|View single post by BradAnderson|
|Posted: Tue May 3rd, 2011 09:52 pm||
but that's true for virtually every war. As Napoleon said, 'God tends to be on the side of the bigger battalions'.
If that wasn't the original intent, that pretty much admits that it was simply a mere impudently shameless strawman-facade of ruthless convenience, to prevent sympathy by other nations-- including those nations which had already turned Judas against the Southern states (i.e. Britain and France denying their express recognition of the separate states via the Treaty of Paris); and hence this Northern "superior-morality" claim was just so much typical Yankee hypocrisy to cover up their outright murderous actions of greed and evil, motivated by pure filthy-lucre desire for tribute from the product of this slave-labor that they later claimed to detest so much, just like King George taxing tea and other goods via the Stamp Act.
To wit from the US Declaration of Independence:
"He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.:
And so forth.
And so, this claim of "a war to end slavery" is just so much similar hypocrisy-- and was used by none other than the original authors of The Communist Manifesto to continue this propaganda to thus spark the beginning the "Red Storm:"
"The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world. "
-Karl Marx's letter to Lincoln
The International Workingmen's Association 1864
Address of the International Working Men's Association to Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States of America
Presented to U.S. Ambassador Charles Francis Adams
January 28, 1865
Indeed, this would be like the Allied forces of WWII saying "we fought Hitler to stop the Holocaust." (And don't think that they wouldn't do just that, if they thought that they could get away with it, and it would help their military campaign; however still, they didn't waste any time in using the Holocaust to whitewash the original illicit causes going to war by the Allied nations and FDR administration... and to smear any detractors as being "pro-Hitler"; it's also why the other nations' 100+ million mass-executions are ignored as "statistics, while the 10+ million German executions are shouted from the heavens as nothing short of Armageddon).
Nevermind the evidence that FDR deliberately attacked by Germany and Japan, well-prior to Pearl Harbor, while otherwise engaging in acts of war agains them, and likewise ignoring their pleas for peace... you wouldn't hear about it before the war-- and you sure as heck ain't gonna hear about it after, since the first casualty of war is always truth.
For indeed, even Aesop noted that "a wolf will use any excuse to kill a lamb" so Ben Franklin said that "democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch, while liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
And thus, Madison held in Federalist #46 that each state would have a well-regulated militia of 25 times the size of a standing army, in the unlikely event that some tyrant would rise to federal office and attempt a coup of violence against any state; however unfortunately he didn't reckon the ruthless audacity of polticians to twist words and turn these militias against one another for their own gain.
But even, for the sake of argument, if ending slavery was the North's intent-- how is this not a betrayal, if it means that the United States may invade any state, solely on disliking their domestic policy?
This would put the United States back in the Crusades, wherby the Knights Templar indeed claimed the power to make Holy War on other nations whose cultures likewise offended their own-- but even worse, since even the Crusades broke faith with no treaties to honor their ways, in exchange for promises of mutual peace and goodwill among them; rather, the North simply came to view these southern states as tributaries, which were somehow obliged to honor them with gifts of wealth simply to their good glory and greatness--again, as King George demanded of the colonists before they became states.
Thus, the notion of demanding such after they became states, is puzzling indeed-- as even more the fact that any can defend such today, simply because they can find a needle of morality in that haystack of contradictions (particularly since the so-called "free" people are consequently not free as they were before war).
When they say "the first casualty of war is truth--" they ain't kiddin'!
Last edited on Tue May 3rd, 2011 10:38 pm by