(04-18-2014 07:45 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(04-18-2014 07:38 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-18-2014 07:28 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(04-18-2014 07:19 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-18-2014 07:14 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  This argument is getting really dumb really fast.


Oh, John's here.

Carry on!

Silvery/corporate interests LOL! Ahahahahahaha

anyone who knows a damn about the civil war WITHOUT the revisionist bullsh!t knows that succession was pushed mostly by corporate interests

Jonnyzero, please keep telling us the story about succession. That's another of my faves...

Easily, and without any doubt, argument or anything else possible- the most racist people with out any question about it, that I have had to deal with in any great capacity hail from either Massachusetts or Rhode Island. Not even close. Eastern shore of Maryland comes in a close 3rd.

hey at least we care enough about racism to actually charge people with hate crimes on a regular basis

Oh, goody. another of my favorite Fairy Tales- is this the one about "more crime equals less crime and less crime equals more crime"? I LOVED that one. It kept me in giggles and stitches for days.

Oh, please, please, tell that one again!!!

if you were too dumb to understand it then you are too dumb to understand it now.

if you really wanna buy the BS that MS which is historically the most racist state had ZERO hate crimes for a 3 year period then you win the "most naive fool on csnbbs" award.

(04-18-2014 07:47 PM)WPDAWG08 Wrote:  These people that look to be offended and want to rewrite history make me sick.

One contradicting argument is that the United States Civil War was mainly perpetuated by the Southern states’ push for states’ rights, especially concerning the institution of slavery and how it was handled in the south. However, this viewpoint in contingent on the desire of southern slave owners to continue owning, buying and selling slaves. That desire was not based around pride and state’s rights as it was boasted, but around the Southerners’ desire to continue making money just as they had since the Constitution was signed. The state’s rights argument was nothing but an excuse for the southerners to argue that they were being cut out of biggest source of profit.

^^^^
funny thing is ==> that line came from a link that is from vanderbilt.edu

(04-18-2014 07:48 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-18-2014 07:45 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(04-18-2014 07:38 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-18-2014 07:28 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(04-18-2014 07:19 PM)john01992 Wrote:  anyone who knows a damn about the civil war WITHOUT the revisionist bullsh!t knows that succession was pushed mostly by corporate interests

Jonnyzero, please keep telling us the story about succession. That's another of my faves...

Easily, and without any doubt, argument or anything else possible- the most racist people with out any question about it, that I have had to deal with in any great capacity hail from either Massachusetts or Rhode Island. Not even close. Eastern shore of Maryland comes in a close 3rd.

hey at least we care enough about racism to actually charge people with hate crimes on a regular basis

Oh, goody. another of my favorite Fairy Tales- is this the one about "more crime equals less crime and less crime equals more crime"? I LOVED that one. It kept me in giggles and stitches for days.

Oh, please, please, tell that one again!!!

if you were too dumb to understand it then you are too dumb to understand it now.

if you really wanna buy the BS that MS which is historically the most racist state had ZERO hate crimes for a 3 year period then you win the "most naive fool on csnbbs" award.

Is this when you call me naive, too? Oh yes, yes it is!!! Hooray! It hasn't happened in a number of days, I was starting to feel left out.

The most racist people I have EVER encountered in 24 years of business ownership, entrepreneurship, starting and owning businesses in Va., N.C, Charleston S.C, a western and tack shop, factories in Mass, RI and some interests overseas were those in the North East. Not EVEN close. Not debatable, no question whatsoever.

New England. Facts have a truthful bias. Clean up your own backyard. Racist northerners.

John tell me more about succession...please! The South Seceeded man!

Now how about an army comprised of 25% from other countries and mercenaries ? , similar to Hessians from theRrevolutionary war.

Read what John C. Calhoun wrote about the Tariffs of Abomination! All of this preluded the War Between the States.

Now please defend Lincoln for me. He hated the black man and said that the negro would never be equal to the white man. His plan was to colonize them all to Liberia for gosh sakes!

(04-18-2014 08:04 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  John tell me more about succession...please! The South Seceeded man!

Now how about an army comprised of 25% from other countries and mercenaries ? , similar to Hessians from theRrevolutionary war.

Read what John C. Calhoun wrote about the Tariffs of Abomination! All of this preluded the War Between the States.

Now please defend Lincoln for me. He hated the black man and said that the negro would never be equal to the white man. His plan was to colonize them all to Liberia for gosh sakes!

you wanna know about lincoln? gladly. the dude was a moderate who did not want to abolish slavery but rather prevent expansion.

Much of the Southern apprehension and ire that Lincoln would free the slaves was misplaced. No matter how distasteful he found the practice of slavery, the overarching philosophy that drove Lincoln was a hard pragmatism that did not include the forcible abolition of slavery by the federal government—for the simple reason that he could not envision any political way of accomplishing it. But Lincoln, like a considerable number of Northern people, was decidedly against allowing slavery to spread into new territories and states. By denying slaveholders the right to extend their boundaries, Lincoln would in effect also be weakening their power in Washington, and over time this would almost inevitably have resulted in the abolition of slavery, as sooner or later the land would have worn out.

But that wasn’t bad enough for the Southern press, which whipped up the populace to such a pitch of fury that Lincoln became as reviled as John Brown himself. These influential journals, from Richmond to Charleston and myriad points in between, painted a sensational picture of Lincoln in words and cartoons as an arch-abolitionist—a kind of antichrist who would turn the slaves loose to rape, murder and pillage. For the most part, Southerners ate it up. If there is a case to be made on what caused the Civil War, the Southern press and its editors would be among the first in the dock. It goes a long way in explaining why only one in three Confederate soldiers were slaveholders, or came from slaveholding families. It wasn’t their slaves they were defending, it was their homes against the specter of slaves-gone-wild.

That's why he didn't respect the negro? That's why he trampled the Constitution, used false imprisonment of politicians and government officials that disagreed with him. That's why he destroyed 300 newspapers and had the state of Maryland under martial law? Laughed at the tales of rape and destruction of the southern people during Sherman's Terrorist acts?

But first tell me about Lincolns army of mercenaries and others from foreign countries,..please?!

(04-18-2014 08:16 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  That's why he didn't respect the negro? That's why he trampled the Constitution, used false imprisonment of politicians and government officials that disagreed with him. That's why he destroyed 300 newspapers and had the state of Maryland under martial law? Laughed at the tales of rape and destruction of the southern people during Sherman's Terrorist acts?

But first tell me about Lincolns army of mercenaries and others from foreign countries,..please?!

i have no idea what you are talking about

Exactly, ....you are just as idiotic as these dimwitted punks at W&L. Know what you are talking about or....

(04-18-2014 08:29 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  Exactly, ....you are just as idiotic as these dimwitted punks at W&L. Know what you are talking about or....

sorry that my reality doesn't adhere to your madeup sh!t

Educate yourself before you enter into a debate.

the north had over 2 million soldiers during the civil war. you would think foreign mercenaries that made 25% of them would get a mention in all the history books ==> or SC duke is full of sh!t

for the record lincoln did do a lot of expansion of the federal govt using emergency wartime clauses in the constitution. He did suspend habeas corpus and limited free speech. but the limiting of certain rights during war time is not exactly trampling on the constitution considering it is a concept that has been used throughout multiple wars in american history.

(04-18-2014 08:38 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  Educate yourself before you enter into a debate.

check your homerism/revisionist history at the door before you enter into a debate.

Alexander Stephens, veep of the Confederacy, said, in crystal clear terms, the secession was to preserve slavery.

Was he lying?

Just facts that's all I need

(04-18-2014 08:48 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  Just facts that's all I need

"facts" like a totally made up stat that 25% of union troops were foreign mercenaries like the revolutionary war?????????

(04-18-2014 08:41 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Alexander Stephens, veep of the Confederacy, said, in crystal clear terms, the secession was to preserve slavery.

Was he lying?

No, he was not lying. But neither was he speaking on behalf of every Confederate soldier, citizen, or sympathizer. Others had differing views, and Stephens' words do not define the motives of everyone else.

approximately 1/3 of the Union Army were:

German, Irish, British, French. Mostly German and Irish

(04-18-2014 08:51 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(04-18-2014 08:41 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Alexander Stephens, veep of the Confederacy, said, in crystal clear terms, the secession was to preserve slavery.

Was he lying?

No, he was not lying. But neither was he speaking on behalf of every Confederate soldier, citizen, or sympathizer. Others had differing views, and Stephens' words do not define the motives of everyone else.

Maybe not, but he was surely speaking for the newly formed government.

(04-18-2014 08:51 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(04-18-2014 08:41 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Alexander Stephens, veep of the Confederacy, said, in crystal clear terms, the secession was to preserve slavery.

Was he lying?

No, he was not lying. But neither was he speaking on behalf of every Confederate soldier, citizen, or sympathizer. Others had differing views, and Stephens' words do not define the motives of everyone else.

I am not saying that that was the motives of "everyone" but these types of situations are a chain reaction & rush to judgement started by a small group of people with a business agenda in mind.

you can say it wasn't about slavery top to bottom ==> but her are the facts.

it started in the state of SC ==> the state with the strictest "property ownership" requirement to vote. SC was the one state in the union where slaveholders made up the majority of voters.

SC was isolated during this incident and not wanting a repeat of 1832 sent delegates to other deep south states begging them to follow suite. remember that it took weeks for other deep south states to follow suite and fort sumter for the border states to follow suite.

these guys acted quickly trying to push secession votes through before cooler heads could prevail and the unionist movements could organize.

while the minority of the population had slaves they had a huge amount of the political power and it was their quick action + the smear campaign that preyed on the fears of commoners that abolition of slavery would be disastrous. once that secession vote passed the entire state was committed whether they agreed with secession or not.

the "spark" was entirely about slavery. the chain reaction was heavily influenced by slavery. but unfortunately states rights revisionist history is how it gets taught today.......

(04-18-2014 08:59 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  approximately 1/3 of the Union Army were:

German, Irish, British, French. Mostly German and Irish

except for one little detail........

german-americans
irish-americans
french-americans
british-americans