Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hey, you've defined yourself. Your posts do that. You're an admirer of the ante-bellum south and you'll justify anything they do.
I've tasked you multiple times to back up your claim. Thus far you haven't. There was a question at the time of the legality of secession. I've said that, and I've said that Lincoln maneuvered the South into firing the first shot of the war...
Both are historically indisputable facts and yet bringing up those facts makes me all this that you claim?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angus Podgorny
Your name - Rhett Butler - testifies to your admiration for a way of life built on the backs of slave labor. It's telling that you choose a fictional character from a third rate fantasy novel.
It's a movie there ace... I like the character "Red" from Shawshank Redemption too. Does that make me a prison-loving murderer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angus Podgorny
I'm guessing that if I went back far enough into the files here, I'd find you telling everybody that the world got it completely wrong regarding the Second World War, and that it really was all about Germany trying to protect the world from Polish expansion. And that Hitler wasn't such a bad guy after all, and the British really left him no option except to start the War.
Please, be my guest. Since you're too lazy to even crack open a book or look up anything online regarding facts I've presented to you, I'm sure I can rest in knowing that this is just more hot air on your part...
Both are historically indisputable facts and yet bringing up those facts makes me all this that you claim?
The accusation that Lincoln "pushed" the confederates into war or secession is in total disrepute by anyone other than revisionist historians and confederate wannabes. A simple timeline of events leading to the war is more than ample evidence in this regard.
Before Lincoln even raised his hand to be sworn in as President of the United States, the seven original traitorous states voted in favor of secession, establishing a "government" February 1861, and began a process of unlawful seizure of Federal lands.
As for instigating the war...
You seem to forget that the siege of Ft. Sumter began under President James Buchanan who first attempted to resupply Anderson's two companies of the 1st U.S. Artillery in December of 1860. It would not be until April 4, 1861 that would notify the "government" South Carolina that unarmed merchant ships would be dispatched to supply Anderson and that "no effort to throw in men, arms, or ammunition will be made without further notice."
On April 6, 1861 the cabinet of Jefferson Davis ordered the attack on Sumter, without provocation or justification.
The accusation that Lincoln "pushed" the confederates into war or secession is in total disrepute by anyone other than revisionist historians and confederate wannabes. A simple timeline of events leading to the war is more than ample evidence in this regard.
And I urge you to take a VERY close look at that timeline, what was promised to the Confederates by members of Buchanan's and subsequently Lincoln's respective cabinets with regard to Fort Sumter... It was a chess match. Lincoln wanted to go the route of peaceful reconstruction before a shot was fired. Lincoln didn't want to fire the first shot in any conflict above all.... Sumter more-or-less put Lincoln in a win/win scenario..... Resupply the fort and either the South de-legitimizes it's own secession by allowing it, or starts the war by not allowing it....
Even McPherson acknowledges this and he's hardly a "revisionist". In fact, I'd say he takes a pretty cold and hard view on the South.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
Before Lincoln even raised his hand to be sworn in as President of the United States, the seven original traitorous states voted in favor of secession, establishing a "government" February 1861, and began a process of unlawful seizure of Federal lands.
Not arguing that Lincoln caused secession. Never did, never will... His election did, but that sadly wasn't his fault... See some of the comments about John Brown's raid in the Harper's Ferry thread too.... Is it a wonder that the South saw the writing on the wall? Not to mention what illegal actions some in the North were willing to take to end slavery? Even so, the upper South decided to remain in the Union until it became apparent that war was inevitable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
You seem to forget that the siege of Ft. Sumter began under President James Buchanan who first attempted to resupply Anderson's two companies of the 1st U.S. Artillery in December of 1860. It would not be until April 4, 1861 that would notify the "government" South Carolina that unarmed merchant ships would be dispatched to supply Anderson and that "no effort to throw in men, arms, or ammunition will be made without further notice."
It wasn't a siege. The South requested that the Union abandon the fort. Buchannon refused. He also stated that the military disposition of Fort Moultrie and Fort Sumter would not change, which was an agreement that was breeched (although I'd say pretty innocently) by Major Anderson when he moved from Moultrie to Sumter under cover of darkness...
You do understand that the resupply effort did have an armed escort that couldn't aid the resupply effort because of (I believe) bad weather, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
On April 6, 1861 the cabinet of Jefferson Davis ordered the attack on Sumter, without provocation or justification.
Resupplying a fort that the South now considered their territory after behind-the-scenes handshakes and assurances that the fort would be vacated? I know I can argue until the cows come home that this can be seen as justification, but there's no doubt it's provocation....
Lincoln was pretty certain what the result of the effort to resupply the fort would be (and was advised against it by most of his cabinet).
Again, your comments on "provocation" and "justification" depend on your opinion of the legality of secession... Lincoln believed secession unlawful and thus saw himself on the right side of the issue (as South Carolina was still federal territory to him)... Davis believed that secession WAS legal and that the Confederacy was independent of the Union and thus their refusal to leave the fort was a violation of their sovereignty and the attempt to resupply was a provocation....
This is what I've been saying for almost a week now. It's a matter of perspective... Make an effort to understand the perspective whether you agree with it or not is all...
So you see southern secession as "treason". Well fine. The point is that the South didn't. They either saw secession as lawful, or in the case of those who did not, they considered it a "revolution" which was their right and duty....
Remember as well that had the American Revolution failed, the colonists would have been viewed as nothing more than "traitors" much as the vanquished in the American Civil War are labelled..... Once again, perspective.
If they had taught you creationism in school you'd be eating that junk up huh? It's amazing that anyone could take such a one sided view about anything in history. But I am glad that your ideas of good and evil are so sharp in your own mind. That must keep you feeling warm and safe at night when you think of all of those who are morally unequivalent to you. Really, when it comes down to it, it's quite a charming quality of yours. Simplicity of the mind demands an odd sort of compassion from those around you. Blindly stating unsubstantiated beliefs and then bouncing back to archaic belittlings of those who disagree typifies you in that way. I've found that only the mentally handicapped have been able to show such unabashed emotion. Keep on dancing in the leaves my friend.
Still tilting at that Yankee windmill, I see. This just in - the war is over, your side lost, and your stinking, putrid, slave-owning society was consigned to the dustbin of history, where it belonged. You tried to resurrect it with your Jim Crow laws and your nightriders and your white sheets, but finally the rest of us grew some balls and began to put you in your place.
If I had the disgusting and disgraceful history than your section of the country has, I sure as hell wouldn't be advertising it and defending it on a public forum, but then that's another charming feature of you revisionists. You don't have the intelligence or the decency to feel shame.
I've tasked you multiple times to back up your claim. Thus far you haven't. There was a question at the time of the legality of secession. I've said that, and I've said that Lincoln maneuvered the South into firing the first shot of the war...
Your posts back up my claims. The fact that you continue to justify secession and the civil war is all the proof I need.
Both are historically indisputable facts and yet bringing up those facts makes me all this that you claim?
Lincoln did it, Lincoln did it!!! We get your position. It's dumb, but we get it.
It's a movie there ace... I like the character "Red" from Shawshank Redemption too. Does that make me a prison-loving murderer?
Gee, I don't know. I guess if you called yourself Hanibal Lecter I might wonder a little bit about your view of women. And actually it was a book - and then a movie. Both pieces of excrement.
Please, be my guest. Since you're too lazy to even crack open a book or look up anything online regarding facts I've presented to you, I'm sure I can rest in knowing that this is just more hot air on your part...
Yeah, I'm going to waste my time looking at your posting history! I merely point out the Hitler reference because it would be consistant with your position on the Civil War.
Remember as well that had the American Revolution failed, the colonists would have been viewed as nothing more than "traitors" much as the vanquished in the American Civil War are labelled..... Once again, perspective.
Your best effort yet. Equating the patriots who created the country with the traitors who tried to destroy it. Classic!
National Association for the Advancement COLORED People!!!
Yes, that's an organization that was founded in 1909, when that's how the polite ruling establishment referred to black people. Folks south of the Mason-Dixon Line had another word they used.
Good to know you're still in 1909 with your outlook on things.
Angus, if you aren't going to actually read posts, it's best just not to respond to them.
If you are reading them then some of your synapses aren't firing correctly it appears.
Not sure how many times I can re-iterate what I'm saying and have you "interpret" it (and I use that term VERY loosely to describe what you're doing) to fit your narrow view anyway. Anyhow, it's clear that any attempt and rational or intellectual discussion with you is a wasted effort.
Still tilting at that Yankee windmill, I see. This just in - the war is over, your side lost, and your stinking, putrid, slave-owning society was consigned to the dustbin of history, where it belonged. You tried to resurrect it with your Jim Crow laws and your nightriders and your white sheets, but finally the rest of us grew some balls and began to put you in your place.
If I were trying to make this argument, I wouldn't bring up Jim Crow and nightriders lest they undermine me very badly. When the second KKK came along in 1915, it was far stronger in the Midwest (Illinois, Indiana) and West (California, Oregon, Idaho) than the South. Furthermore, from about 1890 to 1930, the numerous blacks who had left the South to settle in small-town middle America were driven out, one by one, place by place, making it necessary for blacks to come up with travel guides to tell them where it was safe to stop, where they could eat, where should just be avoided. My own city, in Washington state, was a 'sundown town' until the mid-sixties, and dozens of other cities well above the Mason-Dixon had similar policies.
While I think there's a good deal of delusionalism in neo-Confederate nostalgia, here you're just saying the most inflammatory things you can to get people's dander up, and in so doing you're ignoring some very unpleasant facts. And bear in mind that you're talking to a man who hates the Klan and their kind so much he refuses to allow his own great-grandfather's name or image displayed in his home for having been even a social member of the second KKK, who would think it moral and ethical (if not legal or practical) to kill any Klansman at any time for no reason other than being one. Yeah. That much. Same for the neo-Nazi movement, also a pretty strongly Northern phenomenon. Believe you me, if historically nightriders were a purely Southern phenomenon, rest assured that the South would never hear the end of it from me. The ugly fact is that their brand of rottenness went national and well outlasted both of the first KKKs.
If I were trying to make this argument, I wouldn't bring up Jim Crow and nightriders lest they undermine me very badly. When the second KKK came along in 1915, it was far stronger in the Midwest (Illinois, Indiana) and West (California, Oregon, Idaho) than the South. Furthermore, from about 1890 to 1930, the numerous blacks who had left the South to settle in small-town middle America were driven out, one by one, place by place, making it necessary for blacks to come up with travel guides to tell them where it was safe to stop, where they could eat, where should just be avoided. My own city, in Washington state, was a 'sundown town' until the mid-sixties, and dozens of other cities well above the Mason-Dixon had similar policies.
While I think there's a good deal of delusionalism in neo-Confederate nostalgia, here you're just saying the most inflammatory things you can to get people's dander up, and in so doing you're ignoring some very unpleasant facts. And bear in mind that you're talking to a man who hates the Klan and their kind so much he refuses to allow his own great-grandfather's name or image displayed in his home for having been even a social member of the second KKK, who would think it moral and ethical (if not legal or practical) to kill any Klansman at any time for no reason other than being one. Yeah. That much, along with the neo-Nazi movement, also a pretty strongly Northern phenomenon. Believe you me, if historically nightriders were a purely Southern phenomenon, rest assured that the South would never hear the end of it from me. The ugly fact is that their brand of rottenness went national and well outlasted both of the first KKKs.
Bu, bu buh.... Look at my lynching statistics!!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
