Really nifty maps here of Civil War battles. Similar to what you’ll find in a history book but in action rather than photos.
And Happy New Year.
Disingenuous white liberals will be the destruction of the United States. With their endless PC BS and need to destroy everything they inherited so they can replace it with anarchy, well it’s hard not to see why.
I was recently reminded of this when watching the tv miniseries, North and South. Being that the program was made around the time I was born I have never seen it, though I have heard of it. Been a history buff I recently picked up the dvd of the first ‘book’ at my local library and enjoyed watching it.
Connecting the dots, I’ll get straight to the point. In the series there is a character named Virgilia Hazard, played by Kristie Alley. Virgilia is an abolitionist, a strict one. She doesn’t care what has to be done or who has to be destroyed to get that accomplished. This makes her a somewhat embarassing figure to her Pennsylvania family as they share business and personal relations with the Main family from South Carolina.
It is Virgilias tactlessness that makes her a disingenuous white liberal of her time. Like those today she prefers to destroy everything as it exists to replace it with something else, whats worse is that that something else is a pipe dream based far from human reality.
If Virigilia were willing to put her hatred aside for a short time she would have seen that Orry Main was himself no fan of slavery and that his mere circumstance as a southerner was not reason enough to wish for his death simply because. Rather if she was a reasonable person, not influenced by what we today call cultural marxism, she could have affected the changes she sought without having to resort to war, violence, or the destruction of society as a whole.
Instead the DWL destroys the very thing that created them because they have such hatred for themselves. The typical DWL has never wanted for anything. Their lives are empty and meaningless marathons of consumerism, therefore in order to feel good about themselves and feel that their lives contain some semblance of significance they do the easiest thing they can think of. Destroy themselves in order to affirm the others. They can never accept to merely fix the system, to make the necessary adjustments to benefit the one party without breaking everything else in the process. No, they have to destroy it because they are damn fools. Their meaninglessness allows them to succumb to the simpleton ideas of social progress. Never does cold hard reality smack them in the face and say ‘look at these thousands of years of human history and scientific research reflecting it.
The Disingenuous white liberal is far more of a threat to America than any other person because they should know better.
It’s hard to condense 8-9 hours of film, but this scene perhaps best represents what I mean in this post.
The Syrian rebellion began two years ago. Protests against President Assad and his Baath party began on March 15, 2011, according to wikipedia;
The Syrian civil war, also commonly known as the Syrian uprising, is an ongoing armed conflict in Syria between forces loyal to the Syrian Ba’ath Party government and those seeking to oust it. The conflict began on 15 March 2011, with popular demonstrations that grew nationwide by April 2011. These demonstrations were part of the wider Middle Eastern protest movement known as the Arab Spring. Protesters demanded the resignation of PresidentBashar al-Assad, whose family has held the presidency in Syria since 1971, as well as the end to over four decades of Ba’ath Party rule
Being a rebellion of the people it took a little time to really get rolling but things got hot pretty quick as they are likely to do when a dictator is under duress. Still two years has gone by fast, not that Syria gets a lot of news coverage here in the States but I wouldn’t have guessed two years already.
Syria is most notable because it is the first major ongoing conflict in recent years with Arabs on each side. Most of what happens involving Israel has remained small and Libya and Egypt were over much quicker. Basically the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan(even though Afghans are Arabs) have been the largest conflicts in the area for the past decade. People tend to forget the middle-east is not peaceful even when there is no one else around to agitate them.
Countries from the middle-east tend to have weak militaries. They do this because they are worried about traitors and coups. Nobody wants that kind of trouble if it can be helped and one way to help prevent those problems is by keeping anyone from having to much power or influence over the military. This weakened military is not simply a problem because it’s loyalty is tenuous but also because their ability cannot be vouched for.
Put more simply Arabs do not have a notable fighting reputation in the modern world. Saladin would be sad.
America has seen this on display for some time. Both invasions of Iraq went like a knife through butter and Afghanistan was equally just as easy. Poorly trained, poorly led, and poorly motivated soldiers make a weak army. But this is not the whole story, the US suffered plenty of casualties in occupation compared to its invasions.
Does this suggest that Arabs are poor fighters but decent “raiders”. Arab armies can be swept away like sand but the population in general will harass and hinder for time after that with IEDS and ambushes. They won’t fight but they will be a pain in the ass.
That is probably why the Syrian civil war is still ongoing. They are too much of a pain in the ass and yet at the same time too limited and ineffective offensively to be able to win. They can’t win but refuse to give up.
When you see video like this one I saw over at weaselzippers, that theory looks credible. This may take another few years…
What is the likelihood that the United States could have a second civil war? The topic has been mentioned a few times since the election, though no discussion ever occurs on the matter because that would be too radical for most people. Though as a history geek it is a fascinating topic to think about.
The country is divided. Not north and south, but urban and rural. Not blue and gray, but blue and red. Liberals were disgusted by 8 years of George W. Bush and conservatives are horrified by 8 years of Barack Obama. Is that itself enough to lead to a civil war? Not likely, but of course that’s not all there is to it.
The country is more than just in disagreement. Essentially half the country feels threatened and persecuted. Their concerns are not without merit.
But could there actually be a civil war? I seriously doubt it.
While half the country feels chased I don’t think the typical modern American has it in them to do anything about it. Surely there are a great number of individual Americans who would be willing to do something, but the majority wouldn’t do anything.
It’s not worth the risk. Why risk their lives for freedom and what they think is the better way of life when they have a pretty nice life going anyway. When’s the last time they had to struggle for anything?
This is why we don’t see any revolutions in advanced and open countries. Sure, part of the reason is because they are advanced and open societies that they don’t induce revolutions but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t.
During the American revolution and the French revolution, the Bolshevik revolution, those countries were at the peak of moderninity. Modern is a moment in time, not a place.
Americans are too soft to rebel against their government. The hunters and gun owners who are listed as threats to the government are nothing without popular support.
Chris Dorner may have tied up the LAPD for a week by himself, so individuals can cause big acts, however without extended support they will likely not last all that long.
The American Civil War occurred not because individuals Southerners were upset at the differences with the North and decided to act on their impulses but because the states they lived in had those ideas and were willing to act upon them.
Civil wars occur because people have something they believe is worth fighting for and haven’t got much to lose in trying to get it. How many residents of Shaker Heights, Ohio are going to sacrifice their Lexus, single serve coffee maker, and primetime TV to sit in a foxhole and watch the perimeter for tanks coming up the Ohio river valley? Not many. It’s too hard and asks to much.
The United States will not see another civil war. It’s people are too docile and no change would be affected by small individual acts. A few angry people do not represent the entirety of American inertia. The only chance for something like this to happen again is if it followed the same path as before and it was a single state, perhaps with others following along, declaring independence and seceding. Then the question becomes, if Americans are too feeble to conduct a civil war, would they also be too feeble to drag a nation back into the union again?
You likely live a charmed life. Westerners haven’t even had to worry about the threat of Soviet invasion or nuclear attack in twenty years. Even before then things were pretty content. The occasional skirmish in Granada wasn’t anything to worry about, if anything it reaffirmed your feelings of safety, knowing that we could take the fight to whomever we felt necessary and that they lacked that ability.
Yes the postwar period was/is indeed a fine existence for westerners. There’s just one problem with it.
Nobody told the rest of the world. Outside the worlds modern-western nations nobody else has the impression that the world is at peace.
There were some significant moments. Korea was the first effort of the United Nations, and we know how thats turned out. Vietnam was the only other significant western war. Sorry Brits but the Falklands wasn’t too much of a challenge for you. And of course there was the cold war.
Looking at the rest of the world however is a different story. Government overthrows abound in Latin America and Africa while many Asian countries aren’t without their squabbles as well. Struggles and battles in the rest of the world have been of both the inter- and intra- variety. There is no shortage to conflict in the rest of the world.
Considering that, hasn’t it been a bit naive for the enlightened peace loving western leaders to throw down their weapons so they can more safely hug each other. Naturally there’s no need to arm your nation against a nation that is also not arming itself but what about the ones that are?
This week’s person of the week is Confederate General and Virginia native Thomas ‘Stonewall’ Jackson.
Jackson fought for the Confederacy, because he fought for Virginia. A home state being as unfamiliar as a concept to us today as is slavery. By all accounts Jackson appears to have treated slaves and blacks with the utmost courtesy and respect, largely stemming from his religious beliefs. However his overall opinion on the issue of slavery is less clearly understood. He did own slaves and seems to have not really opposed that institution but still treated his slaves better than most and a quote about Jackson says he was the black mans friend.
But it is not for being a gentemanly slave owner that Jackson is our person of the week. Rather he was selected for his success in military strategy.
Though Jackson was relatively unknown at the start of the Civil War, and only a Colonel, had he been more well known and given the overall command instead of Robert E. Lee, the Confederacy may have very well won the war.
While Lee’s typical strategy was to stand in front of the enemy and fight, Jackson was a master strategist who regularly developed plans of campaign as well as battlefield maneuvers to outwit the numerically superior Union forces. Having to fight under Lee however his plans were often neglected. General Longstreet is once reported to have said, “General Jackson never showed his genius when under the immediate command of General Lee.”
It was at Chancellorsville that Lee finally allowed for a plan of Jacksons to be implemented. Jacksons force split off from the main Confederate force and around the right of the Union lines. He found himself staring down the line of the Union force at camp. Jackson led his forces forward and routed the Union. Jackson rolled up the Union line to its center until daylight ran out and brought the days action to a halt.
However it was at this point, in the darkness around Chancellorsville that Jackson was shot, it is suspected by Confederate troops, who mistook the officers on horseback in the dark for Union cavalry. Hearing about Jacksons wounds, General Lee remarked, “I have lost my right arm” in regards to Jackson.
Jackson was shot three times and evacuated. His left arm had to be amputated and he died of pneumonia several days later on 10 May, 1963.
Following are some quotes of General Jackson.
Captain, my religious belief teaches me to feel as safe in battle as in bed. God has fixed the time for my death. I do not concern myself about that, but to be always ready, no matter when it may overtake me.” He added, after a pause, looking me full in the face: “That is the way all men should live, and then all would be equally brave.
Always mystify, mislead, and surprise the enemy, if possible; and when you strike and overcome him, never let up in the pursuit so long as your men have strength to follow; for an army routed, if hotly pursued, becomes panic-stricken, and can then be destroyed by half their number. The other rule is, never fight against heavy odds, if by any possible maneuvering you can hurl your own force on only a part, and that the weakest part, of your enemy and crush it. Such tactics will win every time, and a small army may thus destroy a large one in detail, and repeated victory will make it invincible.
The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
Don’t say it’s impossible! Turn your command over to the next officer. If
he can’t do it, I’ll find someone who can, even if I have to take him from
When war does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the
Then, Sir, we will give them the bayonet!
Bevin Alexanders book Lost Victories: The Military Genius of Stonewall Jackson is a good read for more information about Jacksons ability as a commander and strategist.