Page 7 of 9 [ 129 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

rvacountrysinger
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 26 May 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 429
Location: Richmond, Virginia

01 Aug 2017, 1:46 pm

jrjones9933 wrote:
rvacountrysinger wrote:
We never had a Civil War. We did have a War Between States.


Quote:
In my experience, lots of racists have a keen interest in making that exact distinction. The Noble Lost Cause, they call their revisionist lies.


Let me guess, the Southern States were the real patriots?[/quote
Oh the racist card played again.

The South was invaded by force . They defended states rights. Lincoln was not an abolitionist. Read his quotes about race/slavery. They are seldom included in history books. I wonder why?



Last edited by rvacountrysinger on 01 Aug 2017, 1:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

rvacountrysinger
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 26 May 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 429
Location: Richmond, Virginia

01 Aug 2017, 1:48 pm

DarthMetaKnight wrote:
rvacountrysinger wrote:
We never had a Civil War. We did have a War Between States.


The Confederacy was never a real county. It was a bunch of punkass crybabies who threw a hissy fit because they weren't allowed to torture black people anymore.


That is a very patent and superficial analysis. And totally inaccurate.



rvacountrysinger
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 26 May 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 429
Location: Richmond, Virginia

01 Aug 2017, 1:54 pm

jrjones9933 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
rvacountrysinger wrote:
We never had a Civil War. We did have a War Between States.


What's supposed to be the distinction?

Their basic argument -- since there's no chance RV will come back to reply -- consists of denying any connection between the rebellion and slavery (despite the letters from the states to the feds stating that connection), and projecting upon the Rebs a Lost Cause mentality where they fought knowing they had no chance to win in order to preserve a better way of life. Robert E. Lee had this idea in mind at Appomattox, and wrote some clauses into the surrender to use later in furtherance of that story. He then set about promoting the idea as soon as he went home. It gets passed down from father to son in the South. They omit that the South drew first blood, as well.

At the time, a lot of Northern elites didn't want their rivals in the South to lose too much face over the incident. Very few people really wanted equal rights for black people. Once the political push for war reparations passed, and the states regained their sovereignty by complying with some specific conditions, the Southern Elites who remained could get back to business as usual, substituting prison work gangs and segregated employment for slavery. Hence, the tradition of overpolicing of black people.


Interesting, Robert E. Lee freed his laves in 1862. General Grant had slaves as well.

There were many freed Negroes in the South long before the "Civil War". Jefferson Davis said "We fight not for slavery, but for independence". That was written in 1864 in his personal letters. Meanwhile," honest Able" use the Emancipation Propaganda Proclamation, (which only freed slaves in the Northern states, btw), to conscript Negroes against their will to fight in the Union army. A strategic plan to gain military power and opposition. The North was responsible for the raping, pillaging, and burning that went on in many parts of the South, and Southern women left unprotected, were at the mercy of Federal terrorists.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,929
Location: temperate zone

01 Aug 2017, 2:09 pm

rvacountrysinger wrote:
We never had a Civil War. We did have a War Between States.


What difference does it make which name that you call it?



rvacountrysinger
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 26 May 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 429
Location: Richmond, Virginia

01 Aug 2017, 3:55 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
rvacountrysinger wrote:
We never had a Civil War. We did have a War Between States.


What difference does it make which name that you call it?


Because a "Civil War" implies a war which is fought over control of the same government. Since the seceding states wanted to form their own government and their own country, it was not a Civil War. Also, in that time period, each state was viewed more as its own country, rather belonging to a tight nit collective, or central government. We still debate this issue today.



jrjones9933
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,144
Location: The end of the northwest passage

01 Aug 2017, 4:10 pm

rvacountrysinger wrote:
Interesting, Robert E. Lee freed his laves in 1862. General Grant had slaves as well.

There were many freed Negroes in the South long before the "Civil War". Jefferson Davis said "We fight not for slavery, but for independence". That was written in 1864 in his personal letters. Meanwhile," honest Able" use the Emancipation Propaganda Proclamation, (which only freed slaves in the Northern states, btw), to conscript Negroes against their will to fight in the Union army. A strategic plan to gain military power and opposition. The North was responsible for the raping, pillaging, and burning that went on in many parts of the South, and Southern women left unprotected, were at the mercy of Federal terrorists.

I know where you got all this false info. Using the same phrases gave you away.
http://www.snopes.com/confederate-histo ... ownership/
It is indeed the racist Lost Cause story.


_________________
"I find that the best way [to increase self-confidence] is to lie to yourself about who you are, what you've done, and where you're going." - Richard Ayoade


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,943
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

01 Aug 2017, 4:28 pm

1 - The south seceded by force, seizing government property (Fort Sumter).
2 - The declarations of war of the various Confederate states made it clear they were fighting for slavery.
3 - Sure, Lincoln wasn't an abolitionist; he was a free soiler. That is, he wanted to encircle the south in with free states, so slave states couldn't expand geographically, which was necessary, as cotton plantations wasted the soil's nutrients, for their survival and the survival of slavery.
4 - Sure, Lincoln shared racial prejudice of his day. But the fact is, he learned and grew in regard to racial tolerance, so that by the last speech he gave, he made it clear he would not only emancipate all slaves, but grant them full citizenship and voting rights. John Wilkes Boothe, who was in the audience, made sure that was Lincoln's last speech.
5 - Sure, the war was hard on southerners. But if they wanted to blame anyone, they should have blamed their own leaders, and the plantation elite they belonged to, for starting the war. And as hard as it might have been, at least Sherman went out of his way to destroy the south's means of making war on their home front. That is, he mostly destroyed property rather than randomly killing people. Contrast that to the Confederacy, which had violently put down pro-Union factions and communities within their borders, resulting in the deaths of combatants and noncombatants alike. When Robert E. Lee invaded Pennsylvania, upon discovering free blacks living there, had them chained, then sold in within the Confederacy. You have to wonder, how many of these blacks were driven to such despair that they had taken their own lives, or just wasted away?


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 15,224
Location: US

01 Aug 2017, 11:39 pm

Did we allow the British to keep their forts when we seceded. Did the soviets get to keep all their bases in eastern Germany?

Fort Sumter was the spark the north wanted, so it seemed like they didn't start the war. But no nation would have allowed its former power to keep forts inside their nation, wave their flag, continue to bring more troops,etc. all federal forts in the south should have been abandoned, that's how it's done now. The south left legally, the north needed s reason for war that didn't make us the aggressors, we always find ways to start wars by getting other nations to attack us.

Most people in the south didn't own slaves they weren't fighting for slavery. Slave owners might have been but then they were rich and sent others to fight in their stay.
The north was just as guilty. If they. We're really anti slavely they wouldn't have profited off slave labor via cheap cotton to make goods to sell to Europe. Neither side was good or clean. History isn't black and white. It's murky and dirty



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,943
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

02 Aug 2017, 1:06 am

sly279 wrote:
Did we allow the British to keep their forts when we seceded. Did the soviets get to keep all their bases in eastern Germany?

Fort Sumter was the spark the north wanted, so it seemed like they didn't start the war. But no nation would have allowed its former power to keep forts inside their nation, wave their flag, continue to bring more troops,etc. all federal forts in the south should have been abandoned, that's how it's done now. The south left legally, the north needed s reason for war that didn't make us the aggressors, we always find ways to start wars by getting other nations to attack us.

Most people in the south didn't own slaves they weren't fighting for slavery. Slave owners might have been but then they were rich and sent others to fight in their stay.
The north was just as guilty. If they. We're really anti slavely they wouldn't have profited off slave labor via cheap cotton to make goods to sell to Europe. Neither side was good or clean. History isn't black and white. It's murky and dirty


Yes, most southerners didn't own slaves, but they still believed in slavery and white supremacy. The plantation owning elites kept poor whites from rising up against them by getting them to conform to the Antebellum south's rigid class system with just one concept: poor whites might have been treated like dirt by the rich plantation owners, but at least they were still one rung above black slaves. That was the exact same way wealthy southern elites were able to play poor whites - who they regarded as trash - against blacks after emancipation during Jim Crow, telling them that they were at least better than blacks. As Lyndon Johnson had observed: "Tell a poor white man that he's better than a black man, and you can pick his pocket. He'll even hold his pocket open for you." It's no surprise that until recently, organized labor, or any social justice groups, were virtually nonexistent in the south, so complacent were poor southern whites in accepting their social inequality. Now, there were definitely exceptions to the rule, such as with the Anti-Confederate guerrilla leader, Newton Knight (the subject of the movie, Free State Of Jones), who had led a small army composed of confederate deserters and escaped slaves in a non-stop war against the Confederacy, did his part during Radical Reconstruction, and even married a former slave, raising mixed race children with her when it was illegal in Mississippi to do so.
Yes, there was plenty of racism in the north at the time, but at least the north had produced anti-slavery movements, which was virtually unheard of in the south. And it was this anti-slavery movement in the north that ultimately had accomplished turning the war to save the Union into a war of liberation.
Yes, the British had lost their government property in America - but only after they had been defeated by the Continental Army. The south had never gotten around to gaining independence from America, and hence, their claims to Sumter were illegal.
Yes, America had gotten rich off of the cotton trade with Europe, but that business had been initiated by the plantation owners themselves.
Yes, neither side was pure of heart, but I think it's a fair assessment to say that the Confederacy, which its leaders had made clear was based on slavery and white supremacy, comes off looking a lot worse.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

02 Aug 2017, 4:19 am

The white supremacy account rarely seems to take into account how greatly hated the Irish were in America in the 19th century. Some say even more so than blacks. Them being white, christian and english speaking didn't make one bit of difference.



RetroGamer87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,455
Location: Adelaide, Australia

02 Aug 2017, 7:34 am

rvacountrysinger wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
rvacountrysinger wrote:
We never had a Civil War. We did have a War Between States.


What difference does it make which name that you call it?


Because a "Civil War" implies a war which is fought over control of the same government. Since the seceding states wanted to form their own government and their own country, it was not a Civil War. Also, in that time period, each state was viewed more as its own country, rather belonging to a tight nit collective, or central government. We still debate this issue today.

Then why did both sides of the Chinese Civil War have separate governments?


_________________
The days are long, but the years are short


kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 68,513
Location: Queens, NYC

02 Aug 2017, 8:06 am

It's not that uncommon to call the Civil War "the War Between the States."



rvacountrysinger
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 26 May 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 429
Location: Richmond, Virginia

05 Aug 2017, 1:37 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
1 - The south seceded by force, seizing government property (Fort Sumter).
2 - The declarations of war of the various Confederate states made it clear they were fighting for slavery.
3 - Sure, Lincoln wasn't an abolitionist; he was a free soiler. That is, he wanted to encircle the south in with free states, so slave states couldn't expand geographically, which was necessary, as cotton plantations wasted the soil's nutrients, for their survival and the survival of slavery.
4 - Sure, Lincoln shared racial prejudice of his day. But the fact is, he learned and grew in regard to racial tolerance, so that by the last speech he gave, he made it clear he would not only emancipate all slaves, but grant them full citizenship and voting rights. John Wilkes Boothe, who was in the audience, made sure that was Lincoln's last speech.
5 - Sure, the war was hard on southerners. But if they wanted to blame anyone, they should have blamed their own leaders, and the plantation elite they belonged to, for starting the war. And as hard as it might have been, at least Sherman went out of his way to destroy the south's means of making war on their home front. That is, he mostly destroyed property rather than randomly killing people. Contrast that to the Confederacy, which had violently put down pro-Union factions and communities within their borders, resulting in the deaths of combatants and noncombatants alike. When Robert E. Lee invaded Pennsylvania, upon discovering free blacks living there, had them chained, then sold in within the Confederacy. You have to wonder, how many of these blacks were driven to such despair that they had taken their own lives, or just wasted away?



1.Ft Sumter belongedto South Carolina
2.Lincoln sent 75,000 troops to invade South Carolina and coerce the South to fire the first shot, so he could get his war.
3.Lincoln also violated the Constitution by declaring war in the absence of congress
4..Only 5 of the declared 11 states said it was for slavery (and other things)
5.Lincoln's ECP was for slaves within the United States. He used this to round up Negro troops (some against their will)to fight for the Union, ensuring a victory with more man power
6..Lincoln was very a bit a white supremacist/white nationalist. In fact, his first move after the War was to send the blacks back to Africa. It was Frederick Douglas that kept pushing for abolition and rights. Lincoln didn't want these things for the blacks. He never really changed position, he just changed tactics.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,929
Location: temperate zone

05 Aug 2017, 1:45 pm

rvacountrysinger wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
1 - The south seceded by force, seizing government property (Fort Sumter).
2 - The declarations of war of the various Confederate states made it clear they were fighting for slavery.
3 - Sure, Lincoln wasn't an abolitionist; he was a free soiler. That is, he wanted to encircle the south in with free states, so slave states couldn't expand geographically, which was necessary, as cotton plantations wasted the soil's nutrients, for their survival and the survival of slavery.
4 - Sure, Lincoln shared racial prejudice of his day. But the fact is, he learned and grew in regard to racial tolerance, so that by the last speech he gave, he made it clear he would not only emancipate all slaves, but grant them full citizenship and voting rights. John Wilkes Boothe, who was in the audience, made sure that was Lincoln's last speech.
5 - Sure, the war was hard on southerners. But if they wanted to blame anyone, they should have blamed their own leaders, and the plantation elite they belonged to, for starting the war. And as hard as it might have been, at least Sherman went out of his way to destroy the south's means of making war on their home front. That is, he mostly destroyed property rather than randomly killing people. Contrast that to the Confederacy, which had violently put down pro-Union factions and communities within their borders, resulting in the deaths of combatants and noncombatants alike. When Robert E. Lee invaded Pennsylvania, upon discovering free blacks living there, had them chained, then sold in within the Confederacy. You have to wonder, how many of these blacks were driven to such despair that they had taken their own lives, or just wasted away?



1.Ft Sumter belongedto South Carolina
2.Lincoln sent 75,000 troops to invade South Carolina and coerce the South to fire the first shot, so he could get his war.
3.Lincoln also violated the Constitution by declaring war in the absence of congress
4..Only 5 of the declared 11 states said it was for slavery (and other things)
5.Lincoln's ECP was for slaves within the United States. He used this to round up Negro troops (some against their will)to fight for the Union, ensuring a victory with more man power
6..Lincoln was very a bit a white supremacist/white nationalist. In fact, his first move after the War was to send the blacks back to Africa. It was Frederick Douglas that kept pushing for abolition and rights. Lincoln didn't want these things for the blacks. He never really changed position, he just changed tactics.


So?

None of this changes the fact the south commited treason and sedition by seceding, and that they did so to preserve slavery.



jrjones9933
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,144
Location: The end of the northwest passage

05 Aug 2017, 1:50 pm

He also has the Emancipation Proclamation backwards. It freed the slaves in the states in revolt, and in those parishes of Louisiana that were in revolt.

Abolitionists criticized it, saying that Lincoln freed the slaves whom he did not have the power to free, but kept enslaved those whom he had the power to free.


_________________
"I find that the best way [to increase self-confidence] is to lie to yourself about who you are, what you've done, and where you're going." - Richard Ayoade