Friday, June 13, 2014

“Ten generations of women will transmit, in whispers to their daughters, traditions of unspeakable things.”

 935050_489552274459565_1312411477_n

A very popular book in the North, Sherman’s (1875) Memoirs went far to further exacerbate sectional hatred as he condemned the South and “took an almost lustful pride in describing the tremendous power his hand had wielded in spreading terror and destruction.”
Bernhard Thuersam, Chairman
North Carolina War Between the States Sesquicentennial Commission
"Unsurpassed Valor, Courage and Devotion to Liberty"
"The Official Website of the North Carolina WBTS Sesquicentennial"

A Bitter Road to Forced Reunion

“If the [Southern] prisons constituted a Northern grievance the South likewise had its hurtful memories.  While Northerners blamed the evil genius of slavery for the war, Southerners [like Major T.G. Barker speaking in Charleston in 1870:] pointed the finger of responsibility to “those men who preached the irrepressible conflict to the Northern people” and “helped to bring on that unlawful and unholy invasion of the South.” 

The South felt that it had been betrayed.  [The Southern Review in 1867 said:] “Assuredly the subjected portions of this imperial republic (so called), with the bitter experience they have of outraged honour, justice, and humanity, on the part of those once their associates and friends, can never again by any possibility trust that vast engine of tyranny, a consolidated popular Union, nor derive from it one ray of hope for their own welfare, or for the happiness of mankind.”

It was to this “deep spirit of hate and oppression toward the Southern people,” and not to the necessities of war, that the South attributed the vast destruction of its property.

The ineradicable sense of injury felt by the South took concrete form in condemning the ravages committed by General Sherman’s army in Georgia and South Carolina.  “No tongue will ever tell, no pen can record the horrors of that march,” wrote an intimate associate of General Joseph E. Johnston whose surrender to Sherman is sometimes pictured as a love feast. 

“Ten generations of women will transmit, in whispers to their daughters, traditions of unspeakable things.” The hurt was accentuated by Northern pride in the achievement.  The South resented the arrogant and jeering tone of the song, “Marching Through Georgia,” and bridled when Northern orators described Sherman’s army going through the conquered land “like a plow of God.”  Sherman personified all that the South had suffered. 

The most contentious bone . . . was the destruction of Columbia.  Sherman’s own defense was to blame General Wade Hampton . . . [and] the charge was made deliberately in Sherman’s official report.  “I did it,” he later wrote, “to shake the faith of his people in him, for he was, in my opinion, a braggart, and professed to be the special champion of South Carolina.”

[The South] cherished a hateful image of the martyred Lincoln . . . who carried out in action his prophesy of war and destruction. He and his Cabinet, wrote the Southern Review, had a “perfect comprehension of the passions, prejudices, susceptibilities, vices and virtues . . . of the people upon whom they had to practice.  They knew every quiver of the popular pulse . . . They were masters of every artifice that could mystify and mislead, and of every trick that could excite hope, or confidence, or rage . . . They filled their armies, established their financial system, controlled the press, and silenced opposition, by the same ingenious and bold imposture.”

The South sneered at a North which observed the Fourth of July and “at the same time denounced as damnable heresy the doctrines of the Declaration of Independence.” When Chicago was destroyed by fire in 1871 it was considered . . . [a] demonstration of Divine vengeance,” because it had been in Chicago that “the rowdy Lincoln, the prime agent of our woes, was nominated.” [After the death of] General Custer in the massacre of 1876,  it was remembered in Virginia that the gallant martyr of the Little Big Horn was also the Custer who had executed seven captured Confederates of Mosby’s command without treating them as prisoners of war.”

(The Road to Reunion, Paul Buck, Little, Brown and Company, 1937, pp. 48-49; 52-55)

10 comments:

  1. If we had 10,000 - 911's, all in Northern cities, would it be wrong of me to write that it was but "the plow of God"? Would it be wrong of me to celebrate?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's being logical, something they lack. :)

      Delete
    2. Of course it is inanely considered "politically incorrect" for anyone but the establishment to celebrate the defeat of their enemies... but Scripture says "When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn." (Proverbs 29:2) This necessitates rejoicing when the evil fall. God's Universal Law of the Harvest tells us: "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." (Galatians 6:7) People sow what they want, so why should we not celebrate when they reap what they chose to sow...? "For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind" (Hosea 8:7) God commands us: "Ye that love the LORD, hate evil" (Psalm 97:10) and Scripture tells us: "The fear of the LORD is to hate evil" (Proverbs 8:13) If one does not hate evil and rejoice in their destruction, they do not love God, nor fear Him.

      "Only with thine eyes shalt thou behold and see the reward of the wicked." (Psalm 91:8)

      "30That the wicked is reserved to the day of destruction? they shall be brought forth to the day of wrath." (Job 21:30)

      We should pray imprecatory prayers: prayers that the wicked receive the full measure of Judgment they deserve from God. Of course, we should pray that if any of God's people who are involved, that God brings them to repentance to turn from their wicked ways so they are not destroyed with the wicked; but that if they are not God's people that God swiftly destroys them and their entire families from off the face of the earth so they can no longer afflict others. As I write in many of my books, "Why should God deliver us from that which we are willing to tolerate?" (He won't). Robert / stm.christogenea.org

      Delete
  2. An interesting read, however, in Custer's defense (See Custer, Wurt, inquire), Custer seems to have had the hand of God protecting him during the so-called Civil War, as with General George Washington (See The Bullet-proof George Washington, Barton; inquire) and Frontiersman Simon Kenton (see the superb, The Frontiersman; inquire), numerous times after battle he would have bullet holes all through his coat and hat, but not a scratch, and like Kenton, on more than one occasion, had a pistol shoved in his chest and the trigger pulled and it misfired. This certainly does not exonerate Custer. However, one act should not define a person. The war was awful... brothers actually fighting on opposite sides, sometimes killing each other. It was an unconstitutional northern invasion and look what our nation is today: a Third-World stew, unthinkable debt, crime, federal tyranny, paganism, perversion... it all started with the unlawful war between the states.

    Further, Custer was given the terrible job of policing the South, ultimately in Texas I believe, not with disciplined, regimented troops, but often with northern prisoners(?) or at least unregimented, untrained troops without any semblance of honor or discipline, and Custer found that controlling his own men was extremely difficult. Many in his position just let their men do what they wanted, pillage, vandalize, rape, murder southerners and their homes as they passed through... but Custer refused to allow it, and at great danger to himself threatened to brutally whip any soldier who committed a single such forbidden act... and Custer followed up on his threat and was hated by many for it (and I believe may have even faced charges by the army for it), but he controlled his men from depredations against the innocent victims of the South. Clearly the war was "the northern war of aggression" and there was nothing civil about it except the way the southerners behaved (and I say that as a Northerner, born in a suburb of NW Philadelphia, the birthplace of freedom; though I lived 26 years in South Florida and the past 24 here in the mountains of NE Tennessee).


    Robert / stm.christogenea.org

    ReplyDelete
  3. (more)
    The war against the south was not only hypocritical (general Grant's family still owned slaves long after the war)... it was a zionist war to destroy the autonomy of the south (so declared in some of their own writings), take control of the vast industry, and bring the nation under federal dictatorship which was then, even in peacetime, slowly subverted, giving more and more power to the feds, stealing it from the states and the people who are the only true holders of all rights.

    We were established as a Christian Constitutional Republic. The Federal Constitution, while it should have expressed that specifically, did not need to; the US was a confederation of the states and the states constitutions were all blatantly Christian and therefore a union of those states would be Christian. Patrick Henry declared, “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded,
    not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” (see my series: America, Christianity, Liberty & Truth, for hundreds of such quotes, which shut the mouths of the subversive "experts" today). As hard as the framers had to work in wording the Constitution to please all the delegates in matters of politics, I imagine they did not even want to begin arguing about religious wording (which would involve Presbyterian, Baptist, Congregationalist, Episcopalian, Methodist, Quaker, etc., and even Unitarians).

    It was a hot, stifling summer, they did not have air conditioning nor even electric fans; the statehouse in Phila. (which I have visited many times) was not well ventilated, people exercised modesty and decorum in their dress (no one wore t-shirts and shorts in public), and the delegates still operated with consciences lawfully, not as carpetbaggers and robber barons... they only met for a short time, then they went back to their homes and worked their real jobs; being a member of Congress was not a full-time job, in which you get paid for the full year, do a lot of busy work, ruin the country, then run around pursuing your own pleasure while you are being paid... they did the job, then went home.




    Robert / stm.christogenea.org

    ReplyDelete
  4. Eventually, some time after the so-called Civil War (I would guess during FDR it became more common), mind-shapers began referring dishonestly, subversively to our nation as a "Democracy." Our Founders were geniuses. Though Jefferson was not there, he helped guide the process by letter, in communication with Madison. Jefferson and Franklin were two of the world's greatest minds of their day. In fact, one time John F. Kennedy at a special dinner at the white house for something like 50 Nobel Prize candidates, and he expressed, "This is perhaps the assembly of the most intelligence ever to gather at one time in the White House with the exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone." Our Founders studied history, even ancient history (Jefferson, the polymath and polyglot that he was, first learned the ancient languages, Latin, Greek, Anglo-Saxon, so he could read the classics in the original, not missing anything by faulty translation). They KNEW Democracy DID NOT LAST because of corrupt men in leadership. That is why Jefferson expressed, "In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.... Experience has shown, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.... History in general, only informs us what bad government is. Blest is that nation whose silent course of happiness furnishes nothing for history to say." THEY DID NOT establish us as a Democracy, but a Constitutional Republic. WHEN did politicians stop referring to "The Republic" and start referring to us as "a Democracy" or being founded upon "Democratic Principles"...? It is only through supreme ignorance or treason that anyone does so. It did not help that of the two main political parties one was called the Democrats.

    Robert / stm.christogenea.org

    ReplyDelete
  5. However, any modern politician who refers to Democratic principles or calls us a Democracy declares his ignorance or that he is a traitor and conspirator in the overthrow of the true government of the U.S. and such politicians need to be called on this simple point and ask them point blank which it is—"Are you utterly ignorant of American History and the U.S. Constitution (and if so why were you ever elected to office) or are you guilty of High Treason and sedition in the willful subversion and attempted overthrow of the U.S. government (and if so why are you not swinging in the gallows)?" I have politely emailed several journalists who ignorantly use the D-word, asking them why they use the D word when we are not a democracy but a Republic, but they never answer. However, in truth, we are not a democracy or a republic, but a socialist state. We follow to the T the 10 planks of the communist manifesto. HOW can a government 100% follow the communist rulebook for government, and not be communist? They cannot. Democracy, then, was the transition stage from freedom and Christianity, and a Republic, to Communism, slavery, godlessness, and debt.

    (In fact, in reading Richard Hoskins', War Cycles Peace Cycles, it seems that in Lincoln's day the Democrats were the good guys and the Republicans the liberals? If that is true, then it is not surprising, for nearly everything in corrupt politics (which is the only kind; the only way to change it is to have a COMPLETE PURGE, and start over) is based upon the principles of "confuse and conquer" and "bait and switch". Of course, now, both parties are merely playing subversive roles: good cop, bad cop, stupid cop, etc. There is little difference between the two; they are both guilty of high treason and the subversion of our nation. They don't argue in trying to pass bills because they don't agree--they argue to put on a show (just like the phoney elections); they argue to create busy work and the illusion that they are actually accomplishing something and they are actually dedicated and working hard to collect their $250,000/year paycheck & benefit package & pension for the rest of their lives for having dismantled our Republic, scuttled our ship of state, and destroyed our nation.)

    Robert / stm.christogenea.org

    ReplyDelete
  6. The so-called Civil War was not fought over slavery; that was just the pretext. The federal government had even said in the past that slavery was not the issue. Slaves lived better under slavery in the south than most do in Africa today or in the ghettoes of the U.S. (that is, "once" prosperous neighborhoods they TURNED into ghettoes). Slaves cost the equivalent of tens of thousands of dollars; slaves being abused was rare. Slaves often cooked the food and helped raise the children of their masters; you would not abuse someone that could poison your food or harm your children. Many slaves did not want to be freed, some took their masters' names as their own; some stayed on as hired hands. The movie Amistad only tells half of the story, the black underdog hero, after winning his freedom, returned to Africa and became a slave trader himself--selling his own people into slavery. How heart-warming. Why it was never made into a Hallmark movie I will never know. The Blacks, Arabs, Turks, and Jews dominated the slave trade FOR MILLENNIA. Whites were only Johnny-come latelies in the last 200 years of slavery (and it was still primarily Jews who owned the slave trading companies, the ships, and were often even the captains)... and they were the only ones to treat their slaves humanely. All other peoples, including blacks themselves (and slavery still exists in parts of Africa) tortured and executed their slaves at whim, often just for sport. Never did white slave owners do this. If there was harsh discipline meeted out, it was for stealing or rape or such. The mega-industry of slave propaganda has served only to fuel the fire of race hatred of blacks against whites, and cause whites to irrationally, undeservingly, grovel in shame and false guilt and subject themselves to being raped and murdered and taxed hundreds of billions of dollars to continue to provide welfare for unproductive blacks, and turn our nation into a police state under the guise of protecting us (from the situation they created in a petrie dish and have run in a breeding program), so that eventually, when large enough, that police power will take over in a full-blown totalitarian state. Robert / stm.christogenea.org

    ReplyDelete
  7. That was great!

    ReplyDelete