R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
If one wants to read revisionist history, see a copy of the Incorrect Guide to the Civil War, about how the acts of the vile Godless North forced the South to defend its territory and its very honor. Sure.
- Status
E
estesbob
Guest
One of the best examimation of the Lost Cause is “Confederates in the Attic”
.It is notable that the War not being about slavery is an idea that arose only after war . Prior to the war Southerners made no bones about the fact they were seceding to protect slavery. The North went to war to stop secession.
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
Bob, I have already proved this to be patently wrong. The north passed in overwhelming majorities the Protect Slavery Amendment and Buchanan signed it. Lincoln endorsed it in his inagural address, and personally advocated its ratification by the states (his own state of Illinois did indeed ratify it). All the south had to do was rejoin the union and ratify the already passed amendment that Lincoln was championing. So, if the war was about ending slavery, why would the north pass an amendment that protected the practice and why would Lincoln consider it constitutional law and personnal advocate the states to ratify it? I would just like someone to reasonably answer this question and I will shut up about the civil war being about states right and tarriffs, not slavery.
S
SamH
Guest
Their list of “accomplishments” is very scant when given a historical evaluation of their long term cause and effect. Though neither came as close to Kennedy in actually ending the world in a nuclear holocaust for little or no reason.Well, there is that old Vulcan proverb: “Only Nixon could go to China.”
E
estesbob
Guest
The North went to war to stop secession. The Southern States seceded over slavery.
For instance from the Mississipi articles of secession:
**It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain. **
**It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst. **
**It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice. **
**It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists. **
**It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better. **
And Georgia:
**The Presidential election of 1852 resulted in the total overthrow of the advocates of restriction and their party friends. Immediately after this result the anti-slavery portion of the defeated party resolved to unite all the elements in the North opposed to slavery an to stake their future political fortunes upon their hostility to slavery everywhere. This is the party two whom the people of the North have committed the Government. They raised their standard in 1856 and were barely defeated. They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded. **
**The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers. **
**With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers. **
**The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization. **
T
TMC
Guest
This the best two sentence summary of the causes of the Civil War; and any longer accurate description would still focus on slavery. The idea that the war was not about slavery is a revisionist fantasy concocted to salve the consciences of Confederate sympathizers. Remember the line from the Battle Hymn of the Republic - “As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free.”
Y
Young_Thinker
Guest
What is wrong with Lincoln having wanted to keep America intact?Abraham Lincoln was probably the worst president we ever had, without qualifiers. The guy was an unmitigated disaster for the country.
Oh! You bought the lie that Abraham Lincoln had any motivation whatsoever about emancipating the slaves when he became President! Now I see where you are coming from.
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
As one who has been attacked many times for hijacking a thread, I would appreciate any of you telling me what the @%&# the Civil War has to do with Michelle Bachmann’s Exploratory Committee? 
L
Lujack
Guest
Great book. Entertaining, too-the re-enacting club at Gettysburg (of which I am not a part, although I’m friends with all of them) pretty much tells all their new members “You must read this book!”
That about sums it up as well as you can, I think-just because the North wasn’t fighting to free the slaves in 1861 (although they were in 1864) doesn’t mean that the South wasn’t fighting to keep them.
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
In 1851, Congress and the Senate passed and James Buchanan signed the Corwin Amendment, which would have become the 13th Amendment if ratified by the states (it was in fact ratified by Ohio, Maryland, and Illinois, and is still an open, pending Constitutional Amendment). Abraham Lincoln, in his inaugural address, considered it Constitutional Law and advocated the states to ratify it. If the South seceded to keep slavery, they didn’t need to fight a war. All they had to do was come back into the Union and have their states ratify the already passed and signed constitutional amendment. Then slavery would have been constitutionally protected. So, why did they refuse to come back to the Union and ratify a Constitutional Amendment that would have guaranteed the very thing you all are claiming they seceded to protect? Anyone? Anyone?
And for those of you who are going to try to paint me as a pro-slavery advocate, I am glad that slavery was abolished. I simply want to make sure that the correct version of history is told and that Saint Abraham Lincoln is knocked off the perch that he does not deserve to be on. His history is a total fabrication made up to protect an image that never existed, and to paint the myth that the North were some self-righteous crusaders for human rights, when factual history does not bear that out.
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
Oh Rich, these thread start off as one thing, and then always veer off in all kinds of crazy directions. Usually about abortion, I am glad this one didn’t go there.As one who has been attacked many times for hijacking a thread, I would appreciate any of you telling me what the @%&# the Civil War has to do with Michelle Bachmann’s Exploratory Committee?
R
Raskolnikov
Guest
I read 'Confederates in the Attic" for a history class and I agree, it was quite interesting. I however am more interested in going to see the WW2 reenactments they do in Kentucky that the author mentioned. I heard a relative tell a story about driving through Kentucky and accidentally running into a reenactment and right there in the middle of Kentucky she sees a bunch of Wehrmacht soldiers running across the street.
Rich Olszewski:
I was wondering the same thing. All I gather is at some point Scott Lafrance said Lincoln was the worst president in American history (I’m willing to bet at least 13% of the population begs to differ) and from there things went off course. With the rate at which threads seem to deviate, give it a few more pages and they’ll be discussing asparagus farming.
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
White or green asparagus. The vary pretty widely in their growing season, climate, and conditions. I prefer white asparagus myself. It has a milder flavor and takes to butter based sauces better. That, and it doesn’t make your pee smell funny.
R
Raskolnikov
Guest
I prefer green, though I’ve only had white asparagus maybe once or twice. I have never noticed pee smelling different after eating asparagus. I guess I’ll have to do an experiment next time I do.
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
That’s one of its qualities that I’m not familiar with. I just go, and then flush - no need to savor. Am I missing something?
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
I wonder if Michele Bachmann can form an exploratory committee to find out if Abraham Lincoln’s pee smelled funny after he ate asparagus?
R
Raskolnikov
Guest
Me neither. But in the interest of science, perhaps I must do what is necessary. Could be worse though. The claim could be that it makes urine taste funny. One boundary I’m not willing to cross.
Maybe I should propose that to my academic advisor as an independent study project. Abstract: Using historical documents and physical artifacts, I shallattempt to determine the whether Pres. Lincoln’s urine smelled abnormal after eating asparagus. Evidence may also be found as to whether he typically left the seat up or not.
I’ll call American History Magazine and see if they’ll run the article. Then it’s only a matter of time before she picks up such a fascinating and relevant issue. Maybe she’ll get me funding for a broader program on Comparative Presidential Urine Studies.
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
And maybe get an answer to the question of whether Abe wore boxers or briefs. I’m a boxer man myself, so that’ll raise my opinion of him if he does.
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
I hear ol’ Abe went commando.
- Status