PC Fascists To Remove Lee and Jackson from War College Memorials

[NoNukes]

"JimCrowie"

I coined that nickname, thank you.

 

[paperview]

No one on this Board is as knowledgeable or objective as paperview on Civil War subjects.

If you ask her nicely, she may share here bibliographies and document downloads with you.

I know. I'm well versed in colonial and US history/culture up to the reconstruction and WWII but compared to her I'm an amateur.

Yup, she is amazing, and we are fortunate to have her on the Board to share the knowledge and keep us straight with the narrative.

History is my life, my love, my passion.

Still, the many kind words here are enough to make a gal blush.

 

[Sallow]

Lol, and you bought it or is that your sarcasm?


roflmao

Actually Paperview is a historian and works with the Civil War era, actual period documentation. It's something I had forgotten. Paper and I have had discussions in the past concerning this and she is completely correct, though rather blunt with the delivery, understandably so.
Oh and I'm a historian, sociologist and cultural anthropologist by training (school) and avid self study not to mention 2 years of psychology and biology.

Are you really making the argument that she is right due to her credentials?

Seriously?

My God, we are doomed.

Yeah..it's like letting a Doctor do the operation..instead of a faith healer.

Doomed I tells ya..doooomed.

 

[paperview]

"JimCrowie"

I coined that nickname, thank you.

I like it.

Fits well.

 

[JimBowie1958]

"JimCrowie"

I coined that nickname, thank you.

I like it.

Fits well.

Yeah, it is a lot easier than answering questions and defending your unwarranted statements.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Actually Paperview is a historian and works with the Civil War era, actual period documentation. It's something I had forgotten. Paper and I have had discussions in the past concerning this and she is completely correct, though rather blunt with the delivery, understandably so.
Oh and I'm a historian, sociologist and cultural anthropologist by training (school) and avid self study not to mention 2 years of psychology and biology.

Are you really making the argument that she is right due to her credentials?

Seriously?

My God, we are doomed.

Yeah..it's like letting a Doctor do the operation..instead of a faith healer.

Doomed I tells ya..doooomed.

Oh it is no surprise that a leftwing fascist like you will approve of the fallacy of 'appealing to authority' (particularly with internet credentials) instead o dealing with the facts and answering questions.

But then again you are a lying cock-sucking bitch.

 

[NoNukes]

"JimCrowie"

I coined that nickname, thank you.

I like it.

Fits well.

Thank you, and Happy Holidays.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I coined that nickname, thank you.

I like it.

Fits well.

Thank you, and Happy Holidays.

Guess for you libtards it beats answering the fucking questions, lol.

 

[NoNukes]

I like it.

Fits well.

Thank you, and Happy Holidays.

Guess for you libtards it beats answering the fucking questions, lol.

You are the one who ignores questions and replies with your Tourette rants.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Thank you, and Happy Holidays.

Guess for you libtards it beats answering the fucking questions, lol.

You are the one who ignores questions and replies with your Tourette rants.

Show me, bitch.

 

[Ringel05]

Lol, and you bought it or is that your sarcasm?


roflmao

Actually Paperview is a historian and works with the Civil War era, actual period documentation. It's something I had forgotten. Paper and I have had discussions in the past concerning this and she is completely correct, though rather blunt with the delivery, understandably so.
Oh and I'm a historian, sociologist and cultural anthropologist by training (school) and avid self study not to mention 2 years of psychology and biology.

Are you really making the argument that she is right due to her credentials?

Seriously?

My God, we are doomed.

If you believe that then you really are moronically blind and highly uneducated to boot. Looks like you're basing you position on the completely discredited Southern Revisionist movement that claims the Civil War wasn't really about slavery while ignoring the fact that if slavery hadn't existed the Civil War would have never happened.

 

[editec]

Traitors do not deserve the honor.


And yes traitors is the only word that can describe uniformed soldiers of one nation that take up arms and rebel against that nation.

These officers swore alligence to the UNITED STATES of AMERICA, not Viginia, or S Carolina etc.

They should have been hung...all of them.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Actually Paperview is a historian and works with the Civil War era, actual period documentation. It's something I had forgotten. Paper and I have had discussions in the past concerning this and she is completely correct, though rather blunt with the delivery, understandably so.
Oh and I'm a historian, sociologist and cultural anthropologist by training (school) and avid self study not to mention 2 years of psychology and biology.

Are you really making the argument that she is right due to her credentials?

Seriously?

My God, we are doomed.

If you believe that then you really are moronically blind and highly uneducated to boot. Looks like you're basing you position on the completely discredited Southern Revisionist movement that claims the Civil War wasn't really about slavery while ignoring the fact that if slavery hadn't existed the Civil War would have never happened.

Then Ringle, maybe you can explain the flaw in the logic here. Paperview has not, despite her blindingly awesome internet credentials that prove nothing in and of themselves.

Lincoln orders troops raised to invade the Deep South, then four more states rebel as well.

Lincoln invades them also, declaring his intent to restore the Union.

The South fights back, thus the war is afoot.

THREE YEARS LATER, when he thinks it wont hurt the primary cause, restoring the union, he risks the Emancipation Proclamation.

So since Lincoln invaded the South and thus was the direct cause of the war, wouldn't his motivations speak for the underlying cause of the war?

Since he did not emancipate the slaves would that not suggest that freeing the slaves was a low priority for him?

If the sole reason the South left the union was due to slavery, then why didn't the Corwin Amendment placate them? Why did Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas and North Carolina only leave the union after Lincoln ordered them to raise troops for an invasion of the deep South?

You see I know this, that there are different types of causes for things; catalytic causes, instigating causes, necessary causes, sufficient causes, contributory causes and more.

Causality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But when I see hysterians saying that SLAVERY WAS THE SOLE CAUSE OF THE CIVIL WAR it should make any critically thinking person stop and test the waters abit, as something is very fishy with such simplistic jingoistic views of complex historical causal environments in the modern world.

Ya feel me bro?

And when folks like your self make an appeal to authority as you appeared to do, it is simply mind boggling for any self respecting person to accept at face value. That is one of the very first fallacies I was taught in the various sundry critical thinking and analysis classes I have had.

Your cavalier attitude with the objective Truth is disconcerting to say the least.

lol, I doubt you will actually answer my post with any sort of seriousness, but hey, why the hell not ask anyway?

roflmao

 

[JimBowie1958]

Traitors do not deserve the honor.

.

Lol, now your just trolling.

You want to hang traitors, well what about those who pal around with known murderous terrorists like Bill Ayers?

Oh, but wait, he is YOUR terrorist so that's OK.

roflmao

 

[rightwinger]

Traitors do not deserve the honor.


And yes traitors is the only word that can describe uniformed soldiers of one nation that take up arms and rebel against that nation.

These officers swore alligence to the UNITED STATES of AMERICA, not Viginia, or S Carolina etc.

They should have been hung...all of them.

It was the postwar Politically Correct who allowed them to escape punishment. Lincoln paved the way with his "malice towards none" speech.

In reality, they should have been given the same rights and protections of any other traitor

 

[Ringel05]

Are you really making the argument that she is right due to her credentials?

Seriously?

My God, we are doomed.

If you believe that then you really are moronically blind and highly uneducated to boot. Looks like you're basing you position on the completely discredited Southern Revisionist movement that claims the Civil War wasn't really about slavery while ignoring the fact that if slavery hadn't existed the Civil War would have never happened.

Then Ringle, maybe you can explain the flaw in the logic here. Paperview has not, despite her blindingly awesome internet credentials that prove nothing in and of themselves.

Lincoln orders troops raised to invade the Deep South, then four more states rebel as well.

Lincoln invades them also, declaring his intent to restore the Union.

The South fights back, thus the war is afoot.

THREE YEARS LATER, when he thinks it wont hurt the primary cause, restoring the union, he risks the Emancipation Proclamation.

So since Lincoln invaded the South and thus was the direct cause of the war, wouldn't his motivations speak for the underlying cause of the war?

Since he did not emancipate the slaves would that not suggest that freeing the slaves was a low priority for him?

If the sole reason the South left the union was due to slavery, then why didn't the Corwin Amendment placate them? Why did Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas and North Carolina only leave the union after Lincoln ordered them to raise troops for an invasion of the deep South?

You see I know this, that there are different types of causes for things; catalytic causes, instigating causes, necessary causes, sufficient causes, contributory causes and more.

Causality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But when IU see hysterians saying that SLAVERY WAS THE SOLE CAUSE OF THE CIVIL WAR it should make any critically thinking person stop and test the waters abit, as something is very fishy with such simplistic jingoistic views of complex historical causal environments in the modern world.

Ya feel me bro?

And when folks like your self make an appeal to authority as you appeared to do, it is simply mind boggling for any self respecting person to accept at face value. That is one of the very first fallacies I was taught in the various sundry critical thinking and analysis classes I have had.

Your cavalier attitude with the objective Truth is disconcerting to say the least.

lol, I doubt you will actually answer my post with any sort of seriousness, but hey, why the hell not ask anyway?

roflmao

Apparently in your attempt to win this argument you cherry pick facts while completely ignoring any others that don't validate your position, just like I wrongfully accused her of. I was addressing the wrong person when I responded to her.
Also you're obviously misinterpreting what she has said and even worse your listed source is Wikipedia....... That speaks volumes and not in a good way.

Who fired the first shot of the Civil War? It wasn't Lincoln. Why did the other 4 states secede after Sumter? We've already discussed the cultural makeup of the time so that answer should be obvious.
Her credentials are real as are mine and none of us have stated the SOLE REASON FOR THE WAR WAS SLAVERY, but slavery WAS the linchpin behind all the reasons.
Lincoln always claimed his reason for going to war was to preserve the Union, Emancipation was secondary and it did create some problems for him. Why did he only declare the slaves in the southern states free? Again this should be obvious but in case it's not he was a politician fighting a war, there were border states, some of which had slaves. Pretty sure he didn't want them going over to the South........
You call my response an appeal to authority, talk about being jingoistic, you couldn't be more wrong, it's an appeal to knowledge and understanding.
Again, you're so locked into your paradigm, you've blinded yourself to anything you PERCEIVE contradicts your position.
Now you can continue to be a prick about this or you can discuss it with an open mind, I'll be happy to respond in any way you wish.

 

[JimBowie1958]

If you believe that then you really are moronically blind and highly uneducated to boot. Looks like you're basing you position on the completely discredited Southern Revisionist movement that claims the Civil War wasn't really about slavery while ignoring the fact that if slavery hadn't existed the Civil War would have never happened.

Then Ringle, maybe you can explain the flaw in the logic here. Paperview has not, despite her blindingly awesome internet credentials that prove nothing in and of themselves.

Lincoln orders troops raised to invade the Deep South, then four more states rebel as well.

Lincoln invades them also, declaring his intent to restore the Union.

The South fights back, thus the war is afoot.

THREE YEARS LATER, when he thinks it wont hurt the primary cause, restoring the union, he risks the Emancipation Proclamation.

So since Lincoln invaded the South and thus was the direct cause of the war, wouldn't his motivations speak for the underlying cause of the war?

Since he did not emancipate the slaves would that not suggest that freeing the slaves was a low priority for him?

If the sole reason the South left the union was due to slavery, then why didn't the Corwin Amendment placate them? Why did Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas and North Carolina only leave the union after Lincoln ordered them to raise troops for an invasion of the deep South?

You see I know this, that there are different types of causes for things; catalytic causes, instigating causes, necessary causes, sufficient causes, contributory causes and more.

Causality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But when IU see hysterians saying that SLAVERY WAS THE SOLE CAUSE OF THE CIVIL WAR it should make any critically thinking person stop and test the waters abit, as something is very fishy with such simplistic jingoistic views of complex historical causal environments in the modern world.

Ya feel me bro?

And when folks like your self make an appeal to authority as you appeared to do, it is simply mind boggling for any self respecting person to accept at face value. That is one of the very first fallacies I was taught in the various sundry critical thinking and analysis classes I have had.

Your cavalier attitude with the objective Truth is disconcerting to say the least.

lol, I doubt you will actually answer my post with any sort of seriousness, but hey, why the hell not ask anyway?

roflmao

Apparently in your attempt to win this argument you cherry pick facts while completely ignoring any others that don't validate your position,

Unwarranted assertion.

Also you're obviously misinterpreting what she has said

Unwarranted assertion.

and even worse your listed source is Wikipedia....... That speaks volumes and not in a good way.

Ad hominem, and some studies have shown Wikipedia to be more reliable than the old Encyclopedia Britanica, but whatever, this is not a documented research paper.

Who fired the first shot of the Civil War? It wasn't Lincoln.

Forcing a foreign nations ships to pull over and pay another nation a tariff is an act of war. I am not sure if it had happened up to that moment that the shots were fired but Lincoln said they would still collect the tariffs and was sending reinforcements to do just that. So, one might validly assert that Lincoln made the firs THREATS of war.

Why did the other 4 states secede after Sumter? We've already discussed the cultural makeup of the time so that answer should be obvious.

Well, Precious, why not share them with me as well? That is the oldest dodge in the book, and if you are so well versed you could spit the nullifying reasons out fairly easily.

Her credentials are real as are mine and none of us have stated the SOLE REASON FOR THE WAR WAS SLAVERY, but slavery WAS the linchpin behind all the reasons.

'Lynchpin' is a weasel term that really has no specific meaning. Lincoln's actions and stated reason for them would suggest your have your pin in the wrong place.

Lincoln always claimed his reason for going to war was to preserve the Union, Emancipation was secondary and it did create some problems for him. Why did he only declare the slaves in the southern states free? Again this should be obvious but in case it's not he was a politician fighting a war, there were border states, some of which had slaves. Pretty sure he didn't want them going over to the South........

That was only part of it, and the alienation of a vast number of Northerners who were adamantly opposed to making the Civil War a war of Abolition was another. It wasn't all about Southerners just loving to whip their darkies!

You call my response an appeal to authority, talk about being jingoistic, you couldn't be more wrong, it's an appeal to knowledge and understanding.

When people appeal to knowledge and understanding they use FACTS not referencing people supposed credentials. You would know that if you had any real training as an historian.

Again, you're so locked into your paradigm, you've blinded yourself to anything you PERCEIVE contradicts your position.

No, I am blinded to unwarranted assertions and people making claims of truth based on their authority supposedly proven by their credentials, especially internet credentials.

Now you can continue to be a prick about this or you can discuss it with an open mind, I'll be happy to respond in any way you wish.

Whether I am a prick or not, I don't give a fuck.

Either you can debate with FACTS and REASON or you cannot.

Man up and put your game face on or go away patting yourself on the back that you are so much smarter than me. I don't care.

But don't blame me for you not making your own case for your claims.

That is being a real loser.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Traitors do not deserve the honor.


And yes traitors is the only word that can describe uniformed soldiers of one nation that take up arms and rebel against that nation.

These officers swore alligence to the UNITED STATES of AMERICA, not Viginia, or S Carolina etc.

They should have been hung...all of them.

It was the postwar Politically Correct who allowed them to escape punishment. Lincoln paved the way with his "malice towards none" speech.

In reality, they should have been given the same rights and protections of any other traitor

Spoken just like Stalin would have loved, you treasonous coward.

Carp about honorably dead veterans, but ignore current treachery in our own day and time; standard libtard bullshit.

 

[editec]

Traitors do not deserve the honor.

.

Lol, now your just trolling.

You want to hang traitors, well what about those who pal around with known murderous terrorists like Bill Ayers?

Oh, but wait, he is YOUR terrorist so that's OK.

roflmao

Jimmy,

I really don't know who Bill Ayers is.

But if he, like Lee, was a West Point Graduate and officer of the United States Arms who then took up arms against the government of the United States?

then YES< I think hanging would be in order for him too.

No I am not trolling mate.

I really do think they ought to have hanged most of the CSA's top brass and all its top civilian officials.

They were traitors and they committed heinous treason against my nation.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jim Bowie, in reply to another, wrote in part, "Either you can debate with FACTS and REASON or you cannot", failing to understand the rich self irony of his remarks.