The Civil War

[Pogo]

On this topic, I have addressed how English functions and what the words that bear on this question are and mean. No one has shown (or could show) that to be incorrect. History shows that many have tried to interpret the words to their political advantage. That the situation in the U.S. involved an infernal practice, slavery, and that economics was intimately joined thereto, makes this understandable, if not respectable.
Feelings and thoughts and political passions are all mixed up in America. So, my position has been attacked as "Lincoln cultism", which it most certainly is not, "fascist", which it most certainly is not, "moronic" and other grade school playground names. My participation here is an intellectual exercise to keep mental processes flowing and, perhaps, to clarify for any possible neutral observers the argumentation taking place in the threads.
To repeat one important point, the entire question is moot. The issue was settled in a disastrous and terribly costly war that America never fully recovered from. It was made necessary by the kind of refusal to calmly evaluate that is evident in the preceding posts. Today's enemies gloat over the possibilities to exploit the divisions that remain. Serving those enemies is, itself, seditious. Continue at your peril.

It's just Democrats trying to demonize the modern South, is all, with a pile of lies to boot. If the South was so horrible, black people would have left in far larger numbers; they stayed on, after the war, and ever since. That was because northerners were a lot nastier and far more crooked.

BULLSHIT.

More bullshit; some Ynakee sweatshop operators brought some blacks north as scabs to bust strikes, or to work in the war industries, most of it long after the they were allegedly 'freed', and again most of them remained in the South, which is why you try and use some 'Fun With Numbers' percentages; even you know you're full of shit. lol@ '1,5 million', over anentire century. Doesn't sound like a 'welcome mat' was rolled out, exactly, just desperate straw grasping by racist yankees hoping nobody noticed they butchered blacks and whites merely over money.

By 1910, over 90% of black people still lived in the South.

Unfortunately for your desperate ass I said nothing about "welcome mats" or any other value judgments that you're trying to plug in after the fact and in fact have delineated quite the opposite dynamic on this site where the topic has come up. What I did there was toss into the dumpster your ridiculous fantasy about 'they stayed on, after the war, and ever since'. Where the fuck did you think Chicago and Detroit and Cleveland and Philadelphia and Indianapolis (etc etc etc) got their black populations? Tooth fairy?

FUCK outta here.

 

[there4eyeM]

These consequences of the war are testimony to poor management at all levels, from the individual to the President (and beyond to the tycoons of the epoch). As effects, however, they don't say much about the causes of that war. No one disputes that the general attitude toward blacks was different from others, though, at the same time, other groups were also viewed much more negatively and differently that today. The general population was not so enlightened as we noble and all knowing moderns.
The nation would never have had this war to resolve its existential validity if slavery had not been in the original mix. That fact denigrates or elevates neither side morally. Going on from that fact to moral and/or economic judgements is after this fact. The only other element is the nature of the nation. Did they put their differences apart and fight the mighty British Empire to establish what they called the Perpetual Union so that it could just fall apart at any moment, at any whim? The Civil War was necessitated by people who would not give up slavery and people who would not allow their nation to crumble.

 

[Unkotare]

These consequences of the war are testimony to poor management at all levels, from the individual to the President (and beyond to the tycoons of the epoch). As effects, however, they don't say much about the causes of that war. No one disputes that the general attitude toward blacks was different from others, though, at the same time, other groups were also viewed much more negatively and differently that today. The general population was not so enlightened as we noble and all knowing moderns.
The nation would never have had this war to resolve its existential validity if slavery had not been in the original mix. That fact denigrates or elevates neither side morally. Going on from that fact to moral and/or economic judgements is after this fact. The only other element is the nature of the nation. Did they put their differences apart and fight the mighty British Empire to establish what they called the Perpetual Union so that it could just fall apart at any moment, at any whim? The Civil War was necessitated by people who would not give up slavery and people who would not allow their nation to crumble.

^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[Winston]

It seems people are not going to agree on what caused the civil war...

No need to agree; the Lincoln worshippers are just venal haters and wrong, is all. It's their evil they need to deal with.

Frustrated that you have been proven wrong over and over again, wannabe?

lol not hardly; you racists .....

Say what? This coming from an apologist for the fucking criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' who led countless men to their deaths in order to protect the evil institution of slavery?

That is just stupid. Those men of the confederacy were no more fighting to protect the institution of slavery than the damn yankees were fighting to end it. I mean I am sick and tired of historical dumbasses, especially flippin ignorant ass Yankees, trying to claim the moral high ground just so they can deny their own responsibility for that institution of slavery. Was slavery illegal in Kentucky. Well was it? What about Texas. LIncoln offered to allow Texas to keep that terrible institution of slavery if they would just not join the Confederacy.

What about that famous "Emancipation Proclamation". Did it set free the slaves in Union occupied New Orleans? Hell no, it only freed the slaves in Confederate controlled territories. What a damn joke. Got you some slaves in a tobacco farm in Kentucky, hell, you good to go. And Lincoln, was he a man of principal, working hard to free those slaves. Hell no, he believed the Negro was inferior, worked hard to keep Illinois white. See, free states and slave states and the Missouri compromise, what free state usually meant was NO BLACKS WHATSOVER. Read a history book, written in the 19th century, not the revisionist bullshit printed now. During the Lincoln Douglas debates Lincoln advocated to ship all the Negros back to Africa. You ever hear of a place called Liberia?

But hell, I guess I should be thankful. I mean if it wasn't for the rapist of the Michigan militia my ass would not even be on this earth. There is no way in hell you can convince me that the Yankees hold the moral high ground here. They were rapists, thieves, scoundrels. Stupid asshole descendent from the Michigan militia attempted to sell North Carolina's copy of the Constitution on ebay several years back. Our governor, who was the attorney general at the time, got it back. Like I said at the very beginning, the North was all too happy to accept the institution of slavery as long as they got their money. When it looked like their gravy train might dry up they invaded, did you hear that, INVADED. And that is what why those Confederate soldiers were fighting.

 

[Dayton3]

The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?

Only it wasn't.
If Lincoln had stated that he was going to ban slavery and emancipate the slaves and the South refused. Then you could say it was fought over slavery but that never happened. Lincoln had no intention of banning slavery. It was just that as Sherman had pushed deep into Georgia it was a smart military tactic to cause maximum disruption.

And I'm as left-wing as you can get.

That and by remaking the purpose of the Civil War to be "ending slavery" Lincoln made it a public relations cudgel to use against the British government. The rank and file British public strongly opposed slavery so once the aim of the war was turned into "ending slavery" there was no possibility whatsoever that the British govt. was going to be willing to assist the south in preserving it.

 

[DudleySmith]

It seems people are not going to agree on what caused the civil war...

No need to agree; the Lincoln worshippers are just venal haters and wrong, is all. It's their evil they need to deal with.

Frustrated that you have been proven wrong over and over again, wannabe?

lol not hardly; you racists .....

Say what? This coming from an apologist for the fucking criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' who led countless men to their deaths in order to protect the evil institution of slavery?

That is just stupid. Those men of the confederacy were no more fighting to protect the institution of slavery than the damn yankees were fighting to end it. I mean I am sick and tired of historical dumbasses, especially flippin ignorant ass Yankees, trying to claim the moral high ground just so they can deny their own responsibility for that institution of slavery. Was slavery illegal in Kentucky. Well was it? What about Texas. LIncoln offered to allow Texas to keep that terrible institution of slavery if they would just not join the Confederacy.

What about that famous "Emancipation Proclamation". Did it set free the slaves in Union occupied New Orleans? Hell no, it only freed the slaves in Confederate controlled territories. What a damn joke. Got you some slaves in a tobacco farm in Kentucky, hell, you good to go. And Lincoln, was he a man of principal, working hard to free those slaves. Hell no, he believed the Negro was inferior, worked hard to keep Illinois white. See, free states and slave states and the Missouri compromise, what free state usually meant was NO BLACKS WHATSOVER. Read a history book, written in the 19th century, not the revisionist bullshit printed now. During the Lincoln Douglas debates Lincoln advocated to ship all the Negros back to Africa. You ever hear of a place called Liberia?

But hell, I guess I should be thankful. I mean if it wasn't for the rapist of the Michigan militia my ass would not even be on this earth. There is no way in hell you can convince me that the Yankees hold the moral high ground here. They were rapists, thieves, scoundrels. Stupid asshole descendent from the Michigan militia attempted to sell North Carolina's copy of the Constitution on ebay several years back. Our governor, who was the attorney general at the time, got it back. Like I said at the very beginning, the North was all too happy to accept the institution of slavery as long as they got their money. When it looked like their gravy train might dry up they invaded, did you hear that, INVADED. And that is what why those Confederate soldiers were fighting.

it's a stupid propaganda gimmick invented by dumbass political activists who think they're going to link the South's shift to Republicans to 'racism n stuff', when we all know it was Lincoln and the majority of 'abolitionists' who ran on the White Nationalist policies. These tards are just too stupid and racist themselves to see the obvious.

And even more obvious black people chose to stay and live in the South rather than go north, 90% of them still living in the South until the early 1900's, and the majority remained here right up to today. So much for the claim the northern states and California were less racist than the South. Black voters in Harlem voted in about the xame percentages as backs in Mississippi until after Nixon was elected, in 'Enlightened liberal Democratic' New York City.

 

[Unkotare]

..... link the South's shift to Republicans to 'racism n stuff....

No one but you has said that, dumbass.

 

[Unkotare]

.....That and by remaking the purpose of the Civil War to be "ending slavery" .......

America's purpose was to preserve the Union. The purpose of the criminal scumbags of the so-called 'confederacy' was to preserve slavery and destroy the Union.

 

[DudleySmith]

On this topic, I have addressed how English functions and what the words that bear on this question are and mean. No one has shown (or could show) that to be incorrect. History shows that many have tried to interpret the words to their political advantage. That the situation in the U.S. involved an infernal practice, slavery, and that economics was intimately joined thereto, makes this understandable, if not respectable.
Feelings and thoughts and political passions are all mixed up in America. So, my position has been attacked as "Lincoln cultism", which it most certainly is not, "fascist", which it most certainly is not, "moronic" and other grade school playground names. My participation here is an intellectual exercise to keep mental processes flowing and, perhaps, to clarify for any possible neutral observers the argumentation taking place in the threads.
To repeat one important point, the entire question is moot. The issue was settled in a disastrous and terribly costly war that America never fully recovered from. It was made necessary by the kind of refusal to calmly evaluate that is evident in the preceding posts. Today's enemies gloat over the possibilities to exploit the divisions that remain. Serving those enemies is, itself, seditious. Continue at your peril.

It's just Democrats trying to demonize the modern South, is all, with a pile of lies to boot. If the South was so horrible, black people would have left in far larger numbers; they stayed on, after the war, and ever since. That was because northerners were a lot nastier and far more crooked.

BULLSHIT.

More bullshit; some Ynakee sweatshop operators brought some blacks north as scabs to bust strikes, or to work in the war industries, most of it long after the they were allegedly 'freed', and again most of them remained in the South, which is why you try and use some 'Fun With Numbers' percentages; even you know you're full of shit. lol@ '1,5 million', over anentire century. Doesn't sound like a 'welcome mat' was rolled out, exactly, just desperate straw grasping by racist yankees hoping nobody noticed they butchered blacks and whites merely over money.

By 1910, over 90% of black people still lived in the South.

Unfortunately for your desperate ass I said nothing about "welcome mats" or any other value judgments that you're trying to plug in after the fact and in fact have delineated quite the opposite dynamic on this site where the topic has come up. What I did there was toss into the dumpster your ridiculous fantasy about 'they stayed on, after the war, and ever since'. Where the fuck did you think Chicago and Detroit and Cleveland and Philadelphia and Indianapolis (etc etc etc) got their black populations? Tooth fairy?

FUCK outta here.

You're just too stupid to win any points, so get out yoruslef before you embarrass yourself even more with your idiot rubbish and inability to even look up basic stuff, dumbass. Go smoke some more meth and console yourself.

 

[DudleySmith]

..... link the South's shift to Republicans to 'racism n stuff....

No one but you has said that, dumbass.

I realize you hate the fact tht it's a well known fact, and you tards are just repeating the idiotic nonsense the North was 'fightin slavery n stuff' and 'Honest Abe' the sleazebag railroad lawyer was just a poor hapless patriot n stuff opposed to Da Evul SlaveHolders out of the goodness of his heart, like you keep trying to pretend you are.

 

[DudleySmith]

The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?

Only it wasn't.
If Lincoln had stated that he was going to ban slavery and emancipate the slaves and the South refused. Then you could say it was fought over slavery but that never happened. Lincoln had no intention of banning slavery. It was just that as Sherman had pushed deep into Georgia it was a smart military tactic to cause maximum disruption.

And I'm as left-wing as you can get.

That and by remaking the purpose of the Civil War to be "ending slavery" Lincoln made it a public relations cudgel to use against the British government. The rank and file British public strongly opposed slavery so once the aim of the war was turned into "ending slavery" there was no possibility whatsoever that the British govt. was going to be willing to assist the south in preserving it.

Actually the British need the food and commodities exports form the U.S. more than they needed the cotton, as they thought they could just start growing enough cotton in India and Egypt to replace the loss of the southern trade. The British were fine with slave labor, since they used a lot of it in the ME and India and China. Much of that met with failure, though, and as soon as the war was over they went back to the cleaner and higher quality cotton form the South; it as now cheaper thanks to sharecropping driving labor costs down and making black farm laborers even poorer than they were as slaves.

 

[Unkotare]

...... once the aim of the war was turned into "ending slavery" there was no possibility whatsoever that the British govt. was going to be willing to assist the south in preserving it.

The British weren't going to recognize the so-called 'confederacy' because it was clearly illegitimate, and it was extremely likely to fail. Once that happened, any European country that had tried to interfere would face a very hostile UNITED States.

 

[Unkotare]

...

America's purpose was to preserve the Union. The purpose of the criminal scumbags of the so-called 'confederacy' was to preserve slavery and destroy the Union.

 

[DudleySmith]

...... once the aim of the war was turned into "ending slavery" there was no possibility whatsoever that the British govt. was going to be willing to assist the south in preserving it.

The British weren't going to recognize the so-called 'confederacy' because it was clearly illegitimate, and it was extremely likely to fail. Once that happened, any European country that had tried to interfere would face a very hostile UNITED States.

lol nonsense.

 

[Pogo]

On this topic, I have addressed how English functions and what the words that bear on this question are and mean. No one has shown (or could show) that to be incorrect. History shows that many have tried to interpret the words to their political advantage. That the situation in the U.S. involved an infernal practice, slavery, and that economics was intimately joined thereto, makes this understandable, if not respectable.
Feelings and thoughts and political passions are all mixed up in America. So, my position has been attacked as "Lincoln cultism", which it most certainly is not, "fascist", which it most certainly is not, "moronic" and other grade school playground names. My participation here is an intellectual exercise to keep mental processes flowing and, perhaps, to clarify for any possible neutral observers the argumentation taking place in the threads.
To repeat one important point, the entire question is moot. The issue was settled in a disastrous and terribly costly war that America never fully recovered from. It was made necessary by the kind of refusal to calmly evaluate that is evident in the preceding posts. Today's enemies gloat over the possibilities to exploit the divisions that remain. Serving those enemies is, itself, seditious. Continue at your peril.

It's just Democrats trying to demonize the modern South, is all, with a pile of lies to boot. If the South was so horrible, black people would have left in far larger numbers; they stayed on, after the war, and ever since. That was because northerners were a lot nastier and far more crooked.

BULLSHIT.

More bullshit; some Ynakee sweatshop operators brought some blacks north as scabs to bust strikes, or to work in the war industries, most of it long after the they were allegedly 'freed', and again most of them remained in the South, which is why you try and use some 'Fun With Numbers' percentages; even you know you're full of shit. lol@ '1,5 million', over anentire century. Doesn't sound like a 'welcome mat' was rolled out, exactly, just desperate straw grasping by racist yankees hoping nobody noticed they butchered blacks and whites merely over money.

By 1910, over 90% of black people still lived in the South.

Unfortunately for your desperate ass I said nothing about "welcome mats" or any other value judgments that you're trying to plug in after the fact and in fact have delineated quite the opposite dynamic on this site where the topic has come up. What I did there was toss into the dumpster your ridiculous fantasy about 'they stayed on, after the war, and ever since'. Where the fuck did you think Chicago and Detroit and Cleveland and Philadelphia and Indianapolis (etc etc etc) got their black populations? Tooth fairy?

FUCK outta here.

You're just too stupid to win any points, so get out yoruslef before you embarrass yourself even more with your idiot rubbish and inability to even look up basic stuff, dumbass. Go smoke some more meth and console yourself.

Go fuck yourself. I obliterated your senseless ass-ertion for the senseless idiocy it is, with facts. Don't post senseless shit and you won't get it obliterated. Ain't rocket surgery.

 

[Unkotare]

When the idiot 'confederates' torched their cotton crop, hoping to drive up prices, the British simply obtained what they needed from Brazil, Egypt, and India.

 

[Unkotare]

...... once the aim of the war was turned into "ending slavery" there was no possibility whatsoever that the British govt. was going to be willing to assist the south in preserving it.

The British weren't going to recognize the so-called 'confederacy' because it was clearly illegitimate, and it was extremely likely to fail. Once that happened, any European country that had tried to interfere would face a very hostile UNITED States.

lol nonsense.

Common knowledge for anyone who has actually studied History. Lincoln sent Seward to Europe to make this perfectly clear, which Seward was quite inclined to do. Lincoln had to remind Seward not to threaten every country he visited with outright war.

 

[DudleySmith]

On this topic, I have addressed how English functions and what the words that bear on this question are and mean. No one has shown (or could show) that to be incorrect. History shows that many have tried to interpret the words to their political advantage. That the situation in the U.S. involved an infernal practice, slavery, and that economics was intimately joined thereto, makes this understandable, if not respectable.
Feelings and thoughts and political passions are all mixed up in America. So, my position has been attacked as "Lincoln cultism", which it most certainly is not, "fascist", which it most certainly is not, "moronic" and other grade school playground names. My participation here is an intellectual exercise to keep mental processes flowing and, perhaps, to clarify for any possible neutral observers the argumentation taking place in the threads.
To repeat one important point, the entire question is moot. The issue was settled in a disastrous and terribly costly war that America never fully recovered from. It was made necessary by the kind of refusal to calmly evaluate that is evident in the preceding posts. Today's enemies gloat over the possibilities to exploit the divisions that remain. Serving those enemies is, itself, seditious. Continue at your peril.

It's just Democrats trying to demonize the modern South, is all, with a pile of lies to boot. If the South was so horrible, black people would have left in far larger numbers; they stayed on, after the war, and ever since. That was because northerners were a lot nastier and far more crooked.

BULLSHIT.

More bullshit; some Ynakee sweatshop operators brought some blacks north as scabs to bust strikes, or to work in the war industries, most of it long after the they were allegedly 'freed', and again most of them remained in the South, which is why you try and use some 'Fun With Numbers' percentages; even you know you're full of shit. lol@ '1,5 million', over anentire century. Doesn't sound like a 'welcome mat' was rolled out, exactly, just desperate straw grasping by racist yankees hoping nobody noticed they butchered blacks and whites merely over money.

By 1910, over 90% of black people still lived in the South.

Unfortunately for your desperate ass I said nothing about "welcome mats" or any other value judgments that you're trying to plug in after the fact and in fact have delineated quite the opposite dynamic on this site where the topic has come up. What I did there was toss into the dumpster your ridiculous fantasy about 'they stayed on, after the war, and ever since'. Where the fuck did you think Chicago and Detroit and Cleveland and Philadelphia and Indianapolis (etc etc etc) got their black populations? Tooth fairy?

FUCK outta here.

You're just too stupid to win any points, so get out yoruslef before you embarrass yourself even more with your idiot rubbish and inability to even look up basic stuff, dumbass. Go smoke some more meth and console yourself.

Go fuck yourself. I obliterated your senseless ass-ertion for the senseless idiocy it is, with facts. Don't post senseless shit and you won't get it obliterated. Ain't rocket surgery.

So you've moved from meth to psychedelics. lol you've never 'obliterated' so much as a mosquito your entire life, gimp.

 

[there4eyeM]

When the idiot 'confederates' torched their cotton crop, hoping to drive up prices, the British simply obtained what they needed from Brazil, Egypt, and India.

Self destructiveness exemplified

 

[DudleySmith]

...... once the aim of the war was turned into "ending slavery" there was no possibility whatsoever that the British govt. was going to be willing to assist the south in preserving it.

The British weren't going to recognize the so-called 'confederacy' because it was clearly illegitimate, and it was extremely likely to fail. Once that happened, any European country that had tried to interfere would face a very hostile UNITED States.

lol nonsense.

Common knowledge for anyone who has actually studied History.

So you saying you never studied History. we already knew that so no need to confess now..