Slippery Slope of Historical Revisionism

[Porker]

Why? Nathan Bedford Forrest did not create the Klan. He was elected at the head of the Klan after the fact. He also disbanded the Klan the moment it became violent. That aside, he was one of the Confederacy's most respected (on both sides) and ingenious tacticians.

Nathan Bedford Forrest has NOTHING to do with the bloodthirsty desires of St. Louis' Negroes. It's NOT a statue of Forrest but just a Confederate memorial in FOREST...(NOT FORREST) PARK. The Forrest Park in Memphis is where that sorry bullshit is going on.

 

[Publius1787]

It's amazing how 140 years later, conservatives are STILL trying to justify the evil of the confederacy. But then again, justifying evil seems to be their favorite activity.

Why what evil do you speak of?

Well it doesn't matter anymore really as they got their asses whupped and are no more than an ugly footnote in history. It's best we all try to forget they were willing to kill and be killed for their right to own human beings as slaves.

I would challenge any historian to prove that the soldiers of the North (Or the president for that matter) invaded the South to rid the institution of slavery. I would likewise apply the same standard in reverse to the South. If there were southern soldiers who fought to maintain the institution of slavery they make up such a small proportion of the Army you might as well place the number at 0%.

 

[TheOldSchool]

It's amazing how 140 years later, conservatives are STILL trying to justify the evil of the confederacy. But then again, justifying evil seems to be their favorite activity.

Why what evil do you speak of?

Well it doesn't matter anymore really as they got their asses whupped and are no more than an ugly footnote in history. It's best we all try to forget they were willing to kill and be killed for their right to own human beings as slaves.

I would challenge any historian to prove that the soldiers of the North (Or the president for that matter) invaded the South to rid the institution of slavery. I would likewise apply the same standard in reverse to the South. If there were southern soldiers who fought to maintain the institution of slavery they make up such a small proportion of the Army you might as well place the number at 0%.

Well the south was so butthurt that blacks became equal, they maintained discriminating and segregating them until just a couple decades ago. Those poor sore losers.

 

[Publius1787]

It's amazing how 140 years later, conservatives are STILL trying to justify the evil of the confederacy. But then again, justifying evil seems to be their favorite activity.

Why what evil do you speak of?

Well it doesn't matter anymore really as they got their asses whupped and are no more than an ugly footnote in history. It's best we all try to forget they were willing to kill and be killed for their right to own human beings as slaves.

I would challenge any historian to prove that the soldiers of the North (Or the president for that matter) invaded the South to rid the institution of slavery. I would likewise apply the same standard in reverse to the South. If there were southern soldiers who fought to maintain the institution of slavery they make up such a small proportion of the Army you might as well place the number at 0%.

Well the south was so butthurt that blacks became equal, they maintained discriminating and segregating them until just a couple decades ago. Those poor sore losers.

This is such a complicated subject because there are so many reasons varying from state to state. Virginia for example never intended to withdraw from the Union until Lincoln raised an army without consent of congress to invade the South. Roughly half of all Southern states did not withdraw until that moment. As to the people who fought it being butt hurt that blacks would have equal rights as they, well then, please post your evidence.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Slippery slope of historical revisionism News

An article from last Sunday's St. Louis Post Dispatch addressing the current hot-topic from the city's po' mistreated black folk who want the Confederate Memorial Monument (over 100 years old) moved out of St. Louis' famous FOREST PARK and hidden from their view forever. The crybaby bastards. IT'S FRIGGING HISTORY assholes...just like the memorial monuments in the park denoting the Northern soldiers.

Mod Edit:

• Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.

If ya worship God, you're pro-slavery. Deal with it.

 

[Porker]

Slippery slope of historical revisionism News

An article from last Sunday's St. Louis Post Dispatch addressing the current hot-topic from the city's po' mistreated black folk who want the Confederate Memorial Monument (over 100 years old) moved out of St. Louis' famous FOREST PARK and hidden from their view forever. The crybaby bastards. IT'S FRIGGING HISTORY assholes...just like the memorial monuments in the park denoting the Northern soldiers.

Mod Edit:

• 
  
  
  • Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.

If ya worship God, you're pro-slavery. Deal with it.

Really? There sure are a lot of Negroes who are "pro-slavery".

Did I ever tell you how frigging stupid you really are?

 

[TheOldSchool]

It's amazing how 140 years later, conservatives are STILL trying to justify the evil of the confederacy. But then again, justifying evil seems to be their favorite activity.

Why what evil do you speak of?

Well it doesn't matter anymore really as they got their asses whupped and are no more than an ugly footnote in history. It's best we all try to forget they were willing to kill and be killed for their right to own human beings as slaves.

I would challenge any historian to prove that the soldiers of the North (Or the president for that matter) invaded the South to rid the institution of slavery. I would likewise apply the same standard in reverse to the South. If there were southern soldiers who fought to maintain the institution of slavery they make up such a small proportion of the Army you might as well place the number at 0%.

Well the south was so butthurt that blacks became equal, they maintained discriminating and segregating them until just a couple decades ago. Those poor sore losers.

This is such a complicated subject because there are so many reasons varying from state to state. Virginia for example never intended to withdraw from the Union until Lincoln raised an army without consent of congress to invade the South. Roughly half of all Southern states did not withdraw until that moment. As to the people who fought it being butt hurt that blacks would have equal rights as they, well then, please post your evidence.

My evidence is 100 years of segregation following the war.

 

[Publius1787]

Why what evil do you speak of?

Well it doesn't matter anymore really as they got their asses whupped and are no more than an ugly footnote in history. It's best we all try to forget they were willing to kill and be killed for their right to own human beings as slaves.

I would challenge any historian to prove that the soldiers of the North (Or the president for that matter) invaded the South to rid the institution of slavery. I would likewise apply the same standard in reverse to the South. If there were southern soldiers who fought to maintain the institution of slavery they make up such a small proportion of the Army you might as well place the number at 0%.

Well the south was so butthurt that blacks became equal, they maintained discriminating and segregating them until just a couple decades ago. Those poor sore losers.

This is such a complicated subject because there are so many reasons varying from state to state. Virginia for example never intended to withdraw from the Union until Lincoln raised an army without consent of congress to invade the South. Roughly half of all Southern states did not withdraw until that moment. As to the people who fought it being butt hurt that blacks would have equal rights as they, well then, please post your evidence.

My evidence is 100 years of segregation following the war.

Citing evidence that happened after the fact does not help your case. Especially when the north had its own jim crow after the civil war.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Well it doesn't matter anymore really as they got their asses whupped and are no more than an ugly footnote in history. It's best we all try to forget they were willing to kill and be killed for their right to own human beings as slaves.

I would challenge any historian to prove that the soldiers of the North (Or the president for that matter) invaded the South to rid the institution of slavery. I would likewise apply the same standard in reverse to the South. If there were southern soldiers who fought to maintain the institution of slavery they make up such a small proportion of the Army you might as well place the number at 0%.

Well the south was so butthurt that blacks became equal, they maintained discriminating and segregating them until just a couple decades ago. Those poor sore losers.

This is such a complicated subject because there are so many reasons varying from state to state. Virginia for example never intended to withdraw from the Union until Lincoln raised an army without consent of congress to invade the South. Roughly half of all Southern states did not withdraw until that moment. As to the people who fought it being butt hurt that blacks would have equal rights as they, well then, please post your evidence.

My evidence is 100 years of segregation following the war.

Citing evidence that happened after the fact does not help your case. Especially when the north had its own jim crow after the civil war.

All one has to do is read the confederate letters of secession and examine the treatment of black people in the former confederate states over the next hundred years to prove that the south rebelled out of fear they would be forced to stop using slave labor and treat the n*ggers they hated so thoroughly as equals.

 

[Publius1787]

I would challenge any historian to prove that the soldiers of the North (Or the president for that matter) invaded the South to rid the institution of slavery. I would likewise apply the same standard in reverse to the South. If there were southern soldiers who fought to maintain the institution of slavery they make up such a small proportion of the Army you might as well place the number at 0%.

Well the south was so butthurt that blacks became equal, they maintained discriminating and segregating them until just a couple decades ago. Those poor sore losers.

This is such a complicated subject because there are so many reasons varying from state to state. Virginia for example never intended to withdraw from the Union until Lincoln raised an army without consent of congress to invade the South. Roughly half of all Southern states did not withdraw until that moment. As to the people who fought it being butt hurt that blacks would have equal rights as they, well then, please post your evidence.

My evidence is 100 years of segregation following the war.

Citing evidence that happened after the fact does not help your case. Especially when the north had its own jim crow after the civil war.

All one has to do is read the confederate letters of secession and examine the treatment of black people in the former confederate states over the next hundred years to prove that the south rebelled out of fear they would be forced to stop using slave labor and treat the n*ggers they hated so thoroughly as equals.

I would agree. But different states had different reasons. If you had ready my earlier posts you would have found out that roughly half of those states had no intention of secession until Lincoln raised troops without consent of Congress to invade the South (Hmmmm, I'm certain the U.S. Constitution says something about that.) Particularly Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina, (All 4 of them populous and major slave holding states) rejected secession over and over again until Lincoln asked them for troops to invade the South. Most of all Civil War troops (especially Virginia and North Carolina) Came from these states.

The most accurate dramatization of the Civil War ever placed in narrative format. Unfortunately it did horrible at the box office because it placed historical accuracy above flashy cinematography.

 

[regent]

I have often wondered why poverty-stricken southern whites elected to defend the South, was it because those whites felt superior to all those slaves and freed blacks? Is that the key to a caste system, have somebody at the bottom?

 

[Steven_R]

The only revision I see is some people pretending the Confederacy wasn't entirely about preserving slavery.

I'm willing to bet your average Johnny Reb didn't care one way or another about slavery, but the political class in the South sure did. It's really too bad they ended up dragging the country to war over the whole issue.

 

[Publius1787]

I have often wondered why poverty-stricken southern whites elected to defend the South, was it because those whites felt superior to all those slaves and freed blacks? Is that the key to a caste system, have somebody at the bottom?

Well that's certainly the Marxist historians view.

 

[Publius1787]

The only revision I see is some people pretending the Confederacy wasn't entirely about preserving slavery.

I'm willing to bet your average Johnny Reb didn't care one way or another about slavery, but the political class in the South sure did. It's really too bad they ended up dragging the country to war over the whole issue.

What would you say the chances are that slavery was going to be abolished without secession and civil war? And what war in the history of wars was not led by the political class in one form or another? Listen, half of the confederacy refused to secede until Lincoln demanded that they raise an army without consent of congress. That's hardly a pro/anti slavery justification. In the end there is only one person who got to decide whether they go to war or not. that person was Lincoln. this cannot be disputed.

 

[Porker]

Well the south was so butthurt that blacks became equal, they maintained discriminating and segregating them until just a couple decades ago. Those poor sore losers.

As did Boston, Detroit, Chicago, St. Louis, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Philadelphia, Newark, NEW YORK CITY, Washington D.C., Pittsburgh and EVERY OTHER major city in the U.S.A. Those two faced bastards

 

[Unkotare]

In the end there is only one person who got to decide whether they go to war or not. that person was Lincoln. this cannot be disputed.

Wrong. You really are making an ass of yourself with this futile attempt at playing the apologist for the confederate traitors. History is not going to change to suit your strange obsession.

 

[konradv]

I have often wondered why poverty-stricken southern whites elected to defend the South, was it because those whites felt superior to all those slaves and freed blacks? Is that the key to a caste system, have somebody at the bottom?

Well that's certainly the Marxist historians view.

That doesn't make it wrong.

 

[Publius1787]

In the end there is only one person who got to decide whether they go to war or not. that person was Lincoln. this cannot be disputed.

Wrong. You really are making an ass of yourself with this futile attempt at playing the apologist for the confederate traitors. History is not going to change to suit your strange obsession.

Couldn't help but notice the lack of evidence to support your claim.

 

[Publius1787]

I have often wondered why poverty-stricken southern whites elected to defend the South, was it because those whites felt superior to all those slaves and freed blacks? Is that the key to a caste system, have somebody at the bottom?

Well that's certainly the Marxist historians view.

That doesn't make it wrong.

Any historical analysis that focuses solely on class, gender, and race in order to make a point that ignores a much broader scheme is usually incorrect. Indeed when you assign victims in historical analysis you are ignoring the fact that history knows no victims and the story is always more Machiavellian than it seems. Howard Zinn, for example, is a historian that ignores those truths.

 

[konradv]

I have often wondered why poverty-stricken southern whites elected to defend the South, was it because those whites felt superior to all those slaves and freed blacks? Is that the key to a caste system, have somebody at the bottom?

Well that's certainly the Marxist historians view.

That doesn't make it wrong.

Any historical analysis that focuses solely on class, gender, and race in order to make a point that ignores a much broader scheme is usually incorrect.

Usually? That still doesn't prove it to be incorrect. Sometimes the simplest explanation is the best. What other reason would poor whites have for preserving a system in which they had no vested interest?