PDA

View Full Version : CU Civil War Debate Thread



Molon Labe
11-06-2012, 03:23 PM
http://www.history.vt.edu/Robertson/robertson_.jpg

This is the premier Civil War historian in the United States. Dr Bud Robertson. He is a Southerner and a staunch Conservative. He also does not have a butt munching slobbering man crush over Lincoln and teaches the truth about the Civil War.

All wars are over two things at their heart. Who is going to control Property and Resources.


Things like Slavery, and the Jewish Question and protecting the Holy Lands are always rationales for helping the cause of "controlling" others property and resources.

Rockntractor
11-06-2012, 03:33 PM
Here is your chance for hand to hand combat concerning the civil war.
Did Abraham Lincoln suck or was he our best president? Was Robert E. Lee one of the greatest generals in history. Did Linda Numbers correct General Grants spelling and grammar?

Have at it.

Arroyo_Doble
11-06-2012, 03:34 PM
http://www.history.vt.edu/Robertson/robertson_.jpg

This is the premier Civil War historian in the United States. Dr Bud Robertson. He is a Southerner and a staunch Conservative. He also does not have a butt munching slobbering man crush over Lincoln and teaches the truth about the Civil War.

All wars are over two things at their heart. Who is going to control Property and Resources.


Things like Slavery, and the Jewish Question and protecting the Holy Lands are always rationales for helping the cause of "controlling" others property and resources.

Weren't the slaves considered property?

LukeEDay
11-06-2012, 03:42 PM
The Civil War was over Economic Hardship and States Rights. The south (Democrats wanted to keep slavery - They still do today) and Lincoln didn't want to keep it. The first shot was fired by a Southerner at a Unioner.

Fast forward - The KKK was started by Democrats who didn't like the black man being free (They still don't today). And too this day, the KKK is still a Democratic Organization.

The 1964 Civil Rights act was voted against by almost 100% Democrats. Of those who voted against it are Al Gores Daddy, and JFK ... MLK was also a Republican ..

Lincoln freed the slaves. I don't care what his thought process was at the time, he freed them. The Dems wanted to keep slavery. The Union won the war. You Dems are the racist party. You always been the racist party, and always will be the racist party. It doesn't matter how much you try to spin it and run from it. History shows you to be the biggest racists in history.

You Dems still do things today to keep the black people down, which shows how racist you truly are. It staggers me how an african American be a Democrat. Maybe if they had a 'REAL' history lesson they would learn something and drop you like a bad habit.

Molon Labe
11-06-2012, 03:57 PM
Funny how 99% of the people who despise Lincoln are Southerners, right leaning, Republicans and pro gun owners. Usually we call them RedStaters.



but feel free to keep on telling yourself they're these guys. http://roamaboutmike.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/hippie.jpg

Rockntractor
11-06-2012, 04:00 PM
http://roamaboutmike.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/hippie.jpg

He looks like he drinks water from a bowl.http://www.smiley-lol.com/smiley/expressifs/timide/impatience.gif

Rebel Yell
11-06-2012, 04:00 PM
Correction. The ones who said that their opinions will not change and they hate Lincoln are liberals .. ;)

That's funny. I actually live down here and the people who hate Lincoln are the most conservative folks you'll meet. You won't hear the Lincoln hate from an Obama supporter.

LukeEDay
11-06-2012, 04:03 PM
Funny how 99% of the people who despise Lincoln are Southerners, right leaning, Republicans and pro gun owners. Usually we call them RedStaters.



but feel free to keep on telling yourself they're these guys. http://roamaboutmike.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/hippie.jpg

Is that obama's father?

Molon Labe
11-06-2012, 04:05 PM
Weren't the slaves considered property?

absolutely, that' why I'm perfectly clear to say that it was "a" reason, but not the "only" or "main" reason. Remember it was the the Federal Government that declared war. The South ceceded. So two choices. Let them go, or take it back by "force" (WAR). It was The real reason is that Lincoln did not want to lose the UNION. If you deny it was not about losing half of the continental US and the formation of two countries, then you are as equally deluded.

Arroyo_Doble
11-06-2012, 04:06 PM
The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic.


~ Georgia




In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.


~ Mississippi




Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slaveholding States.


~ Texas


Declaration of Causes of Seceding States (http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html#Georgia)




...

The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.


~ Alexander H. Stephens March 21, 1861 Savannah, Georgia (http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?documentprint=76)




The American Civil War was not fought to end slavery; it was fought to preserve it. The people who started it just lost.

Molon Labe
11-06-2012, 04:14 PM
It staggers me how an african American be a Democrat. Maybe if they had a 'REAL' history lesson they would learn something and drop you like a bad habit.

Prepared to be staggered then.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3591/3563555245_5c213aa9ef.jpg

http://richmondthenandnow.com/Images/Dupont/H-K-Edgerton.jpg




the third pic is unrelated but nice. :lemo:

http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/confedbikini1.jpg

Rockntractor
11-06-2012, 04:20 PM
Everyone is being entirely to civil, that's not what I meant, weapons are permissible, commence to firing!

Rockntractor
11-06-2012, 04:21 PM
http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/confedbikini1.jpg

You win the first round.

Molon Labe
11-06-2012, 04:49 PM
Everyone is being entirely to civil, that's not what I meant, weapons are permissible, commence to firing!

This really should be in the Thunderdome you know.


There's so little activity and fireworks there anymore we should rename it the Playpen.

Rockntractor
11-06-2012, 05:01 PM
This really should be in the Thunderdome you know.


There's so little activity and fireworks there anymore we should rename it the Playpen.

It must become worthy first

Sent from my ADR6325 using Tapatalk 2

LukeEDay
11-06-2012, 05:05 PM
the third pic is unrelated but nice. :lemo:

http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/confedbikini1.jpg


O.k .. I concede to that .. Wow! :Flag2:



Everyone is being entirely to civil, that's not what I meant, weapons are permissible, commence to firing!

I am not one to be uncivil. I care about peoples opinions and treat a debating person the same way I would want to be treated. This is America and everyone is entitled to their opinion. No matter how stupid it may be :single_eye:

marv
11-06-2012, 05:10 PM
Every body knows, or should know, why West Virginia seceded from the Confederacy. So a question; why did Georgia threaten to secede?

djones520
11-06-2012, 05:44 PM
Arroyo, you should read all of the articles, not cherry pick. Because Slavery is very dominant in them. There was 82 mentions of it in your link of 4 states. South Carolina, the first to secede, mentioned Slavery 18 times in their articles.

Arroyo_Doble
11-06-2012, 05:46 PM
Arroyo, you should read all of the articles, not cherry pick. Because Slavery is very dominant in them. There was 82 mentions of it in your link of 4 states. South Carolina, the first to secede, mentioned Slavery 18 times in their articles.

I have read them. Also, other documents of the time. I did not mean to appear to cherry pick. Just giving a taste. Obviously, people can drill down further. I think of all of them, South Carolina dances around the issue the most. Texas pretty much lays it out there.

djones520
11-06-2012, 05:50 PM
I have read them. Also, other documents of the time. I did not mean to appear to cherry pick. Just giving a taste. Obviously, people can drill down further. I think of all of them, South Carolina dances around the issue the most. Texas pretty much lays it out there.

I misread your post, you were actually arguing that it was fought for it, I for some reason thought you were saying the opposite. My bad.

m00
11-06-2012, 06:51 PM
Arroyo --

For the record, I do think the Southern States were fighting specifically to preserve the economic institution of slavery. Although, the average white southerner who fought and died on front lines did not own slaves (it was a 1%-er thing)... so it was a bit more complicated than that. Part of it was "patriotism" for the state, and so forth.

All I'm saying is that the North, in general, wasn't fighting the Civil War out of some sort of moral abolitionist high ground. It was basically the culmination of a trade war. The moral objection to slavery came as an after-the-fact justification... just as in many wars all around the world there's the "justification" which often is different than the "reason."

Basically, it was a complicated, messy, war. I don't think there was any real moral high ground to be had, other than probably in the average soldier simply doing his duty. But again that's true everywhere, even today.