Though about history, this post is relevant to where DEI may be taking us. Short read.

The very fact that the South claims the Civil War was a genocide means they fully realize their ancestors didn't know when to quit.

Can it be their officers had spared no effort in rigging the appearance of excellence in their academic career?

They even managed to pull off a few genuine victories before enough of the North started to pray for them.

Did the Northern Generals callously calculate to keep the war going? Or,

Did they simply realize it wasn't going to end until they paroled the Southern army, and let the officers keep their swords and sidearms?

Which would mean it wasn't a genocide but a condescension by the North to stop the killing (and perhaps, God forbid, the consumption of slaves). Despite the obvious fact that the descendants of the South would draw support from the apparent admission of wrong by the North.

Later generations let their ways corrupt the minorities and the white working class.

How is this at all about DEI?

Artificially inflating your abilities, identifying with someone you wish you were, may not be conducive to keeping one's feet on the ground.

Another possibly more important point is that our imploding submarines, exploding rockets, derailing trains full of toxic chemicals, prosecutors, and presidents need to run right. They are presently being treated as a gold medal for effort.

a reply to: Solvedit
In wars with a decent enemy, it is a common procedure to show respect to the defeated and to allow the officers to keep their side arms and swords. I believe that also can happen with non-coms under special conditions.

I find this post to be quite bigoted. You paint a very narrow and negative view of Southerners. Your generalizations are insulting.



.

a reply to: Dapaga

I find this post to be quite bigoted. You paint a very narrow and negative view of Southerners. Your generalizations are insulting.

not only that, in most of their south posts they demonstrate they don't have a clue about any thing to do with the south.
always some sort of bs about being pawns for the british, freedman men being trafficked, two civil wars, the royals put the south up to it, or some other nonsensical tripe.

originally posted by: CosmicFocus
a reply to: Solvedit
In wars with a decent enemy, it is a common procedure to show respect to the defeated and to allow the officers to keep their side arms and swords. I believe that also can happen with non-coms under special conditions.

Not necessarily so in revolutions.

a reply to: Solvedit

The Civil War was not a revolution

originally posted by: TheSemiskepticII
a reply to: Solvedit

The Civil War was not a revolution

I am going to cut out for a while and focus on the election.

May I ask what a Latino is doing speaking up authoritatively for the Antebellum South?

originally posted by: BernnieJGato
not only that, in most of their south posts they demonstrate they don't have a clue about any thing to do with the south.
always some sort of bs about being pawns for the british,

Where do you get pawns from? So no one draws support for their cause from the claim that the king gave you the land?

freedman men being trafficked,

It's "eaten."
I was concerned the freedmen had been eaten after the South knew it had lost the war and the slaves.

two civil wars,

The Rebel army may have had to deal with deserters after it got paroled and went home.

the royals put the south up to it, or some other nonsensical tripe.

No, not the Royals. They'd likely have been on the side of the former Tories (In America that term only means Revolutionary War loyalist, not political alignment).

It occurred to me that England and France had given the US quite a bit of land (or sold it for low cost.) Perhaps that was in exchange for housing some pirates and looking after them. Perhaps the other nations that ply trade across the Atlantic had maybe secretly paid England and France in an effort to reduce piracy. If anyone did this, it would have been commercial interests in European nations, not royalty, who are mostly not about representing the wealthy and powerful (unless the royalty are corrupt.)

Perhaps the US had agreed to allow some of these "English and French" to emigrate, then protected them consistent with what the English and French had said they were, i.e. the English and French hadn't mentioned the word "pirate."

Perhaps the pirates started to return to their old ways while mostly avoiding victimizing U.S. shipping. There was intense competition for land in the South. The big plantation owners were starting proxy wars in Kansas and Texas just to get more land where slavery was still legal. So there would have been financial pressure on small landowners.

Perhaps Europe couldn't officially complain because they hadn't been straight with the US. Perhaps the US grudgingly recognized they had an obligation to protect the world from its own citizens' crime and reinforced the coastal forts a little, while denying they knew anything.

Suppose Europe turned to flattering the South's ambition to deserve independence. (I mean the commercial interests, not the royals.) Suppose the Europeans then sold the South just enough weapons to hang themselves. If my theory is correct, then they probably knew better than to take those cotton bonds, but ate them anyway.

And so, the Europeans got the United States to reduce the people whom the Europeans suspected were causing piracy.

originally posted by: TheSemiskepticII
a reply to: Solvedit

The Civil War was not a revolution

Sure it was. They wanted to start their own nation with a piece of the United States. They had their own government and currency.

I have realized the real piece of proof that the war was not a genocide but first a word about why it's important.

I have known people to try to justify all manner of cheating including trafficking on the pretext that if they don't look really good and effective, there may be "another" genocide.

Now, the proof:


Sherman's March.

If they wanted to wipe out the South, they would not have cut off the supplies going to the Army of Northern Virginia. Because without them, the army couldn't keep fighting.

As the original post of the thread states, they already admit they know their generals didn't know when to stop.