Rewriting war history

[Martin]

Rewriting war history

By MICHAEL COREN -- For the Toronto Sun


ONE DAY the historians will look back on Washington's war against a smaller, weaker and less well-armed foe and write things that might be unpalatable to many American patriots and those in Canada and elsewhere who support them.

They will say all sorts of things. And many of them will be true.

They will, for instance, point out that the Republicans only won the election before the war after a very low turnout of the electorate and that there were allegations of corruption and tampering. They will explain that the U.S. president was very unpopular in many circles and that many in the press wrote against him week after week.


They will question the motives for the war, insisting that various business interests made profits out of the invasion and occupation. They will say that the reasons the president and his advisers gave for the war turned out to be doubtful if not absolutely untrue and that it was all an excuse to bludgeon this smaller country into submission and a new way of life.

They will say that the war was immoral and that the victorious American forces acted not as liberators but as oppressors. They will write that the local population resented the Yankees and that bands of armed men roared around the country killing Americans, murdering locals who collaborated with them and trying to destroy the new infrastructure of the state.

They will show that many Democrats were in favour of peace and campaigned before and during the war for all hostilities to cease. They will show that some of the more radical members of the Democratic Party even called the president and his Republicans a group of traitors and baby-killers.

They will paint horrific pictures of violent demonstrations in the United States against the war by those who thought it unethical and illegal, and talk of how some of those called to fight resisted and faced arrest and trial for their actions. They will describe how some lawyers tried to litigate against the war and even took their case to foreign governments so as to gain sympathy.

They will tell us that many of those who served in the U.S. military and fought and died were motivated as much by poverty as by patriotism and that some of them, frankly, didn't even know what the war was about. They will show that on occasion raw nationalism took the place of sober reflection.

They will say that the president and commander-in-chief was too motivated by his religious beliefs and that he read the Bible too often. As a result he actually thought he had God on his side and that the conflict was one between good and evil -- one that had to be won if people were to be free and equal.

They will give examples of the brutal treatment of some enemy prisoners by the Americans and say that this destroyed the entire moral argument for waging the war in the first place. They will write of camps where captured men were humiliated and denied their basic human rights as prisoners of war.

They will say that some of the new rulers of the conquered state were not universally liked by the rest of the population. They may have been local but they did not represent all of the people and were thought by some to be outsiders. They were also imposed on the masses by the Americans and needed American support to keep them in power.

They will tell us that the people and governments of many countries condemned the war and said that the Americans were barbarians. They will record how there were enormous protests against American policy, and Americans, in foreign cities and that some of them were ugly and violent.

They will say all of this -- at least, they would, but there's no need.

Because they already have. I speak not of Iraq but of the American Civil War.

The president, of course, was Abraham Lincoln. The cause was the preservation and integrity of the United States and the emancipation of people of colour. It was a war for freedom, dignity and the rule of law. A war that had to be fought.

I'd like to see the usual suspects make an argument against it.

But then, almost a century and a half ago, the usual suspects did.


http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Michael_Coren/2004/07/10/533893.html

 

[fruit loop]

Ah, yes, rewritten history.....

...that lets Lincoln be a great hero. He wasn't.

The War Between the States (there was nothing civil about it) was fought over states' rights to govern themselves vs the federal government doing it. Slavery was only one issue, and the smallest. The Southern states were being taxed to death.


A majority of the citizens in each southern state voted to secede. It was the will of the people. Ever wonder why Jefferson Davis was released and never tried for treason? The Supreme Court justices admitted they feared the result of a trial. Oliver Wendell Holmes said publicly that secession was "probably legal" under the Constitution.

Virginia didn't decide to secede until Lincoln ordered Governor Letcher to raise troops to be used to invade other southern states. Rather than help invade their neighbors, Virginia seceded.

As for slavery.....Lincoln offered to pass a constitutional amendment protecting slavery forever if South Carolina and the other states would return to the union. So much for freeing people.

Slavery didn't become an issue until 1862 when Lincoln passed the "emancipation proclamation" which was probably the biggest propaganda tool in history. It's on the National Archives website and I invite you to read it. You will see that it freed NOBODY AT ALL. It "frees" slaves in "states currently in rebellion against the federal government" - meaning the Confederacy, where Lincoln had no authority.

It then goes on to specifically EXCLUDE northern slave states such as Kentucky and Maryland, and territory that the union had retaken, such as New Orleans. In fact, slavery did NOT end with the war in those states.

The war ended in spring 1865. It was not until fall 1865 that northern states were freed, when the constitutional amendment was passed. it was only then that General Ulysses Grant freed his own four slaves. General Robert E. Lee didn't own any.

War crimes.....ever heard of Roswell, Georgia?

Roswell was a millworker town that made cloth. General Sherman decided that the women and children who worked there were guilty of "war crimes" because the wool woven there made Confederate uniforms.

The population of Roswell - 400 women, children, and the elderly - was arrested, rounded up, and held prisoner in the town square in the heat of summer. They were then placed on trains and sent north to be used as slave labor. This act was decried by both north and south.

Sounds like Germany in the Holocaust, right? Nope. It was right here in America.

Sherman allowed his soldiers to dig up graves in Atlanta to look for jewelry buried with the dead and gold coffin handles. One of his soldiers wrote home that Sherman had a trunk full of watches and silver tea sets taken from the civilians. What they didn't take, they destroyed.

Lincoln allowed black troops and Jewish troops to be segregated. The Confederacy did not segregate its troops. Yeah, that's right: blacks fought for the Confederacy. There was an entire company of Filipino soldiers in a Louisiana regiment. Secretary of War Judah Benjamin was Jewish, as was Lieutenant Moses, who died begging the Union troops to stop shooting his men, who had already surrendered.

YOU read some real history before you try to quote it. The "Civil" War was rewritten, alright....to hide the true facts.

 

[Libertarian]

"The president, of course, was Abraham Lincoln. The cause was the preservation and integrity of the United States and the emancipation of people of colour. It was a war for freedom, dignity and the rule of law. A war that had to be fought."

Bul shit! it was to preserve the Union so the idustrial North could continue to have ready and cheap access to the South's produce. Nothing more and nothing less. Lincoln only freed the blacks to punish the South. He had plans for sending them all to Africa after the war. Anyone who believes otherwise is either a fool or hasn't studied history very well.

 

[fruit loop]

Examples of rewritten history

In today's history book, rewritten to make it PC: The war was fought strictly and solely over slavery.

FACT: Slavery was the smallest issue.

In today's history book, rewritten to make it PC: Every Confederate soldier was a rich white racist slaveowner, fighting strictly and solely to preserve slavery.

FACT: Less than 10% of the men who fought in the Confederate armies ever owned a slave. General Robert Lee owned no slaves, nor did Stonewall Jackson. Both generals spoke out publicly against slavery. General Jackson regularly donated money to a Sunday school for black children.

In today's history book, rewritten to make it PC: The Northern armies were all rabidly against slavery, and willing to give their lives to end it.

FACT: There was considerable outcry against Lincoln's "Emancipation Proclamation" in the northern army. Men wrote home saying they weren't there to fight for negroes. Riots were held in New York by men who feared an influx of freed negroes who would take their jobs.

FACT: The north segregated their non-white regiments. General Grant wouldn't allow Jewish soldiers to fight with other regiments either. The Confederacy, on the other hand, did not segregate its regiments. The 37th Texas had a black officer, Sergeant James Washington (see their website, 37thtexas.org)

FACT: The 54th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry (depicted in the movie "Glory") was fired upon by white Union soldiers as it retreated from Battery Wagner. White Union troops took advantage of the confusion at the Battle of the Crater to bayonet their black comrades in the backs.

FACT: Lincoln wanted to ship all blacks to Liberia. Read his speeches. He considered them an inferior race.

In today's history book, rewritten to make it PC: The Confederate soldiers were traitors.

FACT: Government derives its power from the consent of the people. The U.S. Constitution states that states "voluntarily" joined the Union. A majority of voters in Southern states voted to secede. If they were traitors, then so were George Washington and the founding fathers, who rebelled against their king.

In today's history book, rewritten to make it PC: The South deliberately started the war.

FACT: Union troops had been warned for months to leave Fort Sumter. They were to be allowed to leave peacably, with their flag and supplies. Lincoln ordered them to remain. When the Confederates did fire on Sumter, nobody was killed and the Union troops were STILL allowed to retreat unharmed. The Union then invaded the South.

FACT: Lincoln encouraged his generals to pursue a "scorched earth" policy in the South. General Lee gave orders to his men not to disturb civilians or their property, and punished men who disobeyed.

History was rewritten to make Lincoln a hero and the South a villain. Learn real history before you try to quote it!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Trasael Adnepos]

yES! Well, I suppose since we have straightened Martin out on the War of Northern Agression, then, it won't hurt to straighten the Fifth Column out a little with this fun little e-mail I received recently:

LEARN THE FACTS

There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during the month of January..... In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January. That's just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war torn country of Iraq.

When some claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war, state the following . FDR... (Democrat) led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.

Truman... (Democrat) finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,334 per year.

John F. Kennedy... (Democrat) started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us. Johnson... (Democrat) turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.

Clinton... (Democrat) went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia never attacked us.

He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.

In the two years since terrorists attacked us President Bush has ... liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a genocidal madman who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.

The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but... It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51 day operation.

We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to "find" [shred] the Rose Law Firm billing records. We have found serin, mustard gas, and uranium, and the press won't discuss it.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.

It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida.



Tras

 

[piggyandpeewee]

Bravo Tras!

I'm all for State's Rights, but PLEASE f l; the Civil War? The
Freemasons (tee hee) had more to do with the South's involvement (and the British Crown's) in hostilities than did
slavery, state's rights and President Lincoln personally combined.

More current and more important is the litany of actual Democrat deeds done in the current century. I'm tired of hearing the G.O.P. referred to as the War Party. As Tras points out, up until Carter , the Dems were more prone to create or extend war than they were to avoid or end them. Unfortunately as is their wont, they turned 180 degrees after massive electoral defeat(s) to become useless wimps
when the chips were down for our nation BIG TIME.

 

[fruit loop]

P&P....

THe Masons had nothing to do with starting the Civil War, unless Lincoln happened to be one, and I don't think he was.

I spent fourth of July weekend at Gettysburg at the reenactment, shooting at the Yankees. Had a great time. (Yes, there were women soldiers in the War)