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.
Whenever someone uses revisionist videos to back up a false claim, it shows a high level of desperation. Everything is pointing to what you mentioned in the second paragraph. The desire to preserve and expand chattel slavery. The right to own people as property. We can prove this with the Articles of Secession, and the Confederate constitution. No one has been able to refute it.
Either way, a Civil War wouldn't have been avoided. Attack a U.S. Army installation, and there will be a war.
The biggest problem I have with that particular video, is the same problem I have with these all too common, new & allegedly improved, updated versions of the Lost Cause mythologies - it's the sophistry.
The actor in that particular video 'tips his hand' when he refers to the American Civil War as the 'Northern War on the South' & granted, this is an improvement, however slight, over referring to the American Civil War as the 'War of Northern Aggression'.
He imagines himself to be different than those attempting to, as he puts it, 'Rehabilitate the Confederacy's image' by acknowledging the ACW is fought because the Slaver States wanted to preserve & expand on the idiotic notion of owning people as property however claims this is not why the war is fought. He seeks to explain the nonsensical essence of the latter assertion in the previous statement by claiming he used to see this as a difference without a distinction ... & then fails to make a case for why he now sees it as a 'difference with distinction'.
You mentioned the desperation of folks like this & I tend to agree it sounds like a desperate grasping of straws, & apparently one designed to 'save face'.
Aside from the sophistical nature of arguments like these, they remind me of George Orwell's:
“War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.”
Last edited by ChiGeekGuest; 10-19-2016 at 10:14 AM..
Whenever someone uses revisionist videos to back up a false claim, it shows a high level of desperation. Everything is pointing to what you mentioned in the second paragraph. The desire to preserve and expand chattel slavery. The right to own people as property. We can prove this with the Articles of Secession, and the Confederate constitution. No one has been able to refute it.
Either way, a Civil War wouldn't have been avoided. Attack a U.S. Army installation, and there will be a war.
you actually believe Lincoln and the Whites in the North care about black slaves to wage the bloodiest war in our history and send their sons to die? they must have done a good job on you in the public schools. What's next, you believe the U.S. fought in Vietnam and Iraq to bring democracy.
Of course the "Civil War" (it wasn't, it was a war for independence) couldn't been avoided, Lincoln was going to kill as many Americans he could to not let the South be independent. That's call a tyrant in any other part of the world, its sad that your blind patriotism doesn't let you see the obvious.
Ft. Sumter nobody died, ZERO! It was provoked by Lincoln and Lincoln needed an excuse to wage war on the South.....just like LBJ needed an excuse with the Gulf Of Tonkin incident to wage war on North Vietnam without a declaration of war by Congress.
The same thing W Bush did with the WMD to invade Iraq.......see a pattern here by the Federal government. The same thing they did to steal lands from the Natives and wage war on them.
Slavery was NEVER the reason Lincoln and the North wage war on the South. They never recognize the South to be independent because of MONEY, all wars are fought because of money, only a fool believes otherwise.
Hellion, do you actually think that you're the first neo-confederate who has come onto the History forum, spread your opinion around, posted as proof a sorry, opinionated video full of contradictions and falsehoods, then started posting more drivel when the rest of us don't cry out in joy and thank you for releasing us from our prisons of ignorance?
Bring some actual citations, some actual evidence if you want to be taken seriously on the History forum.
Hellion, do you actually think that you're the first neo-confederate who has come onto the History forum, spread your opinion around, posted as proof a sorry, opinionated video full of contradictions and falsehoods, then started posting more drivel when the rest of us don't cry out in joy and thank you for releasing us from our prisons of ignorance?
Bring some actual citations, some actual evidence if you want to be taken seriously on the History forum.
I'm not from the South. I'm not pro slavery.
I could care less what you think of the facts that I brought here about the Civil War that you refuse to even make you think. It doesn't matter what information people bring here to contradict what they taught you in the public schools you will refuse it and get all personal like you are doing now.
If you still think Lincoln and the whites of the North fought the bloodiest war in our history to free the slaves and they cared about blacks then why bother having this conversation?
the evidence that I brought here you refuse to consider because it doesn't fit the narrative they taught you in school or they put in your head.
I could care less what you think of the facts that I brought here about the Civil War that you refuse to even make you think. It doesn't matter what information people bring here to contradict what they taught you in the public schools you will refuse it and get all personal like you are doing now.
If you still think Lincoln and the whites of the North fought the bloodiest war in our history to free the slaves and they cared about blacks then why bother having this conversation?
the evidence that I brought here you refuse to consider because it doesn't fit the narrative they taught you in school or they put in your head.
"If you still think Lincoln and the whites of the North fought the bloodiest war in our history to free the slaves and they cared about blacks then why bother having this conversation?"
I didn't see anybody say they did. What they have said is that slavery was specifically mentioned as the reason for secession. Lincoln and the North fought to preserve the union. They said very clearly that the purpose was to put down a rebellion and preserve the United States.
If the North had fought to free the slaves as the primary purpose, the Emancipation Proclamation would have been issued in March, 1861, soon after Lincoln's inauguration. If freeing slaves was the primary purpose, there is no way you could get anybody to fight for nearly 2 years before saying so.
"If you still think Lincoln and the whites of the North fought the bloodiest war in our history to free the slaves and they cared about blacks then why bother having this conversation?"
I didn't see anybody say they did. What they have said is that slavery was specifically mentioned as the reason for secession. Lincoln and the North fought to preserve the union. They said very clearly that the purpose was to put down a rebellion and preserve the United States.
If the North had fought to free the slaves as the primary purpose, the Emancipation Proclamation would have been issued in March, 1861, soon after Lincoln's inauguration. If freeing slaves was the primary purpose, there is no way you could get anybody to fight for nearly 2 years before saying so.
yeah nice way of putting it or spinning it. King George fought to preserve the colonies under his crown. He didn't recognize the 13 colonies their right to be independent just like Lincoln did against the South......same thing.....guess why they fought, you got it, taxes (money).
The South were never a threat to the existence of the Union. They wanted to be independent, you know like a divorce, you go your way I go my way, that was never a threat to their existence of the U.S.?......but the true reason for fighting the civil war from Lincoln's objective was money, he wanted the revenues from the South, the North was dependent of those revenues, that's the reason Lincoln's rejected the South's right to be independent.
It doesn't matter the reasons the people in the South wanted to be independent. They could have abolished slavery and still Lincoln would have rejected their independence just like King George did and would have sent troops in the South to kill close to 1 million Americans to kill their independence.
Your argument is since they wanted to keep slavery legal and slavery is evil than we should ignore the real reason for war which was their right to be independent.......if we use your argument then our reason for independence is not valid because slavery was legal under the 13 colonies and all of the founding fathers from George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were slave owners and kept it legal and the British were phasing out slavery and they had the moral argument to deny our independence.
If you believe we had a right to be independent from the British Crown then you can't turn around and argue the South didn't have the same right to be independent regardless if slavery was legal or not. One has nothing to do with the other.
Secession was determined to be contrary to the Constitution by the US Supreme Court. SCOTUS is the final arbiter as to what the Constitution means. The Court ruled that secession was wrong over 150 years ago, and the justices have not reversed that decision. Therefore, regardless of your opinion, secession is unconstitutional. Period.
The Supreme Court rulings regarding marriage have been based on the equal protection provision of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 (I think).
Your posts seem to imply that the Supreme Court lacks authority to rule on the Constitution.
of course the victors declared secession under the constitution wrong and illegal. They made it clear that the people didn't have the right to be independent from a federal government that is oppressive and no longer represents the people, the reasons for the declaration of independence . Keep in mind the constitution never gives the right to the President to deny independence to the people, that is not his power......the S.C. after that Civil War made that up like other rulings in our history.
If the South wanting to be independent was illegal so was our independence from the British Crown since that act was also ILLEGAL under British law.
The South were never a threat to the existence of the Union. They wanted to be independent, you know like a divorce, you go your way I go my way, that was never a threat to their existence of the U.S.?......but the true reason for fighting the civil war from Lincoln's objective was money, he wanted the revenues from the South, the North was dependent of those revenues, that's the reason Lincoln's rejected the South's right to be independent.
You provided no proof that the objective was money.
Quote:
It doesn't matter the reasons the people in the South wanted to be independent. They could have abolished slavery and still Lincoln would have rejected their independence just like King George did and would have sent troops in the South to kill close to 1 million Americans to kill their independence.
Which people in the south? Certainly not the enslaved black population, really only the white southern population, and not all of it. Your mention of "south" and what the southern people wanted seems to include only white southerners for whatever reason.
The trigger for succession for the election of Abraham Lincoln. To have one region leave or threaten to leave if a candidate they dislike lost would be fatal to democracy.
Quote:
Your argument is since they wanted to keep slavery legal and slavery is evil than we should ignore the real reason for war which was their right to be independent.......if we use your argument then our reason for independence is not valid because slavery was legal under the 13 colonies and all of the founding fathers from George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were slave owners and kept it legal and the British were phasing out slavery and they had the moral argument to deny our independence.
I said earlier Massachusetts abolished slavery before the end of the Revolutionary War.
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.
