(10-31-2023 11:00 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  

(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:  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.

He's not defending the Confederacy and you know it.

Another thing that is lost and almost never taught that goes along with Northern Aggression idea that folks in the South believed was that a large number of Lee's Soldiers refused to go to Pennsylvania. They were only interested in defending.

(10-31-2023 11:09 AM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 11:00 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  

(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:  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.

He's not defending the Confederacy and you know it.

Another thing that is lost and almost never taught that goes along with Northern Aggression idea that folks in the South believed was that a large number of Lee's Soldiers refused to go to Pennsylvania. They were only interested in defending.

Defending what exactly?

Defending land that belongs to the American government?
Defending slavery?
Defending their homes that wouldn't need defending if they didn't secede?

No matter the topic
No matter the era

You present evidence, facts, documents.

They always resort to reeeeeeeeeer

They are spoiled mildly retsrded children

Some are beyond hope. The will bend the knee and i will enjoy it.

Your overlords are waiting for simple minded ones.
Abort your babies. Neuter yourselves and your children. Give your rights away so you can bev ruled. We will rule you.

Melt ststues burn books. Believe propagsnda. Just remember you once had a chsnce to be free

(10-31-2023 10:57 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(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:  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.

Good. You have some vocabulary. Other than that you sound really stupid.
The northern armies invaded the south. They burned and looted. They tried to starve the southern population. They tore up their infrastructure and stole their food.

(10-31-2023 11:00 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  

(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:  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.

Yes. You are. You are incapable of understanding.
And yes, it would have not been a very good country for anyone but the plantation owners. And with extreme states rights, it was pretty dysfunctional. Apparently the only thing that worked was the postal service run by Texan John Reagan and the armies, even though they were ill-equipped. Its pretty remarkable how they held out despite their vast inferiority in numbers, equipment, money, resources and infrastructure.

(10-31-2023 12:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 10:57 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(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:  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.

Good. You have some vocabulary. Other than that you sound really stupid.
The northern armies invaded the south. They burned and looted. They tried to starve the southern population. They tore up their infrastructure and stole their food.

And what exactly did the South expect to happen when they seceded unconstitutionally, attacked Fort Sumter first, and expected to take US land with them? Were they stupid?

(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.

For the vast majority of the southerners in 1860, nothing would have changed in reality if they never seceded. They didn't own slaves, practiced subsistence farming combined with hunting, fishing and maybe some domesticated farm animals for food. Trapping was their likely source of currency, but even there most of their transactions were likely from bartering.

Rich southern land owners first had their state legislatures secede and later manipulated regular folk to protect them under the guise of north going to ruin their lives.

(10-31-2023 12:06 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 12:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 10:57 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 10:42 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

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

Good. You have some vocabulary. Other than that you sound really stupid.
The northern armies invaded the south. They burned and looted. They tried to starve the southern population. They tore up their infrastructure and stole their food.

And what exactly did the South expect to happen when they seceded unconstitutionally, attacked Fort Sumter first, and expected to take US land with them? Were they stupid?

They expected to be let go, just as the New England states expected when they considered seceding in 1814. And if not, they thought they would win the war. They very nearly did. Nobody on either side had any clue how difficult and costly it would be. One side would march to Richmond or DC and it would be over in 90 days.

But it was Americans fighting Americans, so it was a long difficult war. The North only won when they found a General willing to take overwhelming losses in order to wear the other side down and a General willing to steal, loot, burn and destroy everything in his path to make Georgia howl.

And if you think all the union army cared about the slaves, read about abandoing the "contrabands" at Ebenezer Creek. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebenezer_Creek

(10-31-2023 12:14 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 12:06 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 12:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 10:57 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 10:42 AM)VA49er Wrote:  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.

Good. You have some vocabulary. Other than that you sound really stupid.
The northern armies invaded the south. They burned and looted. They tried to starve the southern population. They tore up their infrastructure and stole their food.

And what exactly did the South expect to happen when they seceded unconstitutionally, attacked Fort Sumter first, and expected to take US land with them? Were they stupid?

They expected to be let go, just as the New England states expected when they considered seceding in 1814. And if not, they thought they would win the war. They very nearly did. Nobody on either side had any clue how difficult and costly it would be. One side would march to Richmond or DC and it would be over in 90 days.

But it was Americans fighting Americans, so it was a long difficult war. The North only won when they found a General willing to take overwhelming losses in order to wear the other side down and a General willing to steal, loot, burn and destroy everything in his path to make Georgia howl.

And if you think all the union army cared about the slaves, read about abandoing the "contrabands" at Ebenezer Creek. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebenezer_Creek

So they were stupid.

EDIT: Forgive me if i'm not sympathetic. I think this is where we can agree to disagree. You think the South was justified in their actions, and I think the US Government was justified in theirs.

(10-31-2023 12:06 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 12:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 10:57 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 10:42 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

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

Good. You have some vocabulary. Other than that you sound really stupid.
The northern armies invaded the south. They burned and looted. They tried to starve the southern population. They tore up their infrastructure and stole their food.

And what exactly did the South expect to happen when they seceded unconstitutionally, attacked Fort Sumter first, and expected to take US land with them? Were they stupid?

All of that is irrelevant. Was it still not an invasion? Did the Army of the Potomac not invade the South? Please, there is no need for semantics. And yes, the Army of Northern VA did invade the North, most notably at Antietam and Gettysburg.

(10-31-2023 11:32 AM)shere khan Wrote:  No matter the topic
No matter the era

You present evidence, facts, documents.

They always resort to reeeeeeeeeer

They are spoiled mildly retsrded children

Some are beyond hope. The will bend the knee and i will enjoy it.

Your overlords are waiting for simple minded ones.
Abort your babies. Neuter yourselves and your children. Give your rights away so you can bev ruled. We will rule you.

Melt ststues burn books. Believe propagsnda. Just remember you once had a chsnce to be free

reeeeeeeee Blacks want reparations !!!! I have no worldly idea why!!!! reeeeeeee !!!

(10-31-2023 12:24 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 12:06 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 12:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 10:57 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 10:42 AM)VA49er Wrote:  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.

Good. You have some vocabulary. Other than that you sound really stupid.
The northern armies invaded the south. They burned and looted. They tried to starve the southern population. They tore up their infrastructure and stole their food.

And what exactly did the South expect to happen when they seceded unconstitutionally, attacked Fort Sumter first, and expected to take US land with them? Were they stupid?

All of that is irrelevant. Was it still not an invasion? Did the Army of the Potomac not invade the South? Please, there is no need for semantics. And yes, the Army of Northern VA did invade the North, most notably at Antietam and Gettysburg.

Well I guess under your logic, Poland invaded Germany, Ukraine invaded Russia, Taiwan plans to invade China, and Israel invaded Gaza

(10-31-2023 12:22 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 12:14 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 12:06 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 12:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 10:57 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  Lmao "invaded". What a completely disingenuous description.

Good. You have some vocabulary. Other than that you sound really stupid.
The northern armies invaded the south. They burned and looted. They tried to starve the southern population. They tore up their infrastructure and stole their food.

And what exactly did the South expect to happen when they seceded unconstitutionally, attacked Fort Sumter first, and expected to take US land with them? Were they stupid?

They expected to be let go, just as the New England states expected when they considered seceding in 1814. And if not, they thought they would win the war. They very nearly did. Nobody on either side had any clue how difficult and costly it would be. One side would march to Richmond or DC and it would be over in 90 days.

But it was Americans fighting Americans, so it was a long difficult war. The North only won when they found a General willing to take overwhelming losses in order to wear the other side down and a General willing to steal, loot, burn and destroy everything in his path to make Georgia howl.

And if you think all the union army cared about the slaves, read about abandoing the "contrabands" at Ebenezer Creek. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebenezer_Creek

So they were stupid.

EDIT: Forgive me if i'm not sympathetic. I think this is where we can agree to disagree. You think the South was justified in their actions, and I think the US Government was justified in theirs.

Like Bear, you are too stupid to understand. I didn't say secession was justified. I said I understood why they thought they were justified. As far as joining with their
neighbors to fight against invaders, they were all doing what they believed was the right thing and so would almost anyone in their position. Only a handful sided with the union. Nowadays, people don't care as much about their neighbors.

Both sides were ignorant of the cost of the war. The North probably would have let them go at the start if they had any idea. Once blood got spilled, the momentum continued.

What triggered the war was Dred Scott and John Y. Brown. The Dred Scott decision made free staters fear that slavery would come to their state. The lionization of the terrorist John Y. Brown by many in the north broke all bonds of trust. He wanted to arm slaves to murder men, women and children in the South. The South viewed the north as Jews view those who celebrate Hamas. Those two things broke all bonds of trust.

(10-31-2023 12:33 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 12:24 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 12:06 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 12:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 10:57 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  Lmao "invaded". What a completely disingenuous description.

Good. You have some vocabulary. Other than that you sound really stupid.
The northern armies invaded the south. They burned and looted. They tried to starve the southern population. They tore up their infrastructure and stole their food.

And what exactly did the South expect to happen when they seceded unconstitutionally, attacked Fort Sumter first, and expected to take US land with them? Were they stupid?

All of that is irrelevant. Was it still not an invasion? Did the Army of the Potomac not invade the South? Please, there is no need for semantics. And yes, the Army of Northern VA did invade the North, most notably at Antietam and Gettysburg.

Well I guess under your logic, Poland invaded Germany, Ukraine invaded Russia, Taiwan plans to invade China, and Israel invaded Gaza

Nah, from the South's perspective, it was an invasion as it saw itself as a separate nation. The North, on the other hand, probably didn't see it that way as it saw the split as illegal, and it's army as merely rectifying the situation. The difference in mindset goes to the very core of why the war was fought. We aren't going to solve that debate here.

(10-31-2023 12:44 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 12:33 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 12:24 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 12:06 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 12:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  Good. You have some vocabulary. Other than that you sound really stupid.
The northern armies invaded the south. They burned and looted. They tried to starve the southern population. They tore up their infrastructure and stole their food.

And what exactly did the South expect to happen when they seceded unconstitutionally, attacked Fort Sumter first, and expected to take US land with them? Were they stupid?

All of that is irrelevant. Was it still not an invasion? Did the Army of the Potomac not invade the South? Please, there is no need for semantics. And yes, the Army of Northern VA did invade the North, most notably at Antietam and Gettysburg.

Well I guess under your logic, Poland invaded Germany, Ukraine invaded Russia, Taiwan plans to invade China, and Israel invaded Gaza

Nah, from the South's perspective, it was an invasion as it saw itself as a separate nation. The North, on the other hand, probably didn't see it that way as it saw the split as illegal, and it's army as merely rectifying the situation. The difference in mindset goes to the very core of why the war was fought. We aren't going to solve that debate here.

The only reason we aren't going to solve that debate here is you won't or can't admit that the very core of why the war was fought was slavery, and no matter how you spin it, no matter how much context you try to share to create a different narrative, all the paths lead back to slavery. You can call it culture, or way of life, or defense of homeland, or whatever you want to call it, but the war was started to preserve a way of life and an economy that was built on slavery. A war voluntarily started by the South.

(10-31-2023 12:06 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 12:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 10:57 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 10:42 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

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

Good. You have some vocabulary. Other than that you sound really stupid.
The northern armies invaded the south. They burned and looted. They tried to starve the southern population. They tore up their infrastructure and stole their food.

And what exactly did the South expect to happen when they seceded unconstitutionally, attacked Fort Sumter first, and expected to take US land with them? Were they stupid?

So when the American colonies seceded from Great Britain they should have not expected to take British military installations with them? Do we now need to take down statues of our founding fathers since they were traitors to the country they were citizens of when the revolution began?

Again you cannot judge the people of the 1860's by todays standards. If you need evidence of where allegiance was take a look at the regimental designations of the time. There were very few regular army regiments and most were made up and designated by state of origin and that was true for the union and confederate forces.

(10-31-2023 01:02 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 12:06 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 12:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 10:57 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 10:42 AM)VA49er Wrote:  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.

Good. You have some vocabulary. Other than that you sound really stupid.
The northern armies invaded the south. They burned and looted. They tried to starve the southern population. They tore up their infrastructure and stole their food.

And what exactly did the South expect to happen when they seceded unconstitutionally, attacked Fort Sumter first, and expected to take US land with them? Were they stupid?

So when the American colonies seceded from Great Britain they should have not expected to take British military installations with them? Do we now need to take down statues of our founding fathers since they were traitors to the country they were citizens of when the revolution began?

Again you cannot judge the people of the 1860's by todays standards. If you need evidence of where allegiance was take a look at the regimental designations of the time. There were very few regular army regiments and most were made up and designated by state of origin and that was true for the union and confederate forces.

Wasting your time.

(10-31-2023 01:04 PM)appst89 Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 01:02 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 12:06 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 12:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-31-2023 10:57 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  Lmao "invaded". What a completely disingenuous description.

Good. You have some vocabulary. Other than that you sound really stupid.
The northern armies invaded the south. They burned and looted. They tried to starve the southern population. They tore up their infrastructure and stole their food.

And what exactly did the South expect to happen when they seceded unconstitutionally, attacked Fort Sumter first, and expected to take US land with them? Were they stupid?

So when the American colonies seceded from Great Britain they should have not expected to take British military installations with them? Do we now need to take down statues of our founding fathers since they were traitors to the country they were citizens of when the revolution began?

Again you cannot judge the people of the 1860's by todays standards. If you need evidence of where allegiance was take a look at the regimental designations of the time. There were very few regular army regiments and most were made up and designated by state of origin and that was true for the union and confederate forces.

Wasting your time.

Pretty much.

D@mn, the things I can learn on a message board.

The only major figure convicted of treason (along with murder and conspiracy) was John Brown. He raided a US military installation at Harper's Ferry to steal weapons to arm slaves in a revolt.

His treasonous revolt was put down by Colonel Robert E. Lee and Lt. JEB Stuart.