Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
I wish a grand education here; I belive you'll learn a lot, whether or not it sticks.
1). I told Dilorenzo about the site. I would not be so "knee-jerk" to assume he LIED abut anything. Since we are so against certain words, here, that's one of mine! LIAR is something deliberately done; I don't know that he did that, in this or any instance. Thou sayest, but then, thou sayest much!
2). CS is not supported by Hitler in MEIN KAMPF when he says that the German states, like the American Southern states, had no right to secede from a situation that might make him a god on a marble throne somewhere (ahem).
3). CS had as many as ten percent of its regular army as Negro Soldiers. This from the BLACK CONFEDERATES - THE FORGOTTEN MEN IN GREY done by NEGROE CIVIL WAR SONS OF CONFEDERATE VETERANS under Forrest!
4). The US Army of today is NOT the Yankee Army of Abraham Lincoln. Hate to disappoint you there. Several main differences. The Southerners today fight willingly
in it, and do not renounce their Confederate heritage.
To quote Vic Morrow from one of my favorite episodes of COMBAT!
"This is not the Yankee Army! This is the United States Army!"
The US Army of today goes out and helps Southern
geographically-based ethnically similar (ahem) people fight for their freedom from Northern-based tyrants and dictators... (Sarajevo was South of Austria. Austria was South of Nazi Germany, South Korea is South of North Korea. South Viet Nam is South of North Viet Nam. The Falklands are South of Argentina, and Kuwait is South of Iraq...).
1). I told Dilorenzo about the site. I would not be so "knee-jerk" to assume he LIED abut anything. Since we are so against certain words, here, that's one of mine! LIAR is something deliberately done; I don't know that he did that, in this or any instance. Thou sayest, but then, thou sayest much!
As he has been shown to be a liar time and time again, the assumption he's lying is reasonable. As has been shown to you already, someone else in this group told DiLusional bout this site already. If you're going to ignore what's been told to you, then you have no business being here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beowulf
2). CS is not supported by Hitler in MEIN KAMPF when he says that the German states, like the American Southern states, had no right to secede from a situation that might make him a god on a marble throne somewhere (ahem).
The confederacy is supported by Hitler in his conversations with Hermann Rauschning. _Mein Kampf_ doesn't mention the Civil War, nor does it mention Lincoln.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beowulf
3). CS had as many as ten percent of its regular army as Negro Soldiers. This from the BLACK CONFEDERATES - THE FORGOTTEN MEN IN GREY done by NEGROE CIVIL WAR SONS OF CONFEDERATE VETERANS under Forrest!
Absolutely wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beowulf
4). The US Army of today is NOT the Yankee Army of Abraham Lincoln. Hate to disappoint you there. Several main differences. The Southerners today fight willingly
in it, and do not renounce their Confederate heritage.
1). I told Dilorenzo about the site. I would not be so "knee-jerk" to assume he LIED abut anything. Since we are so against certain words, here, that's one of mine! LIAR is something deliberately done; I don't know that he did that, in this or any instance. Thou sayest, but then, thou sayest much! Well, I've read his work enough to understand he has purposefully distorted history. If he says he never heard of this site; he is either forgetting or lieing. I'll leave the decision to you.
2). CS is not supported by Hitler in MEIN KAMPF when he says that the German states, like the American Southern states, had no right to secede from a situation that might make him a god on a marble throne somewhere (ahem). Hitler praised neither Lincoln or the US in Mein Kampf; any who claim otherwise do so for one of two reasons: either they have not read that piece of rat crap or they are purposefully expecting the person they're telling such drek not to have read it. Either way they're hip deep in it.
3). CS had as many as ten percent of its regular army as Negro Soldiers. This from the BLACK CONFEDERATES - THE FORGOTTEN MEN IN GREY done by NEGROE CIVIL WAR SONS OF CONFEDERATE VETERANS under Forrest! Forrest had perhaps as many as forty black men under arms in his commend, hands down the largest concentration in the CS Army. My own research shows less than 1,300 verifiable black men bearing arms in the CS Army. I have seen numbers as high as 13,000 produced through legit research and reasonable methodology. The reality is the CS enjoyed the support of the better part of four millions under bondage and w/out their servitude in the cause of the Rebellion it would have crumpled like so much newsprint.
4). The US Army of today is NOT the Yankee Army of Abraham Lincoln. Hate to disappoint you there. Several main differences. The Southerners today fight willingly
in it, and do not renounce their Confederate heritage. Most of 200,000 southerners fought for the US during the CW; and southerners today in the military aren't fighting for the south but for the US. Take a look as the oath given and you will see the difference.
To quote Vic Morrow from one of my favorite episodes of COMBAT!
"This is not the Yankee Army! This is the United States Army!" He was quite right.
The US Army of today goes out and helps Southern
geographically-based ethnically similar (ahem) people fight for their freedom from Northern-based tyrants and dictators... (Sarajevo was South of Austria. Austria was South of Nazi Germany, South Korea is South of North Korea. South Viet Nam is South of North Viet Nam. The Falklands are South of Argentina, and Kuwait is South of Iraq...).
Coincidence? Or Fate? Ok, now you're just being goofy w/out the smiley.
But, I digress!
Beowulf
Now you digress?
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
The film did say that the documentable part was hard to show with the negro soldiers under arms in the South, but perhaps many more were actually soldiers in there, as well.
My point is this. SLAVERY does not equal RACISM! Not like we are force-fed it today with the PC crowd!
Hang on. I'll see if I can get chapter and verse from the Little Corporal.
Oh, yes. Heah 'tis!
This of course is precisely why totalitarians of all stripes have always lionized Lincoln. In Mein Kampf (1996 Houghton-Mifflin edition, p. 566) Adolf Hitler paraphrased the (false) theory that Lincoln introduced in his first inaugural address that no such thing as states’ rights ever existed in America to make his case for the abolition of states’ rights in Germany.
This is consistent with the argument put forth in Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address (March 4, 1861) where he said: "[T]he Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence . . . by the Articles of Confederation in 1778 . . . and establishing the Constitution. . . . It follows from these views that no State, upon its own mere motion, can lawfully get out of the Union . . ." Jaffa has spent a lifetime repeating this theory.
Hitler (p. 567) mocked what he called "so-called sovereign states" in Germany because they stood in the way of a centralized Reich with their "impotence" and "fragmentation." Such impotence and fragmentation of government was purposely designed by some of the American founders precisely because they wanted to limit the powers of the central government.
Hitler praises Otto von Bismarck for proving "the greatness of his statesmanship" by gradually diminishing the sovereignty of the German states and centralizing governmental power in Germany. This was a most welcome development, Hitler wrote, since the power of the central state in Germany was supposedly threatened by "the struggle between federalism and centralization so shrewdly propagated by the Jews in 1919-20-21 and afterward . . ." (p. 565). Federalism is "a league of sovereign states which ban together of their own free will, on the strength of their sovereignty" to cede some (but not all) of their sovereignty to form "the common federation" (p. 566). Hitler was violently opposed to such a system.
But Bismarck did not go nearly far enough in destroying states’ rights, said Hitler. "And so today this state, for the sake of its own existence, is obliged to curtail the sovereign rights of the individual provinces more and more, not only out of general material considerations, but from ideal considerations as well" (p. 572). Thus, a rule "basic for us National Socialists is derived: A powerful national Reich . . ." (emphasis in original, p. 572).
Moreover, Hitler wrote, the centralization of governmental power and the destruction of states’ rights as a check on that power was inevitable throughout the world: "Certainly all the states in the world are moving toward a certain unification in their inner organization. And in this Germany will be no exception. Today it is an absurdity to speak of a ‘state sovereignty’ of individual provinces . . ." (p. 572).
Hitler ridiculed the advocates of states’ rights and federalism in the Germany of his time by saying, "the cry for the elimination of centralization is really nothing more than a party machination without any serious thought behind it" and reveals "the inner hypocrisy of these so-called federalistic circles. The federative state idea, like religion in part, is only an instrument for their often unclean party interests" (p. 573).
The National Socialists, moreover, would totally eliminate states’ rights altogether: "Since for us the state as such is only a form, but the essential is its content, the nation, the people, it is clear that everything else must be subordinated to its sovereign interests. In particular we cannot grant to any individual state within the nation and the state representing it state sovereignty and sovereignty in point of political power" (p. 575).
"The mischief of individual federated states . . . must cease and will some day cease," Hitler ominously warned (p. 575). The "lesson for the future" is that "The importance of the individual states will in the future no longer lie in the fields of state power and policy . . ." (p. 575).
Your entire above post did not address the question.
WHERE in Mien Kampf did Hitler quote Lincoln or mention Lincoln within that work?
You have laid a lot of smoke about what others THINK Hitler meant or what Jaffa implied, but either come across with the direct quote from Hitler's work or simply admit it's not there.
This type of reply is the same crap DiLorenzo does when he is confronted by fact. He dances, he weaves, he misdirects, but he doesn't directly answer the question because he CAN'T.
As a matter of fact, all of your above posts sounds like an article DiLorenzo would post at Lewrockwell.com or some such. Don't tell me you are simply repeating him? Are you?
Don't become gulity of the same tactics simply because you have been led to make an honest mistake.
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
Sorry, Beowulf, but you just lightly glided over Lincoln's explanation of why he did not believe the States had Ever by souvereign entities. Would you care to refute his position using his words as the basis rather than whay 'you think' is contained in Mein Kampf. Be warned you might actually have to think logically (and, of course, you need to have a working knowledge of American History),
My point is this. SLAVERY does not equal RACISM! Not like we are force-fed it today with the PC crowd!
The whole justification for slavery is that without the white man, the slave would be uncivilized, or revert to a barbarous state. In other words, by enslaving him, would be to enlighten him. This is the whole 'white man's burden' and if you don't want to call it racist - really the basic premise IS racist....at the absolute very minimum its ethnocentric.
This of course is precisely why totalitarians of all stripes have always lionized Lincoln. In Mein Kampf (1996 Houghton-Mifflin edition, p. 566) Adolf Hitler paraphrased the (false) theory that Lincoln introduced in his first inaugural address that no such thing as states’ rights ever existed in America to make his case for the abolition of states’ rights in Germany.
Hitler (p. 567) mocked what he called "so-called sovereign states" in Germany because they stood in the way of a centralized Reich with their "impotence" and "fragmentation." Such impotence and fragmentation of government was purposely designed by some of the American founders precisely because they wanted to limit the powers of the central government.
Hitler praises Otto von Bismarck for proving "the greatness of his statesmanship" by gradually diminishing the sovereignty of the German states and centralizing governmental power in Germany. This was a most welcome development, Hitler wrote, since the power of the central state in Germany was supposedly threatened by "the struggle between federalism and centralization so shrewdly propagated by the Jews in 1919-20-21 and afterward . . ." (p. 565). Federalism is "a league of sovereign states which ban together of their own free will, on the strength of their sovereignty" to cede some (but not all) of their sovereignty to form "the common federation" (p. 566). Hitler was violently opposed to such a system.
But Bismarck did not go nearly far enough in destroying states’ rights, said Hitler. "And so today this state, for the sake of its own existence, is obliged to curtail the sovereign rights of the individual provinces more and more, not only out of general material considerations, but from ideal considerations as well" (p. 572). Thus, a rule "basic for us National Socialists is derived: A powerful national Reich . . ." (emphasis in original, p. 572).
Moreover, Hitler wrote, the centralization of governmental power and the destruction of states’ rights as a check on that power was inevitable throughout the world: "Certainly all the states in the world are moving toward a certain unification in their inner organization. And in this Germany will be no exception. Today it is an absurdity to speak of a ‘state sovereignty’ of individual provinces . . ." (p. 572).
Hitler ridiculed the advocates of states’ rights and federalism in the Germany of his time by saying, "the cry for the elimination of centralization is really nothing more than a party machination without any serious thought behind it" and reveals "the inner hypocrisy of these so-called federalistic circles. The federative state idea, like religion in part, is only an instrument for their often unclean party interests" (p. 573).
The National Socialists, moreover, would totally eliminate states’ rights altogether: "Since for us the state as such is only a form, but the essential is its content, the nation, the people, it is clear that everything else must be subordinated to its sovereign interests. In particular we cannot grant to any individual state within the nation and the state representing it state sovereignty and sovereignty in point of political power" (p. 575).
"The mischief of individual federated states . . . must cease and will some day cease," Hitler ominously warned (p. 575). The "lesson for the future" is that "The importance of the individual states will in the future no longer lie in the fields of state power and policy . . ." (p. 575).
You have no justification equating the Federalists with Fascists. The formation of the German Empire as it morphed into the Third Reich simply acknowledges one salient fact, that the Germans COLLECTIVELY, were stronger than the German fiefdoms/principalities that had developed over the years.
From an American perspective, Franklin summarizes the truism that collective action is the best chance for the success of the Revolution when he says, "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."
Essentially these references to Hitler's desire to maintain a strong centralized German state imply that anybody who advocates the strength of collective political action is by definition, a fascist......which is just absurd.
Here are several posts from an earlier thread on Hitler that turned ugly enough for Ami to lock. I want to thank those who actually contributed real information to the thread instead of the flame bait tossed about by said twit that was banned. I apologize for not directly crediting those who found this information as I cut and pasted the relevant points to my notes on the subject never intending to need to use them. Again my apologies.
Beowulf; following you will find a link to Hitlers drek as well as the relevent passages. If you wish to refute them please cite the original work. If you can't... you've now seen actual research vs the distortion and outright lie that sent you down this particular avenue.
"The controversy over federation and unification, so cunningly propagandized by the Jews in 1919-1920 and onwards, forced National So******m, which repudiated the quarrel, to take up a definite stand in relation to the essential problem concerned in it. Ought Germany to be a confederacy or a military State? What is the practical significance of these terms? To me it seems that the second question is more important than the first, because it is fundamental to the understanding of the whole problem and also because the answer to it may help to clear up confusion and therewith have a conciliating effect.
What is a Confederacy?
By a Confederacy we mean a union of sovereign states which of their own free will and in virtue of their sovereignty come together and create a collective unit, ceding to that unit as much of their own sovereign rights as will render the existence of the union possible and will guarantee it.
But the theoretical formula is not wholly put into practice by any confederacy that exists today. And least of all by the American Union, where it is impossible to speak of original sovereignty in regard to the majority of the states. Many of them were not included in the federal complex until long after it had been established. The states that make up the American Union are mostly in the nature of territories, more or less, formed for technical administrative purposes, their boundaries having in many cases been fixed in the mapping office. Originally these states did not and could not possess sovereign rights of their own. Because it was the Union that created most of the so-called states. Therefore the sovereign rights, often very comprehensive, which were left, or rather granted, to the various territories correspond not only to the whole character of the Confederation but also to its vast space, which is equivalent to the size of a Continent. Consequently, in speaking of the United States of America one must not consider them as sovereign states but as enjoying rights or, better perhaps, autarchic powers, granted to them and guaranteed by the Constitution. "
"Since the Civil War, in which the Southern States were conquered, against all historical logic and sound sense, the American people have been in a condition of political and popular decay. ... The beginnings of a great new social order based on the principle of slavery and inequality were destroyed by that war, and with them also the embryo of a future truly great America." -- Adolf Hitler from Hermann Rauschning's _Conversations With Hitler._
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
Last edited by johan_steele; 01-31-2008 at 11:43 AM.
Reason: Correction
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Couple of things, here... 
Linear Mode
