Cleaning Up Our Collective Act

[Ridas]

Fags

[isitatomic]

Originally Posted by Gwence [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Jesus no one cares Isitatomic.

Too true, too true. 200 posts of total /ignore. Excellent detective work, son.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfUj4QJGnok#t=0m12s

[Gwence]

Yea 200 posts while the server was down and almost all of it was people egging you on.

[Malrubius]

I agree with most of your posts, so was kind of surprised that you threw this out there as a "fact"...

Originally Posted by isitatomic [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The Confederate States of America...

*Known predominantly for fighting to preserve the practice of slavery

I'm not from the south or anything, but this always struck me as kind of a...fringe opinion by historical revisionists?

In any case, it's hardly predominate except in certain areas (just like equally inaccurate stuff about the Civil War is "known" in certain other areas).

[Humerox]

I imagine it's as much fringe opinion as the war in Iraq being about oil. Or the money that controls it.

Stuff gets blurry after time.

[Shamaeso]

Originally Posted by Malrubius [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I agree with most of your posts, so was kind of surprised that you threw this out there as a "fact"...



I'm not from the south or anything, but this always struck me as kind of a...fringe opinion by historical revisionists?

In any case, it's hardly predominate except in certain areas (just like equally inaccurate stuff about the Civil War is "known" in certain other areas).

Actually it wasn't about slavery but states rights but it got turned into a slavery issue as a means of justifying it to the northern states. which is surprising as most racism you find is in the northern states then in the south.

[Malrubius]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I imagine it's as much fringe opinion as the war in Iraq being about oil. Or the money that controls it.

Stuff gets blurry after time.

Thank you! I couldn't have said it better myself. In a hundred years' time, the war in Iraq may be said to have been about Religion.

Just as the Civil War is taught in our public schools nowadays as to have been about Slavery. Pfft.

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Malrubius [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Thank you! I couldn't have said it better myself. In a hundred years' time, the war in Iraq may be said to have been about Religion.

Just as the Civil War is taught in our public schools nowadays as to have been about Slavery. Pfft.

I think you misunderstood me.

States' rights arguments were tossed about on both sides meaning whatever was convenient for them at any given time.

From wikipedia:

Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens said that slavery was the chief cause of secession in his Cornerstone Speech shortly before the war. After Confederate defeat, Stephens became one of the most ardent defenders of the Lost Cause. There was a striking contrast between Stephens' post-war states' rights assertion that slavery did not cause secession and his pre-war Cornerstone Speech.

Similarly, Confederate President Jefferson Davis also reversed his original position, that the central cause of the war was the issue of slavery, arguing after the war that states' rights was its principal cause. While Southerners often used states' rights arguments to defend slavery, sometimes roles were reversed, as when Southerners demanded national laws to defend their interests with the Gag Rule and the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850. On these issues, Northerners wanted to defend their states' rights.

My statement about the war in Iraq was meant to be subtle sarcasm. May have been a mite too subtle.

The Civil War was about slavery, no ifs ands or buts. States' rights was the argument that defended the south's right to keep slavery without federal intervention. It also was argued that the south had the right to secede based upon those very same rights, however, what was the underlying reason for the south's desire to secede?

Slavery, and the protection of it.

So the blanket of "states' rights" can be used to obfuscate the real reason for the war. Leading back to my attempt at subtle sarcasm.

[Humerox]

Oh...and if you want a clearer picture, if you've never read Alexander Stephens' Cornerstone Speech, you might want to. He states very clearly what the reasons for the revolution are.

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/l...cumentprint=76

[Malrubius]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I think you misunderstood me.

States' rights arguments were tossed about on both sides meaning whatever was convenient for them at any given time.

From wikipedia:

Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens said that slavery was the chief cause of secession in his Cornerstone Speech shortly before the war. After Confederate defeat, Stephens became one of the most ardent defenders of the Lost Cause. There was a striking contrast between Stephens' post-war states' rights assertion that slavery did not cause secession and his pre-war Cornerstone Speech.

Similarly, Confederate President Jefferson Davis also reversed his original position, that the central cause of the war was the issue of slavery, arguing after the war that states' rights was its principal cause. While Southerners often used states' rights arguments to defend slavery, sometimes roles were reversed, as when Southerners demanded national laws to defend their interests with the Gag Rule and the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850. On these issues, Northerners wanted to defend their states' rights.

My statement about the war in Iraq was meant to be subtle sarcasm. May have been a mite too subtle.

The Civil War was about slavery, no ifs ands or buts. States' rights was the argument that defended the south's right to keep slavery without federal intervention. It also was argued that the south had the right to secede based upon those very same rights, however, what was the underlying reason for the south's desire to secede?

Slavery, and the protection of it.

So the blanket of "states' rights" can be used to obfuscate the real reason for the war. Leading back to my attempt at subtle sarcasm.

I know you were being sarcastic, as was I. I do understand that a lot of people WANT the Civil War to have been fought because of Slavery.

Yes, Slavery was related, but the idea that the union fought the secessionist southern states because of Slavery is a modern idea.

Lincoln freed the slaves for morale more than anything else.

"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."

- Lincoln

I know you want it to have been because of Slavery. Actually, I think that is a really nice idea - I really do. And I wish it were the case, but it wasn't.

I will definitely grant that Emancipation was one of the great things that came out of the war, even though it was a side-effect.

You can respond of course, but I'm done. The thread should go back to rants and flames about our "collective act" now. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]