27 May 2007, 11:44 am
I have to say, after a recent review of the Civil War in history class, my opinions have changed pretty drastically on this war. One thought that really struck me was this: the United States went from a new nation fighting to free itself from an oppressive larger state to an oppressive large state fighting to keep a new nation from separating. 
The war wasn't even about slavery. It was certainly fueled by slavery, but it wasn't about slavery until Lincoln issued his Emancipation Proclamation midway into the war. Bear in mind, the Emancipation Proclamation was purely a political move: it didn't actually free any slaves (it only applied to the southern states, which no longer gave a rat's ass about what the folks in Washington said; it did not apply to the bordering slave states that were still part of the Union), and it was mainly enacted to ensure that the anti-slavery Britain would not fight on the side of the Confederacy (in which case, they'd be screwed). My image of Lincoln has certainly fallen from this (not that I admire any other politicians from this time ).
It makes me uneasy to think about who may be writing the history books on my own time after I've wasted away. I will turn in my metaphorical grave when U.S. nationalists erect the George W. Bush Memorial in the capital. 
What do you say? Have I gone crazy? 
27 May 2007, 12:44 pm
28 May 2007, 12:02 am
28 May 2007, 12:56 am
DejaQ wrote:
I have to say, after a recent review of the Civil War in history class, my opinions have changed pretty drastically on this war. One thought that really struck me was this: the United States went from a new nation fighting to free itself from an oppressive larger state to an oppressive large state fighting to keep a new nation from separating.
The war wasn't even about slavery. It was certainly fueled by slavery, but it wasn't about slavery until Lincoln issued his Emancipation Proclamation midway into the war. Bear in mind, the Emancipation Proclamation was purely a political move: it didn't actually free any slaves (it only applied to the southern states, which no longer gave a rat's ass about what the folks in Washington said; it did not apply to the bordering slave states that were still part of the Union), and it was mainly enacted to ensure that the anti-slavery Britain would not fight on the side of the Confederacy (in which case, they'd be screwed). My image of Lincoln has certainly fallen from this (not that I admire any other politicians from this time).
It makes me uneasy to think about who may be writing the history books on my own time after I've wasted away. I will turn in my metaphorical grave when U.S. nationalists erect the George W. Bush Memorial in the capital.
What do you say? Have I gone crazy?
The war wasn't even about slavery. It was certainly fueled by slavery, but it wasn't about slavery until Lincoln issued his Emancipation Proclamation midway into the war. Bear in mind, the Emancipation Proclamation was purely a political move: it didn't actually free any slaves (it only applied to the southern states, which no longer gave a rat's ass about what the folks in Washington said; it did not apply to the bordering slave states that were still part of the Union), and it was mainly enacted to ensure that the anti-slavery Britain would not fight on the side of the Confederacy (in which case, they'd be screwed). My image of Lincoln has certainly fallen from this (not that I admire any other politicians from this time
).It makes me uneasy to think about who may be writing the history books on my own time after I've wasted away. I will turn in my metaphorical grave when U.S. nationalists erect the George W. Bush Memorial in the capital.
What do you say? Have I gone crazy?
you're from the south, aren't you? i don't think they teach that kind of history up north.
you miss one big part of it, though. the cost the north extracted on the south after the war....there's a reason why the south is so generally impoverished...it ain't for a lack of work ethic.
TheMachine1
Veteran
Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,011
Location: 9099 will be my last post...what the hell 9011 will be.
28 May 2007, 1:00 am
28 May 2007, 2:21 pm
28 May 2007, 2:25 pm
skafather84 wrote:
you're from the south, aren't you? i don't think they teach that kind of history up north.
New England.
28 May 2007, 2:27 pm
DejaQ wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
you're from the south, aren't you? i don't think they teach that kind of history up north.
New England.
really? must be that whole "liberal" movement of truth in history rather than just a glorified tale of all the victories for the US?
what part in NE?
28 May 2007, 2:29 pm
28 May 2007, 3:01 pm
28 May 2007, 3:20 pm
Fogman
Veteran
Joined: 19 Jun 2005
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,986
Location: Frå Nord Dakota til Vermont
28 May 2007, 3:30 pm
DejaQ wrote:
I have to say, after a recent review of the Civil War in history class, my opinions have changed pretty drastically on this war. One thought that really struck me was this: the United States went from a new nation fighting to free itself from an oppressive larger state to an oppressive large state fighting to keep a new nation from separating.
The war wasn't even about slavery. It was certainly fueled by slavery, but it wasn't about slavery until Lincoln issued his Emancipation Proclamation midway into the war. Bear in mind, the Emancipation Proclamation was purely a political move: it didn't actually free any slaves (it only applied to the southern states, which no longer gave a rat's ass about what the folks in Washington said; it did not apply to the bordering slave states that were still part of the Union), and it was mainly enacted to ensure that the anti-slavery Britain would not fight on the side of the Confederacy (in which case, they'd be screwed). My image of Lincoln has certainly fallen from this (not that I admire any other politicians from this time).
It makes me uneasy to think about who may be writing the history books on my own time after I've wasted away. I will turn in my metaphorical grave when U.S. nationalists erect the George W. Bush Memorial in the capital.
What do you say? Have I gone crazy?
The war wasn't even about slavery. It was certainly fueled by slavery, but it wasn't about slavery until Lincoln issued his Emancipation Proclamation midway into the war. Bear in mind, the Emancipation Proclamation was purely a political move: it didn't actually free any slaves (it only applied to the southern states, which no longer gave a rat's ass about what the folks in Washington said; it did not apply to the bordering slave states that were still part of the Union), and it was mainly enacted to ensure that the anti-slavery Britain would not fight on the side of the Confederacy (in which case, they'd be screwed). My image of Lincoln has certainly fallen from this (not that I admire any other politicians from this time
).It makes me uneasy to think about who may be writing the history books on my own time after I've wasted away. I will turn in my metaphorical grave when U.S. nationalists erect the George W. Bush Memorial in the capital.
What do you say? Have I gone crazy?
I find this to be an accurate assessment of the situation, and would also like to further add that the Union States wanted the states that eventually became the CSA to remain largely agrarian whilst the Union States would take advantage of the technological progress inherant with the then current Industrial Revolution. --I would want no part of a country that told me that I couldn't better my conditions either.
Furthermore, I'm also a Yankee from Maine, who happens to live in Columbia South Carolina, where the Articles of Secession were approved.
I agree with the assessment that the Southern States would have to have eventually abolished the institution of Slavery due to the fact that you cannot create an industrialised society on the backs of an uneducated and unskilled Slave Class, however the reality that happened relegates that belief to unsubstantiated hyperbole due to the fact the Civil War went in the favor of The Union.
Furthermore, I have also found that the collection of groups that would like to see the re-secession of Southern States can be noted for their absence of black people, so that gives me the impression that they are inherantly serving as a cover for racist ideologies.
28 May 2007, 3:55 pm
Fogman wrote:
DejaQ wrote:
I have to say, after a recent review of the Civil War in history class, my opinions have changed pretty drastically on this war. One thought that really struck me was this: the United States went from a new nation fighting to free itself from an oppressive larger state to an oppressive large state fighting to keep a new nation from separating.
The war wasn't even about slavery. It was certainly fueled by slavery, but it wasn't about slavery until Lincoln issued his Emancipation Proclamation midway into the war. Bear in mind, the Emancipation Proclamation was purely a political move: it didn't actually free any slaves (it only applied to the southern states, which no longer gave a rat's ass about what the folks in Washington said; it did not apply to the bordering slave states that were still part of the Union), and it was mainly enacted to ensure that the anti-slavery Britain would not fight on the side of the Confederacy (in which case, they'd be screwed). My image of Lincoln has certainly fallen from this (not that I admire any other politicians from this time).
It makes me uneasy to think about who may be writing the history books on my own time after I've wasted away. I will turn in my metaphorical grave when U.S. nationalists erect the George W. Bush Memorial in the capital.
What do you say? Have I gone crazy?
The war wasn't even about slavery. It was certainly fueled by slavery, but it wasn't about slavery until Lincoln issued his Emancipation Proclamation midway into the war. Bear in mind, the Emancipation Proclamation was purely a political move: it didn't actually free any slaves (it only applied to the southern states, which no longer gave a rat's ass about what the folks in Washington said; it did not apply to the bordering slave states that were still part of the Union), and it was mainly enacted to ensure that the anti-slavery Britain would not fight on the side of the Confederacy (in which case, they'd be screwed). My image of Lincoln has certainly fallen from this (not that I admire any other politicians from this time
).It makes me uneasy to think about who may be writing the history books on my own time after I've wasted away. I will turn in my metaphorical grave when U.S. nationalists erect the George W. Bush Memorial in the capital.
What do you say? Have I gone crazy?
I find this to be an accurate assessment of the situation, and would also like to further add that the Union States wanted the states that eventually became the CSA to remain largely agrarian whilst the Union States would take advantage of the technological progress inherant with the then current Industrial Revolution. --I would want no part of a country that told me that I couldn't better my conditions either.
bingo!
Fogman wrote:
Furthermore, I have also found that the collection of groups that would like to see the re-secession of Southern States can be noted for their absence of black people, so that gives me the impression that they are inherantly serving as a cover for racist ideologies.
bingo again!
care to explain to the people why places like birmingham and new orleans were somewhat industrialized?
Fogman
Veteran
Joined: 19 Jun 2005
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,986
Location: Frå Nord Dakota til Vermont
28 May 2007, 4:05 pm
28 May 2007, 4:08 pm
28 May 2007, 4:12 pm
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Make American Showers Great Again |
13 Apr 2025, 2:11 am |
| American big pharma complains about Australia's subsidies |
19 Mar 2025, 6:41 pm |
