There was no War of Northern Agression. The South was not a victim, but a damnable curse on the concept of a nation where "all men are created equal". Southern Confederacy should never be revered or admired, because it was an act of rebellion against the United States of America for the "noble cause " of preserving the institrution of slavery, under the guise, and the lie, of "states rights". I grew up in the south, and I am ashamed of the Confederacy, and of its legacy of hatred and racism made manifest in the American Aparthied that was Jim Crow, and of the violence committed by the KKK, an institution conceived in the "noble cause". I consider Robert E Lee to be a traitor against the United States of America, and it is fitting that the dead from that war should have been buried at his doorstep. There is much blood on his hands and conscience.
I had relatives who fought and died for both sides. As far as I'm concerned, they will never be honored until all glory is stripped form the Confederacy, and it is viewed by all Americans as being the shameful, despicable attack on human dignity and freedom that it was.
A bit over the top there brother. Calling us names will not change any facts regardless of where you think you grew up. My experience would suggest your views would be a very, very small minority of those who are native southerners, has no factual basis and has not been disputed by historians on either side of the issue. You will not see the pride in the southern people of their heritage wane in your lifetime or any other lifetime.
No name calling there, none whatsoever. Just the cold hard facts. I lived in Birmingham Alabama 1962-1963. I have a very deep rooted understanding of exactly what the legacy of Southern Confederacy is. I worked for Southern Poverty Law in 1972 registering people to vote who had been denied that right for over 100 years in rural East Texas.
It is my conviction that until southerners finally come to terms with exactly what the confederacy stood for, the Civil War will never be over. There was no War of Northern Agression, and the Confederacy was not a victim of anything except their own beligerance, arrogance and evil.
After WWII, the German People came to terms with the true nature of Nazism, and have taken strong measures make amends for their crimes. Unfortunately, in the Southern US, no such action has ever occured, and the lingering romance surrounding the "lost cause" of rebellion against the USA in the name of slavery still haunts the USA today.
Plain and simple: the war had nothing to do with slavery. The north held slaves at the time of the war. Granted, not as many as the south, but the south had more need for their more agrarian economy, not inferior morals. Calling southerners inferior morally is tantamount to racism and far more revisionist than anything you're pointing fingers at. Slavery was tacked on later by Lincoln to win back over the people to continue what had become a very unpopular war. In fact, there are huge similarities between Lincoln's war and George Bush's war in Iraq. In both cases the motive was an emotional rallying point, enthusiasm for which quickly waned in the light of the true horrors of war, and in both cases a more moral motive ("Free the slaves" and "Free the Iraqis," respectively) replaced the previous one to win back some support.
crap.
To deny that the Civil War was about slavery is the same as denying the Hollocoust. You may as well deny that the southern states refused to abolish slavery at the Constitutional Convention, as they were urged to by many of our Founding Fathers when the Articles of Confederation were discarded and our Constitution was ratified. You may as well deny the facts of the Dread Scott Case, when blacks were declared by the conservative supreme court to be less than human beings, and the implications of that decision for southern planters who wanted to maintain control over their "property". You may as well deny the fact of the underground railroad, and why it existed long before the civil war. You may as well deny the facts of the Compromise of 1850, and the Missouri Compromise. You may as well deny the facts of and the causes leading to the pre-civil war skirmishes in "bleeding Kansas". You may as well deny that the Abolotionists movement existed decades before the 1850's. You may as well deny the facts and the substance of the Lincoln-Douglas debates, or of Harriet Beecher Stowes novel "Uncle Tom's Cabin", and the effect that had on the Abolitionists. You may as well deny that John Brown was an Abolotionist, or the reasons for his raid. You may as well deny the fact that Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forest founded the KKK to preserve "southern culture". You may as well deny the fact that the KKK is now and has been a domestic terrorist organization that is responsible for the murder, beating, rape, burning, and lynching of African Americans in order to "keep them in their place" during the years of Jim Crow. You may as well deny the fact that an American Aparthied existed that prevented African Americans from voting, or entering white only department store, theateres, drug stores, and other business establishments, or that there were "seperate but equal" drinking fountains and restrooms for blacks and whites as a result of Jim Crow, and that the KKK enforced Jim Crow through out the South for 100 years while it existed. You mnay as well deny the fact of Brown vs Board of Education, or that President Eisenhower had to send FEDERAL TROOPS ( the 101 Airborne) to Little Rock Arkansas to enforce Brown. You may as well deny the fact of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Civil Rights movement that finally put an end to the aparthied of Jim Crow. You may as well deny the fact that every singe militant white supremacist neo-nazi hate group active in the US for the last 60 years has adopted the Confederate battle flag as a symbol of their IDENTITY. You may as well decieve yourself into believeing that it was only about the Right of States to Self -Determination instead of the States Right to perpetuate the institution of Salvery. But you only decieve yourself, and continue to live in denial.
Just started reading the memoirs (798 pages!!) of General U.S.Grant. Among his first words are "the war was fought over slavery". This is true, wether your convictions were humanitarian as many had in the north, or economic as for many in the south. Think of all the human capital that was at stake. Much of the value in a plantation was in the human capital it owned. The system was doomed.
BTW, Grant would load his pockets with 20+ cigars at the beginning of each day and would reach into a pocket during the heat of a battle and found he was out!
There was no War of Northern Agression. The South was not a victim, but a damnable curse on the concept of a nation where "all men are created equal". Southern Confederacy should never be revered or admired, because it was an act of rebellion against the United States of America for the "noble cause " of preserving the institrution of slavery, under the guise, and the lie, of "states rights". I grew up in the south, and I am ashamed of the Confederacy, and of its legacy of hatred and racism made manifest in the American Aparthied that was Jim Crow, and of the violence committed by the KKK, an institution conceived in the "noble cause". I consider Robert E Lee to be a traitor against the United States of America, and it is fitting that the dead from that war should have been buried at his doorstep. There is much blood on his hands and conscience.
I had relatives who fought and died for both sides. As far as I'm concerned, they will never be honored until all glory is stripped form the Confederacy, and it is viewed by all Americans as being the shameful, despicable attack on human dignity and freedom that it was.
A bit over the top there brother. Calling us names will not change any facts regardless of where you think you grew up. My experience would suggest your views would be a very, very small minority of those who are native southerners, has no factual basis and has not been disputed by historians on either side of the issue. You will not see the pride in the southern people of their heritage wane in your lifetime or any other lifetime.
No name calling there, none whatsoever. Just the cold hard facts. I lived in Birmingham Alabama 1962-1963. I have a very deep rooted understanding of exactly what the legacy of Southern Confederacy is. I worked for Southern Poverty Law in 1972 registering people to vote who had been denied that right for over 100 years in rural East Texas.
It is my conviction that until southerners finally come to terms with exactly what the confederacy stood for, the Civil War will never be over. There was no War of Northern Agression, and the Confederacy was not a victim of anything except their own beligerance, arrogance and evil.
After WWII, the German People came to terms with the true nature of Nazism, and have taken strong measures make amends for their crimes. Unfortunately, in the Southern US, no such action has ever occured, and the lingering romance surrounding the "lost cause" of rebellion against the USA in the name of slavery still haunts the USA today.
Plain and simple: the war had nothing to do with slavery. The north held slaves at the time of the war. Granted, not as many as the south, but the south had more need for their more agrarian economy, not inferior morals. Calling southerners inferior morally is tantamount to racism and far more revisionist than anything you're pointing fingers at. Slavery was tacked on later by Lincoln to win back over the people to continue what had become a very unpopular war. In fact, there are huge similarities between Lincoln's war and George Bush's war in Iraq. In both cases the motive was an emotional rallying point, enthusiasm for which quickly waned in the light of the true horrors of war, and in both cases a more moral motive ("Free the slaves" and "Free the Iraqis," respectively) replaced the previous one to win back some support.
crap.
To deny that the Civil War was about slavery is the same as denying the Hollocoust. You may as well deny that the southern states refused to abolish slavery at the Constitutional Convention, as they were urged to by many of our Founding Fathers when the Articles of Confederation were discarded and our Constitution was ratified. You may as well deny the facts of the Dread Scott Case, when blacks were declared by the conservative supreme court to be less than human beings, and the implications of that decision for southern planters who wanted to maintain control over their "property". You may as well deny the fact of the underground railroad, and why it existed long before the civil war. You may as well deny the facts of the Compromise of 1850, and the Missouri Compromise. You may as well deny the facts of and the causes leading to the pre-civil war skirmishes in "bleeding Kansas". You may as well deny that the Abolotionists movement existed inthe 1850's. You may as well deny the facts and the substance of the Lincoln -Douglas debates, or of Harriet Beecher Stowes novel. You may as well deny that John Brown was an Abolotionist, or the reasons for his raid. You may as well deny the fact that General Nathan Bedford Forest founded the KKK to preserve "southern culture". You may as well deny the fact that the KKK is now and has been a domestic terrorist organization that is responsible for the murder, beating, rapes burning and lynching of African Americans in order to "keep them in their place" during the years of Jim Crow. You may as well deny the fact that an American Aparthied existed that prevented African Americans from voting, or entering white only department store, theateres, drug stores, and other business establishments, or that there were "seperate but equal" drinking fountains and restrooms for blacks and whites as a result of Jim Crow, and that the KKK enforced Jim Crow through out the South for 100 years while it existed. You mnay as well deny the fact of Brown vs Board of Education, or that President Eisenhower had to send FEDERAL TROOPS ( the 101 Airborne) to Little Rock Arkansas to enforce Brown. You may as well deny the fact of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Civil Rights movement that finally put an end to the aparthied of Jum Crow. You may as well decieve yourself into believeing that it was only about the Right of States to Self -Determination instead of the States Right to perpetuate the institution of Salvery. But you only decieve yourself, and continue to live in denial.
I don't deny any of that, nor do I deny that slavery was a bad thing, nor do I deny that all men should be treated equally. I do deny the existence of God, so I refuse to say they were created.
What you seem to miss is the ENORMOUS hole in your logic. History is written (and revised) by the winners, not the losers. The north won, not the south. So why would the truth be written from the north's perspective and the false revision be written by the south? It's simply backwards and therefore illogical to call a southern perspective revisionist. The northern perspective is clearly more susceptible to revisionist thinking.
As far as state's rights go, I'm not sure where I fall on that issue because I'm not sure it leads to diversity, but I'm all for different laws in different states. In fact, I'd go so far as to say we need to have a state for everyone and everyone in their state. Basically, if certain things make you uncomfortable, there should be a state you can live in where those things are not allowed. Don't like smoking? We should ban it in Montana or Nebraska or something and you can go live there. But, if you leave your state, you deal with it. Then everyone's happy. Hell, we have 50 of 'em, why do they all have to be so similar?
There was no War of Northern Agression. The South was not a victim, but a damnable curse on the concept of a nation where "all men are created equal". Southern Confederacy should never be revered or admired, because it was an act of rebellion against the United States of America for the "noble cause " of preserving the institrution of slavery, under the guise, and the lie, of "states rights". I grew up in the south, and I am ashamed of the Confederacy, and of its legacy of hatred and racism made manifest in the American Aparthied that was Jim Crow, and of the violence committed by the KKK, an institution conceived in the "noble cause". I consider Robert E Lee to be a traitor against the United States of America, and it is fitting that the dead from that war should have been buried at his doorstep. There is much blood on his hands and conscience.
I had relatives who fought and died for both sides. As far as I'm concerned, they will never be honored until all glory is stripped form the Confederacy, and it is viewed by all Americans as being the shameful, despicable attack on human dignity and freedom that it was.
A bit over the top there brother. Calling us names will not change any facts regardless of where you think you grew up. My experience would suggest your views would be a very, very small minority of those who are native southerners, has no factual basis and has not been disputed by historians on either side of the issue. You will not see the pride in the southern people of their heritage wane in your lifetime or any other lifetime.
No name calling there, none whatsoever. Just the cold hard facts. I lived in Birmingham Alabama 1962-1963. I have a very deep rooted understanding of exactly what the legacy of Southern Confederacy is. I worked for Southern Poverty Law in 1972 registering people to vote who had been denied that right for over 100 years in rural East Texas.
It is my conviction that until southerners finally come to terms with exactly what the confederacy stood for, the Civil War will never be over. There was no War of Northern Agression, and the Confederacy was not a victim of anything except their own beligerance, arrogance and evil.
After WWII, the German People came to terms with the true nature of Nazism, and have taken strong measures make amends for their crimes. Unfortunately, in the Southern US, no such action has ever occured, and the lingering romance surrounding the "lost cause" of rebellion against the USA in the name of slavery still haunts the USA today.
Plain and simple: the war had nothing to do with slavery. The north held slaves at the time of the war. Granted, not as many as the south, but the south had more need for their more agrarian economy, not inferior morals. Calling southerners inferior morally is tantamount to racism and far more revisionist than anything you're pointing fingers at. Slavery was tacked on later by Lincoln to win back over the people to continue what had become a very unpopular war. In fact, there are huge similarities between Lincoln's war and George Bush's war in Iraq. In both cases the motive was an emotional rallying point, enthusiasm for which quickly waned in the light of the true horrors of war, and in both cases a more moral motive ("Free the slaves" and "Free the Iraqis," respectively) replaced the previous one to win back some support.
crap.
To deny that the Civil War was about slavery is the same as denying the Hollocoust. You may as well deny that the southern states refused to abolish slavery at the Constitutional Convention, as they were urged to by many of our Founding Fathers when the Articles of Confederation were discarded and our Constitution was ratified. You may as well deny the facts of the Dread Scott Case, when blacks were declared by the conservative supreme court to be less than human beings, and the implications of that decision for southern planters who wanted to maintain control over their "property". You may as well deny the fact of the underground railroad, and why it existed long before the civil war. You may as well deny the facts of the Compromise of 1850, and the Missouri Compromise. You may as well deny the facts of and the causes leading to the pre-civil war skirmishes in "bleeding Kansas". You may as well deny that the Abolotionists movement existed inthe 1850's. You may as well deny the facts and the substance of the Lincoln -Douglas debates, or of Harriet Beecher Stowes novel. You may as well deny that John Brown was an Abolotionist, or the reasons for his raid. You may as well deny the fact that General Nathan Bedford Forest founded the KKK to preserve "southern culture". You may as well deny the fact that the KKK is now and has been a domestic terrorist organization that is responsible for the murder, beating, rapes burning and lynching of African Americans in order to "keep them in their place" during the years of Jim Crow. You may as well deny the fact that an American Aparthied existed that prevented African Americans from voting, or entering white only department store, theateres, drug stores, and other business establishments, or that there were "seperate but equal" drinking fountains and restrooms for blacks and whites as a result of Jim Crow, and that the KKK enforced Jim Crow through out the South for 100 years while it existed. You mnay as well deny the fact of Brown vs Board of Education, or that President Eisenhower had to send FEDERAL TROOPS ( the 101 Airborne) to Little Rock Arkansas to enforce Brown. You may as well deny the fact of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Civil Rights movement that finally put an end to the aparthied of Jum Crow. You may as well decieve yourself into believeing that it was only about the Right of States to Self -Determination instead of the States Right to perpetuate the institution of Salvery. But you only decieve yourself, and continue to live in denial.
I don't deny any of that, nor do I deny that slavery was a bad thing, nor do I deny that all men should be treated equally. I do deny the existence of God, so I refuse to say they were created.
What you seem to miss is the ENORMOUS hole in your logic. History is written (and revised) by the winners, not the losers. The north won, not the south. So why would the truth be written from the north's perspective and the false revision be written by the south? It's simply backwards and therefore illogical to call a southern perspective revisionist. The northern perspective is clearly more susceptible to revisionist thinking.
As far as state's rights go, I'm not sure where I fall on that issue because I'm not sure it leads to diversity, but I'm all for different laws in different states. In fact, I'd go so far as to say we need to have a state for everyone and everyone in their state. Basically, if certain things make you uncomfortable, there should be a state you can live in where those things are not allowed. Don't like smoking? We should ban it in Montana or Nebraska or something and you can go live there. But, if you leave your state, you deal with it. Then everyone's happy. Hell, we have 50 of 'em, why do they all have to be so similar?
I would say to you, sir, that those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it, and that revisionist historians who glorify southern confederacy by claiming they were victims of the big bad evil federal government, and that the poor ole confederates didn't rise up in rebellion against the United States of America because of slavery, they wuz jest protecting their homes from them Yankee invaders, are only perpetuating a lie that may well lead to an unplesant end.
There was no War of Northern Agression. The South was not a victim, but a damnable curse on the concept of a nation where "all men are created equal". Southern Confederacy should never be revered or admired, because it was an act of rebellion against the United States of America for the "noble cause " of preserving the institrution of slavery, under the guise, and the lie, of "states rights". I grew up in the south, and I am ashamed of the Confederacy, and of its legacy of hatred and racism made manifest in the American Aparthied that was Jim Crow, and of the violence committed by the KKK, an institution conceived in the "noble cause". I consider Robert E Lee to be a traitor against the United States of America, and it is fitting that the dead from that war should have been buried at his doorstep. There is much blood on his hands and conscience.
I had relatives who fought and died for both sides. As far as I'm concerned, they will never be honored until all glory is stripped form the Confederacy, and it is viewed by all Americans as being the shameful, despicable attack on human dignity and freedom that it was.
A bit over the top there brother. Calling us names will not change any facts regardless of where you think you grew up. My experience would suggest your views would be a very, very small minority of those who are native southerners, has no factual basis and has not been disputed by historians on either side of the issue. You will not see the pride in the southern people of their heritage wane in your lifetime or any other lifetime.
No name calling there, none whatsoever. Just the cold hard facts. I lived in Birmingham Alabama 1962-1963. I have a very deep rooted understanding of exactly what the legacy of Southern Confederacy is. I worked for Southern Poverty Law in 1972 registering people to vote who had been denied that right for over 100 years in rural East Texas.
It is my conviction that until southerners finally come to terms with exactly what the confederacy stood for, the Civil War will never be over. There was no War of Northern Agression, and the Confederacy was not a victim of anything except their own beligerance, arrogance and evil.
After WWII, the German People came to terms with the true nature of Nazism, and have taken strong measures make amends for their crimes. Unfortunately, in the Southern US, no such action has ever occured, and the lingering romance surrounding the "lost cause" of rebellion against the USA in the name of slavery still haunts the USA today.
Plain and simple: the war had nothing to do with slavery. The north held slaves at the time of the war. Granted, not as many as the south, but the south had more need for their more agrarian economy, not inferior morals. Calling southerners inferior morally is tantamount to racism and far more revisionist than anything you're pointing fingers at. Slavery was tacked on later by Lincoln to win back over the people to continue what had become a very unpopular war. In fact, there are huge similarities between Lincoln's war and George Bush's war in Iraq. In both cases the motive was an emotional rallying point, enthusiasm for which quickly waned in the light of the true horrors of war, and in both cases a more moral motive ("Free the slaves" and "Free the Iraqis," respectively) replaced the previous one to win back some support.
crap.
To deny that the Civil War was about slavery is the same as denying the Hollocoust. You may as well deny that the southern states refused to abolish slavery at the Constitutional Convention, as they were urged to by many of our Founding Fathers when the Articles of Confederation were discarded and our Constitution was ratified. You may as well deny the facts of the Dread Scott Case, when blacks were declared by the conservative supreme court to be less than human beings, and the implications of that decision for southern planters who wanted to maintain control over their "property". You may as well deny the fact of the underground railroad, and why it existed long before the civil war. You may as well deny the facts of the Compromise of 1850, and the Missouri Compromise. You may as well deny the facts of and the causes leading to the pre-civil war skirmishes in "bleeding Kansas". You may as well deny that the Abolotionists movement existed inthe 1850's. You may as well deny the facts and the substance of the Lincoln -Douglas debates, or of Harriet Beecher Stowes novel. You may as well deny that John Brown was an Abolotionist, or the reasons for his raid. You may as well deny the fact that General Nathan Bedford Forest founded the KKK to preserve "southern culture". You may as well deny the fact that the KKK is now and has been a domestic terrorist organization that is responsible for the murder, beating, rapes burning and lynching of African Americans in order to "keep them in their place" during the years of Jim Crow. You may as well deny the fact that an American Aparthied existed that prevented African Americans from voting, or entering white only department store, theateres, drug stores, and other business establishments, or that there were "seperate but equal" drinking fountains and restrooms for blacks and whites as a result of Jim Crow, and that the KKK enforced Jim Crow through out the South for 100 years while it existed. You mnay as well deny the fact of Brown vs Board of Education, or that President Eisenhower had to send FEDERAL TROOPS ( the 101 Airborne) to Little Rock Arkansas to enforce Brown. You may as well deny the fact of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Civil Rights movement that finally put an end to the aparthied of Jum Crow. You may as well decieve yourself into believeing that it was only about the Right of States to Self -Determination instead of the States Right to perpetuate the institution of Salvery. But you only decieve yourself, and continue to live in denial.
I don't deny any of that, nor do I deny that slavery was a bad thing, nor do I deny that all men should be treated equally. I do deny the existence of God, so I refuse to say they were created.
What you seem to miss is the ENORMOUS hole in your logic. History is written (and revised) by the winners, not the losers. The north won, not the south. So why would the truth be written from the north's perspective and the false revision be written by the south? It's simply backwards and therefore illogical to call a southern perspective revisionist. The northern perspective is clearly more susceptible to revisionist thinking.
As far as state's rights go, I'm not sure where I fall on that issue because I'm not sure it leads to diversity, but I'm all for different laws in different states. In fact, I'd go so far as to say we need to have a state for everyone and everyone in their state. Basically, if certain things make you uncomfortable, there should be a state you can live in where those things are not allowed. Don't like smoking? We should ban it in Montana or Nebraska or something and you can go live there. But, if you leave your state, you deal with it. Then everyone's happy. Hell, we have 50 of 'em, why do they all have to be so similar?
I would say to you, sir, that those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it, and that revisionist historians who glorify southern confederacy by claiming they were victims of the big bad evil federal government, and that the poor ole confederates didn't rise up in rebellion against the United States of America because of slavery, they wuz jest protecting their homes from them Yankee invaders, are only perpetuating a lie that may well lead to an unplesant end.
You really don't see the irony in that statement, made under the flag of a bloated and growing government seeking to regulate EVERYTHING and the simultaneously growing undercurrent of unrest in this country? Should those unhappy with their government "learn from the past" and do nothing to oppose the growing thumb we're all stuck under? Really?
There was no War of Northern Agression. The South was not a victim, but a damnable curse on the concept of a nation where "all men are created equal". Southern Confederacy should never be revered or admired, because it was an act of rebellion against the United States of America for the "noble cause " of preserving the institrution of slavery, under the guise, and the lie, of "states rights". I grew up in the south, and I am ashamed of the Confederacy, and of its legacy of hatred and racism made manifest in the American Aparthied that was Jim Crow, and of the violence committed by the KKK, an institution conceived in the "noble cause". I consider Robert E Lee to be a traitor against the United States of America, and it is fitting that the dead from that war should have been buried at his doorstep. There is much blood on his hands and conscience.
I had relatives who fought and died for both sides. As far as I'm concerned, they will never be honored until all glory is stripped form the Confederacy, and it is viewed by all Americans as being the shameful, despicable attack on human dignity and freedom that it was.
A bit over the top there brother. Calling us names will not change any facts regardless of where you think you grew up. My experience would suggest your views would be a very, very small minority of those who are native southerners, has no factual basis and has not been disputed by historians on either side of the issue. You will not see the pride in the southern people of their heritage wane in your lifetime or any other lifetime.
No name calling there, none whatsoever. Just the cold hard facts. I lived in Birmingham Alabama 1962-1963. I have a very deep rooted understanding of exactly what the legacy of Southern Confederacy is. I worked for Southern Poverty Law in 1972 registering people to vote who had been denied that right for over 100 years in rural East Texas.
It is my conviction that until southerners finally come to terms with exactly what the confederacy stood for, the Civil War will never be over. There was no War of Northern Agression, and the Confederacy was not a victim of anything except their own beligerance, arrogance and evil.
After WWII, the German People came to terms with the true nature of Nazism, and have taken strong measures make amends for their crimes. Unfortunately, in the Southern US, no such action has ever occured, and the lingering romance surrounding the "lost cause" of rebellion against the USA in the name of slavery still haunts the USA today.
Plain and simple: the war had nothing to do with slavery. The north held slaves at the time of the war. Granted, not as many as the south, but the south had more need for their more agrarian economy, not inferior morals. Calling southerners inferior morally is tantamount to racism and far more revisionist than anything you're pointing fingers at. Slavery was tacked on later by Lincoln to win back over the people to continue what had become a very unpopular war. In fact, there are huge similarities between Lincoln's war and George Bush's war in Iraq. In both cases the motive was an emotional rallying point, enthusiasm for which quickly waned in the light of the true horrors of war, and in both cases a more moral motive ("Free the slaves" and "Free the Iraqis," respectively) replaced the previous one to win back some support.
crap.
To deny that the Civil War was about slavery is the same as denying the Hollocoust. You may as well deny that the southern states refused to abolish slavery at the Constitutional Convention, as they were urged to by many of our Founding Fathers when the Articles of Confederation were discarded and our Constitution was ratified. You may as well deny the facts of the Dread Scott Case, when blacks were declared by the conservative supreme court to be less than human beings, and the implications of that decision for southern planters who wanted to maintain control over their "property". You may as well deny the fact of the underground railroad, and why it existed long before the civil war. You may as well deny the facts of the Compromise of 1850, and the Missouri Compromise. You may as well deny the facts of and the causes leading to the pre-civil war skirmishes in "bleeding Kansas". You may as well deny that the Abolotionists movement existed inthe 1850's. You may as well deny the facts and the substance of the Lincoln -Douglas debates, or of Harriet Beecher Stowes novel. You may as well deny that John Brown was an Abolotionist, or the reasons for his raid. You may as well deny the fact that General Nathan Bedford Forest founded the KKK to preserve "southern culture". You may as well deny the fact that the KKK is now and has been a domestic terrorist organization that is responsible for the murder, beating, rapes burning and lynching of African Americans in order to "keep them in their place" during the years of Jim Crow. You may as well deny the fact that an American Aparthied existed that prevented African Americans from voting, or entering white only department store, theateres, drug stores, and other business establishments, or that there were "seperate but equal" drinking fountains and restrooms for blacks and whites as a result of Jim Crow, and that the KKK enforced Jim Crow through out the South for 100 years while it existed. You mnay as well deny the fact of Brown vs Board of Education, or that President Eisenhower had to send FEDERAL TROOPS ( the 101 Airborne) to Little Rock Arkansas to enforce Brown. You may as well deny the fact of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Civil Rights movement that finally put an end to the aparthied of Jum Crow. You may as well decieve yourself into believeing that it was only about the Right of States to Self -Determination instead of the States Right to perpetuate the institution of Salvery. But you only decieve yourself, and continue to live in denial.
I don't deny any of that, nor do I deny that slavery was a bad thing, nor do I deny that all men should be treated equally. I do deny the existence of God, so I refuse to say they were created.
What you seem to miss is the ENORMOUS hole in your logic. History is written (and revised) by the winners, not the losers. The north won, not the south. So why would the truth be written from the north's perspective and the false revision be written by the south? It's simply backwards and therefore illogical to call a southern perspective revisionist. The northern perspective is clearly more susceptible to revisionist thinking.
As far as state's rights go, I'm not sure where I fall on that issue because I'm not sure it leads to diversity, but I'm all for different laws in different states. In fact, I'd go so far as to say we need to have a state for everyone and everyone in their state. Basically, if certain things make you uncomfortable, there should be a state you can live in where those things are not allowed. Don't like smoking? We should ban it in Montana or Nebraska or something and you can go live there. But, if you leave your state, you deal with it. Then everyone's happy. Hell, we have 50 of 'em, why do they all have to be so similar?
I would say to you, sir, that those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it, and that revisionist historians who glorify southern confederacy by claiming they were victims of the big bad evil federal government, and that the poor ole confederates didn't rise up in rebellion against the United States of America because of slavery, they wuz jest protecting their homes from them Yankee invaders, are only perpetuating a lie that may well lead to an unplesant end.
You really don't see the irony in that statement, made under the flag of a bloated and growing government seeking to regulate EVERYTHING and the simultaneously growing undercurrent of unrest in this country? Should those unhappy with their government "learn from the past" and do nothing to oppose the growing thumb we're all stuck under? Really?
Silly me. I thought we were discussing the causes and circumstances that led to the Civil War, and specifically the nature of southern Confederacy. If you are looking for a discussion about "why I hate the government", you can count me out, because, frankly, I don't hate the United States Government.
There was no War of Northern Agression. The South was not a victim, but a damnable curse on the concept of a nation where "all men are created equal". Southern Confederacy should never be revered or admired, because it was an act of rebellion against the United States of America for the "noble cause " of preserving the institrution of slavery, under the guise, and the lie, of "states rights". I grew up in the south, and I am ashamed of the Confederacy, and of its legacy of hatred and racism made manifest in the American Aparthied that was Jim Crow, and of the violence committed by the KKK, an institution conceived in the "noble cause". I consider Robert E Lee to be a traitor against the United States of America, and it is fitting that the dead from that war should have been buried at his doorstep. There is much blood on his hands and conscience.
I had relatives who fought and died for both sides. As far as I'm concerned, they will never be honored until all glory is stripped form the Confederacy, and it is viewed by all Americans as being the shameful, despicable attack on human dignity and freedom that it was.
A bit over the top there brother. Calling us names will not change any facts regardless of where you think you grew up. My experience would suggest your views would be a very, very small minority of those who are native southerners, has no factual basis and has not been disputed by historians on either side of the issue. You will not see the pride in the southern people of their heritage wane in your lifetime or any other lifetime.
No name calling there, none whatsoever. Just the cold hard facts. I lived in Birmingham Alabama 1962-1963. I have a very deep rooted understanding of exactly what the legacy of Southern Confederacy is. I worked for Southern Poverty Law in 1972 registering people to vote who had been denied that right for over 100 years in rural East Texas.
It is my conviction that until southerners finally come to terms with exactly what the confederacy stood for, the Civil War will never be over. There was no War of Northern Agression, and the Confederacy was not a victim of anything except their own beligerance, arrogance and evil.
After WWII, the German People came to terms with the true nature of Nazism, and have taken strong measures make amends for their crimes. Unfortunately, in the Southern US, no such action has ever occured, and the lingering romance surrounding the "lost cause" of rebellion against the USA in the name of slavery still haunts the USA today.
Plain and simple: the war had nothing to do with slavery. The north held slaves at the time of the war. Granted, not as many as the south, but the south had more need for their more agrarian economy, not inferior morals. Calling southerners inferior morally is tantamount to racism and far more revisionist than anything you're pointing fingers at. Slavery was tacked on later by Lincoln to win back over the people to continue what had become a very unpopular war. In fact, there are huge similarities between Lincoln's war and George Bush's war in Iraq. In both cases the motive was an emotional rallying point, enthusiasm for which quickly waned in the light of the true horrors of war, and in both cases a more moral motive ("Free the slaves" and "Free the Iraqis," respectively) replaced the previous one to win back some support.
crap.
To deny that the Civil War was about slavery is the same as denying the Hollocoust. You may as well deny that the southern states refused to abolish slavery at the Constitutional Convention, as they were urged to by many of our Founding Fathers when the Articles of Confederation were discarded and our Constitution was ratified. You may as well deny the facts of the Dread Scott Case, when blacks were declared by the conservative supreme court to be less than human beings, and the implications of that decision for southern planters who wanted to maintain control over their "property". You may as well deny the fact of the underground railroad, and why it existed long before the civil war. You may as well deny the facts of the Compromise of 1850, and the Missouri Compromise. You may as well deny the facts of and the causes leading to the pre-civil war skirmishes in "bleeding Kansas". You may as well deny that the Abolotionists movement existed inthe 1850's. You may as well deny the facts and the substance of the Lincoln -Douglas debates, or of Harriet Beecher Stowes novel. You may as well deny that John Brown was an Abolotionist, or the reasons for his raid. You may as well deny the fact that General Nathan Bedford Forest founded the KKK to preserve "southern culture". You may as well deny the fact that the KKK is now and has been a domestic terrorist organization that is responsible for the murder, beating, rapes burning and lynching of African Americans in order to "keep them in their place" during the years of Jim Crow. You may as well deny the fact that an American Aparthied existed that prevented African Americans from voting, or entering white only department store, theateres, drug stores, and other business establishments, or that there were "seperate but equal" drinking fountains and restrooms for blacks and whites as a result of Jim Crow, and that the KKK enforced Jim Crow through out the South for 100 years while it existed. You mnay as well deny the fact of Brown vs Board of Education, or that President Eisenhower had to send FEDERAL TROOPS ( the 101 Airborne) to Little Rock Arkansas to enforce Brown. You may as well deny the fact of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Civil Rights movement that finally put an end to the aparthied of Jum Crow. You may as well decieve yourself into believeing that it was only about the Right of States to Self -Determination instead of the States Right to perpetuate the institution of Salvery. But you only decieve yourself, and continue to live in denial.
I don't deny any of that, nor do I deny that slavery was a bad thing, nor do I deny that all men should be treated equally. I do deny the existence of God, so I refuse to say they were created.
What you seem to miss is the ENORMOUS hole in your logic. History is written (and revised) by the winners, not the losers. The north won, not the south. So why would the truth be written from the north's perspective and the false revision be written by the south? It's simply backwards and therefore illogical to call a southern perspective revisionist. The northern perspective is clearly more susceptible to revisionist thinking.
As far as state's rights go, I'm not sure where I fall on that issue because I'm not sure it leads to diversity, but I'm all for different laws in different states. In fact, I'd go so far as to say we need to have a state for everyone and everyone in their state. Basically, if certain things make you uncomfortable, there should be a state you can live in where those things are not allowed. Don't like smoking? We should ban it in Montana or Nebraska or something and you can go live there. But, if you leave your state, you deal with it. Then everyone's happy. Hell, we have 50 of 'em, why do they all have to be so similar?
I would say to you, sir, that those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it, and that revisionist historians who glorify southern confederacy by claiming they were victims of the big bad evil federal government, and that the poor ole confederates didn't rise up in rebellion against the United States of America because of slavery, they wuz jest protecting their homes from them Yankee invaders, are only perpetuating a lie that may well lead to an unplesant end.
You really don't see the irony in that statement, made under the flag of a bloated and growing government seeking to regulate EVERYTHING and the simultaneously growing undercurrent of unrest in this country? Should those unhappy with their government "learn from the past" and do nothing to oppose the growing thumb we're all stuck under? Really?
Silly me. I thought we were discussing the causes and circumstances that led to the Civil War, and specifically the nature of southern Confederacy. If you are looking for a discussion about "why I hate the government", you can count me out, because, frankly, I don't hate the United States Government.
A discussion about the Civil War would be a discussion about the majority of the south stating "why I have the government". Just using your quote.
Comments
To deny that the Civil War was about slavery is the same as denying the Hollocoust. You may as well deny that the southern states refused to abolish slavery at the Constitutional Convention, as they were urged to by many of our Founding Fathers when the Articles of Confederation were discarded and our Constitution was ratified. You may as well deny the facts of the Dread Scott Case, when blacks were declared by the conservative supreme court to be less than human beings, and the implications of that decision for southern planters who wanted to maintain control over their "property". You may as well deny the fact of the underground railroad, and why it existed long before the civil war. You may as well deny the facts of the Compromise of 1850, and the Missouri Compromise. You may as well deny the facts of and the causes leading to the pre-civil war skirmishes in "bleeding Kansas". You may as well deny that the Abolotionists movement existed decades before the 1850's. You may as well deny the facts and the substance of the Lincoln-Douglas debates, or of Harriet Beecher Stowes novel "Uncle Tom's Cabin", and the effect that had on the Abolitionists. You may as well deny that John Brown was an Abolotionist, or the reasons for his raid. You may as well deny the fact that Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forest founded the KKK to preserve "southern culture". You may as well deny the fact that the KKK is now and has been a domestic terrorist organization that is responsible for the murder, beating, rape, burning, and lynching of African Americans in order to "keep them in their place" during the years of Jim Crow. You may as well deny the fact that an American Aparthied existed that prevented African Americans from voting, or entering white only department store, theateres, drug stores, and other business establishments, or that there were "seperate but equal" drinking fountains and restrooms for blacks and whites as a result of Jim Crow, and that the KKK enforced Jim Crow through out the South for 100 years while it existed. You mnay as well deny the fact of Brown vs Board of Education, or that President Eisenhower had to send FEDERAL TROOPS ( the 101 Airborne) to Little Rock Arkansas to enforce Brown. You may as well deny the fact of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Civil Rights movement that finally put an end to the aparthied of Jim Crow. You may as well deny the fact that every singe militant white supremacist neo-nazi hate group active in the US for the last 60 years has adopted the Confederate battle flag as a symbol of their IDENTITY. You may as well decieve yourself into believeing that it was only about the Right of States to Self -Determination instead of the States Right to perpetuate the institution of Salvery. But you only decieve yourself, and continue to live in denial.
What you seem to miss is the ENORMOUS hole in your logic. History is written (and revised) by the winners, not the losers. The north won, not the south. So why would the truth be written from the north's perspective and the false revision be written by the south? It's simply backwards and therefore illogical to call a southern perspective revisionist. The northern perspective is clearly more susceptible to revisionist thinking.
As far as state's rights go, I'm not sure where I fall on that issue because I'm not sure it leads to diversity, but I'm all for different laws in different states. In fact, I'd go so far as to say we need to have a state for everyone and everyone in their state. Basically, if certain things make you uncomfortable, there should be a state you can live in where those things are not allowed. Don't like smoking? We should ban it in Montana or Nebraska or something and you can go live there. But, if you leave your state, you deal with it. Then everyone's happy. Hell, we have 50 of 'em, why do they all have to be so similar?
A discussion about the Civil War would be a discussion about the majority of the south stating "why I have the government". Just using your quote.
Rob