Wake up America. The War of Northern Aggression

[dutch508]

Bring the good old bugle, boys, we'll sing another song;
Sing it with a spirit that will start the world along,
Sing it as we used to sing it, fifty thousand strong,
While we were marching through Georgia.


"Hurrah! Hurrah! We bring the jubilee!
"Hurrah! Hurrah! The Flag that makes you free!"
So we sang the chorus from Atlanta to the sea,
While we were marching through Georgia.
How the darkeys shouted when they heard the joyful sound!
How the turkeys gobbled which our commissary found!
How the sweet potatoes even started from the ground,
While we were marching through Georgia.


"Hurrah! Hurrah! We bring the jubilee!
"Hurrah! Hurrah! The Flag that makes you free!"
So we sang the chorus from Atlanta to the sea,
While we were marching through Georgia.
Yes, and there were Union men who wept with joyful tears,
When they saw the honored Flag they had not seen for years;
Hardly could they be restrained from breaking forth in cheers,
While we were marching though Georgia.


"Hurrah! Hurrah! We bring the jubilee!
"Hurrah! Hurrah! The Flag that makes you free!"
So we sang the chorus from Atlanta to the sea,
While we were marching through Georgia.
"Sherman's dashing Yankee boys will never reach the coast!"
So the saucy Rebels said, and 'twas a handsome boast;
Had they not forgot, alas! to reckon with the host,
While we were marching through Georgia.


"Hurrah! Hurrah! We bring the jubilee!
"Hurrah! Hurrah! The Flag that makes you free!"
So we sang the chorus from Atlanta to the sea,
While we were marching through Georgia.
So we made a thoroughfare for Freedom and her train,
Sixty miles in latitude, three hundred to the main;
Treason fled before us, for resistance was in vain,
While we were marching through Georgia.


"Hurrah! Hurrah! We bring the jubilee!
"Hurrah! Hurrah! The Flag that makes you free!"
So we sang the chorus from Atlanta to the sea,
While we were marching through Georgia.

[asdf2231]

Now see I was just joshin but Dutch crossed the line!

[Rebel]

Now see I was just joshin but Dutch crossed the line!

Yeah, I just love seeing bullshit rewritten history. He would make it seem as if all those "Darkeys" were jubilant as hell when his band of mass murderers came rolling through. I did fail to see anything about any of those "Darkeys" being killed along with other innocent men, women, and children.

Yeah, Sherman, a man of great compassion and morals. Just like ****in' Hitler.

[dutch508]

Marching Through Georgia (sometimes called Marching Thru' Georgia) is a marching song written by Henry Clay Work in 1865, referencing U.S. Maj. Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman's March to the Sea during the previous year.

It was widely popular with Union Army veterans after the war. However, General Sherman himself despised the song, in part because it was played at almost every public appearance that he attended. Outside of the Southern United States, it had a universal appeal: Japanese troops sang it as they entered Port Arthur, the British sang it in India, and it was popular with the Allies in World War II.

So much for re-writing history...

[Rebel]

Marching Through Georgia (sometimes called Marching Thru' Georgia) is a marching song written by Henry Clay Work in 1865, referencing U.S. Maj. Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman's March to the Sea during the previous year.

It was widely popular with Union Army veterans after the war. However, General Sherman himself despised the song, in part because it was played at almost every public appearance that he attended. Outside of the Southern United States, it had a universal appeal: Japanese troops sang it as they entered Port Arthur, the British sang it in India, and it was popular with the Allies in World War II.

So much for re-writing history...

I never said the song wasn't written in 1865. I said it's essentially rewriting history. Will propagandistic bullshit be a better statement?

[dutch508]

A printer and an inventor by trade, Henry Clay Work was also the author of a number of popular wartime tunes, written for composer George Root's music publishing house, Root & Cady of Chicago. A diehard abolitionist whose father was rumored to have worked with the Underground Railroad, Work's best-known composition is "Marching Through Georgia".

Our Jimmy has gone for to live in a tent,
They have grafted him into the army;
He finally pucker'd up his courage and went,
When they grafted him into the army.
I told them he was too young, alas!
At the captain's headquarters, they said he would pass.
They'd train him up well in the infantry class,
So they grafted him into the army.

CHORUS:
Oh, Jimmy, farewell! Your brothers fell
Way down in Alabamy;
I thought they would spare a lone widder's heir,
But they grafted him into the army.

Drest up in his uniform -- dear little chap;
They have grafted him into the army;
It seems but a day since he sot in me lap,
But they grafted him into the army.
And these are the trousers he used to wear --
Them very same buttons -- the patch and the tear --
But Uncle Sam gave him a bran' new blue pair
When they grafted him into the army.


CHORUS

Now in my provisions I see him revealed --
They have grafted him into the army;
A picket beside the contented field.
They have grafted him into the army.
He looks kinda sickish -- begins to cry --
A big volunteer standing right in his eye!
On, what if the ducky should up and die
Now they've grafted him into the army.

CHORUS

[Rebel Yell]

Marching Through Georgia (sometimes called Marching Thru' Georgia) is a marching song written by Henry Clay Work in 1865, referencing U.S. Maj. Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman's March to the Sea during the previous year.

It was widely popular with Union Army veterans after the war. However, General Sherman himself despised the song, in part because it was played at almost every public appearance that he attended. Outside of the Southern United States, it had a universal appeal: Japanese troops sang it as they entered Port Arthur, the British sang it in India, and it was popular with the Allies in World War II.

So much for re-writing history...

Oh, I'm a good ol rebel,
Now thats just what I am,
And for this yankee nation,
I do not give a damn.
I'm glad I fought again'er,
I only wished we won.
I aint asked any pardon for anything I've done.

I hates the yankee nation and eveything they do.
I hates the declaration of independence, too.
I hates the glorious union, tis' dripping with our blood.
I hates the striped banner, and fit it all I could

I rode with Robert E. Lee,
For three years, thereabout.
Got wounded in four places,
And I starved at point lookout.
I cotch' the Roomatism a
Campin' in the snow.
But I killed a chance of Yankees
And I'd like to kill some more.

Three hundred thousand Yankees
Is stiff in southern dust.
We got three hundred thousand
Before they conquered us
They died of Southern Fever
And southern steel and shot
I wish there were three million
Instead of what we got.
I can't pick up my musket
And fight 'um down no more
But I ain't gonna love 'um
Now that is certain sure
And I don't want no pardon
For what I was and am
I won't be reconstruted
And I do not give a damn

Oh, I'm a good old rebel,
Now thats just what I am,
And for this yankee nation,
I do no give a damn.
I'm glad I fought again'er,
I only wished we won.
I aint asked any pardon for anything I've done.
I aint asked any pardon for anything I've done.

[dutch508]

Always liked that one, reb.

[Rebel Yell]

Always liked that one, reb.

I got it on CD.  Really is a moving song.  More so since it's coming from a defeated soldiers point of view.

[dutch508]

Who was the guy, Billy Horton?, who put out a bunch of albums one civil war songs. A set on confederate and one on union ones.

[Rebel Yell]

Who was the guy, Billy Horton?, who put out a bunch of albums one civil war songs. A set on confederate and one on union ones.

I'm not sure, this one is by Hoyt something or something Hoyt.  I could tell you if you hadn't asked me.

[dutch508]

Bobby horton, Homespun songs of the Civil War. At least three volumes for each side.

http://www.amazon.com/Homespun-Songs-C-S-1/dp/B0013M0658/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1206478697&sr=8-1

[overlord]

A few points to ponder:

Lincoln didn't like blacks.  He felt sorry for them, but he didn't like them.

The emancipation proclomation only freed slaves in the southern states, over which he had no authority.

President Jefferson Davis had already outlawed future slave trade in the south.

The south was well within their rights to secede

 

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Blacks fought on the side of south during the civil war also.

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:Ym8LSIMofrcJ:www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter021500.asp+black+members+of+the+sons+of+the+confederacy&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&client=firefox-a

http://www.scv.org/documents/edpapers/blackhistory.pdf

[Crazy Horse]

The actual results of the current war of Northern Agression by retirees

http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php?topic=4754.0

[DumbAss Tanker]

Well I think Southerners oughta be happy we let them back into the U.S. and then tried so hard to help them get along with all the newly freed Black folks. Plus there was all that urban renewal that Sherman made possible in Georgia.

  

Speaking of Sherman's Army.......

If the Republican party was so sensitive about racial discrimination in the post-war era it would not have sent General Sherman out west just three months after the war ended to commence a campaign of genocide against the Plains Indians. The very same army that had recently conquered and occupied the Southern states led by Generals Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan mass murdered Indian men, women, and children during the winters, when families would be together, with massive Gatling gun and artillery fire. In a letter to his son a year before he died (1889), Sherman expressed his regret that his armies did not murder every last Indian in North America.

Oooh, next tell us about Southern hero Old Hickory and the expulsion of the Cherokees from the Democracy- and Constitution-loving Southland after the INDIANS won in the Supreme Court, Uncle McBragg!

 

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Y'all can snivel all you want but the declarations of secession say the southern states seceded over slavery because those wretched abolitionists were preaching about it in church and printing newspaper articles.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/geosec.htm

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/missec.htm

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/scarsec.htm

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/texsec.htm

*GASP!*

How dare those terrible nti-slavery people use their 1 amendment rights to constitutionally overturn slavery through legislative redress!!!

Be proud of your supposed southern heroes (even I have a soft spot for Lee and Jackson); I'm sure their are Japs alive today that are proud of their grnadparents. However, this notion that the vanquished are entitled to their flags or that the war was a clarion call against bloated government is fallacious (see links above) and James Madison, who might just know a thing or two about the intent if the constitution notes that secession is not an explicit or implicit right:

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch3s14.html

Spare me the theories and romanticizing.

BTW - Thomas DiLorenzo is a Lew Rockwell-posting hack who refers to those he disagrees with as "neocons" and cites The Disquisition of Government as a seminal work on the basis of government...despite the fact it lays its moral foundation on white supremacy based on white civilization's invention of steam power and and guns in resisting the rebuffs of non-white societies.

[Rebel]

There were two slave-holding states that fought against the South. **** the reason the South seceded, which was their right to do so, what was the reason the North invaded, Rabbit? Damn sure wasn't slavery.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

There were two slave-holding states that fought against the South. **** the reason the South seceded, which was their right to do so, what was the reason the North invaded, Rabbit? Damn sure wasn't slavery.

Those two states gave up their slaves when abolition became a fact...they didn't take up arms because they were on the losing side of a legislative agenda. See?

No, there is no right to secede just because you lose a legislative contest. I refer you again to Madison. The protestations of fighting for rights rings hollow because the African slaves more than anyone fulfilled the definition of people oppressed by tyrannical government. Tell me they had a right to take up arms and I might start to believe in the sincerity of the so-called states' rights movement. Yet, abolition was centered on legislative redress using the constitutionally guaranteed rights of religion and free press...a thing the declarations of secession complain about bitterly.

The North fought to preserve the Union from an unlawful dissolution.

[Rebel]

There were two slave-holding states that fought against the South. **** the reason the South seceded, which was their right to do so, what was the reason the North invaded, Rabbit? Damn sure wasn't slavery.

Those two states gave up their slaves when abolition became a fact...they didn't take up arms because they were on the losing side of a legislative agenda. See?

No, there is no right to secede just because you lose a legislative contest. I refer you again to Madison. The protestations of fighting for rights rings hollow because the African slaves more than anyone fulfilled the definition of people oppressed by tyrannical government. Tell me they had a right to take up arms and I might start to believe in the sincerity of the so-called states' rights movement. Yet, abolition was centered on legislative redress using the constitutionally guaranteed rights of religion and free press...a thing the declarations of secession complain about bitterly.

The North fought to preserve the Union from an unlawful dissolution.

First off, a few states seceding LAWFULLY does not make the dissolution of the Union. The Union would still be intact, minus a few states. Secondly, those states in the North that had slaves didn't see them free until one year after the Civil War ended....in 1866. Hence the war to end slavery is a myth. It was only a byproduct. It was used to get the abolitionists on board, even though they didn't comprise a majority anyway.

As for secession being a right, it most certainly was a right. The Union was entered into voluntarily thus exiting was also voluntary so given that the Union wasn't acting in the best interest of the States. As for the Madison situation, I'm assuming you're referring to Texas? It's completely a different scenario as Texas was, at one point, it's own country. ...but if you want to go down that road....I'm game.

[djones520]

So the South illegally attacking and taking assets of the Federal Government is not grounds to attack them? 

If Germany where to attack our military bases there, kill some of the soldiers, and then claim all of the arms and supplies as their own, we should sit back and let it go?

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

First off, a few states seceding LAWFULLY does not make the dissolution of the Union. The Union would still be intact, minus a few states. Secondly, those states in the North that had slaves didn't see them free until one year after the Civil War ended....in 1866. Hence the war to end slavery is a myth. It was only a byproduct. It was used to get the abolitionists on board, even though they didn't comprise a majority anyway.

This is where revistionist cognitive dissonance kicks in.

I DID NOT say it was a war to end slavery I said it was a war by the CSA to preserve slavery and you aren't arguing against me you are arguing against the Declarations of Secession.

I DID NOT say the North fought to end slavery it fought to preserve the lawful bonds of the Union. For law to have any effect it must be obedyed even when disapproved of; you cannot declare yourself exempt from a law and write a new one just because you did not get your way.

Please have the courtesy to contend with my arguments as I submit them, and not simply re-writing them to your convenience.

Now before someone comes sputtering along lobbing strawmen the difference between the American Revolution and the CSA is representation. The colonies never had it, instead they were held by the whims of the king. In contrast the South had their place in the national legislature but the tide was turning decisively agianst them...as witnessed by their own admission in their declarations of secession. This would again make me pose my question to the dreamers in the day: based upon the principles of freedom and representative government would the African slaves have been morally and/or legally justified in taking up arms against their masters?

As for secession being a right, it most certainly was a right. The Union was entered into voluntarily thus exiting was also voluntary so given that the Union wasn't acting in the best interest of the States. As for the Madison situation, I'm assuming you're referring to Texas? It's completely a different scenario as Texas was, at one point, it's own country. ...but if you want to go down that road....I'm game.

James Madison disagrees...

I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession." But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy. Its double aspect, nevertheless, with the countenance recd from certain quarters, is giving it a popular currency here which may influence the approaching elections both for Congress & for the State Legislature. It has gained some advantage also, by mixing itself with the question whether the Constitution of the U.S. was formed by the people or by the States, now under a theoretic discussion by animated partizans.

It is fortunate when disputed theories, can be decided by undisputed facts. And here the undisputed fact is, that the Constitution was made by the people, but as imbodied into the several states, who were parties to it and therefore made by the States in their highest authoritative capacity. They might, by the same authority & by the same process have converted the Confederacy into a mere league or treaty; or continued it with enlarged or abridged powers; or have imbodied the people of their respective States into one people, nation or sovereignty; or as they did by a mixed form make them one people, nation, or sovereignty, for certain purposes, and not so for others.

The Constitution of the U.S. being established by a Competent authority, by that of the sovereign people of the several States who were the parties to it, it remains only to inquire what the Constitution is; and here it speaks for itself. It organizes a Government into the usual Legislative Executive & Judiciary Departments; invests it with specified powers, leaving others to the parties to the Constitution; it makes the Government like other Governments to operate directly on the people; places at its Command the needful Physical means of executing its powers; and finally proclaims its supremacy, and that of the laws made in pursuance of it, over the Constitutions & laws of the States; the powers of the Government being exercised, as in other elective & responsible Governments, under the controul of its Constituents, the people & legislatures of the States, and subject to the Revolutionary Rights of the people in extreme cases.

It might have been added, that whilst the Constitution, therefore, is admitted to be in force, its operation, in every respect must be precisely the same, whether its authority be derived from that of the people, in the one or the other of the modes, in question; the authority being equally Competent in both; and that, without an annulment of the Constitution itself its supremacy must be submitted to.

The only distinctive effect, between the two modes of forming a Constitution by the authority of the people, is that if formed by them as imbodied into separate communities, as in the case of the Constitution of the U.S. a dissolution of the Constitutional Compact would replace them in the condition of separate communities, that being the Condition in which they entered into the compact; whereas if formed by the people as one community, acting as such by a numerical majority, a dissolution of the compact would reduce them to a state of nature, as so many individual persons. But whilst the Constitutional compact remains undissolved, it must be executed according to the forms and provisions specified in the compact. It must not be forgotten, that compact, express or implied is the vital principle of free Governments as contradistinguished from Governments not free; and that a revolt against this principle leaves no choice but between anarchy and despotism.

In other words: Unless the Constitution is annulled by the same manner in which it came about, no person or body may consider him/itself exempt from it.

That being from the pen of the man primarily responsible for writing the Constitution I feel secure in claiming its authority. You cannot simply igonore this authority and re-recite the theory that rebellion is an inherent right among the states. It clearly is not and was never intended to be as such. If any sub-group within the US is entitled to bear arms to carve out a section for itself and make itself its own law we would be helpless Black nationalists, white supremacists, international Marxists, jihadists, La Raza and any other group claiming to find fault with our laws so long as its majority was comprised of erstwhile citizens claiming constitutional authority to disregard the constitution (a most ironic hope).

[Rebel]

So the South illegally attacking and taking assets of the Federal Government is not grounds to attack them? 

If Germany where to attack our military bases there, kill some of the soldiers, and then claim all of the arms and supplies as their own, we should sit back and let it go?

If Germany demanded us to remove ourselves from their land, we'd do so.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

If Germany demanded us to remove ourselves from their land, we'd do so.

Apples and oranges.

Germany is occupied post-bellum and if we left it would only be because we are a polite people and no longer viewed them as a threat. If Germany was still a threat there would be no way the US would leave.

The South assented to a binding Union that could only be dissolved by the same means in which it was entered. The Federals had every right to stay where they were.

[Rebel]

The Declaration of Independence ~ Paragraph two ~ 1st sentence ~
WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

[Rebel]

Other facts many of you probably didn't know:

http://www.geocities.com/pickinwright/south.htm