EzraS wrote:
It is interesting that the left who say so much about the Confederate Army, the South and slavery, never seem to have much to say about the Union Army of the North committing genocide. Is it because there are many more African American voters than Native American voters?
And we all know there are so many more African Americas than Native Americans; it is because the Union Army of the North slaughtered most of the Native Americans.
Question: in mainly focusing on the crimes of the Confederate Army and the South, as abominable their slavery was, was it worse than committing genocide?
Utter gibberish.
"The left", and all decent folks left and right, talk about White genocide of the Indians all of the time.
Left of today speak of the Confederate army the same way that Union General Phil Sheridan spoke of it at the time: "I admire how they fight bravely for their cause, even though I think that its the worse cause anyone has ever fought for".
The confederate Army's whole reason for existing was to defend the institution of slavery. That is why some today say they should we now take down Confederate statues. Its the reason they were fighting. Not anything about how they fought that's being condemned.
Though that you mention it:
Rebel commanders did racially descriminate against Black Union POWs- execute them- instead of taking them as normal prisoners the way they did with White Union troops. That was an issue. Thanks for remining the internet world of that! Maybe the South SHOULD be condemned for that too!! ! Thanks for suggesting that Ezra! Mitch McConnel thanks you too!
There was an incident when the Rebels murdered three hundred Union solders AFTER they surrendered at the "Battle of Fort Pillow" instead of taking them as normal pows -did so because the solders were Black. There was shock around the world about that incident at the time. But the incident is now largely forgotten. Thanks for bringing that up.
You know full well that it's factually wrong (as well as just plain silly) to state the "Union Army of the north" did such and such to the Indians.
The army of the pre civil war unified United States representing both north and south conquered Indians in a constant state of war for almost a century prior to 1861.
And then for four years the US temporarily split into two nations (north and south), and both regions took time off from their common constant beating on the Indians on the frontier, to beat the crap out of each other in the civil war ( and did so on a much vaster scale than any fighting during the Indian wars).
And then after the civil war the re united single United States went back to marching westward and resumed beating the crap out of the Indians using its army recruited from both north and south to do that. And by 1890 (Wounded Knee) it was over, and the Indians were all subjugated, and there was no more frontier. You cant subdivide the centuries of treatment of American Indians by White America into north and south.
(You can nitpick and say that There was a Sioux uprising in Minnesota that happened to have occurred during the civil war, that was put down by soldiers- from just one region- the north- because it happened to be during the civil war. But that nitpick does nothing to support your point, nor do anything to change what I am saying)
Whites from both regions conquered the Indians. In a parallel universe where the South had won the civil war southern Whites likely would have acted like their idol and role model Andrew Jackson (a slave owning southerner) who as president defied the supreme court and evicted the Cherokee and sent them on the Trail of Tears. There is no reason to think that an Independent Confederacy would have been any nicer to the American Indians than Andrew Jackson .
Last edited by naturalplastic on 05 Jul 2019, 11:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
04 Jul 2019, 9:34 pm
