2 Minutes - 150 years ago in rural PA

[....lybob]

All history is revisionist history. Only ignorant people say "revisionist history" in a pejorative sense. And demonstrating by your posts, you fit the bill.

 

 

 

No, I've been studying history for longer than that. Slavery was the root cause only willfully ignorant people think otherwise. I think the South had every right to bid for independence, but I also think the North had every right to stop them.

The Southern position is ridiculous "you're impinging on our rights.....................to enslave other people" whether you believe in God given rights or to the powerful belong the spoils

[TakeYouToTasker]

All history is revisionist history. Only ignorant people say "revisionist history" in a pejorative sense. And demonstrating by your posts, you fit the bill.

This may just be the dumbest thing ever written here.

 

Psycho-history, which attempts to attribute the thought processes of the individual actors by making very selective use of historical documents, is nearly entirely revisionist, and in cases where it's not, it's only accurate by blind luck. Unfortunately, psycho-history is the province of the new breed of "court historians" (David McCullough, Doris Kearns Goodwin et al.) who are far more interested in legend building and story telling than historical fact.

 

Actual history, however, is not subjective or romanticized. Nor is it malleable to the whims of the revisionists whom do the world an incredible disservice with their calculated lies and mistruths, which are used to shape public opinion.

 

The fact that you believe that human history is best viewed as a blank slate which should best be drawn to support the agenda of the man holding the slate is both absurd and unsurprising.

 

The Southern position is ridiculous "you're impinging on our rights.....................to enslave other people" whether you believe in God given rights or to the powerful belong the spoils

Again, this is an entirely revisionist characterization of the South's position. Additionally, it unreasonably imposes a 2013 Amarican world-view on the frontier of the 1850's and 60's.

[boyst]

 

 

All history is revisionist history. Only ignorant people say "revisionist history" in a pejorative sense. And demonstrating by your posts, you fit the bill.

 

 

 

No, I've been studying history for longer than that. Slavery was the root cause only willfully ignorant people think otherwise. I think the South had every right to bid for independence, but I also think the North had every right to stop them.

slavery was not the root cause. Slavery was a contributing factor but for several states the issues varied. Some states did not have large, or popular slave usage. NC, TN, Kentucky, several others.

 

The North had no right to stop them. Why should they? "Oh, you don't want to be a part of our country... good luck."

 

Either way. You're not worth the time and effort because you'll find something else to fuss about.

[Tiberius]

This may just be the dumbest thing ever written here.

 

Psycho-history, which attempts to attribute the thought processes of the individual actors by making very selective use of historical documents, is nearly entirely revisionist, and in cases where it's not, it's only accurate by blind luck. Unfortunately, psycho-history is the province of the new breed of "court historians" (David McCullough, Doris Kearns Goodwin et al.) who are far more interested in legend building and story telling than historical fact.

 

Actual history, however, is not subjective or romanticized. Nor is it malleable to the whims of the revisionists whom do the world an incredible disservice with their calculated lies and mistruths, which are used to shape public opinion.

 

The fact that you believe that human history is best viewed as a blank slate which should best be drawn to support the agenda of the man holding the slate is both absurd and unsurprising.

 

 

Again, this is an entirely revisionist characterization of the South's position. Additionally, it unreasonably imposes a 2013 Amarican world-view on the frontier of the 1850's and 60's.

 

Ok Mr 1% tell us who are the true unrevised historians? Can you do that?

 

 

Who wrote the iron clad true history of the casuses of the civil war?

[Chef Jim]

Ok Mr 1% tell us who are the true unrevised historians? Can you do that?

 

The people that were actually there. We can send you to go talk to them if you wish.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Ok Mr 1% tell us who are the true unrevised historians? Can you do that?

 

 

Who wrote the iron clad true history of the casuses of the civil war?

The men who participated in the struggle; and those who documented the events as they transpired.

 

It is only very recently that the issue of slavery was made central to the cause of the Civil War. Historically it was always understood, and supported by documents and timelines, that the war was waged over economic policy and state's rights, and that slavery was merely tangential to the main underlying causes. Lincoln was certainly no abolishionist, as his own personal writings and voting history will tell you. Lincoln was, as was common durring the times, an unappologetic racist who supported the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. He opposed the expansion of territorial slavery solely as a proponent of Manifest Destiny, being both a racist who did not want to live amongst black Americans, and a realist who saw and understood the actual decline of slave use due to technological improvements, economic reasons, and moral shift. Lincoln saw the western expansion as a lilly white prarie, and not a new home for former slaves transitioning gradually into freedom. For this reason his oft proposed solution was to round up all black people in America, put them back on boats comprable to the slave ships which brought them here, and ship them all to Liberia.

 

All of this information is available to you in public records, and personal letters written by Lincoln himself, and was never contested until the recent pushing of Lincoln's status as God King by leftist pro-statists.

[Chef Jim]

The men who participated in the struggle; and those who documented the events as they transpired.

 

It is only very recently that the issue of slavery was made central to the cause of the Civil War. Historically it was always understood, and supported by documents and timelines, that the war was waged over economic policy and state's rights, and that slavery was merely tangential to the main underlying causes. Lincoln was certainly no abolishionist, as his own personal writings and voting history will tell you. Lincoln was, as was common durring the times, an unappologetic racist who supported the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. He opposed the expansion of territorial slavery solely as a proponent of Manifest Destiny, being both a racist who did not want to live amongst black Americans, and a realist who saw and understood the actual decline of slave use due to technological improvements, economic reasons, and moral shift. Lincoln saw the western expansion as a lilly white prarie, and not a new home for former slaves transitioning gradually into freedom. For this reason his oft proposed solution was to round up all black people in America, put them back on boats comprable to the slave ships which brought them here, and ship them all to Liberia.

 

All of this information is available to you in public records, and personal letters written by Lincoln himself, and was never contested until the recent pushing of Lincoln's status as God King by leftist pro-statists.

 

Well to be fair he wanted to free them first THEN send them back to Africa or to the Caribbean.

[Tiberius]

The people that were actually there. We can send you to go talk to them if you wish.

 

Oh, the ones on both sides that said it was about slavery? You believe this bologna tasker is spewing? lol

[Tiberius]

The men who participated in the struggle; and those who documented the events as they transpired.

 

It is only very recently that the issue of slavery was made central to the cause of the Civil War. Historically it was always understood, and supported by documents and timelines, that the war was waged over economic policy and state's rights, and that slavery was merely tangential to the main underlying causes. Lincoln was certainly no abolishionist, as his own personal writings and voting history will tell you. Lincoln was, as was common durring the times, an unappologetic racist who supported the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. He opposed the expansion of territorial slavery solely as a proponent of Manifest Destiny, being both a racist who did not want to live amongst black Americans, and a realist who saw and understood the actual decline of slave use due to technological improvements, economic reasons, and moral shift. Lincoln saw the western expansion as a lilly white prarie, and not a new home for former slaves transitioning gradually into freedom. For this reason his oft proposed solution was to round up all black people in America, put them back on boats comprable to the slave ships which brought them here, and ship them all to Liberia.

 

All of this information is available to you in public records, and personal letters written by Lincoln himself, and was never contested until the recent pushing of Lincoln's status as God King by leftist pro-statists.

 

 

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science.

 

Like the Vice President of the Confederacy?

http://cwemancipation.wordpress.com/2011/03/21/alexander-h-stephens-cornerstone-speec/

Lincoln not being an abolitionist proves absolutely nothing!

It doesn't matter you complete idiot that Lincoln was only a free soiler and not a total abolittionist, he was anti-slavery and against its expansion and was not going to allow any more pro-slavery legislation. You didn't have to be an abolitionists to be against slavery, you could just be against its expansion. Even Stephen Douglas was seen as unsafe to the South. If you want to show us that South Carolina was leaving the Union in 1860 over economic policy, go for it. I will counter with more real documents that it was over slavery. Stop this, you can't win. You are obviously way smarter than me and most people but you and Chef-doof can't beat the facts.

 

Here's one for you, the South Carolina Ordinance of Secession, slavery is named all through this, THE VERY REASONS THEY ARE DECLARING SECESSION. Just a little sample:

 

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

 

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

 

and this, lol:

 

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

 

Oh goodness no!

 

 

Come on, admit you are wrong! You are wrong

[Tiberius]

Another easy to find primary source. Just one among millions:

 

http://civilwarcauses.org/ala-ga.htm

 

Whereas, the election of Abraham Lincoln, a Black Republican, to the Presidency of the United States by a purely sectional vote and by a party whose leading and publicly avowed object is the destruction of the institution of slavery as it exists in the slave-holding States; and whereas, the success of said party and the power which it now has and soon will acquire greatly endanger the peace, interests, security, and honor of the slave-holding States, and make it necessary that prompt and effective measures should be adopted to avoid the evils which must result from a Republican administration of the Federal Government, and as the interests and destiny of the slave-holding States are the same, they must naturally sympathize with each other, they therefore, so far as may be practicable, should consult and advise together as to what is best to be done to protect their mutual interests and honor:

 

The Secession Commissioners who went from Slave state to Slave state explaining the need for secession to preserve slavery.

[BuffaloBill]

 

All of which is currently illegal.

 

So are you suggesting that a law on the books is enough to stop it?

 

Arguably, the practice has always been morally reprehensible. Even if this notion is subject to debate how do the words all men are created equal hold up as a self-evident truth?

[TakeYouToTasker]

gatorman:

 

Your own sources have, once again, argued against you; leading you to assert that South Carolina (ignoring all other issues which dominated and dwarfed slavery in floor time) dictated policy to the entirely of the South. Remember, please, that the rest of the South refused to side with South Carolina until it became a 10th Amendment issue.

[DC Tom]

gatorman:

 

Your own sources have, once again, argued against you; leading you to assert that South Carolina (ignoring all other issues which dominated and dwarfed slavery in floor time) dictated policy to the entirely of the South. Remember, please, that the rest of the South refused to side with South Carolina until it became a 10th Amendment issue.

 

About a third the rest.

 

Lizard-boy, a good number of the Confederate states didn't secede until AFTER the bombardment of Ft. Sumter and Lincoln's call-up of the state militias. Virginia's an excellent example - Virginia's articles of secession specifically mention not the necessity of maintaining the state as a slave-holding state, but the Federal "aggression" against the already-seceded states and - notably - the complete lack of alternative to slavery presented by the abolitionists. Slavery was gradually becoming obsolete, most in the border states recognized it, but there was a large body of thought that the slave population should be brought to a standard of literacy that allowed them democratic participation before they were freed. (And given that slavery didn't particularly end for another 40 or so years - see "sharecropping" - and black literacy remained at about a tenth the white literacy rate until 1950 or so, the views of people like Thomas Jackson and Robert E. Lee that slaves should be educated before being freed and might have had some validity.)

 

Secession was a lot more complicated than "Slavery bad!" Slavery was one fact of complex socio-economic differences between the industrial, mercantile North and the agricultural landed aristocracy of South. For the most part, the single biggest motivation behind secession wasn't the slave states desire to preserve the institution of slavery itself (South Carolina and Mississippi being , but the perception that the mercantile North, in blocking slavery's expansion into federal territories and new states, was marginalizing the Southern agricultural economic bloc in Congress, which was obviously not in their best interest.

[Alaska Darin]

So are you suggesting that a law on the books is enough to stop it?

Not at all. The difference being slavery is illegal. Laws don't stop anything from happening; we still have murders, rapes, drugs, etc. That doesn't mean our society has ANY tolerance for them - because we don't.

 

The real issue is priority, which liberals don't understand. If the government is in the business of making sure everyone has cable television and a cell phone, they're not going to have the resources to go after things like that. It's something I've always railed about, to deaf ears among the liberal "intelligencia".

Arguably, the practice has always been morally reprehensible. Even if this notion is subject to debate how do the words all men are created equal hold up as a self-evident truth?

I'm not sure these things are a huge problem in the United States, even though our government regularly wipes its ass with the Constitution because the citizenry is indoctrinated/stupid. Pretty much everything I've read show it being more rampant outside our borders, with Asia and the old Eastern Bloc leading the way. When I was in the military, we got regular briefings about human trafficking - what to look for, where/how to report it, and the penalties if you were involved in it. Even today civilians and contractors are briefed on it at least annually. It's taken it very seriously, especially overseas.

[Tiberius]

gatorman:

 

Your own sources have, once again, argued against you; leading you to assert that South Carolina (ignoring all other issues which dominated and dwarfed slavery in floor time) dictated policy to the entirely of the South. Remember, please, that the rest of the South refused to side with South Carolina until it became a 10th Amendment issue.

 

You really need to stop, you are just getting more idiotic as you post...and you are dragging poor misguided Tom down with you. 1) My sources argue totally for me...if you can show me how they don't, by all means do it. 2) I gave you more than just sources from South Carolina you damn fool. 3) The other sources were all stating right out of southern mouths that the issue was slavery, from South Carolina, to Georgia to Alabama to Texas and all points in between 4) You have provided nothing to back up your twisted and false views you ignorant twit.

 

If you are so ignorant and misguided about the central event in your own country's history how can you be trusted to reach any sort of reasonable and clear conclusion about anything?

 

About a third the rest.

 

Lizard-boy, a good number of the Confederate states didn't secede until AFTER the bombardment of Ft. Sumter and Lincoln's call-up of the state militias. Virginia's an excellent example - Virginia's articles of secession specifically mention not the necessity of maintaining the state as a slave-holding state, but the Federal "aggression" against the already-seceded states and - notably - the complete lack of alternative to slavery presented by the abolitionists. Slavery was gradually becoming obsolete, most in the border states recognized it, but there was a large body of thought that the slave population should be brought to a standard of literacy that allowed them democratic participation before they were freed. (And given that slavery didn't particularly end for another 40 or so years - see "sharecropping" - and black literacy remained at about a tenth the white literacy rate until 1950 or so, the views of people like Thomas Jackson and Robert E. Lee that slaves should be educated before being freed and might have had some validity.)

 

Secession was a lot more complicated than "Slavery bad!" Slavery was one fact of complex socio-economic differences between the industrial, mercantile North and the agricultural landed aristocracy of South. For the most part, the single biggest motivation behind secession wasn't the slave states desire to preserve the institution of slavery itself (South Carolina and Mississippi being , but the perception that the mercantile North, in blocking slavery's expansion into federal territories and new states, was marginalizing the Southern agricultural economic bloc in Congress, which was obviously not in their best interest.

 

Wow, your argument is that slave holding Virginia followed the other slave holding states only after Ft Sumter? How many free states went with the Confederacy Tom?

 

You wouldn't know this, but western Virginia kept Virginia in the Union more than anything, and once the slaveholders took the state out anyway West Virginia broke away to stay in the Union. I mean, come on, lol. I thought you might at least know that! You are a riot.

 

I'll comment on your other points later.

[Tiberius]

About a third the rest.

Slavery was gradually becoming obsolete, most in the border states recognized it, but there was a large body of thought that the slave population should be brought to a standard of literacy that allowed them democratic participation before they were freed. (And given that slavery didn't particularly end for another 40 or so years - see "sharecropping" - and black literacy remained at about a tenth the white literacy rate until 1950 or so, the views of people like Thomas Jackson and Robert E. Lee that slaves should be educated before being freed and might have had some validity.)

 

It was?? Then why were slaves so expensive? Why was slave trading so profitable? Why were not more slave holders emancapating this obsolete system?

 

Can you provide ANY evidence that there was a "large body of thought" that the slaves should be educated??? I can show the opposite, that it was illegal to educate slaves.

 

Boy, talk about revisionist history.

 

History is not your strong suit

[boyst]

Oh man. gatorkid is a road scholar. I read enough in 5th grade history to know the errors in many of his statements:

Many states in the Confederacy were not pro slavery, they were indifferent but wanted freedom from the growing federal government.

Texas was an after thought to the civil war once the action started going and the Federal Government began taking away States rights.

[Tiberius]

Oh man. gatorkid is a road scholar. I read enough in 5th grade history to know the errors in many of his statements:

Many states in the Confederacy were not pro slavery, they were indifferent but wanted freedom from the growing federal government.

Texas was an after thought to the civil war once the action started going and the Federal Government began taking away States rights.

 

Which ones JoyBoy? Can you show any documents to support this? Most people that know anything about American History would say that your statement is based on pure ignorance, but I'll give you a chance to show my a non-pro-slavery Confederate state, lol

[K-9]

Here's the first lesson anyone needs to know about history and that is history is NOT about what happened. It's about the telling about what happened.

 

Make of that what you will.

 

And tread cautiously.

[Joe Miner]

 

It was?? Then why were slaves so expensive? Why was slave trading so profitable? Why were not more slave holders emancapating this obsolete system?

 

Can you provide ANY evidence that there was a "large body of thought" that the slaves should be educated??? I can show the opposite, that it was illegal to educate slaves.

 

Boy, talk about revisionist history.

 

History is not your strong suit

 

It's like a game of cat and mouse, only using a three legged, retarded, delusional mouse.