I hope the new statue is this beautiful.

(10-30-2023 12:06 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 11:43 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 11:34 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 10:18 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 10:00 AM)miko33 Wrote:  Slavery wasn't a sideline of the war. Without it, the southern plantation owners couldn't grow and harvest crops on the scale they were able to. How that would have affected the cash crops is difficult to say, but the cost of inputs to plant, grow and harvest crops would have been higher. It could have forced the south to pursue other economic growth opportunities - maybe even industrializing.

Let's fight about it! I'm about ready. Seriously Miko you can't be obtuse to the fact that Northern Textile plants wanted that cotton. They were just pissed the South was selling it to England and using cheap labor which was what the Northern mills couldn't overcome. You say slavery was central, I say economics were. Yankees just adopted the free the slaves' position, which by the way many Northerners didn't want to do, because it was a better moral high ground to take than profits and raw materials. The Abolitionists are the ones who should take the bow for freeing the slaves. They married the war to the cause and put their actions to their words. The North used Irish immigrants and then Freedmen to fill the ranks for the war. It was plenty ugly on both sides and none uglier than Lincoln's assassination and the unresolved cloud that hung in the air over that. Andersonville and Elmyra were both disgraces. My great grandmother lost her uncle at Elmyra. I read some of his letters to his family. They were saved and passed down. The vast majority of Southern soldiers didn't own slaves and the South had a share of Irish immigrants as well. Then the whole Kansas / Missouri border war was essentially gang warfare. No slaves there either.

All I'll say is that the abolitionists were the only moral high ground in the war and how our country could claim to be a Republic with all rights held in common and condone slavery was a policy in conflict with practice. It had to go and I'm glad it did.

But my friend slavery in 2023 is only a issue with children who are trafficked and that needs to be abolished, and the rise of antisemitism in the form of a new fascism is the issue we need to deal with now. This country should not abide fascism among us anymore than it should have ever been able to abide slavery.

I tend to find that people want to dig up past sins when they don't want to admit current ones.

I agree that economics are the ultimate root cause of virtually all wars. The issue with economics within this context is without slavery, would cotton, tobacco, etc become the cash crops they were at that time? Also consider the voting power of the 2 primary blocks represented in congress and the WH: Northern Industrialists and Southern Plantation Farmers. The SPF had the representatives in the slave states who would vote their interests while the NI had their interests voted in the affirmative by the free states. Slave states had a labor advantage over the free states wrt costs. Aside from being the literal labor force that made plantation life possible for the landed elite in the south, slavery provided political clout to the states who could use the senate to thwart any laws enacted that would otherwise be passed by the house due to the higher population centers in the north.

Slavery made the southern economies possible. Slavery helped keep political power largely equal to minimize northern states growing power thru population growth. I stated in an earlier comment that while there were more than one cause, those causes were NOT mutually exclusive. Ultimately everything springboards off of slavery because it's what gave power to the southern elites - literally in the Federal gov't thru the senators and representatives of the states whose economies were focused on agriculture.

And the various perspectives are precisely why secession happened and Ft. Sumter was fired upon. Perspective confounds reconciliation. That's why I said I'm ready.

The larger the country and the greater the population...the greater the diversity in thought. The flip side is the greater the opportunities and more natural resources.

Yes, and hence tolerance is necessary as well as discussion about the different points of view, and for governing compromise is essential, and trite hackneyed scapegoats in the blame game destructive to all.

Reason and logic need to be required subjects in all schools. They are the main ingredients in healthy compromise. We fail because those fundamental mindsets have been labeled Eurocentric and racists, which is not only asinine to any free thinker, but wholesale untrue in the accusation. Math and Logic were a marriage of North African and Greek cultures, neither were what you might call traditional European mindsets, and certainly not white. They were what they were, Mediterranean and African, likely with some other cultures of the vicinity tossed in.

Have you ever tried to reason with someone who can't do basic math in their head?

(10-30-2023 03:30 PM)b2b Wrote:  I hope the new statue is this beautiful.

Let me guess? Two hands, one of which belongs to someone who is married (the ring) playing with a large brown uncircumcised pecker. Perhaps it means they have been jerking us off the whole time? Or, perhaps it is a B.K. (Burger King) advertisement, "It takes two hands to handle a whopper!"

(10-30-2023 10:18 AM)JRsec Wrote:  The vast majority of Southern soldiers didn't own slaves

Came here to say this. I've got a lot of ancestors that fought on the side of the South and to the best of my research none of them but 1 owned any slaves. It was the same as it's always been. 2 groups of lower class people were pitted against each other for the gain of the upper class. The blue blood / high brow "southerners" weren't the ones getting their hands dirty in that hell.

(10-30-2023 03:18 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 02:46 PM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 01:34 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 12:19 PM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 11:54 AM)shere khan Wrote:  Moreover, you arent a traitor if you form a new country and fight your old one anymore than you are a cheater if you sleep with other women after your divorce.

People really need to learn the meaning of words.

Prior to the civil war, Robert E. Lee was in what army???

A. Salvation army
B. Canadian army
C. United States army

Correct anwwer: C

During civil war, Robert E Lee was in what army???

A. German army
B. Mexican army
C. Confederate army

Correct answer: C

That makes Robert E Lee what ???

A. A nobel warrior fighting for good.
B. A misunderstood patriot.
c. A Traitor.

Correct answer: C

You are definetly product of public school.

That is really just kinda sad.

Bless your heart

Yeah my parents didn't see the tuition to Johnny Redneck Academy as money well spent.

Everyone can tell

Great !!!

(10-30-2023 03:22 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 03:14 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 02:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  One thing that is not well understood because it is not the case today, is that in 1860 one's allegiance to one's state was considered more important than one's allegiance to the United States of America. The war changed that.

This is 100% true. There's a reason that before the war it was stated as "The United States are....". After the war that changed to "The United States is...." That's a HUGE, yet subtle difference. My guess is some in this thread won't pick up on the nuance.

United States in

After

Unitrd States of

(Not me, Shelby Foote)


Federalism won and has been easily bought hy everything from corporations to foriegn governments.

Hadn't heard that one, but it makes sense. BTW. Shelby Foote was, imo, one of the best parts of Ken Burn's Civil War series, despite the university he taught at at the time.

(10-30-2023 03:13 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 01:54 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 01:42 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 11:34 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 10:18 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Let's fight about it! I'm about ready. Seriously Miko you can't be obtuse to the fact that Northern Textile plants wanted that cotton. They were just pissed the South was selling it to England and using cheap labor which was what the Northern mills couldn't overcome. You say slavery was central, I say economics were. Yankees just adopted the free the slaves' position, which by the way many Northerners didn't want to do, because it was a better moral high ground to take than profits and raw materials. The Abolitionists are the ones who should take the bow for freeing the slaves. They married the war to the cause and put their actions to their words. The North used Irish immigrants and then Freedmen to fill the ranks for the war. It was plenty ugly on both sides and none uglier than Lincoln's assassination and the unresolved cloud that hung in the air over that. Andersonville and Elmyra were both disgraces. My great grandmother lost her uncle at Elmyra. I read some of his letters to his family. They were saved and passed down. The vast majority of Southern soldiers didn't own slaves and the South had a share of Irish immigrants as well. Then the whole Kansas / Missouri border war was essentially gang warfare. No slaves there either.

All I'll say is that the abolitionists were the only moral high ground in the war and how our country could claim to be a Republic with all rights held in common and condone slavery was a policy in conflict with practice. It had to go and I'm glad it did.

But my friend slavery in 2023 is only a issue with children who are trafficked and that needs to be abolished, and the rise of antisemitism in the form of a new fascism is the issue we need to deal with now. This country should not abide fascism among us anymore than it should have ever been able to abide slavery.

I tend to find that people want to dig up past sins when they don't want to admit current ones.

I agree that economics are the ultimate root cause of virtually all wars. The issue with economics within this context is without slavery, would cotton, tobacco, etc become the cash crops they were at that time? Also consider the voting power of the 2 primary blocks represented in congress and the WH: Northern Industrialists and Southern Plantation Farmers. The SPF had the representatives in the slave states who would vote their interests while the NI had their interests voted in the affirmative by the free states. Slave states had a labor advantage over the free states wrt costs. Aside from being the literal labor force that made plantation life possible for the landed elite in the south, slavery provided political clout to the states who could use the senate to thwart any laws enacted that would otherwise be passed by the house due to the higher population centers in the north.

Slavery made the southern economies possible. Slavery helped keep political power largely equal to minimize northern states growing power thru population growth. I stated in an earlier comment that while there were more than one cause, those causes were NOT mutually exclusive. Ultimately everything springboards off of slavery because it's what gave power to the southern elites - literally in the Federal gov't thru the senators and representatives of the states whose economies were focused on agriculture.

The bold is only a half truth. Northern and European demand for southern goods really made southern economies possible. I'll let you draw the parallel.

Without slavery, would the southern economies produce to the same level? Would the southern landed elite be incentivized enough to produce at the same levels but with significantly higher labor costs yet still sell at the same prices? If yes but only at significantly higher prices, would Europe and the North have simply looked for alternative sources of raw materials? Would they have still bought the southern products at the higher prices?

I don't know honestly. However, I do know that with slavery the south was able to produce a lot of product and sell at price points attractive enough to keep the whole economic system humming for decades.

Without slavery, the Mississippi delta, Southern Alabama and much of South Carolina, Georgia and Florida would have been basically uninhabited. The Africans could survive the malarial mosquitos. The Europeans could not. So a lot of productive agricultural land would have remained unused. Output would have been significantly less. There would have been an economy as there was in the 1600s and 1700s before the slave population exploded after the invention of the Cotton gin. But it would have been a smaller, slower growing economy.

Its no coincidence that 6 of the 7 states who seceded first were the 6 with the highest % of slaves, 43.7% or higher. And the slave states that stayed in the Union had the 4 lowest %.
https://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/ac...on-in-1860

Rank State free/slave/total population
1 South Carolina 301,271 402,541 703,812 57.2
2 Mississippi 354,700 436,696 791,396 55.2
3 Louisiana 376,280 333,010 709,290 47.0
4 Alabama 529,164 435,132 964,296 45.1
5 Florida 78,686 61,753 140,439 43.9
6 Georgia 595,097 462,232 1,057,329 43.7
7 North Carolina 661,586 331,081 992,667 33.4
8 Virginia 1,105,192 490,887 1,596,079 30.7
9 Texas 421,750 180,682 602,432 30.0
10 Arkansas 324,323 111,104 435,427 25.5
11 Tennessee 834,063 275,784 1,109,847 24.8
12 Kentucky 930,223 225,490 1,155,713 19.5
13 Maryland 599,846 87,188 687,034 12.7
14 Missouri 1,067,352 114,965 1,182,317 9.7
15 Delaware 110,420 1,798 112,218 1.6

Thanks for that info. It fleshes out the context even more and shows how foundational slavery was to the south. It made it possible for the southern states to generate wealth on larger scale than otherwise possible plus gave the states the resources to engage in international trade.

(10-30-2023 03:15 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 01:54 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 01:42 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 11:34 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 10:18 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Let's fight about it! I'm about ready. Seriously Miko you can't be obtuse to the fact that Northern Textile plants wanted that cotton. They were just pissed the South was selling it to England and using cheap labor which was what the Northern mills couldn't overcome. You say slavery was central, I say economics were. Yankees just adopted the free the slaves' position, which by the way many Northerners didn't want to do, because it was a better moral high ground to take than profits and raw materials. The Abolitionists are the ones who should take the bow for freeing the slaves. They married the war to the cause and put their actions to their words. The North used Irish immigrants and then Freedmen to fill the ranks for the war. It was plenty ugly on both sides and none uglier than Lincoln's assassination and the unresolved cloud that hung in the air over that. Andersonville and Elmyra were both disgraces. My great grandmother lost her uncle at Elmyra. I read some of his letters to his family. They were saved and passed down. The vast majority of Southern soldiers didn't own slaves and the South had a share of Irish immigrants as well. Then the whole Kansas / Missouri border war was essentially gang warfare. No slaves there either.

All I'll say is that the abolitionists were the only moral high ground in the war and how our country could claim to be a Republic with all rights held in common and condone slavery was a policy in conflict with practice. It had to go and I'm glad it did.

But my friend slavery in 2023 is only a issue with children who are trafficked and that needs to be abolished, and the rise of antisemitism in the form of a new fascism is the issue we need to deal with now. This country should not abide fascism among us anymore than it should have ever been able to abide slavery.

I tend to find that people want to dig up past sins when they don't want to admit current ones.

I agree that economics are the ultimate root cause of virtually all wars. The issue with economics within this context is without slavery, would cotton, tobacco, etc become the cash crops they were at that time? Also consider the voting power of the 2 primary blocks represented in congress and the WH: Northern Industrialists and Southern Plantation Farmers. The SPF had the representatives in the slave states who would vote their interests while the NI had their interests voted in the affirmative by the free states. Slave states had a labor advantage over the free states wrt costs. Aside from being the literal labor force that made plantation life possible for the landed elite in the south, slavery provided political clout to the states who could use the senate to thwart any laws enacted that would otherwise be passed by the house due to the higher population centers in the north.

Slavery made the southern economies possible. Slavery helped keep political power largely equal to minimize northern states growing power thru population growth. I stated in an earlier comment that while there were more than one cause, those causes were NOT mutually exclusive. Ultimately everything springboards off of slavery because it's what gave power to the southern elites - literally in the Federal gov't thru the senators and representatives of the states whose economies were focused on agriculture.

The bold is only a half truth. Northern and European demand for southern goods really made southern economies possible. I'll let you draw the parallel.

Without slavery, would the southern economies produce to the same level? Would the southern landed elite be incentivized enough to produce at the same levels but with significantly higher labor costs yet still sell at the same prices? If yes but only at significantly higher prices, would Europe and the North have simply looked for alternative sources of raw materials? Would they have still bought the southern products at the higher prices?

I don't know honestly. However, I do know that with slavery the south was able to produce a lot of product and sell at price points attractive enough to keep the whole economic system humming for decades.

My guess is no, but then again, with no demand from the North or overseas, there wouldn't be a need for all that labor.

I agree with that. However the demand would have been there regardless of the south’s ability to grow cotton and the other cash crops. Industrializing economies usually start with textiles, and if not from the south then the north would have attempted to secure raw materials elsewhere. It likely would have been a slower process but I think sooner or later each part of the country would have realized their potential likely through immigration over time.

(10-29-2023 02:41 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-28-2023 11:40 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  

(10-28-2023 09:29 AM)andybible1995 Wrote:  

(10-28-2023 09:02 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(10-28-2023 08:51 AM)andybible1995 Wrote:  He was a dictator, for the reasons I stated in my post. Why do think Obama cites Lincolin as his favorite president? He wanted to emulate Lincolin. Why do you think he attacked Fox News and Rusb Limbaugh? Why do you think his administration tried to bring back The Fairness Doctrine?

On top of that, when the Union won the civil war, it allowed the government to expand into the large centralized monster we have now.

The monster is Federalism.

Lincoln, in his own words, didnt give two shites about slavery

People need to read

Free your mind indoctrinated sheep

https://www.civilwarprofiles.com/dwight-...ert-e-lee/


would say, first, that we need to understand that at the time of the War between the States the issue of secession had remained unresolved for more than 70 years. Men of probity, character, public standing and unquestioned loyalty, both North and South, had disagreed over this issue as a matter of principle from the day our Constitution was adopted.

General Robert E. Lee was, in my estimation, one of the supremely gifted men produced by our Nation. He believed unswervingly in the Constitutional validity of his cause which until 1865 was still an arguable question in America; he was a poised and inspiring leader, true to the high trust reposed in him by millions of his fellow citizens; he was thoughtful yet demanding of his officers and men, forbearing with captured enemies but ingenious, unrelenting and personally courageous in battle, and never disheartened by a reverse or obstacle. Through all his many trials, he remained selfless almost to a fault and unfailing in his faith in God. Taken altogether, he was noble as a leader and as a man, and unsullied as I read the pages of our history.


No charge Catlett. Always good to learn.

Confederate history is American history. The Communist lie is the civil war was fought over slavery and nothing else.

That is true in the sense that England, Germany, Japan, Mexico, Spain Iraq and all the other countries we've fought wars against are part of American history.

The confederates weren't Americans. Look up the definition of secession.

The only way Lincoln f'd up was letting them off easy. Then maybe we wouldn't have a good portion of the populace that thinks the confederacy was a good thing.

You're not getting your stories straight. W it. The "War of Northern Aggression," better known as "The War Between the States," was because the North didn't believe they had the right to secede and never recognized that secession.

This is truly how most from the South saw it. They thought they were going to lose everything they had worked for. The vast majority that fought for the South were NOT SLAVE OWNERS. Overwhelmingly NOT.

That is what this war was called in the day. The War Between The States.

Lincoln wasn’t an Abolitionist. He wanted to remove Blacks from the US after the war. He didn’t believe there could be harmony between whites and blacks. You could argue that to some extent he was right. It has been a long hard road that many think is far from being over.

Lincoln brought Slavery to forefront after the War had been going on for a couple of years. Yet kids are taught it was fought over slavery. This war was fought over MONEY and STATES RIGHTS. Slavery became a rally cry late in the war.

You also have to remember they weren’t that far removed from the war of 1812 so they also knew that their freedoms and rights could taken away.

JMHO I don’t think you can paint the broad brush Bear Catlett wants to paint. Trust me those people in the 1860’s were way more self sufficient than we are today. Any of them could have worked circles around us. If they didn’t work they didn’t eat. That has gotten lost over time in America.

Glad the Union was preserved and slavery ended.

Just like Fletcher told Wales. The War is over. Let it RIP

I cannot fathom how many good men we lost in that war.

(10-30-2023 09:04 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 03:13 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 01:54 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 01:42 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 11:34 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I agree that economics are the ultimate root cause of virtually all wars. The issue with economics within this context is without slavery, would cotton, tobacco, etc become the cash crops they were at that time? Also consider the voting power of the 2 primary blocks represented in congress and the WH: Northern Industrialists and Southern Plantation Farmers. The SPF had the representatives in the slave states who would vote their interests while the NI had their interests voted in the affirmative by the free states. Slave states had a labor advantage over the free states wrt costs. Aside from being the literal labor force that made plantation life possible for the landed elite in the south, slavery provided political clout to the states who could use the senate to thwart any laws enacted that would otherwise be passed by the house due to the higher population centers in the north.

Slavery made the southern economies possible. Slavery helped keep political power largely equal to minimize northern states growing power thru population growth. I stated in an earlier comment that while there were more than one cause, those causes were NOT mutually exclusive. Ultimately everything springboards off of slavery because it's what gave power to the southern elites - literally in the Federal gov't thru the senators and representatives of the states whose economies were focused on agriculture.

The bold is only a half truth. Northern and European demand for southern goods really made southern economies possible. I'll let you draw the parallel.

Without slavery, would the southern economies produce to the same level? Would the southern landed elite be incentivized enough to produce at the same levels but with significantly higher labor costs yet still sell at the same prices? If yes but only at significantly higher prices, would Europe and the North have simply looked for alternative sources of raw materials? Would they have still bought the southern products at the higher prices?

I don't know honestly. However, I do know that with slavery the south was able to produce a lot of product and sell at price points attractive enough to keep the whole economic system humming for decades.

Without slavery, the Mississippi delta, Southern Alabama and much of South Carolina, Georgia and Florida would have been basically uninhabited. The Africans could survive the malarial mosquitos. The Europeans could not. So a lot of productive agricultural land would have remained unused. Output would have been significantly less. There would have been an economy as there was in the 1600s and 1700s before the slave population exploded after the invention of the Cotton gin. But it would have been a smaller, slower growing economy.

Its no coincidence that 6 of the 7 states who seceded first were the 6 with the highest % of slaves, 43.7% or higher. And the slave states that stayed in the Union had the 4 lowest %.
https://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/ac...on-in-1860

Rank State free/slave/total population
1 South Carolina 301,271 402,541 703,812 57.2
2 Mississippi 354,700 436,696 791,396 55.2
3 Louisiana 376,280 333,010 709,290 47.0
4 Alabama 529,164 435,132 964,296 45.1
5 Florida 78,686 61,753 140,439 43.9
6 Georgia 595,097 462,232 1,057,329 43.7
7 North Carolina 661,586 331,081 992,667 33.4
8 Virginia 1,105,192 490,887 1,596,079 30.7
9 Texas 421,750 180,682 602,432 30.0
10 Arkansas 324,323 111,104 435,427 25.5
11 Tennessee 834,063 275,784 1,109,847 24.8
12 Kentucky 930,223 225,490 1,155,713 19.5
13 Maryland 599,846 87,188 687,034 12.7
14 Missouri 1,067,352 114,965 1,182,317 9.7
15 Delaware 110,420 1,798 112,218 1.6

Thanks for that info. It fleshes out the context even more and shows how foundational slavery was to the south. It made it possible for the southern states to generate wealth on larger scale than otherwise possible plus gave the states the resources to engage in international trade.

I was surprised a number of years back when I saw those numbers by state. I knew the South had about 9 million, of which 3.5 million were slaves, but it was very heavy in certain states. And it was a massive part of the wealth of the leaders. Economically, ending slavery was disastrous for them. People like James Madison couldn't economically destroy himself even though he wanted to free his slaves.

It also explains the efforts to keep them from voting. The former slaves would have likely controlled those first 6 states. And it underscores just how massive the 1920s-30s migration to the North was.

(10-30-2023 03:35 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 03:30 PM)b2b Wrote:  I hope the new statue is this beautiful.

Let me guess? Two hands, one of which belongs to someone who is married (the ring) playing with a large brown uncircumcised pecker. Perhaps it means they have been jerking us off the whole time? Or, perhaps it is a B.K. (Burger King) advertisement, "It takes two hands to handle a whopper!"

Lools like a turd to me

(10-31-2023 09:12 AM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(10-29-2023 02:41 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-28-2023 11:40 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  

(10-28-2023 09:29 AM)andybible1995 Wrote:  

(10-28-2023 09:02 AM)shere khan Wrote:  The monster is Federalism.

Lincoln, in his own words, didnt give two shites about slavery

People need to read

Free your mind indoctrinated sheep

https://www.civilwarprofiles.com/dwight-...ert-e-lee/


would say, first, that we need to understand that at the time of the War between the States the issue of secession had remained unresolved for more than 70 years. Men of probity, character, public standing and unquestioned loyalty, both North and South, had disagreed over this issue as a matter of principle from the day our Constitution was adopted.

General Robert E. Lee was, in my estimation, one of the supremely gifted men produced by our Nation. He believed unswervingly in the Constitutional validity of his cause which until 1865 was still an arguable question in America; he was a poised and inspiring leader, true to the high trust reposed in him by millions of his fellow citizens; he was thoughtful yet demanding of his officers and men, forbearing with captured enemies but ingenious, unrelenting and personally courageous in battle, and never disheartened by a reverse or obstacle. Through all his many trials, he remained selfless almost to a fault and unfailing in his faith in God. Taken altogether, he was noble as a leader and as a man, and unsullied as I read the pages of our history.


No charge Catlett. Always good to learn.

Confederate history is American history. The Communist lie is the civil war was fought over slavery and nothing else.

That is true in the sense that England, Germany, Japan, Mexico, Spain Iraq and all the other countries we've fought wars against are part of American history.

The confederates weren't Americans. Look up the definition of secession.

The only way Lincoln f'd up was letting them off easy. Then maybe we wouldn't have a good portion of the populace that thinks the confederacy was a good thing.

You're not getting your stories straight. W it. The "War of Northern Aggression," better known as "The War Between the States," was because the North didn't believe they had the right to secede and never recognized that secession.

This is truly how most from the South saw it. They thought they were going to lose everything they had worked for. The vast majority that fought for the South were NOT SLAVE OWNERS. Overwhelmingly NOT.

That is what this war was called in the day. The War Between The States.

Lincoln wasn’t an Abolitionist. He wanted to remove Blacks from the US after the war. He didn’t believe there could be harmony between whites and blacks. You could argue that to some extent he was right. It has been a long hard road that many think is far from being over.

Lincoln brought Slavery to forefront after the War had been going on for a couple of years. Yet kids are taught it was fought over slavery. This war was fought over MONEY and STATES RIGHTS. Slavery became a rally cry late in the war.

You also have to remember they weren’t that far removed from the war of 1812 so they also knew that their freedoms and rights could taken away.

JMHO I don’t think you can paint the broad brush Bear Catlett wants to paint. Trust me those people in the 1860’s were way more self sufficient than we are today. Any of them could have worked circles around us. If they didn’t work they didn’t eat. That has gotten lost over time in America.

Glad the Union was preserved and slavery ended.

Just like Fletcher told Wales. The War is over. Let it RIP

I cannot fathom how many good men we lost in that war.

Lincoln recognized that if he made it a war to end slavery, most of his army would desert. They were there to preserve the union. They really didn't care about the slaves. They just didn't want slavery in their states (at least the free states-there were plenty of Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware union soldiers-and a fair number from the CSA states).

(10-31-2023 09:12 AM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(10-29-2023 02:41 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-28-2023 11:40 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  

(10-28-2023 09:29 AM)andybible1995 Wrote:  

(10-28-2023 09:02 AM)shere khan Wrote:  The monster is Federalism.

Lincoln, in his own words, didnt give two shites about slavery

People need to read

Free your mind indoctrinated sheep

https://www.civilwarprofiles.com/dwight-...ert-e-lee/


would say, first, that we need to understand that at the time of the War between the States the issue of secession had remained unresolved for more than 70 years. Men of probity, character, public standing and unquestioned loyalty, both North and South, had disagreed over this issue as a matter of principle from the day our Constitution was adopted.

General Robert E. Lee was, in my estimation, one of the supremely gifted men produced by our Nation. He believed unswervingly in the Constitutional validity of his cause which until 1865 was still an arguable question in America; he was a poised and inspiring leader, true to the high trust reposed in him by millions of his fellow citizens; he was thoughtful yet demanding of his officers and men, forbearing with captured enemies but ingenious, unrelenting and personally courageous in battle, and never disheartened by a reverse or obstacle. Through all his many trials, he remained selfless almost to a fault and unfailing in his faith in God. Taken altogether, he was noble as a leader and as a man, and unsullied as I read the pages of our history.


No charge Catlett. Always good to learn.

Confederate history is American history. The Communist lie is the civil war was fought over slavery and nothing else.

That is true in the sense that England, Germany, Japan, Mexico, Spain Iraq and all the other countries we've fought wars against are part of American history.

The confederates weren't Americans. Look up the definition of secession.

The only way Lincoln f'd up was letting them off easy. Then maybe we wouldn't have a good portion of the populace that thinks the confederacy was a good thing.

You're not getting your stories straight. W it. The "War of Northern Aggression," better known as "The War Between the States," was because the North didn't believe they had the right to secede and never recognized that secession.

This is truly how most from the South saw it. They thought they were going to lose everything they had worked for. The vast majority that fought for the South were NOT SLAVE OWNERS. Overwhelmingly NOT.

That is what this war was called in the day. The War Between The States.

Lincoln wasn’t an Abolitionist. He wanted to remove Blacks from the US after the war. He didn’t believe there could be harmony between whites and blacks. You could argue that to some extent he was right. It has been a long hard road that many think is far from being over.

Lincoln brought Slavery to forefront after the War had been going on for a couple of years. Yet kids are taught it was fought over slavery. This war was fought over MONEY and STATES RIGHTS. Slavery became a rally cry late in the war.

You also have to remember they weren’t that far removed from the war of 1812 so they also knew that their freedoms and rights could taken away.

JMHO I don’t think you can paint the broad brush Bear Catlett wants to paint. Trust me those people in the 1860’s were way more self sufficient than we are today. Any of them could have worked circles around us. If they didn’t work they didn’t eat. That has gotten lost over time in America.

Glad the Union was preserved and slavery ended.

Just like Fletcher told Wales. The War is over. Let it RIP

I cannot fathom how many good men we lost in that war.

The overwhelmingly vast majority of the people out there voting for and fighting for abortion have never had an abortion.

Doesn't mean they're right.

(10-31-2023 10:24 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 09:12 AM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(10-29-2023 02:41 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-28-2023 11:40 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  

(10-28-2023 09:29 AM)andybible1995 Wrote:  Confederate history is American history. The Communist lie is the civil war was fought over slavery and nothing else.

That is true in the sense that England, Germany, Japan, Mexico, Spain Iraq and all the other countries we've fought wars against are part of American history.

The confederates weren't Americans. Look up the definition of secession.

The only way Lincoln f'd up was letting them off easy. Then maybe we wouldn't have a good portion of the populace that thinks the confederacy was a good thing.

You're not getting your stories straight. W it. The "War of Northern Aggression," better known as "The War Between the States," was because the North didn't believe they had the right to secede and never recognized that secession.

This is truly how most from the South saw it. They thought they were going to lose everything they had worked for. The vast majority that fought for the South were NOT SLAVE OWNERS. Overwhelmingly NOT.

That is what this war was called in the day. The War Between The States.

Lincoln wasn’t an Abolitionist. He wanted to remove Blacks from the US after the war. He didn’t believe there could be harmony between whites and blacks. You could argue that to some extent he was right. It has been a long hard road that many think is far from being over.

Lincoln brought Slavery to forefront after the War had been going on for a couple of years. Yet kids are taught it was fought over slavery. This war was fought over MONEY and STATES RIGHTS. Slavery became a rally cry late in the war.

You also have to remember they weren’t that far removed from the war of 1812 so they also knew that their freedoms and rights could taken away.

JMHO I don’t think you can paint the broad brush Bear Catlett wants to paint. Trust me those people in the 1860’s were way more self sufficient than we are today. Any of them could have worked circles around us. If they didn’t work they didn’t eat. That has gotten lost over time in America.

Glad the Union was preserved and slavery ended.

Just like Fletcher told Wales. The War is over. Let it RIP

I cannot fathom how many good men we lost in that war.

The overwhelmingly vast majority of the people out there voting for and fighting for abortion have never had an abortion.

Doesn't mean they're right.

They weren't fighting so rich people could have slaves dumb***. They were fighting because they HAD TO FIGHT. It was basically fight or die.

(10-31-2023 10:09 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 09:12 AM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(10-29-2023 02:41 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-28-2023 11:40 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  

(10-28-2023 09:29 AM)andybible1995 Wrote:  Confederate history is American history. The Communist lie is the civil war was fought over slavery and nothing else.

That is true in the sense that England, Germany, Japan, Mexico, Spain Iraq and all the other countries we've fought wars against are part of American history.

The confederates weren't Americans. Look up the definition of secession.

The only way Lincoln f'd up was letting them off easy. Then maybe we wouldn't have a good portion of the populace that thinks the confederacy was a good thing.

You're not getting your stories straight. W it. The "War of Northern Aggression," better known as "The War Between the States," was because the North didn't believe they had the right to secede and never recognized that secession.

This is truly how most from the South saw it. They thought they were going to lose everything they had worked for. The vast majority that fought for the South were NOT SLAVE OWNERS. Overwhelmingly NOT.

That is what this war was called in the day. The War Between The States.

Lincoln wasn’t an Abolitionist. He wanted to remove Blacks from the US after the war. He didn’t believe there could be harmony between whites and blacks. You could argue that to some extent he was right. It has been a long hard road that many think is far from being over.

Lincoln brought Slavery to forefront after the War had been going on for a couple of years. Yet kids are taught it was fought over slavery. This war was fought over MONEY and STATES RIGHTS. Slavery became a rally cry late in the war.

You also have to remember they weren’t that far removed from the war of 1812 so they also knew that their freedoms and rights could taken away.

JMHO I don’t think you can paint the broad brush Bear Catlett wants to paint. Trust me those people in the 1860’s were way more self sufficient than we are today. Any of them could have worked circles around us. If they didn’t work they didn’t eat. That has gotten lost over time in America.

Glad the Union was preserved and slavery ended.

Just like Fletcher told Wales. The War is over. Let it RIP

I cannot fathom how many good men we lost in that war.

Lincoln recognized that if he made it a war to end slavery, most of his army would desert. They were there to preserve the union. They really didn't care about the slaves. They just didn't want slavery in their states (at least the free states-there were plenty of Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware union soldiers-and a fair number from the CSA states).

Yep, there was a obvious reason Lincoln allowed the border states to keep slaves during the war. It was all politics, the moral part came about later as a means to keep other nations from joining the South.

(10-31-2023 10:24 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 09:12 AM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(10-29-2023 02:41 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-28-2023 11:40 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  

(10-28-2023 09:29 AM)andybible1995 Wrote:  Confederate history is American history. The Communist lie is the civil war was fought over slavery and nothing else.

That is true in the sense that England, Germany, Japan, Mexico, Spain Iraq and all the other countries we've fought wars against are part of American history.

The confederates weren't Americans. Look up the definition of secession.

The only way Lincoln f'd up was letting them off easy. Then maybe we wouldn't have a good portion of the populace that thinks the confederacy was a good thing.

You're not getting your stories straight. W it. The "War of Northern Aggression," better known as "The War Between the States," was because the North didn't believe they had the right to secede and never recognized that secession.

This is truly how most from the South saw it. They thought they were going to lose everything they had worked for. The vast majority that fought for the South were NOT SLAVE OWNERS. Overwhelmingly NOT.

That is what this war was called in the day. The War Between The States.

Lincoln wasn’t an Abolitionist. He wanted to remove Blacks from the US after the war. He didn’t believe there could be harmony between whites and blacks. You could argue that to some extent he was right. It has been a long hard road that many think is far from being over.

Lincoln brought Slavery to forefront after the War had been going on for a couple of years. Yet kids are taught it was fought over slavery. This war was fought over MONEY and STATES RIGHTS. Slavery became a rally cry late in the war.

You also have to remember they weren’t that far removed from the war of 1812 so they also knew that their freedoms and rights could taken away.

JMHO I don’t think you can paint the broad brush Bear Catlett wants to paint. Trust me those people in the 1860’s were way more self sufficient than we are today. Any of them could have worked circles around us. If they didn’t work they didn’t eat. That has gotten lost over time in America.

Glad the Union was preserved and slavery ended.

Just like Fletcher told Wales. The War is over. Let it RIP

I cannot fathom how many good men we lost in that war.

The overwhelmingly vast majority of the people out there voting for and fighting for abortion have never had an abortion.

Doesn't mean they're right.

You have an over simplistic view of why men fought in this war.

In other words, if I were to tell you they are coming to take everything you have worked a lifetime for away then are you good with that? You and your family can figure out what you can do next. You are no longer going to have any rights.

That is exactly how it was explained to me by my grandfather who was told that by his grandfather. This is what people believed.

My family wasn't plantation owners. Mostly share croppers, hunters, and trappers.

(10-31-2023 10:41 AM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 10:24 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 09:12 AM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(10-29-2023 02:41 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-28-2023 11:40 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  That is true in the sense that England, Germany, Japan, Mexico, Spain Iraq and all the other countries we've fought wars against are part of American history.

The confederates weren't Americans. Look up the definition of secession.

The only way Lincoln f'd up was letting them off easy. Then maybe we wouldn't have a good portion of the populace that thinks the confederacy was a good thing.

You're not getting your stories straight. W it. The "War of Northern Aggression," better known as "The War Between the States," was because the North didn't believe they had the right to secede and never recognized that secession.

This is truly how most from the South saw it. They thought they were going to lose everything they had worked for. The vast majority that fought for the South were NOT SLAVE OWNERS. Overwhelmingly NOT.

That is what this war was called in the day. The War Between The States.

Lincoln wasn’t an Abolitionist. He wanted to remove Blacks from the US after the war. He didn’t believe there could be harmony between whites and blacks. You could argue that to some extent he was right. It has been a long hard road that many think is far from being over.

Lincoln brought Slavery to forefront after the War had been going on for a couple of years. Yet kids are taught it was fought over slavery. This war was fought over MONEY and STATES RIGHTS. Slavery became a rally cry late in the war.

You also have to remember they weren’t that far removed from the war of 1812 so they also knew that their freedoms and rights could taken away.

JMHO I don’t think you can paint the broad brush Bear Catlett wants to paint. Trust me those people in the 1860’s were way more self sufficient than we are today. Any of them could have worked circles around us. If they didn’t work they didn’t eat. That has gotten lost over time in America.

Glad the Union was preserved and slavery ended.

Just like Fletcher told Wales. The War is over. Let it RIP

I cannot fathom how many good men we lost in that war.

The overwhelmingly vast majority of the people out there voting for and fighting for abortion have never had an abortion.

Doesn't mean they're right.

You have an over simplistic view of why men fought in this war.

In other words, if I were to tell you they are coming to take everything you have worked a lifetime for away then are you good with that? You and your family can figure out what you can do next. You are no longer going to have any rights.

That is exactly how it was explained to me by my grandfather who was told that by his grandfather. This is what people believed.

My family wasn't plantation owners. Mostly share croppers, hunters, and trappers.

Yep, the vast majority of southerners fighting that war didn't own any slaves. They were merely fighting for their homes, which were being invaded.

(10-31-2023 10:24 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 09:12 AM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(10-29-2023 02:41 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-28-2023 11:40 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  

(10-28-2023 09:29 AM)andybible1995 Wrote:  Confederate history is American history. The Communist lie is the civil war was fought over slavery and nothing else.

That is true in the sense that England, Germany, Japan, Mexico, Spain Iraq and all the other countries we've fought wars against are part of American history.

The confederates weren't Americans. Look up the definition of secession.

The only way Lincoln f'd up was letting them off easy. Then maybe we wouldn't have a good portion of the populace that thinks the confederacy was a good thing.

You're not getting your stories straight. W it. The "War of Northern Aggression," better known as "The War Between the States," was because the North didn't believe they had the right to secede and never recognized that secession.

This is truly how most from the South saw it. They thought they were going to lose everything they had worked for. The vast majority that fought for the South were NOT SLAVE OWNERS. Overwhelmingly NOT.

That is what this war was called in the day. The War Between The States.

Lincoln wasn’t an Abolitionist. He wanted to remove Blacks from the US after the war. He didn’t believe there could be harmony between whites and blacks. You could argue that to some extent he was right. It has been a long hard road that many think is far from being over.

Lincoln brought Slavery to forefront after the War had been going on for a couple of years. Yet kids are taught it was fought over slavery. This war was fought over MONEY and STATES RIGHTS. Slavery became a rally cry late in the war.

You also have to remember they weren’t that far removed from the war of 1812 so they also knew that their freedoms and rights could taken away.

JMHO I don’t think you can paint the broad brush Bear Catlett wants to paint. Trust me those people in the 1860’s were way more self sufficient than we are today. Any of them could have worked circles around us. If they didn’t work they didn’t eat. That has gotten lost over time in America.

Glad the Union was preserved and slavery ended.

Just like Fletcher told Wales. The War is over. Let it RIP

I cannot fathom how many good men we lost in that war.

The overwhelmingly vast majority of the people out there voting for and fighting for abortion have never had an abortion.

Doesn't mean they're right.

Certainly doesn't. But that kind of gets thrown out the window when you believe they are coming for you.

(10-31-2023 10:42 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 10:41 AM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 10:24 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 09:12 AM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(10-29-2023 02:41 PM)bullet Wrote:  You're not getting your stories straight. W it. The "War of Northern Aggression," better known as "The War Between the States," was because the North didn't believe they had the right to secede and never recognized that secession.

This is truly how most from the South saw it. They thought they were going to lose everything they had worked for. The vast majority that fought for the South were NOT SLAVE OWNERS. Overwhelmingly NOT.

That is what this war was called in the day. The War Between The States.

Lincoln wasn’t an Abolitionist. He wanted to remove Blacks from the US after the war. He didn’t believe there could be harmony between whites and blacks. You could argue that to some extent he was right. It has been a long hard road that many think is far from being over.

Lincoln brought Slavery to forefront after the War had been going on for a couple of years. Yet kids are taught it was fought over slavery. This war was fought over MONEY and STATES RIGHTS. Slavery became a rally cry late in the war.

You also have to remember they weren’t that far removed from the war of 1812 so they also knew that their freedoms and rights could taken away.

JMHO I don’t think you can paint the broad brush Bear Catlett wants to paint. Trust me those people in the 1860’s were way more self sufficient than we are today. Any of them could have worked circles around us. If they didn’t work they didn’t eat. That has gotten lost over time in America.

Glad the Union was preserved and slavery ended.

Just like Fletcher told Wales. The War is over. Let it RIP

I cannot fathom how many good men we lost in that war.

The overwhelmingly vast majority of the people out there voting for and fighting for abortion have never had an abortion.

Doesn't mean they're right.

You have an over simplistic view of why men fought in this war.

In other words, if I were to tell you they are coming to take everything you have worked a lifetime for away then are you good with that? You and your family can figure out what you can do next. You are no longer going to have any rights.

That is exactly how it was explained to me by my grandfather who was told that by his grandfather. This is what people believed.

My family wasn't plantation owners. Mostly share croppers, hunters, and trappers.

Yep, the vast majority of southerners fighting that war didn't own any slaves. They were merely fighting for their homes, which were being invaded.

Lmao "invaded". What a completely disingenuous description.

(10-31-2023 10:28 AM)b2b Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 10:24 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 09:12 AM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(10-29-2023 02:41 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-28-2023 11:40 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  That is true in the sense that England, Germany, Japan, Mexico, Spain Iraq and all the other countries we've fought wars against are part of American history.

The confederates weren't Americans. Look up the definition of secession.

The only way Lincoln f'd up was letting them off easy. Then maybe we wouldn't have a good portion of the populace that thinks the confederacy was a good thing.

You're not getting your stories straight. W it. The "War of Northern Aggression," better known as "The War Between the States," was because the North didn't believe they had the right to secede and never recognized that secession.

This is truly how most from the South saw it. They thought they were going to lose everything they had worked for. The vast majority that fought for the South were NOT SLAVE OWNERS. Overwhelmingly NOT.

That is what this war was called in the day. The War Between The States.

Lincoln wasn’t an Abolitionist. He wanted to remove Blacks from the US after the war. He didn’t believe there could be harmony between whites and blacks. You could argue that to some extent he was right. It has been a long hard road that many think is far from being over.

Lincoln brought Slavery to forefront after the War had been going on for a couple of years. Yet kids are taught it was fought over slavery. This war was fought over MONEY and STATES RIGHTS. Slavery became a rally cry late in the war.

You also have to remember they weren’t that far removed from the war of 1812 so they also knew that their freedoms and rights could taken away.

JMHO I don’t think you can paint the broad brush Bear Catlett wants to paint. Trust me those people in the 1860’s were way more self sufficient than we are today. Any of them could have worked circles around us. If they didn’t work they didn’t eat. That has gotten lost over time in America.

Glad the Union was preserved and slavery ended.

Just like Fletcher told Wales. The War is over. Let it RIP

I cannot fathom how many good men we lost in that war.

The overwhelmingly vast majority of the people out there voting for and fighting for abortion have never had an abortion.

Doesn't mean they're right.

They weren't fighting so rich people could have slaves dumb***. They were fighting because they HAD TO FIGHT. It was basically fight or die.

You're defending the confederacy... but I'm the dumba$$.

Sounds like it was as hospitable in the confederacy for the poor whites as it was for the slaves. WHAT A GREAT COUNTRY THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN.