PDA

View Full Version : MLK Jr tribute



gator
01-19-2009, 06:41 PM
As some of the older members of CU know every MLK Jr Day I do some kind of fitting tribute to the great man. In the past I have discussed his legacy and his history. One year I even posted a tribute to the kind of food that Negroes eat.

This year I would like to do something a little different. Since we have a half Negro taking office tomorrow I thought it would be good to honor the Black Americans that came before him.

I searched around for a group of brave Black Americans that actually sacrificed for the Constitution to keep this country free from the tyranny of oppression by the Federal government.

I would like to honor those brave Black Confederate soldiers that fought against that madman Lincoln and his gang of Union Army thugs. The thugs that invaded America and killed American citizens and destroyed American cities.

First I would like to share a musical tribute to the brave Black Confederate Heroes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GVIAypsnh8&feature=PlayList&p=103B6D89BF1C19E4&index=45


Here is a little history if you are interested:

http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/bunker/1163/black.html#intro



Shortly after the surrender of Fort Sumter by Major Anderson in April of 1861, a company of armed, colored soldiers was seen marching through Charleston, South Carolina. (16)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A company of free black men offered their serviced to the Governor of Tennessee as soldiers. Soon afterwards in June of 1861, the governor accepted into state service all male persons of color. (17)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 1st Louisiana Regiment of Native Guards was a military unit composed of free black men. They were organized in 1861 and early 1862. (18)

Here is a past leader of the NAACP talking about his southern heritage and honoring the Confederacy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8hPo6mYnks&feature=related

God bless the Black Americans that fought for the Constitution at a time when the Liberals were trying to destroy this country.

Maybe the oppression we will see from Obama will encourage other Americans to stand up for what is right just like those brave Black Confederate soldiers did 150 years ago.


http://www.thesouthernamerican.org/files/blks.jpg

Lars1701a
01-19-2009, 06:54 PM
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b10/lars1701c/2s8lova.jpg

Molon Labe
01-22-2009, 01:00 PM
God bless the Black Americans that fought for the Constitution at a time when the Liberals were trying to destroy this country.

Lincoln get's way too much credit for being a great guy.....

Hope you've gotten to read DiLorenzo .. ;)
Great book. http://www.amazon.com/Real-Lincoln-Abraham-Agenda-Unnecessary/dp/0761536418

Ringo
01-22-2009, 02:06 PM
yawn.

more of the same.

Rebel Yell
01-22-2009, 02:32 PM
yawn.

more of the same.

Says the broken record.:rolleyes:

Arroyo_Doble
01-22-2009, 02:38 PM
Next time some home grown terrorists want to fire on American soldiers and American military installations, they will think twice.

Molon Labe
01-22-2009, 02:56 PM
yawn.

more of the same.

Hey I saw someone who isn't a Bushy apologist called you out to debate the Bush record and you balked.

http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?p=103256#post103256

then you find the time to make that B.S. comment here? :confused:

gator
01-22-2009, 02:56 PM
Next time some home grown terrorists want to fire on American soldiers and American military installations, they will think twice.

They were South Carolina installations. You may not know this but South Carolina was a sovereign state and had the right to evict any Northeast yankee terrorists they wanted to.

You must be talking about the left wing yankee terrorists that were sent to invaded parts of America and killed American citizens and burned down American cities, correct?

It doesn't really make any difference now that South Carolina and the rest of the Confederacy were right. After all the war is long over and the good guys lost.

What makes a difference is that we honor those brave Black Confederate soldiers that sacrificed to restore the Republic and the Constitution when the NE Liberals took over the government. Since you live in Arkansas I know you understand the tyranny of Lincoln’s filthy government.

We will see a lot of the same things with Obama’s filthy government, won’t we?

You don’t have problems with honoring Black Americans, do you?

Lars1701a
01-22-2009, 03:00 PM
They were South Carolina installations. You may not know this but South Carolina was a sovereign state and had the right to evict any Northeast yankee terrorists they wanted to.

You must be talking about the left wing yankee terrorists that were sent to invaded parts of America and killed American citizens and burned down American cities, correct?

It doesn't really make any difference now that South Carolina and the rest of the Confederacy were right. After all the war is long over and the good guys lost.

What makes a difference is that we honor those brave Black Confederate soldiers that sacrificed to restore the Republic and the Constitution when the NE Liberals took over the government. Since you live in Arkansas I know you understand the tyranny of Lincoln’s filthy government.

We will see a lot of the same things with Obama’s filthy government, won’t we?

You don’t have problems with honoring Black Americans, do you?

You didn't honor the blacks that were enslaved and helped build the south did you? on thats right you we're to busy beating them and killing them to honor said slaves.

Rebel Yell
01-22-2009, 03:04 PM
You didn't honor the blacks that were enslaved and helped build the south did you? on thats right you we're to busy beating them and killing them to honor said slaves.

The widespread beating and killing of slaves is the biggest crock of shit ever. Slavery was wrong, there's no denying that. I live in the south, where agriculture is still king. I have never seen a farmer beating his tractor, or combine, or peanut picker.

Lars1701a
01-22-2009, 03:13 PM
The widespread beating and killing of slaves is the biggest crock of shit ever. Slavery was wrong, there's no denying that. I live in the south, where agriculture is still king. I have never seen a farmer beating his tractor, or combine, or peanut picker.

Dont you think its a bit wrong to "honor" blacks that fought for the south while at the same time your own country men owned them? Please the slave owners didn't say to uppity blacks in the field "please get back to work, pretty please" . They used whips on them and not the fun kind of whips.

I am not saying southerners abide or approve of slavery but I find it a bit repugnant the way gator "honors" blacks that fought for his beloved south.

gator
01-22-2009, 03:13 PM
You didn't honor the blacks that were enslaved and helped build the south did you? on thats right you we're to busy beating them and killing them to honor said slaves.

I never beat anybody so you can just kiss my redneck ass.

I just want to honor those brave Black Confederate soldiers that fought against the NE Liberals that were sent to kill American citizens and destroy American cities.

If you want to honor other people then go start your own goddamn thread.

Lars1701a
01-22-2009, 03:16 PM
I never beat anybody so you can just kiss my redneck ass.

I just want to honor those brave Black Confederate soldiers that fought against the NE Liberals that were sent to kill American citizens and destroy American cities.

If you want to honor other people then go start your own goddamn thread.


BWHAHAAHAHAHAHA

you are so funny douche


Its called hypocrisy look it up, it fits you to a T. I know a dead horse when I flog one so take care bigot.

Tell you one thing Grant did a number on Atlanta.

Rebel Yell
01-22-2009, 03:25 PM
Dont you think its a bit wrong to "honor" blacks that fought for the south while at the same time your own country men owned them? Please the slave owners didn't say to uppity blacks in the field "please get back to work, pretty please" . They used whips on them and not the fun kind of whips.

I am not saying southerners abide or approve of slavery but I find it a bit repugnant the way gator "honors" blacks that fought for his beloved south.

Most people who owned slaves were working in the fields beside them. My great great grandparents owned two slaves, a man and his wife. They bought them because they were about to be separated. The slaves lived in the same house, ate the same food, and worked alongside my greats. Most slave owners were as good to their slaves as you can be to a slave. It made no sense to injure them, as they needed them to work. I'm not saying beatings never happened, but most people who owned slaves owned two or three and, like I say, worked alongside them. These people couldn't afford slave quarters and understood the way to get maximum work out of someone is to make them want to work.

Shannon
01-22-2009, 03:34 PM
Tell you one thing Grant did a number on Atlanta.

Seriously?

Lars1701a
01-22-2009, 03:37 PM
Seriously?

Didn't he burn it down? or was that Sherman bah who cares at least it was someone from the dreaded north :D

Rebel Yell
01-22-2009, 03:39 PM
Didn't he burn it down? or was that Sherman bah who cares at least it was someone from the dreaded north :D

BWAAAHAAAHAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:eek:

Yep, murder, rape, loot, and pillage. All under the order of the Great Emancipator.

Lars1701a
01-22-2009, 03:46 PM
BWAAAHAAAHAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:eek:

Yep, murder, rape, loot, and pillage. All under the order of the Great Emancipator.



Wish they knock it down again and build it better but then again I can say that for most America cities :mad:


On the serious side thats how to fight a war, you totally destroy the enemies will to fight not like today I am afraid.

I am done with this shit even though Gator was alive when the Civil war happened I am not going to go around and around with this shit. I can't fathom how you honor the people who fought for your way of life while in that life certain members of it we're slaves. :confused: (even if they were treated like kings)

Molon Labe
01-22-2009, 03:53 PM
Tell you one thing Grant did a number on Atlanta.

Grant owned slaves

Lee and Jackson did not.

Who's the hypocrite?

The War of Northern aggression was more than slavery.

Shannon
01-22-2009, 03:58 PM
The War of Northern aggression was more than slavery.

I love these threads.:D

Lars1701a
01-22-2009, 03:59 PM
Grant owned slaves

Lee and Jackson did not.

Who's the hypocrite?

The War of Northern aggression was more than slavery.


I screwed up I meant Sherman.


I know it was more then that, I just like tweaking gator's tail. He has the romanticized view of the south while never pointing out its faults. I think its wrong to just point out what blacks did for the army in the south while ignoring what the blacks did in the cotton fields and also for the economy.

Lars1701a
01-22-2009, 04:00 PM
I love these threads.:D

I did myself at one time. :D

Molon Labe
01-22-2009, 04:05 PM
I screwed up I meant Sherman.


I know it was more then that, I just like tweaking gator's tail. He has the romanticized view of the south while never pointing out its faults. I think its wrong to just point out what blacks did for the army in the south while ignoring what the blacks did in the cotton fields and also for the economy.

I can agree with that. :p

I've gotten in so many arguments with people over the years that truly believe the holiness of the Northern cause in the Civil war.

gator
01-22-2009, 04:09 PM
I love these threads.:D


I did not start this thread to discuss the Civil War. That has been debated many times.

This thread was started to honor the brave Black Confederate soldier that fought to perserve the Constituion and to fight against an invading force of NE Liberals.

I think it is befitting to honor these men.

Rebel Yell
01-22-2009, 04:12 PM
Wish they knock it down again and build it better but then again I can say that for most America cities :mad:


On the serious side thats how to fight a war, you totally destroy the enemies will to fight not like today I am afraid.
I agree with every word of that.



I am done with this shit even though Gator was alive when the Civil war happened I am not going to go around and around with this shit. I can't fathom how you honor the people who fought for your way of life while in that life certain members of it we're slaves. :confused: (even if they were treated like kings)


Our way of life was for the government to stay out of our personal affairs, unfortunately even the bad ones. Big government and high taxes were the reason for secession, not slavery. Slavery didn't really come into play until support for the war in the north began to loose traction. I hate to break it to you, but everyone on this site, except for Marvin the Martian, Ringo and their ilk, would side with the principles of the confederacy if it were to happen today.

Lars1701a
01-22-2009, 04:14 PM
I can agree with that. :p

I've gotten in so many arguments with people over the years that truly believe the holiness of the Northern cause in the Civil war.

The north and south we're made up with humans and humans tend to make mistakes. (yes even southern ones)

Arroyo_Doble
01-22-2009, 04:16 PM
I did not start this thread to discuss the Civil War. That has been debated many times.

This thread was started to honor the brave Black Confederate soldier that fought to perserve the Constituion and to fight against an invading force of NE Liberals.

I think it is befitting to honor these men.

Why in the world would they fight to preserve the constitution of another nation?

Lars1701a
01-22-2009, 04:18 PM
Why in the world would they fight to preserve the constitution of another nation?

Yes why is that gator?

Rebel Yell
01-22-2009, 04:32 PM
Yes why is that gator?

If your government decided to abandon the constitution, would you join a group that looked to form their own nation using the constitution as it was written? You don't have to answer that. I know you would. The constitution is bigger than any sitting president, or any elected officials. Without abiding by the constitution, there is no true American government. When the sitting government decides to trample on the constitution and it's citizens in the process, you must follow the constitution and not the jackasses in charge. Right?

Rebel Yell
01-22-2009, 04:34 PM
Oh, I almost forgot. Lars, nice avatar.;):D

Rebel Yell
01-22-2009, 04:41 PM
If your government decided to abandon the constitution, would you join a group that looked to form their own nation using the constitution as it was written? You don't have to answer that. I know you would. The constitution is bigger than any sitting president, or any elected officials. Without abiding by the constitution, there is no true American government. When the sitting government decides to trample on the constitution and it's citizens in the process, you must follow the constitution and not the jackasses in charge. Right?

I have to correct myself, it wasn't exactly the same constitution......

To gain an understanding of the Southern mission, look no further than the Confederate Constitution. It is a duplicate of the original Constitution, with several improvements. It guarantees free trade, restricts legislative power in crucial ways, abolishes public works, and attempts to rein in the executive. No, it didn’t abolish slavery but neither did the original Constitution (in fact, the original protected property rights in slaves).


And never forget the words of Thomas Jefferson.....

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Lars1701a
01-22-2009, 04:41 PM
Oh, I almost forgot. Lars, nice avatar.;):D

A bet is a bet...

Rebel Yell
01-22-2009, 04:45 PM
A bet is a bet...

Is JB still here?

Lars1701a
01-22-2009, 04:47 PM
Is JB still here?

I have not seen him. Oh I just accepted this avatar the original bet was for me to use that moonbat pic but I was good enough to use this one

I think we should let him off the bet.

Phillygirl
01-22-2009, 05:04 PM
I love these threads.:D

Me too! :D

asdf2231
01-22-2009, 05:39 PM
I think instead of refighting the Civil War we should just be grateful that Mr. Lincoln beat the terrorists so he could free all the black people and make the south safe for guys in wife beaters and greasy baseball caps to chase down and rape chubby white business men in the woods in between NASCAR races, working in their meth labs and monster truck rallys.


:D

*Runs like hell*

Lars1701a
01-22-2009, 05:42 PM
I think instead of refighting the Civil War we should just be grateful that Mr. Lincoln beat the terrorists so he could free all the black people and make the south safe for guys in wife beaters and greasy baseball caps to chase down and rape chubby white business men in the woods in between NASCAR races, working in their meth labs and monster truck rallys.


:D

*Runs like hell*

Dont forget the ability to marry ones cousins :D

patriot45
01-22-2009, 06:03 PM
Is JB still here?

He is back and wearing the moonbat!

gator
01-22-2009, 06:03 PM
Why in the world would they fight to preserve the constitution of another nation?


Lincoln was the one that abandoned the Constitution when he failed to recognize the rights of the States. He trampled on the Constitution when he sent an army of drafted thugs to kill Americans and destroy American cities. Many of the men that fought against Lincoln’s madness were descendents of the signers of the Constitution.

The Constitution is a whole lot bigger than the ramblings of a madman elected by 39% of the voters.

God bless the brave Black Confederate Soldiers that fought against the invaders and Liberal madmen of the NE.

Lars1701a
01-22-2009, 06:07 PM
Lincoln was the one that abandoned the Constitution when he failed to recognize the rights of the States. He trampled on the Constitution when he sent an army of drafted thugs to kill Americans and destroy American cities. Many of the men that fought against Lincoln’s madness were descendents of the signers of the Constitution.

The Constitution is a whole lot bigger than the ramblings of a madman elected by 39% of the voters.

God bless the brave Black Confederate Soldiers that fought against the invaders and Liberal madmen of the NE.


Do you think for yourself gator? or do you just spew passages from Larry the cable guys book on being a redneck?

Ree
01-22-2009, 06:08 PM
Lincoln was the one that abandoned the Constitution when he failed to recognize the rights of the States. He trampled on the Constitution when he sent an army of drafted thugs to kill Americans and destroy American cities. Many of the men that fought against Lincoln’s madness were descendents of the signers of the Constitution.

The Constitution is a whole lot bigger than the ramblings of a madman elected by 39% of the voters.

God bless the brave Black Confederate Soldiers that fought against the invaders and Liberal madmen of the NE.
How ya doin, ya crazy old coot?http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i310/ReeW/smilies/stick-1.gif

Lars1701a
01-22-2009, 06:09 PM
I am really beginning to wonder if Ms Gator cut him off and thats why he went crazy? :confused:

Arroyo_Doble
01-22-2009, 06:11 PM
Lincoln was the one that abandoned the Constitution when he failed to recognize the rights of the States. He trampled on the Constitution when he sent an army of drafted thugs to kill Americans and destroy American cities. Many of the men that fought against Lincoln’s madness were descendents of the signers of the Constitution.

The Constitution is a whole lot bigger than the ramblings of a madman elected by 39% of the voters.

God bless the brave Black Confederate Soldiers that fought against the invaders and Liberal madmen of the NE.

Just answer the question and leave Bill Clinton out of this.

Molon Labe
01-22-2009, 06:41 PM
Why in the world would they fight to preserve the constitution of another nation?

I think it's been answered. It wasn't the constitution of the U.S. that was rotten. It was the increasing power of the federal government over the states that was rejected. The fed put it's thumb down and many of the southern states balked.
Pure and simple self determination.


We should be determined to sever ourselves from the union we so much value rather than give up the rights of self government, in which alone we see liberty, safety, and happiness. - Thomas Jefferson


Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right - a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. - Abraham Lincoln
Of course good ol' Abe didn't believe a word of what he said....

Many states that ratified the constitution had clauses specifically addressing the question of secession before they would sign it.

noonwitch
01-23-2009, 11:01 AM
Gator, have you considered teaching high school history? Or at least occasionally guest lecturing? Your views might not be popular, but a good teacher is one who gets his kids to think. Presenting a radically different view than the standard one will at least get a thinking reaction out of most of the kids.

jediab
01-23-2009, 01:22 PM
Gator,

Your first post showed a leader of the NAACP and his southern roots. I can only imagine how badly that must have reflected on him with the Black community and NAACP mentality. You know, the usual crap The South is bad, the Confederate Flag is a symbol of oppression blah blah blah. That must have taken guts to do. Not for fear of them Southerners, but from the Blacks.

Molon Labe
01-23-2009, 01:39 PM
Gator,

Your first post showed a leader of the NAACP and his southern roots. I can only imagine how badly that must have reflected on him with the Black community and NAACP mentality. You know, the usual crap The South is bad, the Confederate Flag is a symbol of oppression blah blah blah. That must have taken guts to do. Not for fear of them Southerners, but from the Blacks.

I think that black man understands the distinction between "heritage" and what was "slavery".

jediab
01-23-2009, 01:49 PM
I think that black man understands the distinction between "heritage" and what was "slavery".

I am sure he does. Personally I think it's cool that he is displaying his heritage.

But I am willing to bet that not every one else thinks that.

gator
01-23-2009, 04:41 PM
Gator, have you considered teaching high school history? Or at least occasionally guest lecturing? Your views might not be popular, but a good teacher is one who gets his kids to think. Presenting a radically different view than the standard one will at least get a thinking reaction out of most of the kids.

The fact that "The South Was Right" is not a radical view. Back in the 1950s and 1960s I was taught that in the Southern schools. I was taught that the North invaded and destroyed the South for no other reason than the greed of the NE Liberals. Everything was put in the right perspective.

Just about the time I graduated in the mid 60s the schools in the South were desegregated and it became politically incorrect to teach real history. The Blacks and filthy left wing Whites wanted to demonize the South and the Confederacy. By the time my sons got to school they were teaching that the war was fought to free the slaves, or to “save” the Union or whatever, which was bullshit. It was wrong but it is what the Blacks wanted to hear and no White school administrator or teacher was going to rock that boat. Not with the militant Blacks willing to march at a moments notice. The lilly livered Whites succumbed to politically correct history instead of real history. The Blacks could care less about accurate history. As long as the South was demonized it made them seem to be more of a victim and they liked that. It got them more money.

I feel sorry for all those dumbass Americans that were educated since about 1970. They only know the Jr High School history of the Civil War. I guess the premise of 1984 is correct. If you wipe out written accounts of history and just print what the State wants you to believe then real history disappears.

By the way, a couple of years back I taught several college courses in Environmental Science. I did not teach the political correct bullshit about global warming and evil corporate polluters. I taught actual science facts. It was the first time the students were taught real science. I am not afraid of the truth and if I ever taught history I would be the same way.

Be aware that I don't want this thread to be a discussion on the Civil War. It is a thread designed to honor those brave Black Confederate Soldiers who fought to restore the Republic and the Constitution.

Arroyo_Doble
01-23-2009, 04:48 PM
The fact that "The South Was Right" is not a radical view. Back in the 1950s and 1960s I was taught that in the Southern schools. I was taught that the North invaded and destroyed the South for no other reason than the greed of the NE Liberals. Everything was put in the right perspective.

Just about the time I graduated in the mid 60s the schools in the South were desegregated and it became politically incorrect to teach real history. The Blacks and filthy left wing Whites wanted to demonize the South and the Confederacy. By the time my sons got to school they were teaching that the war was fought to free the slaves, or to “save” the Union or whatever, which was bullshit. It was wrong but it is what the Blacks wanted to hear and no White school administrator or teacher was going to rock that boat. Not with the militant Blacks willing to march at a moments notice. The lilly livered Whites succumbed to politically correct history instead of real history. The Blacks could care less about accurate history. As long as the South was demonized it made them seem to be more of a victim and they liked that. It got them more money.

I feel sorry for all those dumbass Americans that were educated since about 1970. They only know the Jr High School history of the Civil War. I guess the premise of 1984 is correct. If you wipe out written accounts of history and just print what the State wants you to believe then real history disappears.

By the way, a couple of years back I taught several college courses in Environmental Science. I did not teach the political correct bullshit about global warming and evil corporate polluters. I taught actual science facts. It was the first time the students were taught real science. I am not afraid of the truth and if I ever taught history I would be the same way.

Be aware that I don't want this thread to be a discussion on the Civil War. It is a thread designed to honor those brave Black Confederate Soldiers who fought to restore the Republic and the Constitution.

Start with the Articles of Secession and work your way to Alexander Stephens' VP acceptance speech.

Rebel Yell
01-23-2009, 04:52 PM
The fact that "The South Was Right" is not a radical view. Back in the 1950s and 1960s I was taught that in the Southern schools. I was taught that the North invaded and destroyed the South for no other reason than the greed of the NE Liberals. Everything was put in the right perspective.

Just about the time I graduated in the mid 60s the schools in the South were desegregated and it became politically incorrect to teach real history. The Blacks and filthy left wing Whites wanted to demonize the South and the Confederacy. By the time my sons got to school they were teaching that the war was fought to free the slaves, or to “save” the Union or whatever, which was bullshit. It was wrong but it is what the Blacks wanted to hear and no White school administrator or teacher was going to rock that boat. Not with the militant Blacks willing to march at a moments notice. The lilly livered Whites succumbed to politically correct history instead of real history. The Blacks could care less about accurate history. As long as the South was demonized it made them seem to be more of a victim and they liked that. It got them more money.

I feel sorry for all those dumbass Americans that were educated since about 1970. They only know the Jr High School history of the Civil War. I guess the premise of 1984 is correct. If you wipe out written accounts of history and just print what the State wants you to believe then real history disappears.

By the way, a couple of years back I taught several college courses in Environmental Science. I did not teach the political correct bullshit about global warming and evil corporate polluters. I taught actual science facts. It was the first time the students were taught real science. I am not afraid of the truth and if I ever taught history I would be the same way.

Be aware that I don't want this thread to be a discussion on the Civil War. It is a thread designed to honor those brave Black Confederate Soldiers who fought to restore the Republic and the Constitution.

Actually, my U.S. History teacher in 1992 taught that the war was fought over Lincoln unfairly taxing the south to pay for industry in the north. That teacher was married to a black woman.

Arroyo_Doble
01-23-2009, 05:05 PM
Actually, my U.S. History teacher in 1992 taught that the war was fought over Lincoln unfairly taxing the south to pay for industry in the north. That teacher was married to a black woman.

That is a seriously neat trick by Lincoln considering seven states seceded before he was even inaugurated.

gator
01-23-2009, 08:17 PM
That is a seriously neat trick by Lincoln considering seven states seceded before he was even inaugurated.

The thing to remember about states seceding is that after Lincoln announced he was going to raise a draftee army of 75,000 to kill Americans and destroy American cities four states decided to secede. These were states that first opposed secession. I guess after they found out what an asshole Lincoln really was they decided not to be a part of his filthy government.

Lars1701a
01-23-2009, 08:27 PM
The thing to remember about states seceding is that after Lincoln announced he was going to raise a draftee army of 75,000 to kill Americans and destroy American cities four states decided to secede. These were states that first opposed secession. I guess after they found out what an asshole Lincoln really was they decided not to be a part of his filthy government.

Well if they seceded then they weren't Americans but traitors and deserved to be killed.

gator
01-23-2009, 11:19 PM
Well if they seceded then they weren't Americans but traitors and deserved to be killed.

Yea right, opposing a tyrannical and abusive government is very un-American, isn't it?

That is just the type of stupid statement we have come to expect from you.

Molon Labe
01-24-2009, 09:36 AM
Well if they seceded then they weren't Americans but traitors and deserved to be killed.


That's exactly what the British said when the Colonies did the same thing.

Fixed


Well if they seceded then they weren't British but traitors and deserved to be killed

Lars1701a
01-24-2009, 09:44 AM
Yea right, opposing a tyrannical and abusive government is very un-American, isn't it?

That is just the type of stupid statement we have come to expect from you.

Calm down francis, funny thing douche that un-American government was freeing human beings your precious south we're holding in bondage. (yes yes I know there we're other reasons for the civil war)

I dont really dont give a shit what you expect dick. Aren't you old? please die thanks.

Lars1701a
01-24-2009, 09:46 AM
That's exactly what the British said when the Colonies did the same thing.

Fixed

Being a traitor is in the eye of the beholder.

Hey I just do this to piss off you south worshipers. I couldn't really give a shit about it.

Lars1701a
01-24-2009, 09:51 AM
Hey did you vote for obama gator? well he is a prez right up your alley he hates the jews to and will cut them off.

Molon Labe
01-24-2009, 10:00 AM
Being a traitor is in the eye of the beholder.

Hey I just do this to piss off you south worshipers. I couldn't really give a shit about it.

Hey...I live in the South, but I could give a rat's ass about Dixie, and the Confederate flag...I also know there are alot of South worshipers that have no clue. I can't speak for anyone else, but that's not where I'm coming from.
The Civil War is more about the Federal government trying to expand state power over the states than anything else.
When someone tells you war is about this, or that, (slavery, communism, terrorism, etc)....more often than not it's Bulls@!t. It was almost two year into it before the total "emancipation" of the slaves ever entered the picture.
It's difficult to make some believe that what happened during the civil war to the South is not something very "conservative" and it was a harbinger for federal control over states rights that we take for granted today. Statism is the cornerstone of liberalism...plain and simple


I know you're just trying to tweak. ;)

gator
01-24-2009, 11:05 AM
Hey...I live in the South, but I could give a rat's ass about Dixie, and the Confederate flag...I also know there are alot of South worshipers that have no clue. I can't speak for anyone else, but that's not where I'm coming from.
The Civil War is more about the Federal government trying to expand state power over the states than anything else.
When someone tells you war is about this, or that, (slavery, communism, terrorism, etc)....more often than not it's Bulls@!t. It was almost two year into it before the total "emancipation" of the slaves ever entered the picture.
It's difficult to make some believe that what happened during the civil war to the South is not something very "conservative" and it was a harbinger for federal control over states rights that we take for granted today. Statism is the cornerstone of liberalism...plain and simple





I agree. The thing that pisses me off about the Civil War is that was a time when Big Government won. It was a battle between the Liberals and the Conservatives and the Conservatives lost. Also, I get a little pissed when I see the demonization of the South in order to appease the Ebonics speaking portion of our population.

What I really don’t understand that if you go to Washington DC you see the gigantic memorial to the SOB that killed more Americans and destroyed more American cities than all the foreign enemies this country ever had.

Molon Labe
01-24-2009, 12:32 PM
I agree. The thing that pisses me off about the Civil War is that was a time when Big Government won. It was a battle between the Liberals and the Conservatives and the Conservatives lost. Also, I get a little pissed when I see the demonization of the South in order to appease the Ebonics speaking portion of our population.

What I really don’t understand that if you go to Washington DC you see the gigantic memorial to the SOB that killed more Americans and destroyed more American cities than all the foreign enemies this country ever had.

When people call Bush the worst president of all time, I can't help to think how similar his presidency was to Lincoln's and then how they fawn over him as the "great emancipator".

I took several courses by the great Civil war historian James Robertson.
I recommend his Stonewall Jackson biography as a good place to start for the indoctrinated.
Few Northern sympathizers question the authentic portrate of Jackson found in this book. Historians have made ample efforts to demonize Lee and Jackson as simple racists defending a racist cause, but it just isn't so.
Didn't Lee resign his federal commission before the war because his loyalty was to his state over the union?

megimoo
01-24-2009, 01:05 PM
I agree. The thing that pisses me off about the Civil War is that was a time when Big Government won. It was a battle between the Liberals and the Conservatives and the Conservatives lost. Also, I get a little pissed when I see the demonization of the South in order to appease the Ebonics speaking portion of our population.

What I really don’t understand that if you go to Washington DC you see the gigantic memorial to the SOB that killed more Americans and destroyed more American cities than all the foreign enemies this country ever had.

There seems to be a lot of forced symbolism between Obama and Lincoln. Do you think that he is trying to tell us something ?

The power of the Federal Government over the States has been a bone of contention .The founders saw the original source of all power being the states acting in harmony through the house of Representatives !

Even though things were already coming to a head, when Lincoln was elected in 1860, South Carolina issued its “Declaration of the Causes of Secession.” They believed that Lincoln was anti-slavery and in favor of Northern interests.

"Before Lincoln was even president, seven states had seceded from the Union: South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas."
.........................................
I sometimes wonder if Obamas mission isn't to destabilize America enough to cause another rebellion and break up this great nation .

That certainly would confort Soros and the rest of Obama's bankers who could then pluck the spoils and leave us as a much weaker people !


Remember György Schwartz/Soros has a past history of destabilizing a nation usually through currency manipulation and economic upheavals in order to reap vast profits.He did it to the pound sterling in the UK and Thai Baht almost destroying Thailands banking system .Soros is famously known for "breaking the Bank of England" on Black Wednesday in 1992. With an estimated current net worth of around $9 billion, he is ranked by Forbes as the 99th-richest person in the world.

On Black Wednesday (September 16, 1992), Soros became immediately famous when he sold short more than $10 billion worth of pounds, profiting from the Bank of England's reluctance to either raise its interest rates to levels comparable to those of other European Exchange Rate Mechanism countries or to float its currency.

"George Soros has made his mark as an enormously successful speculator, wise enough to largely withdraw when still way ahead of the game. The bulk of his enormous winnings is now devoted to encouraging transitional and emerging nations to become 'open societies,' open not only in the sense of freedom of commerce but—more important—tolerant of new ideas and different modes of thinking and behavior."

Soros has allready been able to pickup up a major US mortgage bank with the help of N.Y. Sen.Shummer's letter that was leaked to the public warning about IndiMacs financial condition and caused a run and the subsequent bank failure."A seven-member investor group including billionaire George Soros and Dell Inc. founder Michael Dell have agreed to purchase failed lender IndyMac Bank, one of the largest casualties of the housing bust, for $13.9 billion."Standard Soros Mode of operation ."

SarasotaRepub
01-24-2009, 08:17 PM
Calm down francis, funny thing douche that un-American government was freeing human beings your precious south we're holding in bondage. (yes yes I know there we're other reasons for the civil war)

I dont really dont give a shit what you expect dick. Aren't you old? please die thanks.

Calm down.

Arroyo_Doble
01-24-2009, 08:50 PM
Look, I understand the revisionist unreconstructed Confederates buying into the "other reasons than slavery for the War Between the States." That bullshit started before the ink was dry at Appomattox. But rational people shouldn't fall for it. Slavery was THE reason for the war. The ONLY reason for the war. Without it, the war doesn't happen. Period.

So let those guys romanticize the CSA and the antibellum south and live with thier delusions about it being all about taxes or some other fantasy. But don't let them suck you into that delusion.

gator
01-25-2009, 09:04 AM
Look, I understand the revisionist unreconstructed Confederates buying into the "other reasons than slavery for the War Between the States." That bullshit started before the ink was dry at Appomattox. But rational people shouldn't fall for it. Slavery was THE reason for the war. The ONLY reason for the war. Without it, the war doesn't happen. Period.

So let those guys romanticize the CSA and the antibellum south and live with thier delusions about it being all about taxes or some other fantasy. But don't let them suck you into that delusion.

There is no "romance" to the killing of over a million Americans. I don't think very many people were thinking romance thoughts as the Union Army was burning down American cities and killing American children.

The real crime of revisionism is the way the winners spun the victory for the North.

There was never a need for the war. There was never a reason for Lincoln to invade the South and kill Americans. It was the act of a madman and it caused the deaths of over a million people. After the war the filthy Unionist needed to put a spin of the war and develop some kind of moral justification for the killing.

When the war first started the justification was “save the Union”, which was bullshit. You don’t save a country by killing a million of its people and destroying scores of cities. That is a justification that somebody like Saddam would use to justify genocide.

Later on, after many Union losses and the need to get Blacks into the army Lincoln changed his reason. Now it was “we put a stop to the slavery of those poor Black people”. Of course when you look at the real facts of slavery you begin to understand the Union had no moral high ground and that the war was really caused by greedy NE Liberals trying to control the wealth of the South through government. That is why the South was so pissed at the election of Lincoln because he was a tool for the greed and ran on a platform to facilitate big government.

The real revisionism is the 140 years of justification by the winners for an immoral war. The real facts of the Civil War are not that hard to discover if a person is willing to get their head out of their ass for two seconds. I don’t think the schools in America has the guts to teach real history.

Can you imagine the uproar from the Black community if a school system actually tried to teach the real history of the cause of the war? The Blacks only want to hear one thing; “Southern Whites are the Devil”. That facilitates their claim to being victims and they like it like that.

Lars1701a
01-25-2009, 10:07 AM
There is no "romance" to the killing of over a million Americans. I don't think very many people were thinking romance thoughts as the Union Army was burning down American cities and killing American children.

The real crime of revisionism is the way the winners spun the victory for the North.

There was never a need for the war. There was never a reason for Lincoln to invade the South and kill Americans. It was the act of a madman and it caused the deaths of over a million people. After the war the filthy Unionist needed to put a spin of the war and develop some kind of moral justification for the killing.

When the war first started the justification was “save the Union”, which was bullshit. You don’t save a country by killing a million of its people and destroying scores of cities. That is a justification that somebody like Saddam would use to justify genocide.

Later on, after many Union losses and the need to get Blacks into the army Lincoln changed his reason. Now it was “we put a stop to the slavery of those poor Black people”. Of course when you look at the real facts of slavery you begin to understand the Union had no moral high ground and that the war was really caused by greedy NE Liberals trying to control the wealth of the South through government. That is why the South was so pissed at the election of Lincoln because he was a tool for the greed and ran on a platform to facilitate big government.

The real revisionism is the 140 years of justification by the winners for an immoral war. The real facts of the Civil War are not that hard to discover if a person is willing to get their head out of their ass for two seconds. I don’t think the schools in America has the guts to teach real history.

Can you imagine the uproar from the Black community if a school system actually tried to teach the real history of the cause of the war? The Blacks only want to hear one thing; “Southern Whites are the Devil”. That facilitates their claim to being victims and they like it like that.


For the Love of God give it a rest gator you are the only douche bag I know that can beat a dead horse so completely. No one cares, the south is going nowhere and you just make yourself look like a tool. (already done I know)

Phillygirl
01-25-2009, 10:14 AM
For the Love of God give it a rest gator you are the only douche bag I know that can beat a dead horse so completely. No one cares, the south is going nowhere and you just make yourself look like a tool. (already done I know)

Speak for yourself. A lot of people enjoy these annual Civil War re-engagements. The More You Know....and all that...

Lars1701a
01-25-2009, 10:19 AM
Speak for yourself. A lot of people enjoy these annual Civil War re-engagements. The More You Know....and all that...

You know thats not what I am talking about. I know a lot of civil war re-enactors but none are so poisoned by a mis belief as gator is.

Phillygirl
01-25-2009, 11:43 AM
You know thats not what I am talking about. I know a lot of civil war re-enactors but none are so poisoned by a mis belief as gator is.

I don't know many re-enactors (in fact, I only know 1, vaguely...I think they're a bit weird, but that's my own bias). But I do know several people who share Gator's view that the Civil War was not really about slavery. Substitute abortion for slavery, have some states secede on the basis of the federal government imposing its views on the topic, and then tell me that such a war is all about abortion.

Goldwater
01-25-2009, 11:59 AM
I don't know many re-enactors (in fact, I only know 1, vaguely...I think they're a bit weird, but that's my own bias). But I do know several people who share Gator's view that the Civil War was not really about slavery. Substitute abortion for slavery, have some states secede on the basis of the federal government imposing its views on the topic, and then tell me that such a war is all about abortion.

I mean technically slavery was part of the bigger issue of federal intervention.

Phillygirl
01-25-2009, 12:02 PM
I mean technically slavery was part of the bigger issue of federal intervention.

I agree. Slavery was part of the issues, it was not the whole issue.

But I don't get into these disputes, as those that do know a heck of a lot more about the War than I do. I just always find it interesting when the CU Civil War Threads go on. I have to admit, prior to coming here, I'd heard only the "Northern" version. Since that time, I've visited Gettysburg several times and have done some reading on the topic (again, not nearly as much as those that get involved in these threads). I find the different viewpoints very interesting and educational.

gator
01-25-2009, 12:13 PM
I don't know many re-enactors (in fact, I only know 1, vaguely...I think they're a bit weird, but that's my own bias). But I do know several people who share Gator's view that the Civil War was not really about slavery. Substitute abortion for slavery, have some states secede on the basis of the federal government imposing its views on the topic, and then tell me that such a war is all about abortion.

If we had a Civil War now there would be some issue that sparked the conflict. The issue could be abortion or redistribution of wealth or confiscation of firearms or whatever. However, the real cause of the war would be division between the Left and the Right. Those people that support Constitutional freedoms against those people that oppose Constitutional freedoms. If the Liberals won the war they would write history books saying that the poor women of America were saved by brave Union forces against the evil doers that wanted to take away a woman’s right to choose.

The Civil War was no more about the moral issues of slavery than the Revolutionary War was about taxation without representation. By the way, the South had a very large anti slavery movement but you never see that in any Jr High School history book.

The Liberals like to use the issue of slavery because it demonizes the South. That way modern day Blacks are viewed as victims and the Liberals are viewed as the saviors. The big Federal government did away with such a horrific institution as slavery so therefore they should be empowered to right other wrongs like national health care or inequity of income. The myth that a million people died so that Blacks were released from slavery serves the Liberals very well.

Phillygirl
01-25-2009, 12:16 PM
If we had a Civil War now there would be some issue that sparked the conflict. The issue could be abortion or redistribution of wealth or confiscation of firearms or whatever. However, the real cause of the war would be division between the Left and the Right. Those people that support Constitutional freedoms against those people that oppose Constitutional freedoms. If the Liberals won the war they would write history books saying that the poor women of America were saved by brave Union forces against the evil doers that wanted to take away a woman’s right to choose.

The Civil War was no more about the moral issues of slavery than the Revolutionary War was about taxation without representation. By the way, the South had a very large anti slavery movement but you never see that in any Jr High School history book.

The Liberals like to use the issue of slavery because it demonizes the South. That way modern day Blacks are viewed as victims and the Liberals are viewed as the saviors. The big Federal government did away with such a horrific institution as slavery so therefore they should be empowered to right other wrongs like national health care or inequity of income. The myth that a million people died so that Blacks were released from slavery serves the Liberals very well.

Did Lincoln free the slaves in the North?

djones520
01-25-2009, 12:28 PM
Did Lincoln free the slaves in the North?

The Emancipation Proclamation was an Executive Order issued as the Commander in Chief, thereby granting freedom to slaves in the States the the Union Soldiers had taken. He seriously pushed the 13th Amendment in 1964 during his reelection, and tried to get Congress to pass it before they convened and the 39th Congress took over. It got held up though and wasn't passed until after his assassination.

So Lincoln did strongly drive to have universal Emancipation, but John Wilkes Booth made sure he didn't see it finally come into action.

Phillygirl
01-25-2009, 12:48 PM
The Emancipation Proclamation was an Executive Order issued as the Commander in Chief, thereby granting freedom to slaves in the States the the Union Soldiers had taken. He seriously pushed the 13th Amendment in 1964 during his reelection, and tried to get Congress to pass it before they convened and the 39th Congress took over. It got held up though and wasn't passed until after his assassination.

So Lincoln did strongly drive to have universal Emancipation, but John Wilkes Booth made sure he didn't see it finally come into action.

Thanks. Why didn't he issue an Executive Order freeing the slaves in the North, without Congressional ratification?

(see what I mean about most on here knowing a lot more about the issue than I do?)

djones520
01-25-2009, 12:51 PM
Thanks. Why didn't he issue an Executive Order freeing the slaves in the North, without Congressional ratification?

(see what I mean about most on here knowing a lot more about the issue than I do?)

Cause in the middle of a war, when some of your "states" are hanging onto their loyalties by a thread, you don't want to drive them away. Kentucky and Missouri where still slave holding states, and passing the order to free them may have driven them into the Confederacy, leaving the Union up shit creek without a paddle.

Once victory for the Union seemed pretty secure, he started working on pushing the 13th Amendment as hard as possible. Congress ratified in in January 1865, and pushed it out to the states. Enough States ratified it by December of that year, but Lincoln had been killed in April.

Phillygirl
01-25-2009, 12:54 PM
Cause in the middle of a war, when some of your "states" are hanging onto their loyalties by a thread, you don't want to drive them away. Kentucky and Missouri where still slave holding states, and passing the order to free them may have driven them into the Confederacy, leaving the Union up shit creek without a paddle.

Once victory for the Union seemed pretty secure, he started working on pushing the 13th Amendment as hard as possible. Congress ratified in in January 1864, and pushed it out to the states. Enough States ratified it by December of that year, but Lincoln had been killed in April.

Doesn't that add some credence to the argument that the Civil War was not just about freeing slaves (if that were the case, Lincoln would have done so carte blanche, and defended the Union). It was about freeing the slaves of the conquered states, not of the conqueror states, necessarily.

djones520
01-25-2009, 12:58 PM
Doesn't that add some credence to the argument that the Civil War was not just about freeing slaves (if that were the case, Lincoln would have done so carte blanche, and defended the Union). It was about freeing the slaves of the conquered states, not of the conqueror states, necessarily.

The war itself wasn't just about freeing slaves. The Civil War was fought over many differant factors, with slavery being one of the larger ones. The Emancipation was pushed in 1862, with the war beginning in 1861, so it happened relatively early in the war.

Phillygirl
01-25-2009, 01:14 PM
The war itself wasn't just about freeing slaves.
Agreed.

The Civil War was fought over many differant factors, with slavery being one of the larger ones.
Agreed, with the exception that the morality of slavery was not necessarily the driving or sole reason for the objection to the practice.

The Emancipation was pushed in 1862, with the war beginning in 1861, so it happened relatively early in the war.
Hard not to, since such an emancipation was forced on the conquered.

But now I'll go back to lurking at this and the other thread. As I said, you all no much more in detail and I enjoy reading the different points of view on the topic. As long as we can all agree that without the Irish, it would have been a different story to tell.

Arroyo_Doble
01-25-2009, 01:53 PM
Doesn't that add some credence to the argument that the Civil War was not just about freeing slaves (if that were the case, Lincoln would have done so carte blanche, and defended the Union). It was about freeing the slaves of the conquered states, not of the conqueror states, necessarily.

Not sure who is arguing the war was fought to end slavery. The war was fought to preserve slavery. The ones who started it just lost.

gator
01-25-2009, 06:05 PM
Doesn't that add some credence to the argument that the Civil War was not just about freeing slaves (if that were the case, Lincoln would have done so carte blanche, and defended the Union). It was about freeing the slaves of the conquered states, not of the conqueror states, necessarily.

For some reason or another Lincoln forgot to free the slaves in the North. It must have just slipped his mind or else he didn’t want to get his slave owning in-laws all pissed at him. He was also big on handing out exceptions. For instance, West Virginia got a big pass as an incentive to break away. When New Orleans was taken over by Union forces it got a pass also.

I don't think Lincoln had any real convictions on slavery. If you put aside his rhetoric and just look at his record you see that he failed miserably. However, he caries the title of "The Great Emancipator". Give me a fracking break!

Most historians believe that the only reason Lincoln ever did his little “conquered land emancipation” was to get a hundred thousand Black troops into the Union army because they were fast running out of cannon fodder.

Arroyo_Doble
01-25-2009, 06:13 PM
For some reason or another Lincoln forgot to free the slaves in the North. It must have just slipped his mind or else he didn’t want to get his slave owning in-laws all pissed at him. He was also big on handing out exceptions. For instance, West Virginia got a big pass as an incentive to break away. When New Orleans was taken over by Union forces it got a pass also.

I don't think Lincoln had any real convictions on slavery. If you put aside his rhetoric and just look at his record you see that he failed miserably. However, he caries the title of "The Great Emancipator". Give me a fracking break!

Most historians believe that the only reason Lincoln ever did his little “conquered land emancipation” was to get a hundred thousand Black troops into the Union army because they were fast running out of cannon fodder.

Which historians are these? I thought it was accepted that it was to keep Europe out of the conflict and it only happened as late as it did because the Union needed a perceived victory and got it at the Battle of Sharpsburg.

AmPat
01-25-2009, 09:48 PM
Not sure who is arguing the war was fought to end slavery. The war was fought to preserve slavery. The ones who started it just lost.

Who started it is debatable. The southern states felt they had a right to seceed. The North was a foreign army on their sovereign soil, etc, etc. As for the preservation of slavery, yes and no. Preservation of an economic system would be more accurate.

This may be a distinction without a difference but the underlying emotion was the north using its superior industrial strength and finances to force dramtic change on the south. Over time, slavery would have ended. The fact they had to compromise in Missouri was a harbinger of the future of slavery. The increasing wealth and superior infrastructure of the north led many in the south to see the system of slavery as inferior . Slaves were expensive and troublesome. Given a chance and time, it would have died as an institution anyway.

Rebel Yell
01-26-2009, 09:34 AM
Which historians are these? I thought it was accepted that it was to keep Europe out of the conflict and it only happened as late as it did because the Union needed a perceived victory and got it at the Battle of Sharpsburg.

I thought you imlpied earlier that it was because slavery was wrong? So, Lincoln (much like the liberals of today) didn't really give a shit about blacks. He just used them to score political points. Is that what you're saying?

djones520
01-26-2009, 12:02 PM
For some reason or another Lincoln forgot to free the slaves in the North. It must have just slipped his mind or else he didn’t want to get his slave owning in-laws all pissed at him. He was also big on handing out exceptions. For instance, West Virginia got a big pass as an incentive to break away. When New Orleans was taken over by Union forces it got a pass also.

I don't think Lincoln had any real convictions on slavery. If you put aside his rhetoric and just look at his record you see that he failed miserably. However, he caries the title of "The Great Emancipator". Give me a fracking break!

Most historians believe that the only reason Lincoln ever did his little “conquered land emancipation” was to get a hundred thousand Black troops into the Union army because they were fast running out of cannon fodder.

Have you ever read anything besides skewed "we hate the north" propaganda regarding the issue?

Cuase a few quick Google searches yesterday told a much differant story.

Honestly, use your head Gator. The man was fighting an extremely even war and he needed every advantage he could get. If he had to make a few short term promises to get some of the states to come back into the fold, then so be it.

Learn a little bit of history about the 13th Amendment, and you'll see that Lincoln was the real driving power behind it. He was not a 100% like you are. 100%'ers always end up losing because in the real world you have to make comprimises. And that is what he did. But he didn't let those compromises get in the way of the long term goal of total Emancipation, which strongly worked for.

gator
01-26-2009, 01:49 PM
Have you ever read anything besides skewed "we hate the north" propaganda regarding the issue?

Cuase a few quick Google searches yesterday told a much differant story.

Honestly, use your head Gator. The man was fighting an extremely even war and he needed every advantage he could get. If he had to make a few short term promises to get some of the states to come back into the fold, then so be it.

Learn a little bit of history about the 13th Amendment, and you'll see that Lincoln was the real driving power behind it. He was not a 100% like you are. 100%'ers always end up losing because in the real world you have to make comprimises. And that is what he did. But he didn't let those compromises get in the way of the long term goal of total Emancipation, which strongly worked for.

In my life I have studied Lincoln quite a bit and have come to the conclusion is was crazy.

The one question that I cannot find an answer to is why he started the goddamn war to start with. Make no mistake about it; he made a definite decision to have a significant armed conflict. You can talk about Lincoln instigating Ft Sumter by not recognizing South Carolina’s sovereignty all you want but the war started in earnest the day he sent Federal troops across the Potomac River to kill Americans and destroy American cities. There were no people killed at Ft Sumter by hostile action and before Bull Run there had been no significant military action. Four states that had originally voted not to leave the Union changed their mind when Lincoln announced he was going to kill Americans. He is the one responsible.

There is no doubt he was anti slavery but he compromised on that issue so many times as to lose credibility. He even stated during his “save the Union” kick that he would gladly keep all the slaves in America if that meant that the Union would be “saved”.

Lincoln never really articulated a good reason to start the war and kill over a million Americans. He embarked on a military solution to a political problem and that is why I think he was a loony.

If you are going to kill a million Americans you should have a damn good reason. The secession of South Carolina and the other states did not meet that threshold in my opinion. In the long run slavery was going to end in the New World as it did around the world. That was hardly a reason to kill a million Americans.

I don’t think secession and the break up of the Union in 1860 was a reason to kill a million Americans. So what if a few states seceded? I suspect that in the long run after cooler heads had prevailed it would have been in the best interest of the states to rejoin the Union. If not they would have forged close economic and military ties and would have acted the same as one country. After all this country was established as a collection of states, with the Feds supposing to have a limited role. Lincoln destroyed that concept big time.

Molon Labe
01-26-2009, 01:53 PM
There is no doubt he was anti slavery but he compromised on that issue so many times as to lose credibility. He even stated during his “save the Union” kick that he would gladly keep all the slaves in America if that meant that the Union would be “saved”.

In the long run slavery was going to end in the New World as it did around the world. That was hardly a reason to kill a million Americans.

Nobody ever likes to hear those inconvenient points.

It ended in every other Western country peacfully...

Molon Labe
01-26-2009, 02:19 PM
Have you ever read anything besides skewed "we hate the north" propaganda regarding the issue?

As a Conservative, I'm strongly in favor of anything anti PC.

In the book store Saturday, I discovered a new one in the series of The politically incorrect guides.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51a6BBfce1L._SL500_AA240_.jpg

I've read two from the series and all have been very intereting and informative with plenty of good references to books "you're not supposed to read".
This stuff is far from revisionist history.

obx
01-23-2010, 09:16 AM
Not sure who is arguing the war was fought to end slavery. The war was fought to preserve slavery. The ones who started it just lost.

You have it backwards. The ones who started it WON. Fort Sumter was being held by an invading army. South Carolina was responding to an act of war. Great thread. There were also Jewish confederates and Indian soldiers in the CSA.
________
What is love (http://www.love-help.org/)

djones520
01-23-2010, 09:19 AM
You have it backwards. The ones who started it WON. Fort Sumter was being held by an invading army. South Carolina was responding to an act of war. Great thread. There were also Jewish confederates and Indian soldiers in the CSA.

Fort Sumter was land owned by the Federal Government of the United States of America, legally sold to it by the State of South Carolina, as per Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution.

There was no invading army.

Sonnabend
01-23-2010, 09:36 AM
This is what I remember MLK for...and he was right on many levels....skin colour doesnt mean a damn and never should.

Agree or not, the simple fact is that MLK dragged the US kicking and screaming into the twentieth century, and was a pivotal figure in the move towards equality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbUtL_0vAJk

RobJohnson
01-24-2010, 01:25 PM
This is what I remember MLK for...and he was right on many levels....skin colour doesnt mean a damn and never should.

Agree or not, the simple fact is that MLK dragged the US kicking and screaming into the twentieth century, and was a pivotal figure in the move towards equality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbUtL_0vAJk

He was a fucking Communist.

Newsprism
01-24-2010, 03:13 PM
This is the kind of foolishness that gives ammo to the opposition. Good job, gator.

megimoo
01-24-2010, 03:42 PM
This is what I remember MLK for...and he was right on many levels....skin colour doesnt mean a damn and never should.

Agree or not, the simple fact is that MLK dragged the US kicking and screaming into the twentieth century, and was a pivotal figure in the move towards equality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbUtL_0vAJk
You give him much too much credit .He was basically a good man with all of a good mans weaknesses .He was more of a token leader capable of giving a rousing speech when needed than a hero.His main claim to fame is that he was murdered during the civil rights campaign and became a martyr to the cause much the same as Kennedy.If he hadn't been killed the civil rights act would have passed anyway.The time had come,the votes were there and LBJ needed an issue .

linda22003
01-24-2010, 03:49 PM
If he hadn't been killed the civil rights act would have passed anyway.The time had come,the votes were there and LBJ needed an issue .[/SIZE]

Brilliant observation, considering the Civil Rights Act was passed nearly four years before King was killed. :rolleyes:
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=old&doc=97

Sonnabend
01-24-2010, 08:58 PM
http://cazisoft.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/pwned.jpg

Rebel Yell
01-25-2010, 09:03 AM
MLK had a dream. And blacks today shit all over that dream.

Sonnabend
01-25-2010, 04:25 PM
Brilliant observation, considering the Civil Rights Act was passed nearly four years before King was killed. :rolleyes:

You know megi...he and facts are sort of like distant cousins...they see each other very rarely....:D

Gingersnap
01-25-2010, 04:53 PM
You have it backwards. The ones who started it WON. Fort Sumter was being held by an invading army. South Carolina was responding to an act of war. Great thread. There were also Jewish confederates and Indian soldiers in the CSA.

1. Who cares, really? If you do care, start a new thread about it.

2. Oreo hasn't been around for a year. Resurrecting threads like this is kind of creepy. :cool: