Don't spin the Civil War

Washington Post ^ | 12.27.10 | E.J. DIONNE jR.

[trumandogz]

The Civil War is about to loom very large in the popular memory. We would do well to be candid about its causes and not allow the distortions of contemporary politics or long-standing myths to cloud our understanding of why the nation fell apart.

The coming year will mark the 150th anniversary of the onset of the conflict, which is usually dated to April 12, 1861, when Confederate batteries opened fire at 4:30 a.m. on federal troops occupying Fort Sumter. Union forces surrendered the next day, after 34 hours of shelling.

[piroque]

sergeantdave,,, I think you may be rite,,, some of the remarks sound familiar,,,

[TexConfederate1861]

As I said in an earlier post, slavery was NOT immoral, nor was considering blacks a lower class of people. At least by the majority of people in 1861. By todays standards, absolutely wrong, but not then!

You cannot judge the people of 1861 by the morals of today.
Besides, Lincoln felt the same way. He could have given a damn about slaves, other than it served his political purposes.

[mac_truck]

Do you pinheads have something to contribute besides navel lint?

[Dr. Sivana]

I think any American, any real American who ever read, and understood and held dear to the words "we hold these truths to be self evident" and believed that people truly had the right to govern themselves would even bother with a "neutral term".

You won't win many allies with that approach. I firmly believe that the southern states had a right to secede and that the states would have been better off if they were allowed to, especially with no extra bloodshed.

The reason I use a neutral term is because I don't want to get sidetracked when making the case for the southern states. Pickett's Charge is not always the best strategy for battle.

[cowboyway]

Don’t forget to add yankees to that list; true-man-dog likes to forget about the northern slaves and only likes to remember the southern ones.

Yes! The most infamous peddlers of human flesh on the planet. They made vast fortunes in the slave trade then when it became unprofitable, they tried to cover up their activity in the trade, denied their involvement, started a war to cover it up and revised history to point the finger solely at the South.

[cowboyway]

However, as a Texan, who received two degrees from that University here in Austin, I understand that succeeded from the Union

Ooookaaayyyy..........

[Cincincinati Spiritus]

Personally, I believe the Anti-Federalist were correct in their fears. The Constitution has failed to restrict the growth of Government.

I'll be needing to read the Anti-Federalists soon: it's the second time I've said that in as many weeks.

It's amazing the intransigence of the anti-10th, pro-Lincoln-the-Imperialist, crowd. These threads on the War of Northern Imperialist Aggression are never-ending.

Thanks for the ping. I only come on once in a blue moon or thereabouts.

[Cincincinati Spiritus]

They "succeeded" in indoctrinating him.

The slavery argument might hold water except that the Northern Imperialists instead of freeing the negro enslaved us all, and that to a worse form of slavery since we are under the illusion that we are free.

I would certainly prefer now to be black and a slave and that to a bad master; at least only the body was then slave, but the spirit could be free.

[cowboyway]

As a southerner who understands that slavery was the primary reason for the southern states to leave the Union

You don't sound like much of a Southerner. You say that you went to school in Austin? Austin is the liberal bastion of Texas, isn't it?

For a guy with two degrees, you're 'understanding' of the primary reason for Southern secession is proof that the liberal indoctrination at the liberal school where you matriculated was a success.

Take some time from filling in for the recently departed non-sequitur and read this:

Why The War Was Not About Slavery

[cowboyway]

Otherwise, head south a few clicks and learn to love beans and warm tequila.

Love it or leave it, right! Hell yeah, thumper! You da man! /sarc

[Repeal The 17th]

An interesting discussion with true-man-dog can be found here:
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrcM5exDxcc
-
A zombie sits down to interview Tom Woods on Tom’s latest book, “Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century.”

[cowboyway]

Neo-Confederate!! Racism!! Slavery!!

[Repeal The 17th]

Yup, that’s him alright.

[mstar]

After searching through this thread wondering. . .

"Where's Non-S in all of this". . .

I have come to the conclusion our very own dear manc summed this damnyankee love feast up brilliantly with post# 512;

"What the hell is a POE?"



and nobody knows or cares. . .

[Drennan Whyte]

Drennan Whyte is Non Sequitur. Non Sequitur is Drennan Whyte.

A bit earlier some people were saying that trumandogz is Non Sequitur and Non Sequitur is trumandogz. Can't you make up your minds?

[Drennan Whyte]

I would certainly prefer now to be black and a slave and that to a bad master; at least only the body was then slave, but the spirit could be free.

Anyone who says that they would willingly be a slave doesn't deserve freedom to begin with since it would be wasted on them.

[trumandogz]

Why is it you posted an article entitled “Why the War was not about Slavery” when my argument was that the reason for secession was slavery?

[trumandogz]

“As I said in an earlier post, slavery was NOT immoral, nor was considering blacks a lower class of people.”

Are you really of the belief that there are policies and behaviors that are immoral today that were not immoral 150 years ago?

If that is the case, then there must be policies and behaviors that are immoral today, but will be moral in the future.

Sounds like you may be of the belief that society “progresses” and attitudes and public policy changes to meet the new moral standards.

Do you believe these new moral standards should be set by the legislatures or by the courts?

[AnalogReigns]

Yes, secession was done over slavery. However, the Union fought to end secession, to preserve the Union, NOT to end slavery.

If Lincoln had stayed his hand though, I think something would of worked out in ten or twenty years at most, which would brought a re-union, AND ended slavery in the South WITHOUT over 1/2 Million dead...

[Ditto]

As I said in an earlier post, slavery was NOT immoral...

The overwhelming majority of the Founding Fathers would strongly disagree with you.