En poursuivant votre navigation sur ce site, vous acceptez l'utilisation de cookies. Ces derniers assurent le bon fonctionnement de nos services. En savoir plus.

samedi, 19 août 2017

The Austrian Empire and the Confederacy


The Austrian Empire and the Confederacy

Ex: http://madmonarchist.blogspot.com
The American Civil War was the bloodiest conflict ever fought in the western hemisphere of the world and, as such, attracted a great deal of attention from other powers. Previously, I have discussed on these pages how a war between two factions of republicans actually had a tremendous impact on the monarchist cause in the Americas. Most of the ‘Great Powers’ of Europe had an interest in the War Between the States. The British Empire had an economic interest with southern cotton feeding the textile mills of England while the industrial centers of the northern states were major competitors. Indeed, only a few decades after the war ended with the north victorious, the United States of America surpassed Great Britain as the world’s largest economy and has remained so ever since. The tentative steps of the Kingdom of Spain to rebuild the Spanish Empire in Latin America, the French-backed restoration of the Mexican Empire and the French plans for a “Kingdom of the Andes” in South America all depended on the Confederacy being victorious due to opposition to all such endeavors by the Union government in Washington DC.

The northern states were also home to large numbers of European immigrants who had fled their countries after failed revolutionary movements, so there were many Irish republicans in the north who detested the British Empire and many liberal Germans who had fled in the aftermath of the Revolutions of 1848. The only ‘Great Power’ to be seen at least as supportive of the U.S. government was the Russian Empire and this was mostly due to the fact that Britain and France were seen as friendlier to the Confederacy and the Russians hoped to counter this such as when Russia sold Alaska to the United States in order to prevent it being added to Canada by the British in a potential future conflict. The Austrian Empire was not extremely concerned about events in America, having many pressing problems of their own to deal with at the time, but that is not to say that they were not interested at all. Although the Emperor of Austria, Francis Joseph, had opposed the whole adventure, his younger brother was Emperor of Mexico and thus his fate, and that of the Austrian volunteer corps sent to aid him in Mexico, also depended almost entirely on the Confederates winning their independence.


As also pointed out previously, the Confederacy was also greatly influenced by the style of the Austrian Empire. The uniforms of the Confederate army were inspired by those of the Austrian light infantry and the first Confederate national flag was inspired by the ensign of the Austrian Empire, both being designed by the Prussian artist Nicola Marschall. The Emperor of Austria also had his own “eyes on the ground” so to speak, in the person of Captain FitzGerald Ross, a British-born officer of the Sixth Austrian Hussar Regiment. He made quite a stir in the southern states with his waxed moustache and braided Hussar uniform, in fact he was almost mobbed by admirers after being persuaded by some Confederate officers to wear his full dress uniform, fur busby, dolman and all, for a ride with them. He witness the Battle of Gettysburg, then went to Richmond, Charleston and then Chattanooga, Tennessee where he observed the fight from the lines of the Confederate General Braxton Bragg. He also visited the Gulf coast, Mobile, Alabama and so on. Like many, he was very impressed by the Confederate military and, like many more, was also impressed by the southern ladies. He became an ardent Confederate sympathizer, even to the point of picking up a rifle and taking part in a battle during his long stay in the south. When Ross finally returned to Europe, no matter what bad news reached him, he remained confident that the south would ultimately win.

Such a thing would have, inadvertently, greatly expanded Austrian influence in the New World given that the establishment of a Habsburg monarchy in Mexico (or rather the ‘reestablishment’) would have given Austria a sort of foothold in the region. Confederate President Jefferson Davis was certainly aware of this and tried to enlist the Prussian observer, Captain Justus Scheibert, as an envoy to Emperor Napoleon III of France. He proposed a sort of Franco-Confederate alliance, pointing out that in the Mexican War (of which Davis was a noted veteran) the U.S. had defeated Mexico with only 12,000 men and that if Napoleon would lift the Union blockade of the southern coast, which Davis believed could be done with ‘the stroke of a pen’ and would ensure a Confederate victory, he would supply 20,000 Confederate troops to aid the Emperor Maximilian of Mexico, explaining that southern troops were adjusted to the climate and familiar with the fighting style of the Mexicans.

However, this, as we know, did not come to pass. Although tempted, none of the European powers ultimately were bold enough to risk war with the United States by recognizing the Confederacy (though Pope Pius IX did address a letter to Jefferson Davis as President of the C.S.A.). When the Confederacy fell, the effort to spread monarchy in the Americas quickly fell apart. The U.S. government dispatched an army to the south Texas border and warned the French to withdraw or face war. Napoleon, not wishing to see the enterprise be for nothing, hoped that the Austrian Empire would take up the French cause of supporting the Mexican imperialists. A further 2,000 Austrian volunteers (roughly) were assembled at the port of Trieste, ready to embark for Mexico and fight for Emperor Maximilian. It was, though, at that point that the Union government stepped in by way of U.S. Minister to Vienna John Lothrop Motley who went to the Hofburg and informed the Austrian Emperor quite bluntly that the U.S. recognized only Benito Juarez as the leader of the legitimate Mexican government and that if the Austrian troops were allowed to leave, the U.S. would consider the Austrian Empire to be at war with the Mexican Republic and the U.S. Navy would take retaliatory action on behalf of Mexico.


The expedition was thus canceled, the Austrian soldiers disbanded and the Austrian Volunteer Corps already fighting in Mexico was promptly recalled. Many had already been slaughtered at the Battle of Santa Gertrudis where, seeing which way the winds were blowing, their comrades of the Mexican Imperial Army had deserted in the middle of the battle to join the republicans. The surrender of General Lee at Appomattox Court House in 1865 had set the dominos to falling, the Austrians pulled out and shortly thereafter the Habsburg Emperor of Mexico was captured and shot, the Austrian Emperor then even having a difficult time retrieving the body of his slain younger brother. The Imperial House of Habsburg had had a presence in the Americas ever since Philip the Handsome and Charles V had held their Spanish crowns until the succession was taken up by the Bourbons of France. In 1864, however, another Habsburg returned to, he hoped, usher in a new era of monarchy in the Americas but with the fall of the Confederacy, it was inevitable that the Habsburgs would once again lose their place in the New World.

mercredi, 04 février 2015

Exporting Sherman’s March


Sherman statue anchors one southern corner of Central Park (with Columbus on a stick anchoring the other):
Exporting Sherman’s March



& http://www.lewrockwell.com

shermans_ghosts.jpgMatthew Carr’s new book, Sherman’s Ghosts: Soldiers, Civilians, and the American Way of War, is presented as “an antimilitarist military history” — that is, half of it is a history of General William Tecumseh Sherman’s conduct during the U.S. Civil War, and half of it is an attempt to trace echoes of Sherman through major U.S. wars up to the present, but without any romance or glorification of murder or any infatuation with technology or tactics. Just as histories of slavery are written nowadays without any particular love for slavery, histories of war ought to be written, like this one, from a perspective that has outgrown it, even if U.S. public policy is not conducted from that perspective yet.

What strikes me most about this history relies on a fact that goes unmentioned: the former South today provides the strongest popular support for U.S. wars. The South has long wanted and still wants done to foreign lands what was — in a much lesser degree — done to it by General Sherman.

What disturbs me most about the way this history is presented is the fact that every cruelty inflicted on the South by Sherman was inflicted ten-fold before and after on the Native Americans. Carr falsely suggests that genocidal raids were a feature of Native American wars before the Europeans came, when in fact total war with total destruction was a colonial creation. Carr traces concentration camps to Spanish Cuba, not the U.S. Southwest, and he describes the war on the Philippines as the first U.S. war after the Civil War, following the convention that wars on Native Americans just don’t count (not to mention calling Antietam “the single most catastrophic day in all U.S. wars” in a book that includes Hiroshima). But it is, I think, the echo of that belief that natives don’t count that leads us to the focus on Sherman’s march to the sea, even as Iraq, Afghanistan, and Gaza are destroyed with weapons named for Indian tribes. Sherman not only attacked the general population of Georgia and the Carolinas on his way to Goldsboro — a spot where the U.S. military would later drop nuclear bombs (that very fortunately didn’t explode) — but he provided articulate justifications in writing, something that had become expected of a general attacking white folks.

What intrigues me most is the possibility that the South today could come to oppose war by recognizing Sherman’s victims in the victims of U.S. wars and occupations. It was in the North’s occupation of the South that the U.S. military first sought to win hearts and minds, first faced IEDs in the form of mines buried in roads, first gave up on distinguishing combatants from noncombatants, first began widely and officially (in the Lieber Code) claiming that greater cruelty was actually kindness as it would end the war more quickly, and first defended itself against charges of war crimes using language that it (the North) found entirely convincing but its victims (the South) found depraved and sociopathic. Sherman employed collective punishment and the assaults on morale that we think of as “shock and awe.” Sherman’s assurances to the Mayor of Atlanta that he meant well and was justified in all he did convinced the North but not the South. U.S. explanations of the destruction of Iraq persuade Americans and nobody else.

sher4130-004-383D8192.jpgSherman believed that his nastiness would turn the South against war. “Thousands of people may perish,” he said, “but they now realize that war means something else than vain glory and boasting. If Peace ever falls to their lot they will never again invite War.” Some imagine this to be the impact the U.S. military is having on foreign nations today. But have Iraqis grown more peaceful? Does the U.S. South lead the way in peace activism? When Sherman raided homes and his troops employed “enhanced interrogations” — sometimes to the point of death, sometimes stopping short — the victims were people long gone from the earth, but people we may be able to “recognize” as people. Can that perhaps help us achieve the same mental feat with the current residents of Western Asia? The U.S. South remains full of monuments to Confederate soldiers. Is an Iraq that celebrates today’s resisters 150 years from now what anyone wants?

When the U.S. military was burning Japanese cities to the ground it was an editor of the Atlanta Constitution who, quoted by Carr, wrote “If it is necessary, however, that the cities of Japan are, one by one, burned to black ashes, that we can, and will, do.” Robert McNamara said that General Curtis LeMay thought about what he was doing in the same terms as Sherman. Sherman’s claim that war is simply hell and cannot be civilized was then and has been ever since used to justify greater cruelty, even while hiding within it a deep truth: that the civilized decision would be to abolish war.

The United States now kills with drones, including killing U.S. citizens, including killing children, including killing U.S. citizen children. It has not perhaps attacked its own citizens in this way since the days of Sherman. Is it time perhaps for the South to rise again, not in revenge but in understanding, to join the side of the victims and say no to any more attacks on families in their homes, and no therefore to any more of what war has become?

mercredi, 16 novembre 2011

Jean-Claude Rolinat nous parlera du Sud et des Sudistes au Local...

 Jean-Claude Rolinat nous parlera du Sud et des Sudistes au Local...


16:49 Publié dans Evénement | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : sud, sudisme, sudistes, etats-unis, histoire | |  del.icio.us | | Digg! Digg |  Facebook

dimanche, 17 janvier 2010

Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson were Anti-Slavery


Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson Were Anti-Slavery



By Chuck Baldwin / http://www.campaignforliberty.com/

Praise For Lee And Jackson

January is often referred to as "Generals Month" since no less than four famous Confederate Generals claimed January as their birth month: James Longstreet (Jan. 8, 1821), Robert E. Lee (Jan. 19, 1807), Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson (Jan. 21, 1824), and George Pickett (Jan. 28, 1825). Two of these men, Lee and Jackson, are particularly noteworthy.

Without question, Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson were two of the greatest military leaders of all time. Even more, many military historians regard the Lee and Jackson tandem as perhaps the greatest battlefield duo in the history of warfare. If Jackson had survived the battle of Chancellorsville, it is very possible that the South would have prevailed at Gettysburg and perhaps would even have won the War Between the States.

In fact, it was Lord Roberts, commander-in-chief of the British armies in the early twentieth century, who said, "In my opinion, Stonewall Jackson was one of the greatest natural military geniuses the world ever saw. I will go even further than that--as a campaigner in the field, he never had a superior. In some respects, I doubt whether he ever had an equal."

While the strategies and circumstances of the War of Northern Aggression can (and will) be debated by professionals and laymen alike, one fact is undeniable: Robert E. Lee and Thomas J. Jackson were two of the finest Christian gentlemen this country has ever produced. Both their character and their conduct were beyond reproach.

Unlike his northern counterpart, Ulysses S. Grant, General Lee never sanctioned or condoned slavery. Upon inheriting slaves from his deceased father-in-law, Lee freed them. And according to historians, Jackson enjoyed a familial relationship with those few slaves that were in his home. In addition, unlike Abraham Lincoln and U.S. Grant, there is no record of either Lee or Jackson ever speaking disparagingly of the black race.

As those who are familiar with history know, General Grant and his wife held personal slaves before and during the War Between the States, and, contrary to popular opinion, even Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation did not free the slaves of the North. They were not freed until the Thirteenth Amendment was passed after the conclusion of the war. Grant's excuse for not freeing his slaves was that "good help is so hard to come by these days."

Furthermore, it is well established that Jackson regularly conducted a Sunday School class for black children. This was a ministry he took very seriously. As a result, he was dearly loved and appreciated by the children and their parents.

In addition, both Jackson and Lee emphatically supported the abolition of slavery. In fact, Lee called slavery "a moral and political evil." He also said "the best men in the South" opposed it and welcomed its demise. Jackson said he wished to see "the shackles struck from every slave."

To think that Lee and Jackson (and the vast majority of Confederate soldiers) would fight and die to preserve an institution they considered evil and abhorrent--and that they were already working to dismantle--is the height of absurdity. It is equally repugnant to impugn and denigrate the memory of these remarkable Christian gentlemen.

In fact, after refusing Abraham Lincoln's offer to command the Union Army in 1861, Robert E. Lee wrote to his sister on April 20 of that year to explain his decision. In the letter he wrote, "With all my devotion to the Union and the feeling of loyalty and duty of an American citizen, I have not been able to make up my mind to raise my hand against my relatives, my children, my home. I have therefore resigned my commission in the army and save in defense of my native state, with the sincere hope that my poor services may never be needed . . ."

Lee's decision to resign his commission with the Union Army must have been the most difficult decision of his life. Remember that Lee's direct ancestors had fought in America's War For Independence. His father, "Light Horse Harry" Henry Lee, was a Revolutionary War hero, Governor of Virginia, and member of Congress. In addition, members of his family were signatories to the Declaration of Independence.

Remember, too, that not only did Robert E. Lee graduate from West Point "at the head of his class" (according to Benjamin Hallowell), he is yet today one of only six cadets to graduate from that prestigious academy without a single demerit.

However, Lee knew that Lincoln's decision to invade the South in order to prevent its secession was both immoral and unconstitutional. As a man of honor and integrity, the only thing Lee could do was that which his father had done: fight for freedom and independence. And that is exactly what he did.

Instead of allowing a politically correct culture to sully the memory of Robert E. Lee and Thomas J. Jackson, all Americans should hold them in a place of highest honor and respect. Anything less is a disservice to history and a disgrace to the principles of truth and integrity.

Accordingly, it was more than appropriate that the late President Gerald Ford, on August 5, 1975, signed Senate Joint Resolution 23, "restoring posthumously the long overdue, full rights of citizenship to General Robert E. Lee." According to President Ford, "This legislation corrects a 110-year oversight of American history." He further said, "General Lee's character has been an example to succeeding generations . . ."

The significance of the lives of Generals Lee and Jackson cannot be overvalued. While the character and influence of most of us will barely be remembered two hundred days after our departure, the sterling character of these men has endured for two hundred years. What a shame that so many of America's youth are being robbed of knowing and studying the virtue and integrity of the great General Robert E. Lee and General Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson.

Furthermore, it is no hyperbole to say that the confederated, constitutional republic so ably declared by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence of 1776 and codified into statute by the U.S. Constitution of 1787 was, for the most part, expunged at the Appomattox Court House in 1865. After all, it was (and is) the responsibility of the states to be the ultimate vanguard of liberty. Without a tenacious, unrelenting defense of liberty by the sovereign states, we are reduced to ever-burgeoning oppression--which is exactly what we see happening today.

Thankfully, freedom's heartbeat is still felt among at least a few states. State sovereignty resolutions (proposed in over 30 states), Firearms Freedom acts (passed in 2 states--Montana and Tennessee--and being proposed in at least 12 other states), and official letters (Montana), statements (Texas Governor Rick Perry), and resolutions (Georgia and Montana) threatening secession have already taken place.

Yes, freedom-loving Americans in this generation may need to awaken to the prospect that--in order for freedom to survive--secession may, once again, be in order. One thing is for sure: any State that will not protect and defend their citizens' right to keep and bear arms cannot be counted on to do diddlysquat to maintain essential freedom. It is time for people to start deciding whether they want to live free or not--and if they do, to seriously consider relocating to states that yet have a heartbeat for liberty.

I will say it straight out: any State that will not protect your right to keep and bear arms is a tyrannical State! And if it is obvious that the freedom-loving citizens of that State are powerless to change it via the ballot box, they should leave the State to its slaves and seek a land of liberty.

I, for one, am thankful for the example and legacy of men such as Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson. They were the spiritual soul mates of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. They were men that loved freedom; they were men that loved federalism and constitutional government; and they were men of courage and understanding. They understood that, sometimes, political separation is the only way that freedom can survive. Long live the spirit of Washington, Jefferson, Lee, and Jackson!

Copyright © 2010 Chuck Baldwin

jeudi, 22 octobre 2009

"Ballade au Pays de Scarlett": le nouveau livre de Jean-Claude Rolinat

gettysburg.jpg“ Ballade au pays de Scarlett ”,

le nouveau livre de Jean-Caude Rolinat…

Cinq questions à Jean-Claude Rolinat :

Jean-Claude Rolinat vient de publier « Ballade au pays de Scarlett»  aux Editions Fol’fer, dans lequel il évoque ce Deep South conservateur qui refusa la normalisation voulue par Washington et s’engagea dans une guerre dite de sécession. Conçu comme un abécédaire tout à la fois historique et touristique, le pays de Scarlett a trouvé en Rolinat un de ses meilleurs portraitistes. L’auteur n’a pas seulement saisi le cliché de ce Sud profond, il en a capté l’âme.

Catherine Robinson

Quelle est l’ambition de cette “ Ballade au pays de Scarlett ” ?

Au risque de paraître prétentieux, j’écris les livres que j’aurais aimé lire… D’autre part, s’agissant de celui-ci, j’ai dû aller onze ou douze fois aux Etats-Unis, plus particulièrement dans le Sud, et, à chaque voyage, je sentais monter en moi l’irrésistible envie de “ témoigner ”, d’inciter les gens à venir admirer des paysages autres que les merveilleux mais classiques décors de l’Ouest, sentir la geste, l’épopée d’un peuple qui résista de 1861à 1865 à l’énorme machine de guerre nordiste… De plus, dans nos milieux, il est de bon ton de confondre l’Amérique avec son gouvernement, de faire de sa pseudo intelligentsia le reflet frelaté du pays réel. Si le monde devait juger la France à travers les chansonnettes de Carla Bruni… au secours ! Il ne faut donc pas confondre le gouvernement fédéral de cette puissante thalassocratie forcément impérialiste qui, au passage, ne se nourrit que de nos faiblesses, avec le peuple de l’Amérique profonde, rurale, conservatrice, où les gens sont attachés, tout comme nous, aux simples valeurs traditionnelles. Et puis, “ les forts en gueule ” de l’anti-américanisme primaire, sans discernement, sont souvent les mêmes qui, jadis, étaient pétrifiés de trouille face aux chars soviétiques, bien contents alors d’avoir les GI’s de l’Oncle Sam présents en Europe. Cela étant dit, les temps ont changé, j’en suis bien conscient.

J’espère que l’achat de ce livre poussera plus d’un lecteur à boucler sa valise et à atterrir à Atlanta, à la Nouvelle Orléans, à Memphis ou à Nashville car, tout en étant un petit ouvrage historico-politique, c’est aussi surtout, et avant tout, un guide touristique.

L’Amérique telle que vous nous la décrivez est loin de ressembler aux modèles des séries télé américaines et encore plus loin de ce prétendu vide culturel comme d’un certain mode de vie envahissant (Pop Art, fast food…). Qu’en est-il réellement ?

L’Amérique est à elle seule un condensé du monde entier : toutes les ethnies de la terre s’y côtoient. Toutefois, les Etats du Sud font entendre leur petite musique particulière. Sans doute parce que c’est là que la vieille Europe et sa civilisation survécurent le plus longtemps. Et puis la nature, je ne vous dis que ça ! Des chênes d’où pend  comme des guirlandes de Noël la mousse espagnole, la vigne vierge qui part à l’assaut des fils électriques, des torrents bondissants et des chutes d’eau spectaculaires (c’est là qu’ont été tournés par exemple des films tels que Le Dernier des Mohicans ou Délivrance), des magnolias fleuris, des marais aux eaux noires comme la stout irlandaise où les alligators ne dorment que d’un œil… Les paysages et l’histoire, ainsi que les peuples qui les habitent et qui la font, sont étroitement imbriqués, indissociables, mêlant à chaque instant, à chaque coin de rue passé et présent. Malgré la malédiction de l’esclavage ou à cause de lui, Noirs et Blancs qui, comme l’huile et l’eau, ne se mélangent guère, sont toutefois parties prenantes de ces Etats américains à part entière et entièrement à part, inséparables, comme les bandes zébrées du célèbre mammifère africain. Quant au “ vide culturel ”  que vous évoquez, il suffit de franchir les portes de n’importe quel musée des villes du Sud pour tordre le cou à cette rumeur…

Parmi les multiples sujets historiques, vous traitez de Napoléon III et des Sudistes. Pourriez-vous nous en dire quelques mots ?

L’empereur Napoléon III, qui vérifiait ce que Tocqueville avait pressenti une ou deux décennies avant lui, voulait contenir sinon contrecarrer cette puissance émergente. Ce qui explique qu’il souhaita jouer un rôle d’arbitre dans le conflit entre les Etats qui, quelque part, l’arrangeait bien dans sa tentative de mettre un prince européen sur le trône du Mexique. Il informa le représentant de la Confédération, Sidell, qu’il espérait obtenir une suspension des hostilités. Une façon pour lui d’afficher ses préférences sudistes. Mais l’Angleterre ne suivit pas la France, la Russie non plus. Alors, il abandonna. Le gouvernement de l’Union s’en souviendra, en soutenant ouvertement Juarez contre Maximilien que Napoléon III avait imposé comme Empereur aux Mexicains. On connaît la suite…

Question guide touristique, vous nous indiquez, parmi les perles du Sud, une petite ville du nom de Madison à voir impérativement. Quelle est sa particularité ?

À elle seule, la petite cité de Madison en Géorgie, située sur l’Interstate 20 à l’est d’Atlanta, même si elle n’a pas l’ampleur de la somptueuse Savannah ou de la nonchalante et élégante Charleston, est la quintessence des villes du Sud : maisons antebellum de style victorien, antiquaires et végétation rafraîchissante. Et puis, c’est une des rares agglomérations qui échappa à la fureur de ce pyromane de général Sherman dans sa marche vers la mer…

S’il n’y avait qu’un livre d’écrivain du Sud à citer – hormis Margaret Mitchell –, quel est celui que vous choisiriez ?

Disons deux ou trois… Puiser au hasard dans l’œuvre de Faulkner bien sûr, avec son récurrent et mythique comté de Yoknapatawpha qui pourrait bien être celui d’Oxford où il vivait dans le Mississippi, sans oublier non plus Vladimir Volkoff avec ses Nouvelles américaines ainsi que Dominique Venner avec Le Blanc Soleil des Vaincus car, après tout, the South gonna rise again !

Propos recueillis par Catherine Robinson

Publié dans le quotidien Présent

Jean-Claude Rolinat, Ballade au pays de Scarlett, Atelier Fol’Fer, BP 20047, 28260 Anet. Tél : 06 74 68 24 40. Fax : 09 58 28 28 66. Prix : 26 euros franco.

NDLR : Jean-Claude Rolinat participera à la 3ème journée nationale et identitaire organisée par Synthèse nationale, mercredi 11 novembre prochain au Forum de Grenelle (5, rue de la Croix Nivert 75015 Paris). Il dédicacera ses livres.

Source : Synthèse Nationale [1]

Article printed from :: Novopress Québec: http://qc.novopress.info

URL to article: http://qc.novopress.info/6688/%e2%80%9c-ballade-au-pays-de-scarlett-%e2%80%9d-le-nouveau-livre-de-jean-caude-rolinat/

URLs in this post:

[1] Synthèse Nationale: http://synthesenationale.hautetfort.com/archive/2009/10/15/ballade-au-pays-de-scarlett-le-nouveau-livre-de-jean-caude.html

00:18 Publié dans Histoire | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) | Tags : livre, histoire, etats-unis, sudistes, confédération | |  del.icio.us | | Digg! Digg |  Facebook