 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
Member
| Joined: | Tue May 24th, 2011 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 10 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |  |
I am more likely older then you. I retire this year and will shorty draw what SS they will let me have. I had to defend a great deal of the time on the History Channel.
iI reacted because there we of the South were always told, we were stupid. Our fight was stupid, our lost cause was stupid, and we were a bunch of toothless, banjo picking, hay seeds. As in the movie "Deliverance."
This fight actually started in the 1600's with the English Civil War. The Royals settled the South. We named our towns, Rivers, cities, and colonies after the Royals. The people up North were middle class "pure" type who in England will cut the head off of a King and then turn around and do what the King was doing. They came here to worship the way they wanted to and told others who followed to worship the way they did. And in our part of the war, what did we call Southern cavalry, same as the mascot of the University of Virgina, today? It is the same thing that the Royalist were called. While many Yankee companies called themselves "Roundheads" as well as the complete 100th Penn. Vol. Infantry. Oh, by the way, the movie Glory has the Drill Sgt. say something about Bonnie Prince Charles which is also a point back to that conflict.
As far as that goes the American Rev. starts in Lexington and Concord Mass. not Lexington, Virgina or Concord, Texas. Why because New England is England without the King. They have the town commons, and all things named after and like England but with no royalty. Some Yankees will go as far as to call the South the "knighted region." And they still didn't like us during the Rev. Mass. Troops wouldn't go south and fight at Yorktown because they said, "We signed up to fight for Mass. not for Virginia." So much for the idea of one country.
I have been told many things and I still stand by these I wrote until someone brings forth, the book, and the information that proves they are right in what they are saying. One of the things that the Civil War Ills. Magazine stated is that Grant freed a slave in 1850's(?), to his credit, when he could have used the money if he had sold him off. This is while Grant was living in Ohio as a civilian.
I still stand by most of what I said. I am a former vp of the Austin Texas Civil War Roundtable. I have met all those people you see on the History Channel as authors of Civil War Books and are "authorities" on the war. Ed Bares told me and another person there were no such thing as a Black Confederate, and I then showed him pictures of some that came to the Confederate Army's last reunion and he was speechless. Gary Gallagher was a founder of the Austin Roundtable. And said that Napoleonic warfare had nothing to do with warfare in the Civil War! Line formation fighting in the open field was very much Napoleonic. In fact the sides in 1812 stood at about the same distance as the reb and the yank did, 80 yards on average. Wart, Davis (Both of them), and many others spoke regularly and they know mainly that which they study and write about. They haven't really gone into the slave trade, slavery, the Southern Social makeup, a study on the tariff system and what was happening there, the political changes from whig to know-nothing to Republican, etc. etc. I have and since 1980.
Mark, the poor guy was talking just like those people on the History channel blog. Saying things that he didn't know about. My music information says the music to Battle Hymn came from a popular hymn being sung in Florida in the 1850's. I didn't say that so and so wrote it or that it came from Sweden to start with. That is not the point I was making. It was being use in Florida in the 1850's and therefore was from there to be used by those up north. The point I was making is the two songs of both sides came from the land of the other. Even the not so perfect Ken Burns' PBS series says the song Dixie may have come from a Black family up North. If I remember right. That was all I was saying. People take a mole hill and turn it into a mountain to prove their point when their point was not the aim to start with. I am getting fed up with the complete human race. They (including me) have gone crazy.
My last post on the History Channel was removed because it was from a couple of Yankee letters and journals. One were the yank writes in Jan. of 1863. "Now that I find we are fighting for the Black man, when my enlistment is up, I will be coming home." In 1864 the man went home. In another, the rape, which I could have added the lady raped by "colored" troops around Petersburg and hung on the Union line so that the rebels would know just action had been taken. Sherman sat on a board in trial on three different cases of rape in Savannah and that held him up before he could march into South Carolina. Look at what was done at Fredricksburg by the Union army when they entered the town. Real good wasn't it. That upset some of those up North and I was sent packing and the blog was removed.
The times Southern forces went North only the town in Penn. had it's downtown burned. Private homes were spared. My own great great grandfather's home was burned north of Atlanta, and it wasn't much more then a lean to. But it protected my gg grand mother and her children. Left to starve...is that how to treat people?
To me people are more important then union, more important then a president, more important then a dollar and more important then a country. But in this case the people and the country are suppose to be the same thing. Now, let that swing around the brain for a second or two. When you figure out which one breaths you should have also picked the one that is most important as well. Sorry If I sound angry to all, but I am just blunt with this. I can not change that. I will now leave this blog as well. I wish everyone good will and GOD speed. And I ask that you be kind to one another even when you do not see eye to eye. You both have points. But then the Earth is a Southern planet...
