The Fifty First State

[Leoreth]

Well, we could argue ad infinitum or we could just take a look at what Lincoln really said...



Lincoln cares little about freeing the slaves, and a lot about forcing the Confederates to remain in the Union.

Lincoln, in fact says he has no intent to free Southern slaves...

You misinterpreted his statement. Lincoln didn't want to say "I don't care about the slaves, must crush the traitors" but that his responsibility to preserve the Union was more important than his political desire to abolish slavery.

 

[Cutlass]

God dammit Cutlass! You know for sure and darn well that the big issue that drove the war was slavery. No. Freaking. Duh. But you are also smart enough to know that the average southern boy that bled out had no slaves and was unlikely fighting for "slavery per se." Was the south deeply racist through and through? No. Freaking. Duh. So was the North. Does the North have the moral high ground in hindsight? Again, no duh. But to gloss over the actual reasons an "average" southerner gave the last full measure of devotion was not so black people would remain in chains. Tragedy on the scale of the Civil War leaves 200 year scars. The South full well remembers why the average man fought, even as I am sure it concedes the sins of its past. You can hold two ideas in your head at the same time, yes? Lincoln was big enough to forgive almost immediately after the war was obviously won, do we need more time to catch up to him?(that came off worse than I meant, but I'm too lazy to re-write).

Sorry. You're off on the wrong track. The simple fact is that the Southern leaders started the war for one and only one reason: To protect the institution of slavery from the encroachment of abolition sentiment. Lincoln responded in a careful and measured way until the Southerner started the shooting. Lincoln's overwhelming motive was to preserve the Union. Slavery was the Southern motive, not the Northern motive, for the War.

Now in all of this the Confederate leadership all of the characteristics of the worst worst den of scum and villainy going. They did pretty much everything in the stupidest and most vile manner available to them. So not only did they start a war for the most vile of reasons, but they were completely stupid to have done so. Stupid from many perspectives, not the least of which that abolition within the law was not going to happen for a good long time into the future if they hadn't themselves forced the issue.

Now as to the common soldier, you really have that wrong, if not for the obvious reasons. Among the scumbag moves of the Confederate leaders was large scale conscription of poor whites to fight while crafting rules that kept many of the slaveholders personally out of the fighting. Yes, many of the common Confederate soldiers were volunteers rather than conscripts, but the Confederacy would have collapsed much faster without the conscripts. (oddly, I'm not able to find the conscription numbers for some reason ) But many of the common soldiers knew damned well that they were fighting for the right of the South to keep slaves. The poor white farmers had as a point of pride that they were at least better than slaves, and so in some ways were as invested in the continuation of slavery as the slave owners themselves.

However, none of that really matters to the discussion at hand.

None of this actually has anything to do with the topic at hand!

What the real subject here is the continuous apology for the treason which was the Civil War, and the continuous attempts to take the blame off the traitors and put it on Lincoln and the North, and the continuous attempts to make it seem that the Confederates were somehow the more noble or moral side.

And why is all this happening? Because people who hate freedom and love tyranny now want to cripple the federal government because it is the nation's primary protector of liberty. In order to tear down the federal government they have to delegitimize it. And in order to delegitimize the federal government, they have to legitimize the Confederacy. (Well, maybe they don't, but they find it a very convenient thing to do. And so many of them do a lot of it.)

It is this Civil War traitor apology, and the really vile motives behind it, that I am fighting against. Not the history of the ACW itself.

• The Confederate leaders were the scum of the Earth.
• The Confederate leaders are solely responsible for starting the ACW and the killing of 600,000 Americans.
• The sole reason the Confederate leaders did this was to preserve slavery.
• There is nothing "pro-liberty" on the side of the Confederacy.
• The Confederacy is in no sense an example of liberty for the modern country
• And yet over and over again we are forced to restrain our vomit as people who flat out do not know what they are talking about apologize for the Confederacy and hold it up as some sort of a positive example of liberty, even though it was exactly the opposite.
  

The Confederates started the war. The Confederates started the war solely for the purpose of protecting slavery. The Confederates were the scum of the earth. They lost. It's been 150 years. There never was anything admirable about them in the first place, and there certainly is not now.

Get over it already! Stop apologizing for these traitors.

And, most importantly, stop trying to use them to further a current political agenda that actually has nothing to do with what they advertise it having to do with.

 

[bhsup]

The south didn't want a war. They wanted to be cut free. The north pushed and pushed for the war. Also, one of the first things Lincoln did after taking office was to order a contingent of ships to reinforce Fort Sumter which as we all know was occupying sovereign South Carolina territory and had refused for months to withdraw its troops.

 

[NickyJ]

Ignorant? That's what you say when you can't defend your logic or lack thereof. It's also what you say when you take a comment out of context and refuse to acknowledge such context when it's presented to you, over and over again.

How can it get ANY clearer than this? I've been saying it again and again. You took Ghost's comment out of context, and you now refuse to acknowledge that context, even though I've pointed it out time after time. It's frustrating, because it simply cannot get any more obvious.

 

[peter grimes]

Wow, do you ever need a new definition for universal.

You're right. I should have used a more specific term. I intended it to mean 'widely acknowledged', not literally every single person.

Not sure the New Yawker has ever been south of the Mason Dixon line. It's easier to be "right" if you ignore the horrors of war and go with a clear paladin vs. death knight scenario. We Americans truly are great at that mental game.

I have been to the south, but never lived there. I have family in Chattanooga that we would visit every other year for a few weeks in summer. Brother went to Auburn, so I visited there a bit, and I really like D.C. And I will be completely honest - I don't care for southern 'culture' one bit. The landscape can be gorgeous in places, but I'd never choose to live there. bolded I don't get this reference. Is it important?

Here's the thing, that's not really accurate. A more apt comparison would be the Hindu use of a Swastika perhaps, to a Western person it does symbolize horiffic oppression and the Holocaust, but to the Hindus, its a religious symbol that has nothing to do with killing millions at all.

I disagree - comparing a Hindoo interpretation of a symbol with a northern european interpretation implies that there is no shared history between the parties. But with the confederate flag there is exactly a shared history - which is why my analogy with the 'Hitler Moustache' is more appropriate.

Have you personally interviewed everyone in the universe about this, and documented the results? Otherwise, you can't generalize like that.

See above - bad choice of words on my part.

 

[Verarde]

See above - bad choice of words on my part.

No harm done, mate.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

How can it get ANY clearer than this? I've been saying it again and again. You took Ghost's comment out of context, and you now refuse to acknowledge that context, even though I've pointed it out time after time. It's frustrating, because it simply cannot get any more obvious.

No largE fonts and crazy colors? Then I don't believe you.

Nevertheless, I made the comment that GW thought slavery wasN'T all that bad. I even provided the source that I based it on that said exactly that. Instead of acknowledging the point, you both continue to whine about context because it is rather more convenient to ignore the context provided to dodge my assertions than facing them.

Btw, we've pretty much moved on from you both whinning about context to why you are both wrong in every respect about the Civil War. Do try to keep up.

 

[Cutlass]

The south didn't want a war. They wanted to be cut free. The north pushed and pushed for the war. Also, one of the first things Lincoln did after taking office was to order a contingent of ships to reinforce Fort Sumter which as we all know was occupying sovereign South Carolina territory and had refused for months to withdraw its troops.

If they didn't want a war they really should not have fired the first shots.

 

[NickyJ]

Nevertheless, I made the comment that GW thought slavery wasN'T all that bad. I even provided the source that I based it on that said exactly that. Instead of acknowledging the point, you both continue to whine about context because it is rather more convenient to ignore the context provided to dodge my assertions than facing them.

You had no point that was worth acknowledging. You butchered a post and its context, and you expect me to go "oh, yeah, even though he didn't say that, because you bolded a few words and ignored the fact that he said slavery is completely evil, you're totally right"?

Btw, we've pretty much moved on from you both whinning about context to why you are both wrong in every respect about the Civil War. Do try to keep up.

If you think I'm whining and that you've moved on, why are still posting about it?

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

...Don't any of you people have anything better to do?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Sorry. You're off on the wrong track. The simple fact is that the Southern leaders started the war for one and only one reason: To protect the institution of slavery from the encroachment of abolition sentiment. Lincoln responded in a careful and measured way until the Southerner started the shooting. Lincoln's overwhelming motive was to preserve the Union. Slavery was the Southern motive, not the Northern motive, for the War.

Now in all of this the Confederate leadership all of the characteristics of the worst worst den of scum and villainy going. They did pretty much everything in the stupidest and most vile manner available to them. So not only did they start a war for the most vile of reasons, but they were completely stupid to have done so. Stupid from many perspectives, not the least of which that abolition within the law was not going to happen for a good long time into the future if they hadn't themselves forced the issue.

Now as to the common soldier, you really have that wrong, if not for the obvious reasons. Among the scumbag moves of the Confederate leaders was large scale conscription of poor whites to fight while crafting rules that kept many of the slaveholders personally out of the fighting. Yes, many of the common Confederate soldiers were volunteers rather than conscripts, but the Confederacy would have collapsed much faster without the conscripts. (oddly, I'm not able to find the conscription numbers for some reason ) But many of the common soldiers knew damned well that they were fighting for the right of the South to keep slaves. The poor white farmers had as a point of pride that they were at least better than slaves, and so in some ways were as invested in the continuation of slavery as the slave owners themselves.

However, none of that really matters to the discussion at hand.

None of this actually has anything to do with the topic at hand!

What the real subject here is the continuous apology for the treason which was the Civil War, and the continuous attempts to take the blame off the traitors and put it on Lincoln and the North, and the continuous attempts to make it seem that the Confederates were somehow the more noble or moral side.

And why is all this happening? Because people who hate freedom and love tyranny now want to cripple the federal government because it is the nation's primary protector of liberty. In order to tear down the federal government they have to delegitimize it. And in order to delegitimize the federal government, they have to legitimize the Confederacy. (Well, maybe they don't, but they find it a very convenient thing to do. And so many of them do a lot of it.)

It is this Civil War traitor apology, and the really vile motives behind it, that I am fighting against. Not the history of the ACW itself.

• The Confederate leaders were the scum of the Earth.
• The Confederate leaders are solely responsible for starting the ACW and the killing of 600,000 Americans.
• The sole reason the Confederate leaders did this was to preserve slavery.
• There is nothing "pro-liberty" on the side of the Confederacy.
• The Confederacy is in no sense an example of liberty for the modern country
• And yet over and over again we are forced to restrain our vomit as people who flat out do not know what they are talking about apologize for the Confederacy and hold it up as some sort of a positive example of liberty, even though it was exactly the opposite.
  

The Confederates started the war. The Confederates started the war solely for the purpose of protecting slavery. The Confederates were the scum of the earth. They lost. It's been 150 years. There never was anything admirable about them in the first place, and there certainly is not now.

Get over it already! Stop apologizing for these traitors.

And, most importantly, stop trying to use them to further a current political agenda that actually has nothing to do with what they advertise it having to do with.

I never said the CSA was "Pro-liberty" or anything like that. What I said is that when the seceded, they became a country and so invading them was really a territory grab. I,, for the fourth time, compared the CSA to IRAQ. A dictatorship. I never said the CSA was a particularly good model for liberty.

What I DID say is that I believe in the right to self-determination and that the states have a right to secede. As such, the Union had no right to invade them. Lincoln, for invading a country for no good reason (And "Free the slaves" wasn't even his cause) and suspending civil liberties in other states in order to enforce them to remain in the Union, was not a very good President.

The reality is, yes, the South wanted to ensure slavery was protected, but Lincoln really attacked them in order to stop them from seceding, not to stop them from having slaves.

And as for the South starting the war because the South attacked a fort in their own territory, that's ridiculous. The Union had no right to keep the fort at that point.

 

[Crezth]

What I DID say is that I believe in the right to self-determination and that the states have a right to secede. As such, the Union had no right to invade them.

Is it really self-determination when 40% of the population isn't being consulted?

 

[Cutlass]

I never said the CSA was "Pro-liberty" or anything like that. What I said is that when the seceded, they became a country and so invading them was really a territory grab. I,, for the fourth time, compared the CSA to IRAQ. A dictatorship. I never said the CSA was a particularly good model for liberty.

What I DID say is that I believe in the right to self-determination and that the states have a right to secede. As such, the Union had no right to invade them. Lincoln, for invading a country for no good reason (And "Free the slaves" wasn't even his cause) and suspending civil liberties in other states in order to enforce them to remain in the Union, was not a very good President.

The reality is, yes, the South wanted to ensure slavery was protected, but Lincoln really attacked them in order to stop them from seceding, not to stop them from having slaves.

And as for the South starting the war because the South attacked a fort in their own territory, that's ridiculous. The Union had no right to keep the fort at that point.

That's all just more apologizing for treason. It can't be taken seriously.

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

...Don't any of you people have anything better to do?

No, serious question here.

 

[Ajidica]

No, serious question here.

Nope, but then again, I do have standards so I am playing Deus Ex instead of continuing this thread arguing with apologists for violent traitors.

 

[Farm Boy]

....

I'll stop "apologizing" for the average man when you stop grossly oversimplifying.

If you want your history neat and clean, and you need to be right right - by all means, continue on.

 

[Lord of Elves]

I'll stop "apologizing" for the average man when you stop grossly oversimplifying.

If you want your history neat and clean, and you need to be right right - by all means, continue on.

What isn't neat and clean about a rebellion by traitors who also happened to be slave-drivers? There's a clear good guy versus bad guy relationship here!

 

[Farm Boy]

What can ever possibly be neat and clean about a civil war?

Clearly the answer to my original question is yes. We do need more time to catch up to him.

 

[Lord of Elves]

What can ever possibly be neat and clean about a civil war?

The fact that the Civil War occurred because southern plantation aristocrats were willing to take up arms against the sovereign government of the United States in order to maintain the institution of slavery. Where they, you know, legally owned another race of people they used for fieldwork.

I bet they were great people, though.

 

[GhostWriter16]

...Don't any of you people have anything better to do?

Yes, but still

Is it really self-determination when 40% of the population isn't being consulted?

Were they consulted in the North about the decision to invade the South either?

Was Lincoln's issue that they weren't consulted?

I didn't think so.

The issue was that apparently seceding from a country is absolutely, totally wrong accorrding to the North. The South wanted independence and the North said no. End of thread.

Yes, the South wanted to defend slavery but the North didn't want to end it so it didn't really mattter. The North was no better.

What isn't neat and clean about a rebellion by traitors who also happened to be slave-drivers? There's a clear good guy versus bad guy relationship here!

No, no there's not. What about the slave owners in the North for crying out loud?

The reality is, you think secesssion is treason and you are trying to use the whole slave thing to defend your view when the North clearly had no desire to end slavery and so no moral superiority.

I don't see any good guy/bad guy relationship here... I see a bad guy/bad guy relationship.

But by all means, oversimplify and refuse to address anything I say.