Hey Liberals - Stick Your Confederate Flag

[Howey]

The "lol" was mocking your sheer ignorance, sweetie!

Direct your comic relief at your own stupidity. There's enough of it to fill Mile High Stadium.

Sure thing there Pollack.

 

[SeniorChief_Polock]

The "lol" was mocking your sheer ignorance, sweetie!

Direct your comic relief at your own stupidity. There's enough of it to fill Mile High Stadium.

Sure thing there Pollack.

I'm not interested in your kiss, idiot. Dear Lord - do you have anything substantial to add to this discussion? Start with the OP, engage your fucking brain, and at least attempt to respond with some degree of intelligence.

In the meantime - research if the IRS has a "stupid" deduction. If so, they owe you a substantial refund.

 

[Asclepias]

The "lol" was mocking your sheer ignorance, sweetie!

Direct your comic relief at your own stupidity. There's enough of it to fill Mile High Stadium.

^^^^ This guy thinks the civil war losers didnt fight over slavery and is actually calling someone else stupid.

 

[SeniorChief_Polock]

The "lol" was mocking your sheer ignorance, sweetie!

Direct your comic relief at your own stupidity. There's enough of it to fill Mile High Stadium.

^^^^ This guy thinks the civil war losers didnt fight over slavery and is actually calling someone else stupid.

Is there ONE Liberal on this forum with a partial brain? One? Have not seen one in this thread yet

 

[Asclepias]

The "lol" was mocking your sheer ignorance, sweetie!

Direct your comic relief at your own stupidity. There's enough of it to fill Mile High Stadium.

^^^^ This guy thinks the civil war losers didnt fight over slavery and is actually calling someone else stupid.

Is there ONE Liberal on this forum with a partial brain? One? Have not seen one in this thread yet

is there 1 confederate supporting loser that read the Corner Speech? You guys are like fucking idiots 24 hours a day.

 

[SeniorChief_Polock]

The "lol" was mocking your sheer ignorance, sweetie!

Direct your comic relief at your own stupidity. There's enough of it to fill Mile High Stadium.

^^^^ This guy thinks the civil war losers didnt fight over slavery and is actually calling someone else stupid.

Is there ONE Liberal on this forum with a partial brain? One? Have not seen one in this thread yet

is there 1 confederate supporting loser that read the Corner Speech? You guys are like fucking idiots 24 hours a day.

What in dear Lord's name are you blathering about, idiot.
And you top it off with a moronic emoticon ?
Perhaps your dope-infested brain stopped maturing around the age of 12 years old ?
Did you ever reach puberty, or are you doomed to a trailer, drooling in an easy chair ?

 

[Asclepias]

The "lol" was mocking your sheer ignorance, sweetie!

Direct your comic relief at your own stupidity. There's enough of it to fill Mile High Stadium.

^^^^ This guy thinks the civil war losers didnt fight over slavery and is actually calling someone else stupid.

Is there ONE Liberal on this forum with a partial brain? One? Have not seen one in this thread yet

is there 1 confederate supporting loser that read the Corner Speech? You guys are like fucking idiots 24 hours a day.

What in dear Lord's name are you blathering about, idiot.
And you top it off with a moronic emoticon ?
Perhaps your dope-infested brain stopped maturing around the age of 12 years old ?
Did you ever reach puberty, or are you doomed to a trailer, drooling in an easy chair ?

The Cornerstone Speech you idiot. You know the one where the loser confederates told everyone they were fighting over slavery? Figures you never read it. You dummies never do.

 

[Correll]

Given how the secession documents of every southern state specifically stated they were seceding over slavery, it takes a special degree of dishonesty to pretend the war wasn't about slavery.

IMO Lincoln had his reasons and they were good ones. MDK makes a very good point about that.

 

[Correll]

As is always the case, Warbler's post involves something being stuck into an orifice.

Now, the civil war was almost entirely about slavery, and only pathologically dishonest historical revisionists even try to pretend otherwise.

Why do they do that? Because they're big fans of slavery, and they're still upset at us liberals for ending the practice of slavery.

Lincoln swore up and down it was not about slavery.

What do you make of that?

Was Lincoln a "pathologically dishonest revisionist"?

Lincoln knew damn well it was about slavery. He swore up and down that is wasn't b/c he needed to keep the pro-slavery border states to remain in the Union. It could have been an entirely different story if Delware, Maryland, Kentucky, and, Missouri join the CSA.

Do you think the Union troops from the pro-slavery states were fighting to end slavery?

Some were but the vast majority were fighting to simply save the union. Those attitudes started to change as the war dragged on and the deeper the Union moved into the south.

I agree the President was lying. I agree with you that he had good reason to lie.

I agree that the majority of the Union Troops from the Pro-slavery states were fighting to save the Union.

I also think that was true of most of the Troops from the Free States too.

I'm sure most of them were anti-slavery, but I have a hard time imagining that percentage of people being willing to die for other people's freedom.


DO you think the majority of the Southern forces were fighting to preserve slavery?

 

[Correll]

As is always the case, Warbler's post involves something being stuck into an orifice.

Now, the civil war was almost entirely about slavery, and only pathologically dishonest historical revisionists even try to pretend otherwise.

Why do they do that? Because they're big fans of slavery, and they're still upset at us liberals for ending the practice of slavery.

Lincoln swore up and down it was not about slavery.

What do you make of that?

Was Lincoln a "pathologically dishonest revisionist"?

It was not...for the North....until the Emancipation Proclamation. But why did the South secede in the first place? Answer that one.

I want to be on record that I don't blame Lincoln for lying. He had excellent political reasons to do so.

BUT we should consider that many of the Union soldiers who fought and died at his command, believed what the President told them, ie that it was NOT about slavery.

Much as the majority of those who fought for the South believed that they were fighting to protect their homes from northern aggression.

Because their leaders lied to them TOO. They had very good political reasons to lie too.

 

[Correll]

That's right. Rich Democrats owned the slaves. That was 3% of Southerners. The poor farmers were brainwashed into thinking the Union Army was invading to take their land, rape their wives and burn their homes (which they did) so the Southern farmers fought.

The rich also owned the newspapers so it was an easy sell.

Abraham Lincoln wanted to deport all the slaves to South America and the Bahamas for labor (fact Google it).

But he couldn't. Slaves were "property" and the 4th Amendment bans unlawful seizure of property.

So....he needed to free them to make them "people"....but not citizens.....so he could deport them. And he burned the South to do it.

The war took its toll on Lincoln and we know what happened after.

But there it is.

It was not just 3% of Southerners who owned slaves. How can we take anything you say seriously when you start out with some stupid lie like that?

your right bo according to this anyway......
Selected Statistics

Those are some nicely selected stats.

I like that they count FAMILIES that owned slaves, not actual SLAVE OWNERS.

That way the small farmers who had one slave and 6 kids? His kids get counted as slave owners!

Even if they died before they grew up and ever gave the slave a single order!

 

[reconmark]

The most widespread myth is also the most basic. Across America, 60 percent to 75 percent of high-school history teachers believe and teach that the South seceded for state's rights, said Jim Loewen, author of "Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong" (Touchstone, 1996) and co-editor of "The Confederate and Neo-Confederate Reader: The 'Great Truth' about the 'Lost Cause'" (University Press of Mississippi, 2010).

"It's complete B.S.," Loewen told LiveScience. "And by B.S., I mean 'bad scholarship.'"

In fact, Loewen said, the original documents of the Confederacy show quite clearly that the war was based on one thing: slavery. For example, in its declaration of secession, Mississippi explained, "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world … a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization." In its declaration of secession, South Carolina actually comes out against the rights of states to make their own laws — at least when those laws conflict with slaveholding. "In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals," the document reads. The right of transit, Loewen said, was the right of slaveholders to bring their slaves along with them on trips to non-slaveholding states.

In its justification of secession, Texas sums up its view of a union built upon slavery: "We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were establishedexclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable."

The myth that the war was not about slavery seems to be a self-protective one for many people, said Stan Deaton, the senior historian at the Georgia Historical Society.

"People think that somehow it demonizes their ancestors," to have fought for slavery, Deaton told LiveScience. But the people fighting at the time were very much aware of what was at stake, Deaton said.

"[Defining the war] is our problem," he said. "I don't think it was theirs."

 

[SeniorChief_Polock]

The most widespread myth is also the most basic. Across America, 60 percent to 75 percent of high-school history teachers believe and teach that the South seceded for state's rights, said Jim Loewen, author of "Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong" (Touchstone, 1996) and co-editor of "The Confederate and Neo-Confederate Reader: The 'Great Truth' about the 'Lost Cause'" (University Press of Mississippi, 2010).

"It's complete B.S.," Loewen told LiveScience. "And by B.S., I mean 'bad scholarship.'"

In fact, Loewen said, the original documents of the Confederacy show quite clearly that the war was based on one thing: slavery. For example, in its declaration of secession, Mississippi explained, "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world … a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization." In its declaration of secession, South Carolina actually comes out against the rights of states to make their own laws — at least when those laws conflict with slaveholding. "In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals," the document reads. The right of transit, Loewen said, was the right of slaveholders to bring their slaves along with them on trips to non-slaveholding states.

In its justification of secession, Texas sums up its view of a union built upon slavery: "We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were establishedexclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable."

The myth that the war was not about slavery seems to be a self-protective one for many people, said Stan Deaton, the senior historian at the Georgia Historical Society.

"People think that somehow it demonizes their ancestors," to have fought for slavery, Deaton told LiveScience. But the people fighting at the time were very much aware of what was at stake, Deaton said.

"[Defining the war] is our problem," he said. "I don't think it was theirs."

Loewen is a socialist asshole, but, thanks for the inaccurate cut-and-paste. I'm sure it'll be of meaning to some useless idiot Liberal.

 

[bodecea]

That's right. Rich Democrats owned the slaves. That was 3% of Southerners. The poor farmers were brainwashed into thinking the Union Army was invading to take their land, rape their wives and burn their homes (which they did) so the Southern farmers fought.

The rich also owned the newspapers so it was an easy sell.

Abraham Lincoln wanted to deport all the slaves to South America and the Bahamas for labor (fact Google it).

But he couldn't. Slaves were "property" and the 4th Amendment bans unlawful seizure of property.

So....he needed to free them to make them "people"....but not citizens.....so he could deport them. And he burned the South to do it.

The war took its toll on Lincoln and we know what happened after.

But there it is.

It was not just 3% of Southerners who owned slaves. How can we take anything you say seriously when you start out with some stupid lie like that?

your right bo according to this anyway......
Selected Statistics

About 3% had 100 or more slaves...if you add up all slaveholders...about 25%....with slave holding considered THE sign of wealth.

 

[bodecea]

The most widespread myth is also the most basic. Across America, 60 percent to 75 percent of high-school history teachers believe and teach that the South seceded for state's rights, said Jim Loewen, author of "Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong" (Touchstone, 1996) and co-editor of "The Confederate and Neo-Confederate Reader: The 'Great Truth' about the 'Lost Cause'" (University Press of Mississippi, 2010).

"It's complete B.S.," Loewen told LiveScience. "And by B.S., I mean 'bad scholarship.'"

In fact, Loewen said, the original documents of the Confederacy show quite clearly that the war was based on one thing: slavery. For example, in its declaration of secession, Mississippi explained, "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world … a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization." In its declaration of secession, South Carolina actually comes out against the rights of states to make their own laws — at least when those laws conflict with slaveholding. "In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals," the document reads. The right of transit, Loewen said, was the right of slaveholders to bring their slaves along with them on trips to non-slaveholding states.

In its justification of secession, Texas sums up its view of a union built upon slavery: "We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were establishedexclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable."

The myth that the war was not about slavery seems to be a self-protective one for many people, said Stan Deaton, the senior historian at the Georgia Historical Society.

"People think that somehow it demonizes their ancestors," to have fought for slavery, Deaton told LiveScience. But the people fighting at the time were very much aware of what was at stake, Deaton said.

"[Defining the war] is our problem," he said. "I don't think it was theirs."

Daughters of the Confederacy were instrumental in pushing The Lost Cause fantasy.

 

[mdk]

As is always the case, Warbler's post involves something being stuck into an orifice.

Now, the civil war was almost entirely about slavery, and only pathologically dishonest historical revisionists even try to pretend otherwise.

Why do they do that? Because they're big fans of slavery, and they're still upset at us liberals for ending the practice of slavery.

Lincoln swore up and down it was not about slavery.

What do you make of that?

Was Lincoln a "pathologically dishonest revisionist"?

Lincoln knew damn well it was about slavery. He swore up and down that is wasn't b/c he needed to keep the pro-slavery border states to remain in the Union. It could have been an entirely different story if Delware, Maryland, Kentucky, and, Missouri join the CSA.

Do you think the Union troops from the pro-slavery states were fighting to end slavery?

Some were but the vast majority were fighting to simply save the union. Those attitudes started to change as the war dragged on and the deeper the Union moved into the south.

I agree the President was lying. I agree with you that he had good reason to lie.

I agree that the majority of the Union Troops from the Pro-slavery states were fighting to save the Union.

I also think that was true of most of the Troops from the Free States too.

I'm sure most of them were anti-slavery, but I have a hard time imagining that percentage of people being willing to die for other people's freedom.


DO you think the majority of the Southern forces were fighting to preserve slavery?

No, I don't believe the majority of the rank-and-file Southern forces were fighting to persevere slavery. The government of the Confederacy on the other hand...

 

[Asclepias]

As is always the case, Warbler's post involves something being stuck into an orifice.

Now, the civil war was almost entirely about slavery, and only pathologically dishonest historical revisionists even try to pretend otherwise.

Why do they do that? Because they're big fans of slavery, and they're still upset at us liberals for ending the practice of slavery.

Lincoln swore up and down it was not about slavery.

What do you make of that?

Was Lincoln a "pathologically dishonest revisionist"?

Lincoln knew damn well it was about slavery. He swore up and down that is wasn't b/c he needed to keep the pro-slavery border states to remain in the Union. It could have been an entirely different story if Delware, Maryland, Kentucky, and, Missouri join the CSA.

Do you think the Union troops from the pro-slavery states were fighting to end slavery?

Some were but the vast majority were fighting to simply save the union. Those attitudes started to change as the war dragged on and the deeper the Union moved into the south.

I agree the President was lying. I agree with you that he had good reason to lie.

I agree that the majority of the Union Troops from the Pro-slavery states were fighting to save the Union.

I also think that was true of most of the Troops from the Free States too.

I'm sure most of them were anti-slavery, but I have a hard time imagining that percentage of people being willing to die for other people's freedom.


DO you think the majority of the Southern forces were fighting to preserve slavery?

Of course they were fighting to preserve slavery. It doesnt matter if they owned any slaves. It doesnt matter if slaves limited their job opportunities. Just like today if you tell white people that they are better than someone else simply by being white, you have bought their support. This is evidenced in history when they took the white slaves (the Irish) and put them in a social class over the Black people, bestowing honorary white status. It didn't matter they were both looked down on. The elevation of social status is something whites will gladly die for.

 

[Harry Dresden]

That's right. Rich Democrats owned the slaves. That was 3% of Southerners. The poor farmers were brainwashed into thinking the Union Army was invading to take their land, rape their wives and burn their homes (which they did) so the Southern farmers fought.

The rich also owned the newspapers so it was an easy sell.

Abraham Lincoln wanted to deport all the slaves to South America and the Bahamas for labor (fact Google it).

But he couldn't. Slaves were "property" and the 4th Amendment bans unlawful seizure of property.

So....he needed to free them to make them "people"....but not citizens.....so he could deport them. And he burned the South to do it.

The war took its toll on Lincoln and we know what happened after.

But there it is.

It was not just 3% of Southerners who owned slaves. How can we take anything you say seriously when you start out with some stupid lie like that?

your right bo according to this anyway......
Selected Statistics

Those are some nicely selected stats.

I like that they count FAMILIES that owned slaves, not actual SLAVE OWNERS.

That way the small farmers who had one slave and 6 kids? His kids get counted as slave owners!

Even if they died before they grew up and ever gave the slave a single order!

its still would be more than 3%....if you dont like mine than lets see yours....

 

[Correll]

The most widespread myth is also the most basic. Across America, 60 percent to 75 percent of high-school history teachers believe and teach that the South seceded for state's rights, said Jim Loewen, author of "Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong" (Touchstone, 1996) and co-editor of "The Confederate and Neo-Confederate Reader: The 'Great Truth' about the 'Lost Cause'" (University Press of Mississippi, 2010).

"It's complete B.S.," Loewen told LiveScience. "And by B.S., I mean 'bad scholarship.'"

In fact, Loewen said, the original documents of the Confederacy show quite clearly that the war was based on one thing: slavery. For example, in its declaration of secession, Mississippi explained, "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world … a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization." In its declaration of secession, South Carolina actually comes out against the rights of states to make their own laws — at least when those laws conflict with slaveholding. "In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals," the document reads. The right of transit, Loewen said, was the right of slaveholders to bring their slaves along with them on trips to non-slaveholding states.

In its justification of secession, Texas sums up its view of a union built upon slavery: "We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were establishedexclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable."

The myth that the war was not about slavery seems to be a self-protective one for many people, said Stan Deaton, the senior historian at the Georgia Historical Society.

"People think that somehow it demonizes their ancestors," to have fought for slavery, Deaton told LiveScience. But the people fighting at the time were very much aware of what was at stake, Deaton said.

"[Defining the war] is our problem," he said. "I don't think it was theirs."

So, do you share MdK's belief that Lincoln was just lying about that then?

 

[Correll]

Lincoln swore up and down it was not about slavery.

What do you make of that?

Was Lincoln a "pathologically dishonest revisionist"?

Lincoln knew damn well it was about slavery. He swore up and down that is wasn't b/c he needed to keep the pro-slavery border states to remain in the Union. It could have been an entirely different story if Delware, Maryland, Kentucky, and, Missouri join the CSA.

Do you think the Union troops from the pro-slavery states were fighting to end slavery?

Some were but the vast majority were fighting to simply save the union. Those attitudes started to change as the war dragged on and the deeper the Union moved into the south.

I agree the President was lying. I agree with you that he had good reason to lie.

I agree that the majority of the Union Troops from the Pro-slavery states were fighting to save the Union.

I also think that was true of most of the Troops from the Free States too.

I'm sure most of them were anti-slavery, but I have a hard time imagining that percentage of people being willing to die for other people's freedom.


DO you think the majority of the Southern forces were fighting to preserve slavery?

No, I don't believe the majority of the rank-and-file Southern forces were fighting to persevere slavery. The government of the Confederacy on the other hand...

So, you have the President with stated aims that the war was NOT about slavery, though we agree he was lying.

You have a big percentage (majority?) of the Union forces believing they were NOT fighting about slavery.

You have the majority of the Southern forces thinking they were fighting for some other reason, to protect their homes or homeland. I consider it mostly a form of Nationalism.

This is not looking as cut and dried as some people like to pretend.