Is America a racist nation?

[Kismet]

The UF faculty throws up in its mouth every time Peter posts.

The Senate was controlled by the southern Dems at the time. So the Morill tariff was stalled and had no chance to pass.

Then a bunch of southern states seceded and their senators left the senate. With them gone, then the tariff could pass. No secession, no tariff.

Since Petey is back, I’ll bid you all adieu. Life is too short to waste time on a moron gator troll. Enjoy your summer.

Might check back after Petey gets next suspended. It won’t be long.

Yep. I'm with you on all points.

[jhu72]

Kinda proved this point earlier a fw weeks back when different states taught the 'main reason' of the Civil war..it's all over the place. Can't even get that taught accuratley.

how about instead of CRT, we teach QBADA - quite being a dumb ass

Correct. Completely agree. Except that it isn't all over the place. 92% is not all over the place -- it is one dominant place.

Which means that we should stop teaching (as we have been doing for the last hundred years) the complete and utter bull shirt propaganda mandated by snowflake white washers. The main cause of the Civil War was slavery. Which only 8% of USA high school seniors know/identify.

It wasn't about states rights or tariffs or sectionalism/regionalism. It was about slavery. Period. Full stop.

The projection coming from the rightie snowflakes is beyond epic. After successfully gaslighting the country for 100 years, they now go ballistic when folks start teaching the truth. And the snowflake backlash against the truth proves beyond any doubt why CRT exists and how valid its viewpoint is.

TBD if the racist projecting will be effective with those white suburban moms. If it is, well then I guess those white suburban moms will have shown us who they really are -- mouth breathing snowflakes who can't handle the truth.

Consider this - that the Southern states ultimately fought the Civil War to preserve and, in fact, expand a largely agrarian economic system based upon free AKA slave labor. Without the free labor, the system would likely collapse. The political methods they used to delay and maintain this system included things like states' rights, nullification which they used as a way to use their MINORITY political power to maintain and expand slavery. In addition to wanting to maintain the system where it already existed they also did not want to limit it in the new territories either because to limit it would, in all likelihood reduce them to a greater minority. They saw abolitionists and political parties that supported abolition as dedicated to destroying their way of life. When the nominee of that party was elected in 1860 they viewed the threat as imminent. Ironic that the party who won the 1860 election was the current REPUBLICAN party and it's first nominee was Abraham Lincoln.

IMHO there is no reason not to teach this history to our children and future generations. It has been tried before and has failed miserably. I might also mention that the seeds of that whitewashing began with a disputed Presidential election in 1876 wherein the guy who got the most votes (a Democrat named Samuel Tilden who was the Governor of New York) ended up losing the election because his party decided it was more important to end Reconstruction and then attempt to resurrect an updated cultural version of the old system rather than winning said election.

As for Jefferson, who many consider a genius, the fact that he could not turn a profit on an agrarian plantation with totally free labor (many of his slaves which he also abused as master), should be part of his legacy as well as what he accomplished as a revolutionary. We should all know of his flaws as well as his positive accomplishments to understand him in context.

Our founding fathers where way far from perfect. they did something not many people have ever been willing to do. They pledged to each other their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor. Had their little insurrection failed they would have been hanged by the British. I call that putting your money where your mouth is. How many of you folks out there in fanlax land would risk that?

No quibble with giving Jefferson and his compatriots all the credit for taking the steps they did at the time. My point was (and still is) is that there is no need to canonize them for that one act and whitewash or discount all of the other not so reputable things they also did at the time. They are were, after all humans and not some kind of deities. Their COMPLETE life actions/experiences both good and bad should be part of the historical record.

I agree, but here is the conundrum, these founding fathers with all their faults where the people who put their lives on the line to create the USA. Had they not done so, how would slavery in the colonies ever have ended? Would the British have done so? Nobody here looks past what might have been as opposed to what was. The failures of our founding fathers to be able to address slavery is what led to the blood letting of our civil war. What so many of you folks overlook is this, the history of slavery goes back thousands of years. It took the USA to fight a bloody civil war to end it. The USA was the first nation ever to actually DO SOMETHING about slavery. I have said this here several times before and I will say it again... the pyramids were not built with union labor. Think about it.

When? 1833. Freed their slaves in the colonies.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Slavery-Abolition-Act

no, the US was certainly not the first.

We were the first to actually fight a war over it. You do understand the slavery in the Caribbean under British colonial rule was barbaric by any standards? Would you rather be a slave chopping cotton in Georgia or a slave chopping sugar cane in the Caribbean? what do you think the life expectations were in both scenarios? i suggest you do your homework. i already did.

Ahistorical virtue signaling.

... we did not fight the war to end slavery. It was never Lincoln's intention. It was never a northern casus belli. There was little support in the north at the beginning of the war. Lincoln fought the war to end the rebellion, period! It was a fortuitous accident of history, used as a reason after the war.

Now we did go to war over slavery, see the First Seminole War. It is how Florida became a territory and ultimately a state. We didn't like the fact that southern slaves ran away from their captives and the Seminoles provided them sanctuary.

Interesting way to state that...the northern states (and Lincoln) were insisting that the territories, including those converting to statehood, not have slavery, the south wanted them to have slavery, extending the reach of that system and their political power. They seceded when the north wouldn't go along. Yes, Lincoln wanted to avoid the secession, wanted to avoid war, but the south forced his hand. Slavery was the driving force behind the war, though had the south not seceded, slavery would likely have continued decades longer though there was certainly mounting pressure.

PB's white wash reference is exactly the sort of thing that has been propounded for over 100 years as Jim Crow took hold. Of course it was about "economics"...that's exactly what slavery was all about, slave labor. Pretending that somehow "economics" and "free trading" is somehow in conflict with slavery being the primary driver of those "economics" and "free trade" is just white wash.

Likewise, Beard's interpretation of the American Revolution has a strong element that is correct, that it was primarily a revolution driven by economics, but to use that argument to dismiss the ideological awakening come to fruition in the Declaration, then Constitution, then Bill of Rights, etc, is to miss major aspect as well. These needn't be either/or arguments.

This is all correct. The two sides couldn't even agree on the reason for the war. I think the souths cause(s) were more complex. Lincoln's was very simple, initially, putting down a rebellion. The south was largely driven by slavery and their concerns that they were losing the "culture war". This of course had significant economic impact, it was existential. It was never existential for the north. It was existential for the union, but not for the north itself. It was an interruption of "business as usual". They were not going to go to war over slavery at that time. At the end of the war, Lincoln realized he could dictate terms, only then did the abolition of slavery become a real possibility and a goal.

[MDlaxfan76]

Kinda proved this point earlier a fw weeks back when different states taught the 'main reason' of the Civil war..it's all over the place. Can't even get that taught accuratley.

how about instead of CRT, we teach QBADA - quite being a dumb ass

Correct. Completely agree. Except that it isn't all over the place. 92% is not all over the place -- it is one dominant place.

Which means that we should stop teaching (as we have been doing for the last hundred years) the complete and utter bull shirt propaganda mandated by snowflake white washers. The main cause of the Civil War was slavery. Which only 8% of USA high school seniors know/identify.

It wasn't about states rights or tariffs or sectionalism/regionalism. It was about slavery. Period. Full stop.

The projection coming from the rightie snowflakes is beyond epic. After successfully gaslighting the country for 100 years, they now go ballistic when folks start teaching the truth. And the snowflake backlash against the truth proves beyond any doubt why CRT exists and how valid its viewpoint is.

TBD if the racist projecting will be effective with those white suburban moms. If it is, well then I guess those white suburban moms will have shown us who they really are -- mouth breathing snowflakes who can't handle the truth.

Consider this - that the Southern states ultimately fought the Civil War to preserve and, in fact, expand a largely agrarian economic system based upon free AKA slave labor. Without the free labor, the system would likely collapse. The political methods they used to delay and maintain this system included things like states' rights, nullification which they used as a way to use their MINORITY political power to maintain and expand slavery. In addition to wanting to maintain the system where it already existed they also did not want to limit it in the new territories either because to limit it would, in all likelihood reduce them to a greater minority. They saw abolitionists and political parties that supported abolition as dedicated to destroying their way of life. When the nominee of that party was elected in 1860 they viewed the threat as imminent. Ironic that the party who won the 1860 election was the current REPUBLICAN party and it's first nominee was Abraham Lincoln.

IMHO there is no reason not to teach this history to our children and future generations. It has been tried before and has failed miserably. I might also mention that the seeds of that whitewashing began with a disputed Presidential election in 1876 wherein the guy who got the most votes (a Democrat named Samuel Tilden who was the Governor of New York) ended up losing the election because his party decided it was more important to end Reconstruction and then attempt to resurrect an updated cultural version of the old system rather than winning said election.

As for Jefferson, who many consider a genius, the fact that he could not turn a profit on an agrarian plantation with totally free labor (many of his slaves which he also abused as master), should be part of his legacy as well as what he accomplished as a revolutionary. We should all know of his flaws as well as his positive accomplishments to understand him in context.

Our founding fathers where way far from perfect. they did something not many people have ever been willing to do. They pledged to each other their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor. Had their little insurrection failed they would have been hanged by the British. I call that putting your money where your mouth is. How many of you folks out there in fanlax land would risk that?

No quibble with giving Jefferson and his compatriots all the credit for taking the steps they did at the time. My point was (and still is) is that there is no need to canonize them for that one act and whitewash or discount all of the other not so reputable things they also did at the time. They are were, after all humans and not some kind of deities. Their COMPLETE life actions/experiences both good and bad should be part of the historical record.

I agree, but here is the conundrum, these founding fathers with all their faults where the people who put their lives on the line to create the USA. Had they not done so, how would slavery in the colonies ever have ended? Would the British have done so? Nobody here looks past what might have been as opposed to what was. The failures of our founding fathers to be able to address slavery is what led to the blood letting of our civil war. What so many of you folks overlook is this, the history of slavery goes back thousands of years. It took the USA to fight a bloody civil war to end it. The USA was the first nation ever to actually DO SOMETHING about slavery. I have said this here several times before and I will say it again... the pyramids were not built with union labor. Think about it.

When? 1833. Freed their slaves in the colonies.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Slavery-Abolition-Act

no, the US was certainly not the first.

We were the first to actually fight a war over it. You do understand the slavery in the Caribbean under British colonial rule was barbaric by any standards? Would you rather be a slave chopping cotton in Georgia or a slave chopping sugar cane in the Caribbean? what do you think the life expectations were in both scenarios? i suggest you do your homework. i already did.

Ahistorical virtue signaling.

... we did not fight the war to end slavery. It was never Lincoln's intention. It was never a northern casus belli. There was little support in the north at the beginning of the war. Lincoln fought the war to end the rebellion, period! It was a fortuitous accident of history, used as a reason after the war.

Now we did go to war over slavery, see the First Seminole War. It is how Florida became a territory and ultimately a state. We didn't like the fact that southern slaves ran away from their captives and the Seminoles provided them sanctuary.

Interesting way to state that...the northern states (and Lincoln) were insisting that the territories, including those converting to statehood, not have slavery, the south wanted them to have slavery, extending the reach of that system and their political power. They seceded when the north wouldn't go along. Yes, Lincoln wanted to avoid the secession, wanted to avoid war, but the south forced his hand. Slavery was the driving force behind the war, though had the south not seceded, slavery would likely have continued decades longer though there was certainly mounting pressure.

PB's white wash reference is exactly the sort of thing that has been propounded for over 100 years as Jim Crow took hold. Of course it was about "economics"...that's exactly what slavery was all about, slave labor. Pretending that somehow "economics" and "free trading" is somehow in conflict with slavery being the primary driver of those "economics" and "free trade" is just white wash.

Likewise, Beard's interpretation of the American Revolution has a strong element that is correct, that it was primarily a revolution driven by economics, but to use that argument to dismiss the ideological awakening come to fruition in the Declaration, then Constitution, then Bill of Rights, etc, is to miss major aspect as well. These needn't be either/or arguments.

This is all correct. The two sides couldn't even agree on the reason for the war. I think the souths cause(s) were more complex. Lincoln's was very simple, initially, putting down a rebellion. The south was largely driven by slavery and their concerns that they were losing the "culture war". This of course had significant economic impact, it was existential. It was never existential for the north. It was existential for the union, but not for the north itself. It was an interruption of "business as usual". They were not going to go to war over slavery at that time. At the end of the war, Lincoln realized he could dictate terms, only then did the abolition of slavery become a real possibility and a goal.

nah, it was about "states rights" and "individualism"...
And, oh yeah, "free trade".

[ggait]

By concluding that “economics more than high moral concerns produced the Civil War,”

The Civil War was about economics. The economics of slavery. Duh.

In 1860, the market value of American slaves was $3.5 billion. That was more than the value of all American railroads and American manufacturing. Combined. In 1850, half the millionaires in America lived in Natchez, Miss. Slavery was big business. Newsflash -- people often fight wars to defend their money, property and livelihood. Duh.

The Civil War was about states rights. The rights of states to have slavery or not. No other meaningful rights of states were ever really even discussed as issues. And the South favored strong federal power over-riding states rights when it was aligned with pro-slavery policy. Such as the Fugitive Slave Act which required free states to enforce the institution of slavery that was outlawed within their borders.

The Civil War was about sectionalism and territorial expansion. About what parts of the country would be slave and free. Missouri Compromise, Kansas Nebraska Act, Bleeding Kansas and John Brown, Lincoln Douglas debates, etc. etc. etc. They were all about only one exact thing.

While Petey doesn't know this, our public school students should:

1. All the economic and sectional and partisan and states rights divides were ALL over the institution of slavery. All of them. So the Civil War was over slavery. Period. Saying otherwise is whitewashing.
2. The South fought the war to preserve slavery.
3. The North fought the war to preserve the Union.
4. Lincoln, of course, was not a woke radical Abolitionist. Duh. He was willing to tolerate existing slavery to preserve the Union, but was not willing to allow its expansion. But ultimately concluded that no compromise was possible.

You can call that CRT if you want. Or truth. Or history.

Buh bye.

[cradleandshoot]

By concluding that “economics more than high moral concerns produced the Civil War,”

The Civil War was about economics. The economics of slavery. Duh.

In 1860, the market value of American slaves was $3.5 billion. That was more than the value of all American railroads and American manufacturing. Combined. In 1850, half the millionaires in America lived in Natchez, Miss. Slavery was big business. Newsflash -- people often fight wars to defend their money, property and livelihood. Duh.

The Civil War was about states rights. The rights of states to have slavery or not. No other meaningful rights of states were ever really even discussed as issues. And the South favored strong federal power over-riding states rights when it was aligned with pro-slavery policy. Such as the Fugitive Slave Act which required free states to enforce the institution of slavery that was outlawed within their borders.

The Civil War was about sectionalism and territorial expansion. About what parts of the country would be slave and free. Missouri Compromise, Kansas Nebraska Act, Bleeding Kansas and John Brown, Lincoln Douglas debates, etc. etc. etc. They were all about only one exact thing.

While Petey doesn't know this, our public school students should:

1. All the economic and sectional and partisan and states rights divides were ALL over the institution of slavery. All of them. So the Civil War was over slavery. Period. Saying otherwise is whitewashing.
2. The South fought the war to preserve slavery.
3. The North fought the war to preserve the Union.
4. Lincoln, of course, was not a woke radical Abolitionist. Duh. He was willing to tolerate existing slavery to preserve the Union, but was not willing to allow its expansion. But ultimately concluded that no compromise was possible.

You can call that CRT if you want. Or truth. Or history.

Buh bye.

I would call it an over simplication of a very complex issue. The civil war has often been referred to as a war fought between brothers and families. It all depended where your loyalties resided.

[Matnum PI]

I would call it an over simplication of a very complex issue. The civil war has often been referred to as a war fought between brothers and families. It all depended where your loyalties resided.

It's a post, not an exhaustive novel so, yes, it's a simplification. And yes to the rest, too. And, still, none of this refutes what GG is saying. GG, excellent post.

[cradleandshoot]

I would call it an over simplication of a very complex issue. The civil war has often been referred to as a war fought between brothers and families. It all depended where your loyalties resided.

It's a post, not an exhaustive novel so, yes, it's a simplification. And yes to the rest, too. And, still, none of this refutes what GG is saying. GG, excellent post.

No it is far from a great post. A large number of confederates fought because they despised the leadership of the government in DC. They were led by elitist southern plantation owners but they had no dog in the fight over slavery one way or another. Your lumping the rebellion by the south in one neat little category that is not correct.

[Kismet]

I would call it an over simplication of a very complex issue. The civil war has often been referred to as a war fought between brothers and families. It all depended where your loyalties resided.

It's a post, not an exhaustive novel so, yes, it's a simplification. And yes to the rest, too. And, still, none of this refutes what GG is saying. GG, excellent post.

No it is far from a great post. A large number of confederates fought because they despised the leadership of the government in DC. They were led by elitist southern plantation owners but they had no dog in the fight over slavery one way or another. Your lumping the rebellion by the south in one neat little category that is not correct.

Do cite a credible source for your statement, please.
TY and I'll wait for your response and citation before responding.

[ggait]

A large number of confederates fought because they despised the leadership of the government in DC.

Please tell us what state right or federal policy the South cared enough about to secede from the Union and fight a war over?

What federal authority over the South did the southerners object to?

What issue did the South want to decide for itself rather than be governed by federal law?

Southerners didn't like the Yankees/Feds telling them what to do and poking their nose into their business. Exactly what business was that?

We'll wait.

[MDlaxfan76]

I would call it an over simplication of a very complex issue. The civil war has often been referred to as a war fought between brothers and families. It all depended where your loyalties resided.

It's a post, not an exhaustive novel so, yes, it's a simplification. And yes to the rest, too. And, still, none of this refutes what GG is saying. GG, excellent post.

No it is far from a great post. A large number of confederates fought because they despised the leadership of the government in DC. They were led by elitist southern plantation owners but they had no dog in the fight over slavery one way or another. Your lumping the rebellion by the south in one neat little category that is not correct.

Do cite a credible source for your statement, please.
TY and I'll wait for your response and citation before responding.

Good challenge.

It's baloney, but this is indeed all part of what we used to be taught. There are no credible historians today that would agree. Some polemicists, maybe, but no one with a decent academic reputation...of course, even saying that will draw "elitist" and FLP etc...much more comfortable to deny reality.

But it's a bit weird. But cradle's very far from alone.

[MDlaxfan76]

I would call it an over simplication of a very complex issue. The civil war has often been referred to as a war fought between brothers and families. It all depended where your loyalties resided.

It's a post, not an exhaustive novel so, yes, it's a simplification. And yes to the rest, too. And, still, none of this refutes what GG is saying. GG, excellent post.

+1
The post boils it down to the essence of the matter.

[Typical Lax Dad]

I would call it an over simplication of a very complex issue. The civil war has often been referred to as a war fought between brothers and families. It all depended where your loyalties resided.

It's a post, not an exhaustive novel so, yes, it's a simplification. And yes to the rest, too. And, still, none of this refutes what GG is saying. GG, excellent post.

No it is far from a great post. A large number of confederates fought because they despised the leadership of the government in DC. They were led by elitist southern plantation owners but they had no dog in the fight over slavery one way or another. Your lumping the rebellion by the south in one neat little category that is not correct.

A lot of guys in Vietnam had “no dog” in the fight one way or the other…..

[jhu72]

... next we will list all the individual reasons why German soldiers fought in France.

[cradleandshoot]

I would call it an over simplication of a very complex issue. The civil war has often been referred to as a war fought between brothers and families. It all depended where your loyalties resided.

It's a post, not an exhaustive novel so, yes, it's a simplification. And yes to the rest, too. And, still, none of this refutes what GG is saying. GG, excellent post.

No it is far from a great post. A large number of confederates fought because they despised the leadership of the government in DC. They were led by elitist southern plantation owners but they had no dog in the fight over slavery one way or another. Your lumping the rebellion by the south in one neat little category that is not correct.

Do cite a credible source for your statement, please.
TY and I'll wait for your response and citation before responding.

It only takes a little bit of common sense. Your logic is saying every person that fought for the confederacy did so to preserve slavery. The flip side of that coin is quite a few soldiers that fought for the union did not give a flip about ending slavery. To many of those Irish soldiers it was a job.

[ggait]

Cradle -- this is from 1858. Did they teach about this speech in your school?

From a guy I think you have heard of. Because of this speech and then another one at Cooper Union, he later became president. And when he was elected, the southern states started seceding within weeks.

Funny, he doesn't talk about states rights, tariffs, culture, regionalism, etc. etc. He does talk about the Nebraska policy and Dred Scott. What were those about again?

Or was there something else that was dividing the house? If it was something else, don't you think that would have been mentioned? Am I CRT by bringing this speech up?

Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Convention.

If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could then better judge what to do, and how to do it.

We are now far into the fifth year, since a policy was initiated, with the avowed object, and confident promise, of putting an end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only, not ceased, but has constantly augmented.

In my opinion, it will not cease, until a crisis shall have been reached, and passed.

"A house divided against itself cannot stand." I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free.

I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other.

Either the opponents of slavery, will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new -- North as well as South.

Have we no tendency to the latter condition?

Let any one who doubts, carefully contemplate that now almost complete legal combination -- piece of machinery so to speak -- compounded of the Nebraska doctrine, and the Dred Scott decision. Let him consider not only what work the machinery is adapted to do, and how well adapted; but also, let him study the history of its construction, and trace, if he can, or rather fail, if he can, to trace the evidence of design and concert of action, among its chief architects, from the beginning.

[Kismet]

I would call it an over simplication of a very complex issue. The civil war has often been referred to as a war fought between brothers and families. It all depended where your loyalties resided.

It's a post, not an exhaustive novel so, yes, it's a simplification. And yes to the rest, too. And, still, none of this refutes what GG is saying. GG, excellent post.

No it is far from a great post. A large number of confederates fought because they despised the leadership of the government in DC. They were led by elitist southern plantation owners but they had no dog in the fight over slavery one way or another. Your lumping the rebellion by the south in one neat little category that is not correct.

Do cite a credible source for your statement, please.
TY and I'll wait for your response and citation before responding.

It only takes a little bit of common sense. Your logic is saying every person that fought for the confederacy did so to preserve slavery. The flip side of that coin is quite a few soldiers that fought for the union did not give a flip about ending slavery. To many of those Irish soldiers it was a job.

So, no source other than YOU to support your assertion?
If that's the case there is no point in continuing this discussion with you as there is no factual basis to even start a conversation.
BTW please point to where I said what you claimed I said and don't waste too much of your time as I didn't say anything remotely close to what you claim and sadly another reason to not waste time engaging with you on this, or any other topic for that matter.

I returned after a long absence in the hope of informed and rational discussion but it appears that not much has changed so, like GG, I will now go back on hiatus. Ciao!

[Typical Lax Dad]

Cradle -- this is from 1858. Did they teach about this speech in your school?

From a guy I think you have heard of. Because of this speech and then another one at Cooper Union, he later became president. And when he was elected, the southern states started seceding within weeks.

Funny, he doesn't talk about states rights, tariffs, culture, regionalism, etc. etc. He does talk about the Nebraska policy and Dred Scott. What were those about again?

Or was there something else that was dividing the house? If it was something else, don't you think that would have been mentioned? Am I CRT by bringing this speech up?

Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Convention.

If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could then better judge what to do, and how to do it.

We are now far into the fifth year, since a policy was initiated, with the avowed object, and confident promise, of putting an end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only, not ceased, but has constantly augmented.

In my opinion, it will not cease, until a crisis shall have been reached, and passed.

"A house divided against itself cannot stand." I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free.

I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other.

Either the opponents of slavery, will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new -- North as well as South.

Have we no tendency to the latter condition?

Let any one who doubts, carefully contemplate that now almost complete legal combination -- piece of machinery so to speak -- compounded of the Nebraska doctrine, and the Dred Scott decision. Let him consider not only what work the machinery is adapted to do, and how well adapted; but also, let him study the history of its construction, and trace, if he can, or rather fail, if he can, to trace the evidence of design and concert of action, among its chief architects, from the beginning.

That’s CRT talk!

[ggait]

It only takes a little bit of common sense.

Cradle -- you lack common sense completely. Do you really believe this crap you are shoveling?

The foot soldiers never get to vote on whether to start a war or not. They go to war because they are following orders.

The people who make the decision to start a war are the people who GIVE the orders.

JFC. Are you really as stupid as the things you post?

Kismet -- hope you use your hiatus time well.

[CU88]

I would call it an over simplication of a very complex issue. The civil war has often been referred to as a war fought between brothers and families. It all depended where your loyalties resided.

It's a post, not an exhaustive novel so, yes, it's a simplification. And yes to the rest, too. And, still, none of this refutes what GG is saying. GG, excellent post.

No it is far from a great post. A large number of confederates fought because they despised the leadership of the government in DC. They were led by elitist southern plantation owners but they had no dog in the fight over slavery one way or another. Your lumping the rebellion by the south in one neat little category that is not correct.

Do cite a credible source for your statement, please.
TY and I'll wait for your response and citation before responding.

It only takes a little bit of common sense. Your logic is saying every person that fought for the confederacy did so to preserve slavery. The flip side of that coin is quite a few soldiers that fought for the union did not give a flip about ending slavery. To many of those Irish soldiers it was a job.

This belongs in "Most Ridiculous Posts Hall of Fame" thread!

LOL, someone might have started drinking early for the coming weekend...

[Typical Lax Dad]

It only takes a little bit of common sense.

Cradle -- you lack common sense completely. Do you really believe this crap you are shoveling?

The foot soldiers never get to vote on whether to start a war or not. They go to war because they are following orders.

The people who make the decision to start a war are the people who GIVE the orders.

JFC. Are you really as stupid as the things you post?

Kismet -- hope you use your hiatus time well.

Maybe.