George
A. The civil war was not fought to free the slaves.
The issue was not slavery. If Southerners could have had the same lifestyle without slavery, they would never have talked about it. The issue was about the North telling the South it could not have slaves. The issue was about whether it was an empire run from the North, or a republic where states rights were valued. Slavery happened to be the most talked about issue, but it was just a pawn on the chessboard of states' rights. I do agree for some people it was about slavery, but not many.gclayjr wrote: ↑August 30th, 2017, 6:32 am I'm glad that most of you are starting to admit that slavery was the main issue, while slandering me! It is funny that nobody recognizes my multiple statements of Admiration of both Lee and Jackson as individuals, and the many good southerners who fought for what they perceived as defense against a Northern invasion of their states.
However, like any revisionists, when backed in a corner, instead of recognizing your own excesses, you blame the truth telling messenger. If you go back to the Original Article that started this thread, You will see that it WAS trying to blame Lincoln and deny that the War of the Rebellion was about Slaver ( Not just SIMPLY about Slavery). Although their wording included a lot of slimy deniability like
Now if you self denying revisionists want to move from 1st Grade original American history to 2nd grade Original American history, maybe you should Learn about why the Whig party fell apart to be replaced by the newly formed Republican Party. Then maybe you should study such things as the Missouri compromise and the Pro Slavery southern terrorists that caused "Bleeding Kansas".Think, folks: Why would the Southern states secede from the Union over slavery when President Abraham Lincoln had offered an amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing the PRESERVATION of slavery? That makes no sense. If the issue was predominantly slavery, all the South needed to do was to go along with Lincoln, and his proposed 13th Amendment would have permanently preserved slavery among the Southern (and Northern) states. Does that sound like a body of people who were willing to lose hundreds of thousands of men on the battlefield over saving slavery--especially considering that the vast majority of Southerners did not own a single slave? What nonsense!
The problem was, Lincoln wanted the Southern states to pay the Union a 40% tariff on their exports. The South considered this outrageous and refused to pay. By the time hostilities broke out in 1861, the South was paying up to, and perhaps exceeding, 70% of the nation’s taxes. Before the war, the South was very prosperous and productive. And Washington, D.C., kept raising the taxes and tariffs on them. You know, the way Washington, D.C., keeps raising the taxes on prosperous American citizens today.
Maybe then you will get a better understanding of what was really going on when you smear Lincoln for NOT going after Slavery in the south.
The REAL fact of the matter is that the Secession was NOT only about Slavery, which as so many southern apologists like to use to smear the truth, was not in immediate danger of being restricted or stopped in the south, but about the EXPANSION of Slavery. The south was really fighting to EXPAND slavery into new states, and the fact that the newly elected Republican president was from a party whose main platform was to STOP THE EXPANSION of slavery sent them into secession and war!
It is sad to see the evil and hatred that leads those who twist Abraham Lincoln's efforts to keep the "Fire-Eaters" of the south from seceding and STARTING a war, as evidence that he didn't care about slavery!
I suppose that with the extreme level in which you guys mis-characterize Lincoln to promote your lying version of history, I should feel honored at your mis-characterization of me also, in responding to another article that lies about the reason for the American Civil war. I will consider it an honor to be lied about similarly as Lincoln!
Not all Southern Sympathizers are from the South. It seems to me that these lies about Lincoln and the causes of the War of the Rebellion feed into 2 basic desires that are so prevalent here on this board.
1) With the growth of Federal power and the twisting of the American Constitution by politicians today, it makes a nice fairy tale to believe that the South was fighting against the expansion of federal power just like maybe more people should do today
2) Blame American hegemony and imperialism for all of the world's problems. Hey It was Lincoln's fault and if he wasn't such an SOB, then the bloodiest war in American History would never have been fought by a bunch of guys who just wanted the federal government to leave them alone to chase after Life, Liberty and Happiness, then Hey if we left those Muslim terrorists alone, then they would leave us alone too.
It's NOT their Fault... It's ours
And that is why so many Libertarians fall for this false narrative. It fulfills their wish for a world view
Regards,
George Clay
Lee Struggled about whether to fight for the South or the North. He was actually offered a better position in the North. He decided that he owed his allegiance more to his state than to the country. and Yes he was a good general. As I mentioned before, Thomas Jackson, while quirky, also, tried to live by what he perceived to be good Christian values, and moral principles, and yes he was a good general also.George you say you admire jacksons and lee. I'm curious why you admire them?
Thanks for completing the loop and proving your complete lack of character! I wasted a half hour of my time believing you when you said that there was something special in that video, rather than it being just a puking out of the same ole BS. Unlike you, I took what you said at face value, instead of accusing you of lying, like you did to me. and look what it got me!A. The civil war was not fought to free the slaves.
B. I didn't read your entire rant. I stopped when I saw inappropriate language in it.
C. I don't believe you watched it at all as you, for all your time spent posting a long and self serving post, DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION. Which has to indicate to you what it was all about.
D. You have it backward. Revisionist history says the civil war was fought to free the slaves. Traditional history, and history of the era from about the end of the war to about 1920 or so says it wasn't.
..), Then you are a hypocrite, George, plain and simple. The right of people to determine their own destiny should not be trampled upon by do-gooders. I suppose you also approve of West Virginia being unconstitutionally stolen from the Commonwealth of Virginia. I pity you.gclayjr wrote: ↑August 31st, 2017, 6:42 am Silver,
For! Even though Southern Apologists see the Civil war as kicking back against an overbearing Federal Government (and of course that is not my vision), I really do oppose Centralizing power into a central Oligarchy, like the EU. However, like Venezuela, the other alternative isn't all that great. I would even be more for Brexit, if I believed that the British government would reduce the government burden, and leave their own citizen's more freedom to seek out Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness, than the EU does.
By the way, I will agree, that the necessities of fighting the Civil war, may have given excuses for politicians of the future to seize more power and dilute the intent of the American Constitution. However, Like Venezuela, the other alternative was not good..actually much worse.
Everything opposing something bad is not necessarily good, and is often worse.
Regards,
George Clay
True, but what was the reason that they tried to secede?The Civil War was about whether or not states have the right to secede.
Yea, then we started a war to make it happen. I don't blame the British for for fighting to keep us as a colony. I don't claim that the British started the revolutionary war!The Declaration plainly states:
When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
I thanked you, George, because you have clearly shown how misguided your pet opinion is. The South started the war, you wrote. Guffaw.gclayjr wrote: ↑August 31st, 2017, 9:12 am Silver,
Yea, then we started a war to make it happen. I don't blame the British for for fighting to keep us as a colony. I don't claim that the British started the revolutionary war!The Declaration plainly states:
When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
And the South fought to separate themselves.... because they wanted to maintain slavery which they thought was great and benevolent, and they started a war and LOST.
So I am the one who is consistent, not you!
Regards,
George Clay
Because he, like many others, did not agree with the fire eaters and you, that one could just quit the Union any time they wanted to.why did Lincoln not allow secession?
I am sure that your beloved, Southern, Fire eating Edmund Ruffin would feel cheated by by your claim, since he took great pride in firing the first shot at Ft. Sumter and starting the war!I thanked you, George, because you have clearly shown how misguided your pet opinion is. The South started the war, you wrote. Guffaw.
That nonsense you're spewing has already been asked and answered. Too bad you can't open your eyes. You should ask yourself exactly how it hurts you to stop believing in unrighteous dominion.gclayjr wrote: ↑August 31st, 2017, 10:05 am Silver,
I am sure that your beloved, Southern, Fire eating Edmund Ruffin would feel cheated by by your claim, since he took great pride in firing the first shot at Ft. Sumter and starting the war!I thanked you, George, because you have clearly shown how misguided your pet opinion is. The South started the war, you wrote. Guffaw.
Regards,
George Clay
Boo-hoo. Poor Lincoln. Somebody else wants to do something different. This is self-righteous do-gooder-ism, in other words, The Yankee Problem.
Because it was a stupid irrational non trap, I didn't get why you were high fiving yourself about my answer. I just realized why you irrationally thought you actually made some point, so I will point out why your "trap" was not a trap.Hey, George, for or against, Brexit?
Thanks for showing again how desperate you are to defend an indefensible position. You support unrighteous dominion.gclayjr wrote: ↑August 31st, 2017, 10:53 am Silver,
I 'm sorry. I am naive., I always assume people are asking honest questions, not trying to set traps, so I honesty answered your question
Because it was a stupid irrational non trap, I didn't get why you were high fiving yourself about my answer. I just realized why you irrationally thought you actually made some point, so I will point out why your "trap" was not a trap.Hey, George, for or against, Brexit?
1) The EU is not a country any more than the British Commonwealth is a country and Canada can leave it, if if they so desire.
2) There is an actual clause (50) in the EU constitution providing detailed procedures nations will take should they desire to leave, and Britain exercised that clause. There is no such clause in the American Constitution.
I'm sorry for not catching on to your "trap" before; my only excuse is that it was so stupid and illogical that I didn't recognize it.
Regards,
George Clay
George is a solid guy. We have more in common than not. Someday...
