Friday, December 9, 2011

The Prevaricatin' Professer

Deceit by innuendo and implication

Professor Simpson has posed the following question to me in an entry on his blog. As I noted in the comment thread following that entry, it's a pack of lies disguised as a question. Why? Because the implication in addressing the question to me is that it has something to do with me -- as if I have made the claims he's asking about -- or it is otherwise relevant to me.

Here’s a question for Connie: if so many enslaved African Americans loved their masters and were loyal to the Confederacy, then why did a good number of white southerners after the war conduct a war of terror against African Americans, killing the very people they claimed were loyal to old Massa and the good old CSA? And why didn’t former Confederate leaders try to stop that sort of terrorism against people who supposedly in the tens of thousands embraced the CSA and all it stood for?
He'd have to do a few things before I'd consider answering. First, he would have to explain what the question has to do with me. Second, he'd have to answer a few of my questions first -- mainly to quantify claims made in the question -- and reframe imprecise sections of it into more precise terms. Keep in mind that this vague, diffuse question was posed by a man who made an entire blog post about the importance of using precise words....

My questions:

(1) IF so many....? Don't ask me an "if" hypothetical. First establish whether something was or wasn't -- then ask me about what you've estblished.

(2) How many is "so many'? Who has quantified it?

(3) Who has claimed an undetermined "so many" slaves loved their masters? You might get a start on finding an answer by directing your question to them.

(4) Who has claimed an undetermined "so many" slaves were loyal to the Confederacy? You might get a start on finding an answer by directing your question to them.

(5) How many is "a good number"?

(6) Demonstrate what percentage of white Southerners that number represented, and thus establish how many Southern whites conducted a "war of terror" against African Americans, and how many didn't. Distinguish between those white Southerners who were engaging in self defense and protection of their families in a time of lawlessness and those who were conducting a war of terror. And since it is accepted that it was wrong for the KKK to terrorize freedmen, please explain why it was all right for union leagues to terrorize white Southerners...

(7) Reliably document it that they claimed African Americans were loyal to old Massa and the good old CSA. Remember, using your sentence structure, we're talking about the claims of "a good number of white Southerners after the war." After identifying them (see question 5) provide primary historical source documentation for "their claims."

(8) Nathan Bedford Forrest was a former Confederate leader who try to stop that sort of terrorism.

(9) Who claims that slaves and former slaves "....supposedly in the tens of thousands embraced the CSA and all it stood for?" Where/with whom did the "tens of thousands" figure originate? You might get a start on finding an answer by directing your question to them.

Sometimes, the prevaricatin' professor lies outright -- for example, he has claimed twice that I've "admitted to stalking" on my blog. Anyone is welcome to use the search function in the righthand sidebar to search for said admissions. I'll tell you right now, though, you won't find anything, because I've made no such admissions. He lied.

Blatant outright lies, though, are less his style than implication and innuendo. He intentionally "misunderstands" sarcasm, parody, satire, etc., pretending to take them seriously in order to lob insults at those he disagrees with. He is a master of ad hominem attacks and employs them frequently.

For example, he has, on several occasions, brought up the fact that I have written and self-published a novel. Without ever having read the novel -- presumably -- he passed judgement on my fiction-writing ability, my motives for self-publishing -- down to the petty denigration of the book's cover. Why? Who knows. Perhaps practicing character assassination and engaging in the delicious denigration of others is the only way he can feel good about himself. That's just a guess, and my opinion, but I don't see anything inaccurate about it.

Petty, spiteful, venomous -- all perfectly describe the attitude he has revealed toward me and toward the Southern Heritage Preservation Group on Facebook. Don't believe me? Too harsh, you say? Nope. It's all documentable just by skimming the entries and comment threads at his blog....


  1. You still haven't answered the question. Instead you chose to do an entire post pointing to the flaws of Dr. Simpson's questioning abilities as determined by you. Scared Connie?

  2. Anybody with a lick of sense should know that most people in the south weren't opposed to or mean to colored people. Some white people were mean, but most were not. It's like today, some people are total assholes and are mean to people but most people are not. It was the few who terrorized and assaulted black people who were in the news. Not everyone agreed with or sanctioned that hate.

  3. That's right Pam. And that large number of people were so not opposed to or mean to 'colored' people, that they just merely held 4 million 'colored' people in bondage.

  4. Robert, I'm not afraid of anything having to do with legitimate discussion. What do you imagine is scary about the subject/question?

    My post here clearly sets forth why I'm not answering, and demonstrates that the question was not posed in order to be answered. Can you not read? Can you not understand what you read?

    The professor's "question" is an accusation disguised as a question. It is a hit-piece disguised as a question. It is the professor's sneaky, slimy way of saying I've claimed things that I have not. You're welcome to search this blog for the things he's implying I've said, but I doubt you will. Afraid?

    The fake question is posed by the liar who's claimed two or three times that I have "admitted" to stalking on 180 DTS. Have you done a search to verify his claim? I doubt it. Afraid? Afraid to see one of your heroes reveal his feet of clay?

    If you want to attempt to rephrase the question into something answerable, give it a try. However, I'm not going to play along with the professor's lies and deceptions.

  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

  6. Robert says, "That's right Pam. And that large number of people were so not opposed to or mean to 'colored' people, that they just merely held 4 million 'colored' people in bondage."

    Robert, Pam didn't mention any numbers. However, since you brought it up; about 25% of the families of the South were slaveowning families. The number of actual slaveholders was about 15%. So the "large number" of people you're alluding to was actually a relatively small portion of the entire population. And the number of slaveholders who mistreated or abused slaves was even smaller.

    However, as you very well understand (or ought to) the phony question Simpson posed is not about slaveholders before the war; it's about "white Southerners" who terrorized black folks after the war.

    It's a phony question designed to perpetrate the notion of white evil because he makes no attempt to differentiate between those who were actually terrorizing freedmen and those who were protecting themselves and their families from predatory lawlessness. The terrorism visited upon white Southerners after the war is prohibited subject in the PC mindset. The attitude seems to be it never happened, or if it did, they probably deserved it because they were evil ex-slavemasters. However, when a white person was terrorized/victimized after the war, there was a 75% probability that s/he was NOT a former slaveholder.

    Simpson is just another academic who demonstrates the acceptable PC racism that all blacks were helpless victims unable to experience anything but misery, and incapable of evil themselves, and that the chief characteristic of white Southerners of the past-- maybe their ONLY characteristic -- was evil.

  7. That's fine Connie, if you want to hide behind word games and insults that is your business. Just kind of surprised you won't muster up the courage to make an attempt.

    Ah yes, the statistics. Where have I seen those before. Must have been one of the Pelican Press publications. The rather "large" number I Was alluding to was two fold. Both the slaveholders, and those that allowed the process to live on. That is North and South so please don't start playing the "North had slaves too game." It really a moot point, yes they had slaves, but then they ended that and shed their sins. But I digress. Slavery not only played into the idea of bondage but was at the same time the very make up of the southern social order.

    Also, the "terrorism" visited upon the South is not a "prohibited subject in the PC mindset." The difference between the two Connie, is that one is a military occupation, and one all to common in regards to humanity. The other is different due to the nature of those that lost, resorting to guerrilla warfare and actively reigning terror upon the black population.

    And there you go with the insults again. Try putting together a rant that has substance next time. ;)

  8. Actually, Robert, the statistics on slaveholding families came in an unsolicited private Facebook message sent to me from James Epperson. The figure for slaveholders is from the 1860 census. You need to know what you're talking about before you mouth off.

    Where did I say "the north had slaves, too?" Where do you come up with all this off-the-wall stuff? But since YOU brought it up -- the north shed its sins? LOL!!! Funniest thing you have EVER said. They found a way to make money off slaves with out having to endure black folks living in their back yards. Yes -- you definitely digress.

    Yes, the terrorism visited up on Southern whites after the war so sticks in the craw of those with a PC mindset, they just ignore it. Won't acknowledge it. And "military occupation" doesn't justify terrorism -- particularly when it is an illegal, unjust and unconstitutional occupation. And, second, that wasn't the only terrorism visited upon Southern whites.

    What insults?

  9. Rob: you said " And that large number of people were so not opposed to or mean to 'colored' people, that they just merely held 4 million 'colored' people in bondage."

    I ain't got all 'got y'alls college education but until the passage of the 13th amendment I think the whole United States held 4 million people in bondage!

    As for the north shedding its sins, that's kinda like Pilate washing his hands of Jesus ain't it?
    Yes the North abolished slavery ( sort of ) but did they free the slaves in a great moral movement? Nope the sold them to the south, and then passed 'Black Codes' to prevent them from returning.


  10. Actually Connie, I don't care where you got your statistics from. I made the general reference because I have seen them before in a book I own. I wonder if so and so that messaged you got them from the same place. Or maybe from a person that got them from that particular book. My guess is that they got it from the same type of research outlet but I digress. Maybe you should stop being so defensive.

    I never said that you said that Connie. I am simply implying that I do not want to here that horrible argument again. Even though Tatum on this very thread says the same thing. As for your second point in paragraph (2), what is the 'way?' Freedom?

    Actually I stated the reasons there is not a heavy focus on it but you keep playing the victim card 150 years after the fact.

  11. Dave,

    I admire how you post above that you do not have the same education and then say that the North passed Black Codes. I think you are getting Black Codes confused with Jim Crow laws (separate but equal). After the Civil War, former slave states passed Black Codes.

    Slavery was the sin of the nation Dave. Then the United States found a new direction during the Civil War, and stamped it out. So one half of the country shed their sin.

  12. Oh and Dave,

    "I ain't got all 'got y'alls college education but until the passage of the 13th amendment I think the whole United States held 4 million people in bondage!"

    Why is it that when you speak of defense of Heritage the South is its own nation, but when the issue of slavery comes up the South is suddenly part of the United States again?

  13. Robert, I'm not hiding behind anything, there is nothing scary about the question and it doesn't take courage to answer it. It's an accusation, pack of lies disguised as a question, and I'm not answering it because I have extreme disrespect for it, and for Simpson's posing it. I can't believe you've been reading my stuff as long as you have ... and imagine that I'm afraid....

    You were the one second-guessing my sources, so I told you where I got the figures. That's not being defensive. And since you *still* want to want to throw off on my sources, I again suggest you know what you're talking about before you mouth off. James Epperson is another academic, a mathematician with an interest in the civil war. He sometimes leaves comments at Simpson's and Levin's blogs. He's on your side, Rob. I suspect Pelican Press is not his go-to publisher, capice?
    Epperson's site:

    Evidently, he "monitors" the Southern Heritage Preservation Group on Facebook -- like you and Corey and Brooks and Kevin do -- because he messaged me, out of the blue, after I made a post on the SHPG about the figures for slaveowners and slaveholding families. Over the years, I've encountered his comments on various forums and discussion groups, but I had no idea he was on Facebook until he messaged me.

    You don't want to hear what argument? Listen, you were the one who came breathlessly rushing to Perfesser Simpson's defense, posting a comment on my blog. If you don't like being answered -- if you want carte blanche to say whatever you wish without challenge, put it on your own blog and censor any replies you don't like. Don't come here and tell me what to argue and not argue.

    Try to find anywhere on my blog where I've made the argument that "the north had slavery too." Just try to find it, Rob. MY focus is on how people in the North enriched themselves and their region off slavery AFTER they abolished it within their borders. It's the best of both worlds; it's having your cake and eating it, too. What is "the way" they did that? Shipping Southern slave-grown cotton to Europe in the cargo holds of their ships. Turning Southern slave-grown cotton into textiles in their mills. Financing the purchase of slaves and plantations in the South. Insuring slaves on Southern plantations... Shed their sins? I've already said how funny that's also thoroughly disgusting and simply not true.

    Besides, only you indoctrinees who wear slave-colored glasses see slavery as the country's only sin. There have been numerous others (and some continue today) such as the Grant Administration's official policy of genociding the Plains Indians (by sanctioning the killing off of their food supply, the buffalo), the government's forcing American Indians into concentration camps artfully known as "reservations" in conditions *worse* than Southern slavery ... Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the firebombing of Dresden and Hamburg. The napalm firebombing of Tokyo and 66 other Japanese cities. There's a list of them here...

    Reminds one of all the Southern towns and villages the yanks burned -- places that had no military presence and no military signficance. They just didn't have napalm back then....

    Countering 150-year old lies is not playing the victim. Pointing out truth people would rather ignore is not playing the victim. If you find encounters with the truth so unpleasant you have to mischaracterize it as "playing the victim card", maybe you ought to reconsider whether it's a good idea for you to come here and read my blog.

  14. Rob, there were black codes in the north. They just weren't called that.

    "Why is it that when you speak of defense of Heritage the South is its own nation, but when the issue of slavery comes up the South is suddenly part of the United States again?"

    Well, DUH. Because it was bullied back into the USA at the point of a bloody bayonet, Rob. The Southern states TRIED to leave. The righteous yankees made war on them for trying.

    "Slavery was the sin of the nation Dave. Then the United States found a new direction during the Civil War, and stamped it out. So one half of the country shed their sin."

    The United States didn't find a "new direction" during the war, Rob. The emancipation proclamation was a WAR measure that didn't free a single slave. Freeing slaves was an inadvertent result of the war, and a terrible way to end slavery -- turning loose 4 million slaves thoroughly unprepared to take care of themselves into a purposely devastated region -- both economically and physically devastated. Oh, yeah, that's a wonderful way to shed your sin... Lordy mercy, they sure make you drink the Kool Aid in "academia," don't they?

  15. Well Rob, thats pretty easy, before the south left the union slavery was legit every place, and supported by the US government. During the war until and after the EP. slavery was legit depending on where you lived.Seems kinda strange Abe left it in place where the Union was in control. And after the war until the passage of the 13th amendment it was legit.
    So no matter how hard ya try to duck and bob the slavery thing, the whole Country was guilty! OR if you like , The CSA and The USA were both guilty!

  16. If you weren't afraid Connie, you would answer the question instead of hiding behind the accusations of the insults as you currently are. The rest of your comment is an incoherent rant. Also, if you note my earlier comments, it says "Where have I seen those before. Must have been one of the Pelican Press publications." That is a way of saying that most Confederate Heritage advocates like to bring those up. And Also, lets keep this in context, we are talking about slavery, not the other things that you can point to to vindicate southern slavery and help you sleep at night.

    I was referring to Black Codes in the context of the Civil War. "After the Civil War, former slave states passed Black Codes." I understand that Black Codes have existed for a long time but in this context it is irrelevant to the statements made. That is a problem you seem to have a lot Connie. Grouping history together into one big hump disorganizes and confuses issues. Maybe you should pay attention, and not quote websites without any justification or methodology of research presented.

    Also, yes the Emancipation was a War Measure. However, it altered the course of the war with those that advocated knowing full well its future implications. But the defense you put up there it seems that you are advocating that freedom is a bad thing. Maybe you can figure out why immediate freedom was so bad for those that ran away?

    Again Dave, I am not arguing that the North had its own sins. But one section of the country was moving in the direction of getting rid of slavery and one was not.

  17. Rob,
    How can you get rid of slavery when you underwrite it, profit from it, and continue to import slaves doing so against the law?

    Again it was a National Sin !

  18. Yes, it was a national sin. I've yet to argue against that. One side however, shed that sin, the other side was intent on keeping it.

  19. So how can you abolish it partialy?

    "Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana (except the parishes of St. Bernard, Palquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James, Ascension, Assumption, Terrebone, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the city of New Orleans), Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkeley, Accomac, Morthhampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Anne, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth), and which excepted parts are for the present left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued"

    Kinda like being pregnate, you are or you are not!

  20. I am assuming you mean partially? (typo?) Going by that I would suggest that you need to think what the EP does overall. It abolished slavery in the South, it allows blacks to fight in the Union, and it changes the face of the war while maintaining the support of boarder states. It also stands as a chain reaction precursor to the 13th Amendment. In order for Southern states to enter the Union again, it had to ratify the 13th.

  21. Robert, my reply to your comment timestamped 6:36 a.m. has disappeared for some reason. The following is subtantially the same reply; the wording may be a bit different.

    I know why I'm not answering the question and I've said so. You think you know me and my motives better than I. You think you're omniscient. You're not. Simpson's "question" is a well-known logical fallacy called "loaded question". What do you imagine there is about the question, or answering it, that's scary? I'm simply refusing to validate the professor's implied falsehood.

    Most Confederate heritage advocates like to bring up figures about slaveholders and slaveholding families? Your proof of this assertion? Do you even KNOW most Confederate heritage advocates? I seriously doubt it, so how do you know what they like?

    I don't have any trouble sleeping, Rob, and I don't "bring up" things to vindicate Southern slavery. Preoccupation with slavery is your thing, not mine.

    Dave brought up black codes before you did, and he made no false restriction of "in the context of the Civil War." You may have been trying to restrict the subject to that, but a wider context had already been introduced; you can't exclude his points after the fact. I didn't confuse the issues; you attempted to artificially restrict them to make an invalid point.

    Douglas Harper's website on the war and related subjects is an excellent source. If you want to make it jump through your academic hoops before you use it, (or refuse to do so, so you can reject it) fine. I'll refer to it whenever I damn well please.

    I'm going to tell you this one time. Do not put words in my mouth. I did not say freedom was a bad thing. I did not hint it, suggest it, imply it, or assert it in any other way. My subject was not freedom, but the WAY in which slaves were freed. Are you truly unable to conceptualize a good end achieved by horrible means? Are you sincerely unable to tell the difference between these two situations?

    1, Runaways -- comprised a relative few, from different areas, who escaped to places where the economy was intact (thriving, actually) and there were resources they could access for help.

    2, Ex-slaves -- four million freed simultaneously, without preparation (schooling or training) for supporting themselves, turned loose into a countryside and society so devastated by war, both economically and physically, they wouldn't have been able to support themselves had they known how. Free Southerners who knew how to support themselves, and had done so before the war, found themselves unable to do it after the war, due to the devastation of the region. See what I'm talking about now?

    The factors you're ignoring are (1) the vast number freed all at once and (2) the economically and physically distorted environment they were released into. To say the slaves were freed in the worst possible way is not saying freedom is a bad thing. It's saying there were better ways to free them that were not used. They were not used because (1) before the war, the north was too busy making money on "remote" slavery and (2) during the war, they were too busy laying the South waste and killing Southerners.

    Rob, with the exception of a handful of aboes, the north had no interest in "getting rid of slavery;" they were happy to get rich off "remote" slavery. That's why, when they abolished slavery in the northern states, they sold most of the slaves out of the region, and enacted black codes that kept freed blacks to a minimum within their states. It was a very successful strategy that you can still see the results of today:

  22. If it is a falsity or a lie then redirect the question into its proper context that provides the answer. But you won't attempt that.

    Connie my proof would be Pelican Publishing Company.

    Preoccupation with understanding the past is mine, vindicating the immoralities of a pseudo nation while deflecting attacks by projecting them on the "Union" is yours.

    Actually I can exclude his facts if they do not meet the context. The Civil War period was the topic of discovery. It would be like me saying Georgia is the most moral state because one of its original prohibitions was no slavery.

    I asked you not to reference it to other people. There is no justification provided of the research. You have quite the Potty Mouth. Not really a positive personality trait or a Southern woman.

    Connie, I am saying if I was held in bondage I would want to be free, and not be free at a future date.

    1.) 60,000 estimated in a 40 year period from 1810 to 1850. Entire villages were formed in Canada populated by Escaped Slave Refugees.
    "Arrival of the Black Loyalists: Saint John's Black Community"

    2.)No Connie I'm not. Because if they could not support themselves they would have died by the Thousands and more than likely you and I would not be here today.

    My question is, what is a better way to free someone, than to free them? Aside from giving out land they worked on for so long which I am sure some Plantations might have done. And there you go with, "laying waste to the South and killing Southerners."

    Missiouri Compromise, Wilmost Provisio, Compromise of 1850, all banning slavery in parts of the country. A slow move towards containment. Not the outright abolishment that should have taken place, but it was drastically more effort than that of the south. Yet you seem complacent in spewing the usual rhetoric of look at them look at them.

  23. It is my prerogative to ignore a logical fallacy aimed at me by a liar.

    So Pelican Publishing Company is proof that you know most Confederate heritage advocates. How does that work, exactly? How has a publishing company made you personally acquainted with so many people? And when you became acquainted with them, what did you do then? Phone or email them all and say, "What do you like?" and MOST of them said, "We like to bring up figures about slaveholders and slaveholding families." Is that how you know what "most" Southern heritage advocates like?

    A pick-and-choose view of the past for the purpose evilizing white Southerners is yours. Pointing out the fallacy of north=good, south=bad by calling attention to the north's wrongdoing, which is normally swept under the rug, is mine.

    For the discussion going on in this comment thread, Dave set the parameters for discussion of antebellum black codes BEFORE you tried to restrict them to JUST the South ONLY AFTER the war. Sorry, no. Dave's comment SET the context -- your attempt to restrict the context in time so you can exclude his facts notwithstanding.You may restrict yourself to that. You can't impose your restrictions on others who have ALREADY set the paremeters.

    I'll refer Douglas Harper's site to whoever I damn well please. Capice?

    If you were saying, "If I was held in bondage I would want to be free, and not be free at a future date," then why didn't you say that?

    60,000 over 40 years is hardly 4 million all at once.

    No, they could not support themselves; that's why so many turned to sharecropping, which was at least something they knew how to do. The poverty of the South lasted for generations, so that it was well into the new century that Southerners, black and white, were dying from pellagra and other deficiency diseases.

    Rob says, "'And there you go with, "laying waste to the South and killing Southerners.'"

    It's documented, Rob.

    I say, "Look at them," only to those who refuse to. I say, "Look at them" to those who ignore "them" in order to evilize the South and place sole blame on for slavery on Southerners. (Psssst. Banning "slavery" in parts of the country meant keeping those parts *white*. Look at the map again, Rob. Those areas are STILL very white.)

  24. Rob' [partially? (typo?)] no not a typo I just can't spell!
    Can you give me a specific day that the North said "yea we are fighting to free all of the slaves"
    After all you said " But one section of the country was moving in the direction of getting rid of slavery and one was not."
    When was this exact point in time? Was it before the EP ? Or after Lincoln was shot?
    Could it have been that the emancipation of all slaves was to further punish the south for seceding and then killing Lincoln?
    Could you just give me a specific point in time that the North as a whole said “We want to free all slaves”
    Who said it? Is there a piece of paper with a name on it!

  25. It's your prerogative to ignore what does not advance your agenda. There are ways to address a logical fallacy which you refuse to do. And you call him a liar, keeping with your insult pattern to hide cowardice.

    Pelican Press is a major publishing company that advocates the Confederate Heritage Narrative, so yes, I can associate it with you based on the large percentage of books they sale to that particular crowd and the fact that the same materials referenced in their books often pop up on your websites and in your arguments. (Your meaning CH advocates).

    That's an inaccurate assumption. I am a White Southerner and proud to be who I am. I just choose not to sweep atrocities under the rug like you. I also do not do this with the North, though you seem to think that by pointing to your constant idolization that I do.

    Yes, Dave introduces the idea of Black Codes. But since the the primary attention was paid to the South and the North's use of the Post War era, it seems logical that the Black Codes in reference were to that specific time frame and not an up for grabs moment in history. I don't know if he will but my guess is that Dave understands that we are talking about two different time frames or else he would still be arguing that very thing. That makes your rant irrelevant. We have gone on to greener fields, I suggest you do the same.

    No capice. Nice use of vocab though. Shows a broadened mind.

    I did say that, that is a comment on the horrible assertion that you seem to have. It is not better to tell someone we are going to hold you in bondage until we deem you fit for society.

    60,000 is a hardly a small amount as you refer to it as. I realize it is a small percentage, but it still is a rather large number. Combined with the implications that by running away as an individual you leave your family behind, it seems pretty legitimate.

    Food shortages existed throughout the war Connie, not just in your frame of reference. The most memorable being an Richmond food uprising in 1863 before Sherman's march. That is what happens when many leave home for war. I would also invite you to read "Starving the South." He is a short excerpt review.

    "Before the battles began in 1861, the American South could claim unmatched farm productivity because of slaves. Much of the agricultural land, however, produced tobacco and cotton, more profitable commodities than edibles.

    If Southerners had devoted more acreage to growing food, the Confederacy perhaps could have fed troops adequately during four years of battlefield deaths. Instead, the slave states had become increasingly dependent on Midwestern farmers, most of whom supplied food to the Union troops after the outbreak of war."

    I guess the South was its own worse enemy.

    Yes, I've heard of how Sherman burned down so many Great Grandpa's farms. Then I've seem those same claims go up in smoke when the family found out their barn actually got hit by lightning 4 years after the war. Does that gloss over the issue? No. I'm just not deflecting to other issues like you so often do. Like in this post, you've gone from slavery to look at what happened to the South....that you weren't alive for.

    Deflection, deflection deflection. For some reason you think HIstorians do not know of these atrocities you speak of. We do, we just don't accept the fact that you don't recognize your own.

  26. "Rob' [partially? (typo?)] no not a typo I just can't spell!"

    Hah! I appreciate the honesty. It happens, Microsoft Word Spell Check will doom us all.

    1st question: Jan. 1, 1863.

    2nd Question: Hard to put a date on that. The actions started as early as John Adams. Between 1776 to 1804 Slavery became outlawed in Northern States. Granted that is a state's right to determine at the time, but it was also the U.S. governments atrocity by not realizing that slavery is a crime against humanity and should have been stopped then. But that does signify a movement. But before the EP and before Boothe shot Lincoln.

    3rd question: No, for reasons stated above. The EP was a military strategy that had several parts. It freed slaves and also enlisted black soldiers. But it also changed the face of the war both in the states and internationally.


  28. sorry folks I'm under the weather today.


Comments are welcome, but monitored.