Hey Liberals - Stick Your Confederate Flag

[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!

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

So, are you standing by those numbers you posted or not?

Big difference between 3% and a THIRD.

Did you realize the numbers were false?

If not, don't you want to thank me for pointing out that those jerks lied to you?

 

[Asclepias]

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.

Its as cut and dried as the statements in the Cornerstone Speech given by the losers in the south outlining their intent. The loser confederates were fighting to keep slavery. Practically everyone knows that.

 

[pwjohn]

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.

The op's comment does in fact contain a kernel of truth, upon which a mountain of pure unadulterated cock & bull was promptly piled on.

 

[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."

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.

Sorry that the truth makes your hemmorhoids bleed... Maybe not so sorry.

 

[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.

Sorry that the truth makes your hemmorhoids bleed... Maybe not so sorry.

I'm sure you find Karl Marx fascinating too
Put on a Gordon light foot album, fire up the bong, and stroke yourself off


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[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."

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.

Sorry that the truth makes your hemmorhoids bleed... Maybe not so sorry.

I'm sure you find Karl Marx fascinating too
Put on a Gordon light foot album, fire up the bong, and stroke yourself off


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why would I stroke myself when I have petty officer momma Pollock to do that???

 

[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....

So, are you standing by those numbers you posted or not?

Big difference between 3% and a THIRD.

Did you realize the numbers were false?

If not, don't you want to thank me for pointing out that those jerks lied to you?

dont just talk lets see your numbers....

 

[Correll]

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....

So, are you standing by those numbers you posted or not?

Big difference between 3% and a THIRD.

Did you realize the numbers were false?

If not, don't you want to thank me for pointing out that those jerks lied to you?

dont just talk lets see your numbers....

I'm not so much concerned about how many were or were not slave owners.

i

But i find it interesting that you found a site that lied about the numbers.

I asked if you had known they were being dishonest or if they tricked you.

you haven;t answered that.

 

[Harry Dresden]

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....

So, are you standing by those numbers you posted or not?

Big difference between 3% and a THIRD.

Did you realize the numbers were false?

If not, don't you want to thank me for pointing out that those jerks lied to you?

dont just talk lets see your numbers....

I'm not so much concerned about how many were or were not slave owners.

i

But i find it interesting that you found a site that lied about the numbers.

I asked if you had known they were being dishonest or if they tricked you.

you haven;t answered that.

and i asked you to show me your numbers proving your right....otherwise its just correll talk......

 

[Correll]

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....

So, are you standing by those numbers you posted or not?

Big difference between 3% and a THIRD.

Did you realize the numbers were false?

If not, don't you want to thank me for pointing out that those jerks lied to you?

dont just talk lets see your numbers....

I'm not so much concerned about how many were or were not slave owners.

i

But i find it interesting that you found a site that lied about the numbers.

I asked if you had known they were being dishonest or if they tricked you.

you haven;t answered that.

and i asked you to show me your numbers proving your right....otherwise its just correll talk......

says the man that posted lies,

 

[Harry Dresden]

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

So, are you standing by those numbers you posted or not?

Big difference between 3% and a THIRD.

Did you realize the numbers were false?

If not, don't you want to thank me for pointing out that those jerks lied to you?

dont just talk lets see your numbers....

I'm not so much concerned about how many were or were not slave owners.

i

But i find it interesting that you found a site that lied about the numbers.

I asked if you had known they were being dishonest or if they tricked you.

you haven;t answered that.

and i asked you to show me your numbers proving your right....otherwise its just correll talk......

says the man that posted lies,

says the guy who cant counter those "lies"....

 

[my2¢]

Just more folks whose ancestors lost their war against the U.S. of A.

 

[Vandalshandle]

burnings, and your Civil War monument destructions (sounds like ISIS) in great Civil War towns in the South. You assholes are taking down monuments placed for men who fought in a great war. No man shall ever forget what these men did. Abraham Lincoln said that.

And all this horse shit about the Confederacy fighting to retain slavery. Give me a fucking break. The South fought to keep you invading New York bastards the fuck off our property. Like any great war, the Confederate men fought and died, while the “elite,” rich bastard Liberal/Democrat fuckers lived on the plantation – keeping an eye on their slaves.

You think us country boys HAD slaves? That was only for the rich Southern Democrats. The same assholes who founded the KKK when the war was over.

Let me guess. You write textbooks for Texas, right?

 

[SeniorChief_Polock]

burnings, and your Civil War monument destructions (sounds like ISIS) in great Civil War towns in the South. You assholes are taking down monuments placed for men who fought in a great war. No man shall ever forget what these men did. Abraham Lincoln said that.

And all this horse shit about the Confederacy fighting to retain slavery. Give me a fucking break. The South fought to keep you invading New York bastards the fuck off our property. Like any great war, the Confederate men fought and died, while the “elite,” rich bastard Liberal/Democrat fuckers lived on the plantation – keeping an eye on their slaves.

You think us country boys HAD slaves? That was only for the rich Southern Democrats. The same assholes who founded the KKK when the war was over.

Let me guess. You write textbooks for Texas, right?

Wrong again, stupid
Try harder


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WheelieAddict]

The war was not Dem vs Repub. It was North vs South. And the weak pussy slave drivers lost. The dumb ass confederate lovers on this forum also continue to lose, and continue to be weak pussies.

 

[sealybobo]

burnings, and your Civil War monument destructions (sounds like ISIS) in great Civil War towns in the South. You assholes are taking down monuments placed for men who fought in a great war. No man shall ever forget what these men did. Abraham Lincoln said that.

And all this horse shit about the Confederacy fighting to retain slavery. Give me a fucking break. The South fought to keep you invading New York bastards the fuck off our property. Like any great war, the Confederate men fought and died, while the “elite,” rich bastard Liberal/Democrat fuckers lived on the plantation – keeping an eye on their slaves.

You think us country boys HAD slaves? That was only for the rich Southern Democrats. The same assholes who founded the KKK when the war was over.

Republicans love to say the racists back then were Democrats and Republicans (Lincoln) freed the slaves.

So why are all the guys waiving confederate flags today all Republicans?

 

[sealybobo]

Oh those southern liberals and their slaves. Guess that means Lincoln was a Confederate Conservative.

That's why the south lost. Democrats were in charge of the south.

As a liberal I worship Robert E Lee. Probably Americas most famous Asian besides Bruce.

 

[Vandalshandle]

burnings, and your Civil War monument destructions (sounds like ISIS) in great Civil War towns in the South. You assholes are taking down monuments placed for men who fought in a great war. No man shall ever forget what these men did. Abraham Lincoln said that.

And all this horse shit about the Confederacy fighting to retain slavery. Give me a fucking break. The South fought to keep you invading New York bastards the fuck off our property. Like any great war, the Confederate men fought and died, while the “elite,” rich bastard Liberal/Democrat fuckers lived on the plantation – keeping an eye on their slaves.

You think us country boys HAD slaves? That was only for the rich Southern Democrats. The same assholes who founded the KKK when the war was over.

Let me guess. You write textbooks for Texas, right?

Wrong again, stupid
Try harder


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Used to be Strom Thurmond's speech writer?