Celebrate Lee and Jackson in January, Not MLK

[Boatrocker]

While I will acknowlege superior skill in and aptitiude for soldiering, I won't celebrate people who started a war to defend slavery.
How barbaric.

[Crock Hunter]

I guess it was "civilized" to come down South and murder, rape and pillage .

I've heard other unreconstructed fools say that as though "Tha' South" had ANY moral high ground whatsoever..

The war was about the South's wretched belief that they had a right to own other humans... The fact that you find honor in defending that belief is appalling..

To have so many of you hate filled nitwits remaining simply says that they didn't burn enough ... .

[O Really]

Partisan's view of history shows a great creativity. If JK Rowling lived in SC, maybe she'd have written it up for him. Lord Voldemort could play the part of Lincoln, and the Death Eaters could be the Union army.

[Crock Hunter]

Partisan's view of history shows a great creativity. If JK Rowling lived in SC, maybe she'd have written it up for him. Lord Voldemort could play the part of Lincoln, and the Death Eaters could be the Union army.

I'm a Tolkien guy myself .. . Sauron and Orcs.. ..

[Bungalow Bill]

I had almost forgotten that this is the time of year to hear from the sore loser
neo-Confederate slaveocrats, along with their typical ignorance and exaggeration.
Get over it guy, you lost.

[billy.pilgrim]

it always makes me feel kinda creepy even tangentially agreeing with partly, but as much as you want to make that war about good vs evil, it wasn't, not any more so than lil bush's war to defeat the evil sadam


the civil war was not fought by the wonderful northerners to defeat the evils of slavers of the south and the more the left falls for that bs, the more we become like partly

slavery sucked and still does - in all it's forms and the south did have slaves and slavery was the foundation of the division between north and south

but look back a few years and the north had slaves - britian had slaves, france had slaves, most areas of the world had slaves and gradually, as societies grew up they recognized and abandoned slavery, as the south would have, if given time or, more importantly, if given opportunity

that war, like all war was fought for money


I believe we lost a lot in that war and with all my heart I believe lincoln's war was as wrong as bush's. imagine how different the south would be today, had slavery been allowed to die naturally

maybe this country wouldn't have become the huge military giant it is, bullying it's way through events claiming newt's exceptionalism, if lincoln had allowed the secession and if other secessions and mergers had taken place

reckon I just don't see many circumstances where war has ever worked - lincoln's didn't - just look at the redneck trash it still produces 150 years later


and party - tell me why we shouldn't celebrate MLK Day - the dude shook the world - he gets a day from me

[billy.pilgrim]

I guess it was "civilized" to come down South and murder, rape and pillage as did Grant's trash and Sherman's bastards.

(Stuff) happens when you start a war you can't win.

Again, the South did not start the war; Fort Sumter was an illegal occupation after the legal secession of South Carolina. The act of war was the refusal of Major Anderson to evacuate the sovereign soil of an independent country.

South Carolina could no more legally declare itself an independent country than Partisan62 can his backyard or trailer park, but let's say he's correct. I'm fine with "an illegal occupation" to end the scourge of slavery that Partisan62 loves.

That's how racists are - nonsensically substituting their adoration for other racists for a holiday celebrating a black man for no reason other than his being black. Fortunately, most of us pity Partisan62's impotent frustration.

South's Slavery is Dissolved! 150th Anniversary 1-1-13



Up yours, South Carolina, Lee and Jackson.

so why did lincoln only end slavery in the states that were no longer in the union?

he had zero support but President Davis also advocated freeing the slaves

does it matter at all that Lee freed the slaves he inherited, or that Grant or maybe it was sherman owned slaves, or does it soil the Constitution that Madison and Jefferson were as slave owners?


the south was a place in its own time and my forefathers were wonderful people. it is too bad that those of us who don't just see black and white are lumped with the redneck racists

[billy.pilgrim]

As Partisan62 thoughtfully started a thread about, but neglected to fully quote, SC itself said 16 times that secession was about slavery. That said, if Lincoln or anyone else had known what the devastating consequences would be, I hope an alternative to war would have been found.

as I said slavery was the foundation of the division and did lead to secession but the war - like all war was about money
I suppose all the rich plantation owners should have just freed their slaves, rolled over and declared bankruptcy -

could anyone really have expected congress to have continued to work together - look at it now! - sc had to leave and by god I wish they would do it again - we need a country for teabaggers


It was called the War of Northern Aggression for a reason and my family fought for the south and lived in an area with very few slaves and owned none

[O Really]

[quote="billy.pilgrim"]

as I said slavery was the foundation of the division and did lead to secession but the war - like all war was about money

/quote]
True that. Wars are almost always economically based. But don't forget that slaves were property, and in some states represented the foundation of the economy.

[billy.pilgrim]

so why did lincoln only end slavery in the states that were no longer in the union?...

He believed that as CiC he had the authority to do that in the hostile states, but that he could not do that in the loyal states as POTUS. I'm not enough of a historian or constitutional scholar to know if his view was accurate, but the argument makes sense to me.

seems a little like bush banning abortion in cuba

[billy.pilgrim]

as I said slavery was the foundation of the division and did lead to secession but the war - like all war was about money

/quote]
True that. Wars are almost always economically based. But don't forget that slaves were property, and in some states represented the foundation of the economy.

and that is what I meant. how does the wealth and power, grown for a hundred years, of the south walk away from wealth and power

I reckon it would have been about as hard as the death camp factories, mills and mines of the north to allow a warm body to leave their towns in any conveyance other than a coffin for many years after the evils of southern slavery turned into the evils of share cropping

all views of history require context

[billy.pilgrim]

As Partisan62 thoughtfully started a thread about, but neglected to fully quote, SC itself said 16 times that secession was about slavery. That said, if Lincoln or anyone else had known what the devastating consequences would be, I hope an alternative to war would have been found.

as I said slavery was the foundation of the division and did lead to secession but the war - like all war was about money
I suppose all the rich plantation owners should have just freed their slaves, rolled over and declared bankruptcy -

If the South had proposed a plan for a gradual transition away from slavery we might have avoided war. Instead, it chose doomed secession.

could anyone really have expected congress to have continued to work together - look at it now! - sc had to leave and by god I wish they would do it again - we need a country for teabaggers

Given the tragedy that resulted, I'd agree that preserving the Union and maybe even immediately ending slavery was not worth it. If secession had succeeded both Mexico and the USA would probably be now complaining about the poor, illiterate, scruffy immigrants from the Confederacy.

It was called the War of Northern Aggression for a reason and my family fought for the south and lived in an area with very few slaves and owned none

Lots of southerners died defending the "right" of the wealthy to own other humans.

so why dis the south need to propose this plan - why not the north?

and if the north was really into this free the people thing - why did they fight a war for the texican slave holders against the anti-slave mexicans 10 years earlier

[Bungalow Bill]

Yep, the war began not to end slavery but to keep the union together. Ending slavery
came later. I think Lincoln's decision to free slaves in the Confederate states and not
the slave holding states that didn't secede was in part a political one, to keep states like
Maryland in the union. He was a pol after all and had to consider the politics of the situation.
No doubt the South would eventually have turned away from slavery, if only for economic
reasons. The question is how long that would have taken. Ten years? Twenty years? Thirty
years? So it was better to end it in 1865.

[billy.pilgrim]

If the South had proposed a plan for a gradual transition away from slavery we might have avoided war. Instead, it chose doomed secession...

so why dis the south need to propose this plan - why not the north?

Though the handwriting was on the wall, the Union had not yet moved to ban southern slavery in any way. The South thought it could preempt such moves, avoid or win the war, and preserve slavery. It was wrong.

and if the north was really into this free the people thing - why did they fight a war for the texican slave holders against the anti-slave mexicans 10 years earlier

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Mexican-Anglo war was about who would own the land, not who could own people.

come on now verde, who would own the land?

interesting that the good pro abolitionists of the north would promote a war to free the texican slave owners from the anti-slave laws of the evil mexicans and establish texas as a slave state

and then just a few years later to start a war to free the slaves of the world and end forever this evil institution - oh wait - we still have slavery in the world and even in the US 150 years later
could it be that the war was about something else - possibly two very different economies that couldn't get along


the was was bullshit and had nothing to do with good vs evil

[billy.pilgrim]

Slavery abolished in greece 2,600 years ago, in london 900 years ago, in france 700 years ago, even the pope came on board 600 years ago, england 300 years ago (still okay in colonies),
But in the violent US the north started a war to end slavery? A few years after the north ended slavery in the north
New York in 1827 and tag-along new jersey kinda sorta in 1804 – slaves born prior to 1804 stayed slaves for life – reckon there might have been a few around in the 1860s
oops spain and the pope dude allowed slavery in puerto rico until 1873,
and then france finally got around to abolishing slavery in a few more of their colonies in 1896, china in 1906,
although ruled by britain since 1916, quatar abolished slavery in 1952
and good friends to the US, saudi arabia and yemen finally abolished slavery in 1962, followed by the UAE and Oman in 1963 and 1970

secession was about differences and slavery was at the forefront but the war was started by the north and had little to do with slavery

the south was not evil, it was within the context of history
the north was not some wonderful super hero – that is nothing more than the stories of the winner
slavery would have ended in the south – who knows, the south may have re-entered the union

lincoln was wrong and jackson before him, ask madison or jefferson

[Crock Hunter]

Yep, the war began not to end slavery but to keep the union together.

The primary purpose in the act of seceding was to protect the right to own slaves... The Ordinance of Secession from each state make that point clear.. Had there been no mass exodus of states in secession.. it's difficult to imagine that there would have been justification for war.

The root cause of that war was a pro-slavery ethos .... It's hard to see how else this can be viewed?

[billy.pilgrim]

Yep, the war began not to end slavery but to keep the union together.

The primary purpose in the act of seceding was to protect the right to own slaves... The Ordinance of Secession from each state make that point clear.. Had there been no mass exodus of states in secession.. it's difficult to imagine that there would have been justification for war.

The root cause of that war was a pro-slavery ethos .... It's hard to see how else this can be viewed?

secession was not war

[Crock Hunter]

Yep, the war began not to end slavery but to keep the union together.

The primary purpose in the act of seceding was to protect the right to own slaves... The Ordinance of Secession from each state make that point clear.. Had there been no mass exodus of states in secession.. it's difficult to imagine that there would have been justification for war.

The root cause of that war was a pro-slavery ethos .... It's hard to see how else this can be viewed?

secession was not war

True.. other things that secession is not is Constitutional. .. ..

[billy.pilgrim]

Yep, the war began not to end slavery but to keep the union together.

The primary purpose in the act of seceding was to protect the right to own slaves... The Ordinance of Secession from each state make that point clear.. Had there been no mass exodus of states in secession.. it's difficult to imagine that there would have been justification for war.

The root cause of that war was a pro-slavery ethos .... It's hard to see how else this can be viewed?

secession was not war

True.. other things that secession is not is Constitutional. .. ..

you may be right, jackson would have agreed with you. I'm not so sure about madison or jefferson

[O Really]

Although there had been some disagreements for years, is it not true that the South Carolina hotheads tried to bail out when Lincoln was elected - not because of anything he actually did, but because of what they were afraid he was going to do? Might it be that if cooler heads had prevailed, that Lincoln probably would not have lived up to their fears?