratify a Constitution. Including a lot of discussion about slavery!

Right on Mtn! None of this was easy!

Cheers,

SIrhr
 
The north went to war because a group of States decided to desolve their alliance to the union. A right those States absolutely had. But congrats, the side of supremacy of centralized gov in dc prevailed. Enjoy it while it lasts, you dc stroker.


Our 2nd Amendment Sanctuary counties will soon be facing the same problem too. Prepare accordingly. No Fort Sumters...
 
  • Like
Reactions: BLKWLFK9
You should probably read more history instead of fantasy. The cornerstone of the confederacy was slavery and it is the reason for secession.
That right there proves you don't have a clue an believe the B/S fed to you in school.
The issue was taxes pure an simple,..
Please tell me when the loosing side, was allowed to state their case in history books?