by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Dixie Board

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .35363738394041. . .4546»

The Ghost Of General Lee wrote:]And the fact that his predecessor was one of my favorite presidents. (Andrew Johnson.)

Why him?

Republic of Dixie wrote:Well as for Texas, Biden is like botulism in your canned soup. I do know that he is not in the White House and actually not the President. Despite his actions filmed at a Castle Rock studios in California, he is allowed to have some play time. The fact that 25,000 troops still lock down DC is telling truth we are under military rule while the government sorts out the election fraud. Fact is Trump won 49 states with 115 million votes NY is the only one narrowly went for Biden. Trump decided to step down and work with military running the country until the Constitution of 1870 is fully enacted. The inauguration date is originally March 4. Biden doesn't have the codes, denied Pentagon access, no AirForce One he is literally a man put in our our government by foreign power essentially a take over much like the South experienced. The military is by constitution 1870 required to intervene in those events thus the fencing off of DC. The flag tells it... look at he gold fringe around the flag...it is required when we are under military rule... they all have it now, behind Trump and Biden but he has folded it back in some scenes you can tell so don't be fooled...he is not the president and will be arrested in days ahead for treason. This I know ;) Trump will be the 19th President or the 1st President of the New Republic. The crisis staged scenes and this media is all fabricated. They aren't reporting anything that is truly happening but all these major changes the corporate i.e. Amazon, world leaders stepping down, actors MIA, is all for a much more serious reasons than to spend time with family... we were in lock down and you spent time with family. Texas is running full force with Texit and will likely be voting for secession in Nov. at which timeline has exit mid 2022. full on media ads in Texas but the rest don't know. This may all seem a bit shocking to some but it's all very real and the news you see is nothing more that buying time...until the public can begin to understand the level of corruption we have been under. Lots of changes are on the way. I don't say things I haven't proven myself and some helpful insight from a couple sources close to the top that are friends. It's a great day in Dixie...with great days ahead *after some bumps :)

Lmao okay

New Vandenburg wrote:Why him?

Yeah he was objectively terrible.

Masonwoods wrote:Andrew Johnson was easily one of the worst presidents. He’s up there with Buchanan on terms of crap. Why?
I disagree. The South had lost the war by 1864. The North was simply too large, had too many soldiers, and too large an economy for the South to compete. The South had to win the war fast and before the North’s resources could be brought to full force and also convince the UK and France to support it. For various reasons, it failed on both counts. By 1864 the war was lost.

he commanded sherman he could told him to stop at anytime but he didnt the man encouraged carpet baggers and took our states from us

Masonwoods wrote:Andrew Johnson was easily one of the worst presidents. He’s up there with Buchanan on terms of crap. Why?
I disagree. The South had lost the war by 1864. The North was simply too large, had too many soldiers, and too large an economy for the South to compete. The South had to win the war fast and before the North’s resources could be brought to full force and also convince the UK and France to support it. For various reasons, it failed on both counts. By 1864 the war was lost.

also stonewall jackson if hed made it to gettysburg we would have won the battle and with it foreign aid from england and france

Confederation the South wrote:he commanded sherman he could told him to stop at anytime but he didnt the man encouraged carpet baggers and took our states from us

Good. I love seeing slaveowning aristocrats lose power.

Confederation the South wrote:also stonewall jackson if hed made it to gettysburg we would have won the battle and with it foreign aid from england and france

Nah, by that point England and France had both committed to not giving aid to the South. Gotta back up a few years.

Masonwoods wrote:Andrew Johnson was easily one of the worst presidents. He’s up there with Buchanan on terms of crap.

New Vandenburg wrote:Why him?

I can understand how Johnson would be disliked by a non southerner, in fact I'd be surprised if yall didnt dislike him. But he was there for Dixie when we needed him most. When the Civil war ended the south was in ruins and the government was almost completly composed of people who were not exactly fond of the south and wanted to punish us for the war.

But then Lincoln was shot and the lone Southern Unionist in the cabinet was promoted too the presidency. This understandably ticked off the Republicans, but was a much needed break for the South. Johnson protected us from the worst of the radical Republicans and possessed a degree of honesty and integrity sorely lacking in most modern politicians. He did after all reach where he got because he was willing too stand by his belief in a indivisible union, even when all the rest of his peers left for the confederacy.

Admittibley his term was mired by constant battles with Congress over pretty much everything, but what else can you really expect? He was a southern Democrat and former slave owner who took office after the most popular Northern Republican of all time was murderd...by a southern Democrat. Johnson was pretty much destined to fight congress from the first day he sat in the oval office.

Andrew Johnson may not have been the best president for the Unites States as a whole, but he was definitely good for the South. His presidency was like a consolation prize from God to the former Confederacy. And he did help mend the divide between the Southern Unionists and Southern Secessionists, which no doubt would have been worse if there was not a Lincoln Loyalist in office protecting the South from vengeful Yankees. So as far as I'm concerned, he was a good president.

Confederation the South wrote:he commanded sherman he could told him to stop at anytime but he didnt the man encouraged carpet baggers and took our states from us

Too be fair you cant blame Grant for Sherman's actions. Sure grant was in charge of Sherman, but it took a while for communications too arrive during those times and it's not like Grant could possibly know everything that Sherman was doing, his reports on the campaign were coming from none other than Sherman himself after all. And Grant had more pressing matters of his own too deal with at the time. So Sherman's atrocities are all on Sherman, Grant cant honestly be blamed for that.

The Ghost Of General Lee wrote:I can understand how Johnson would be disliked by a non southerner, in fact I'd be surprised if yall didnt dislike him. But he was there for Dixie when we needed him most. When the Civil war ended the south was in ruins and the government was almost completly composed of people who were not exactly fond of the south and wanted to punish us for the war.

But then Lincoln was shot and the lone Southern Unionist in the cabinet was promoted too the presidency. This understandably ticked off the Republicans, but was a much needed break for the South. Johnson protected us from the worst of the radical Republicans and possessed a degree of honesty and integrity sorely lacking in most modern politicians. He did after all reach where he got because he was willing too stand by his belief in a indivisible union, even when all the rest of his peers left for the confederacy.

Admittibley his term was mired by constant battles with Congress over pretty much everything, but what else can you really expect? He was a southern Democrat and former slave owner who took office after the most popular Northern Republican of all time was murderd...by a southern Democrat. Johnson was pretty much destined to fight congress from the first day he sat in the oval office.

Andrew Johnson may not have been the best president for the Unites States as a whole, but he was definitely good for the South. His presidency was like a consolation prize from God to the former Confederacy. And he did help mend the divide between the Southern Unionists and Southern Secessionists, which no doubt would have been worse if there was not a Lincoln Loyalist in office protecting the South from vengeful Yankees. So as far as I'm concerned, he was a good president.

I am from the South.

The Ghost Of General Lee wrote:I can understand how Johnson would be disliked by a non southerner

Speaking as a Southerner, Johnson was kinda the worst of both worlds.

Not loyal enough to his state and Dixie to join the Confederacy and fight for independence, but not loyal enough to Lincoln and his party to advance their causes when he was thrust into power.

Pro-slavery in a party of abolition, then he was ok with Emancipation as long as it didn't affect *his* state, then decided to support it as part of his political career. But at the same time he hated slaves, told a bunch of former slaves that visited the White House that they should move to another country, and opposed their gaining citizenship. He was ok with pardoning some Confederates at first, but his resentment of the aristocracy led him to initially refrain from pardoning generals and members of the CSA government.

Then after long-opposing the aristocracy, he started letting them have their lands back and letting them return to power if they came to him personally to ask.

If anything he just drew out reconstruction and guaranteed years of racial strife. It's really no wonder his term was a mess. He had some delusion that by being stubborn enough with everyone North and South he could make the United States the way they were before the war.

Masonwoods wrote:I am from the South.

Bull

Confederation the South wrote:Bull

Born in Texas, have lived there and North Carolina. Not bull at all.

Post self-deleted by Hartist scotland.

Hartist scotland wrote:I would make a good War minister could i be the war miniser of this region

We somehow have a Secretary of Defense and Navy so I guess we got our bases covered?

Hartist scotland

Hey Dixie could i perhaps become secretary of justice

Masonwoods wrote:

Born in Texas, have lived there and North Carolina. Not bull at all.

Than dont say we only had slave owning aristocrats in the south

Confederation the South wrote:Than dont say we only had slave owning aristocrats in the south

I didn't. I said the people who lost power in Reconstruction were former slave owning aristocrats, which they were.

Beautiful friend

Dixie wrote:Speaking as a Southerner, Johnson was kinda the worst of both worlds.

Not loyal enough to his state and Dixie to join the Confederacy and fight for independence, but not loyal enough to Lincoln and his party to advance their causes when he was thrust into power.

Pro-slavery in a party of abolition, then he was ok with Emancipation as long as it didn't affect *his* state, then decided to support it as part of his political career. But at the same time he hated slaves, told a bunch of former slaves that visited the White House that they should move to another country, and opposed their gaining citizenship. He was ok with pardoning some Confederates at first, but his resentment of the aristocracy led him to initially refrain from pardoning generals and members of the CSA government.

Then after long-opposing the aristocracy, he started letting them have their lands back and letting them return to power if they came to him personally to ask.

If anything he just drew out reconstruction and guaranteed years of racial strife. It's really no wonder his term was a mess. He had some delusion that by being stubborn enough with everyone North and South he could make the United States the way they were before the war.

Could you even say that Johnson ever was formally a member of Lincoln's party though? He lived and died a Jacksonian, and moreover, when he was on the ticket, he never called himself a Republican.

Reconstruction policy was obviously necessary; any alternative would have killed the Union at the hour of its victory. Whether individual aspects could have been managed better is a different question.

Confederation the South wrote:Than dont say we only had slave owning aristocrats in the south

The South was dominated before the war by slave-owner aristocrats. They obviously weren't a majority of the population or even close.
_

Anyone have any particular good reads about the Civil War era or about individual personalities? Read a biography of PGT Beauregard last year that I really enjoyed, have a Davis biography sitting on my shelf, and I'm currently reading a study/history of the 14th amendment. My issue is that I haven't found (partially because I haven't looked) for a "consensus" biography of Lee. I don't want to read a hagiography, but I'm worried that anything too modern will veer on a sorta lame attempt at idol-destruction.

Masonwoods wrote:

I didn't. I said the people who lost power in Reconstruction were former slave owning aristocrats, which they were.

I specifically said that took our state's from us I did not say slave owning aristocrats

Beautiful friend wrote:Could you even say that Johnson ever was formally a member of Lincoln's party though? He lived and died a Jacksonian, and moreover, when he was on the ticket, he never called himself a Republican.

Reconstruction policy was obviously necessary; any alternative would have killed the Union at the hour of its victory. Whether individual aspects could have been managed better is a different question.

The South was dominated before the war by slave-owner aristocrats. They obviously weren't a majority of the population or even close.
_

Anyone have any particular good reads about the Civil War era or about individual personalities? Read a biography of PGT Beauregard last year that I really enjoyed, have a Davis biography sitting on my shelf, and I'm currently reading a study/history of the 14th amendment. My issue is that I haven't found (partially because I haven't looked) for a "consensus" biography of Lee. I don't want to read a hagiography, but I'm worried that anything too modern will veer on a sorta lame attempt at idol-destruction.

Try Robert e Lee's biography

Confederation the South Please feel free to publicly tell me why I am being warned? Don't just telegram telling me to not "cause trouble" and threaten banning me.

Confederation the South wrote:I specifically said that took our state's from us I did not say slave owning aristocrats

The aristocrats stole our states from us long before any shots were fired.

Masonwoods wrote:Confederation the South Please feel free to publicly tell me why I am being warned? Don't just telegram telling me to not "cause trouble" and threaten banning me.

I'm getting telegrams from the region you were from saying you are only here to start trouble

Masonwoods wrote:

The aristocrats stole our states from us long before any shots were fired.

And voting rights were taken from all confederate veterans

Confederation the South wrote:I'm getting telegrams from the region you were from saying you are only here to start trouble

Must’ve been a while ago then, only region I caused trouble in was Cyngland and they deserved it.

Confederation the South wrote:And voting rights were taken from all confederate veterans

Which were given back upon swearing an oath of loyalty.

«12. . .35363738394041. . .4546»

Advertisement