Comments on: Honestly, Abe!

By: Pain in GC : Bob’s Underground Graduate Seminar

Pain in GC : Bob’s Underground Graduate Seminar — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 20:02:12 +0000

[...] When the creep was accused of genocide, he fled; the conversation has returned to normal and everyone there saw how it happened: http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=667#comment-169036 [...]

By: Clyde Wilson

Clyde Wilson — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 11:40:49 +0000

Mr. Peters, This is a complex subject. Will make a good discussion when we next have the pleasure of a visit. The short answer is that Yankee society suffers spells of insanity every second or third generation. One of the usual phenomena of these spells is a projection of their faults onto the South, their standby “internal oreintal.”

By: robert m. peters

robert m. peters — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 06:33:48 +0000

Dr. Wilson:

Your words from #127

“This effort of reconciliation was common to people on both sides by the 1880s.”

This effort of reconciliation and the cultural “truce” which flowed out of it, has obviously ended. Based on your observations and understandings, when did it begin to break down?

By: Clyde Wilson

Clyde Wilson — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 18:25:41 +0000

Joe Johnston was a fine general, though at fault for not keeping his President informed of his plans. His remarks about Sherman were long after the war and a gentlemanly act to promote reconciliation–a reply to the other side’s gesture of asking him to be a pallbearer for Sherman’s funeral, I believe. This effort of reconciliation was common to people on both sides by the 1880s. Perhaps Johnston also appreciated Sherman’s offer of generous surrender terms at Durham’s Station—a generosity which was deceitfully revoked by Lincoln after Johnston had laid down arms.

By: pablo H

pablo H — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 18:01:37 +0000

Joe Johnston was the worst General the Confederates had – no wonder Sherman liked him.

The only chance for the Confederates was to have put Hood in charge in May of 1864 and try to counterattack before Sherman reached Atlanta. But Davis believed Johnston when he said all the retreating was just a prelude to a grand counteroffensive.

By: MAP

MAP — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 13:36:09 +0000

It is reported that once outside agitators (haven’t we met a few on this forum?) increased the fears of a slave insurrection, harsh laws were enacted. However, these were rarely, if at all, enforced. Masters tended to ignore them as a result of an out-dated, archaic, and abandoned principle: Christian compassion. The purpose here is not to make light of slavery, but to show the contrast with the present system – ends justify means – and well demonstrated by the actions of Lincoln and Sherman.

By: Tom Camp

Tom Camp — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 13:29:52 +0000

Scott,

Someone who would revel in the rape and pillage of their neighbors is no Christian, no patriot, and no conservative. However, that is no surprise, as these views reflect full compliance with the modern socialist Pagan Reformation. May God have mercy on your soul.

By: Rublev's Dog

Rublev's Dog — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 10:35:59 +0000

#117, Mr. Peters, thank you for that excellent account of Bro Mose’s teaching. Lest there be any misunderstanding among other readers, I was suggesting that Johnston’s action was genuinely charitable toward Mr. Sherman, and as such should bring embarrassment upon the latter and others of similar disposition. God alone knows Sherman’s heart and His Son will judge him righteously.

#119, Brock, a reading of Genovese’s works on antebellum black-white relations in the South reveals that Southern whites’ attitudes toward blacks were not based on Darwinism. There is a reason honest cultural studies of Southern plain folk have been largely avoided in academia; they don’t fit accepted Marxist models.

By: Brock H.

Brock H. — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 10:13:41 +0000

In comment #112, our leftist guest Mr. Scott expresses indignation and anger over the fact that slavery was an institution that reflected the belief that whites were better than blacks. In the typical leftist fashion of creating an atmosphere of guilt in Western civilization (Marx would be proud of Mr. Scott), he apparently wants us to reject that notion and repent of the sin of slavery.

I believe we should accept what we know to be true. Of course slavery was a result of the ultimate belief that whites were better than blacks – better, that is, at the things in life that determine our station in it. Consider that, unless they are raised by suburban middle-class whites, blacks exhibit the following:

1) Behavioral, speech, and personal conduct patterns that whites tend to find undesirable to be around for too long
2) Very large sexual appetites, resulting in many out-of-wedlock births
3) A poor capacity to become educated – at least by Western standards

These tendencies by blacks relegated them to a position in life where they were constantly instructed in their daily activities. Whites were the dominant race in the American nation, its institutions were run by them, blacks were not able to live up to the standards set by whites – who were over 90% of the American populace, so in essence yes, blacks were put in a station in life which reflected the fact that whites performed the aforementioned feats BETTER than blacks.

As for Mr. Scott, he doesn’t have to worry, 99% of white people around my age (18-20s) will cringe like a scolded dog when he hurls his Marxist anti-slavery sermons at them. But here at Chronicles, he won’t get good patriotic Americans to apologize for the fact that our forefathers built a society and national order that reflected reality.

Especially not I.

By: R. Scott

R. Scott — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 05:20:41 +0000

I may have erred in using the word ‘martial’. More properly, what would Lincoln have done to free the slaves if the South had stayed in the Union? It is unlikely he would have ever threatened the use of force on their behalf. In fact it is unlikely he would have done anything to seriously change their status.