The Confederacy - Erasing History

mace1229

JC29856 said:

The South seceded to preserve slavery, as a sovereign nation they were invaded by the North. From the article brlux posted, first sentence "With a volley of artillery fired at Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor on April 12, 1861, the South started a war that nearly destroyed the United States in pursuit of a terrible cause." without any discussion of why that first volley of artillery was fired. The South were voluntary members of the Union and nothing prohibited them from secession. The South unsuccessfully attempted negotiation and compromise under the 10th amendment. The South seceded, legally separated from the Union and became a separate sovereign state. They instructed the North to remove all troops and military installations, the North refused. The South was now occupied territory, occupied militarily against their will by the North. Foreign military occupation was the first act of war, not the volley at Fort Sumter. Lincoln made the calculated decision (announced) that he would resupply Ft Sumter daring the South to attack or seize the US supply ship. Although Lincoln did not want war, he needed a reason to invade the South in order to get want he wanted more, Union preservation. The Confederates didn't wait for the supply ship to arrive and fired that first shot, the rest is history.
Lincoln's decision to invade the South, a sovereign nation had nothing to do with ending slavery (see above) and everything to do with preserving the union. It was purely an economic decision, like most wars we start.
Lets not act self righteous and pretend the North started and fought Civil War to end slavery!

The outrage and anger over statues is misdirected, here is some free advice, instead of taking down statues that honor dead soldiers maybe take down a bank or five.

I dont see how the South had the right to leave. Its want like the Euopean Union, they had one government they agreed to join. 
I dont know of any part of a country that tries to leave without causing war. If they leave successfully history writes it as a revolution, if they fail its remembered as a civil war.
I would agree with other parts of your statement, I dont think the North were noble freedom fighters some think. Black were mistreated there too.

brianlux

mrussel1 said:

Ethnocentrism..

I like "erhnocentrism"

RoleModelsinBlood31

In Berlin they have holocaust museums and Hitler's bunker is noted where it used to be. They don't run from their past, which is way more horrible than the confederacy.  Why should we?  It's stands as a memory of what not to do and is a history lesson for our children.  As fucked up as it was, we shouldn't erase our past.

mrussel1

RoleModelsinBlood31 said:

In Berlin they have holocaust museums and Hitler's bunker is noted where it used to be. They don't run from their past, which is way more horrible than the confederacy.  Why should we?  It's stands as a memory of what not to do and is a history lesson for our children.  As fucked up as it was, we shouldn't erase our past.

There's a difference... it's in a museum setting.  Is there a statue of General Ludendorf or Goering up on a pedestal, in front of the state Parliament?  Negative.  
Appropriate places would be like Gettysburg and Antietam or the Holocaust Museum.  

mickeyrat

JC29856 said:

What conclusions are drawn from this letter to Horace Greeley from Abe Lincoln about the Civil War?

Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.

I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.

Yours,
A. Lincoln.

what I took from this was a man discharging his official duty the best way he knew how.

it did seem to contradict his personal views to a degree.
as history shows , his actions officially wound up lineing up witth the personal views.

in short, he put the country first in his role as president and commander in chief.

mcgruff10

mace1229 said:

JC29856 said:

The South seceded to preserve slavery, as a sovereign nation they were invaded by the North. From the article brlux posted, first sentence "With a volley of artillery fired at Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor on April 12, 1861, the South started a war that nearly destroyed the United States in pursuit of a terrible cause." without any discussion of why that first volley of artillery was fired. The South were voluntary members of the Union and nothing prohibited them from secession. The South unsuccessfully attempted negotiation and compromise under the 10th amendment. The South seceded, legally separated from the Union and became a separate sovereign state. They instructed the North to remove all troops and military installations, the North refused. The South was now occupied territory, occupied militarily against their will by the North. Foreign military occupation was the first act of war, not the volley at Fort Sumter. Lincoln made the calculated decision (announced) that he would resupply Ft Sumter daring the South to attack or seize the US supply ship. Although Lincoln did not want war, he needed a reason to invade the South in order to get want he wanted more, Union preservation. The Confederates didn't wait for the supply ship to arrive and fired that first shot, the rest is history.
Lincoln's decision to invade the South, a sovereign nation had nothing to do with ending slavery (see above) and everything to do with preserving the union. It was purely an economic decision, like most wars we start.
Lets not act self righteous and pretend the North started and fought Civil War to end slavery!

The outrage and anger over statues is misdirected, here is some free advice, instead of taking down statues that honor dead soldiers maybe take down a bank or five.

I dont see how the South had the right to leave. Its want like the Euopean Union, they had one government they agreed to join. 
I dont know of any part of a country that tries to leave without causing war. If they leave successfully history writes it as a revolution, if they fail its remembered as a civil war.
I would agree with other parts of your statement, I dont think the North were noble freedom fighters some think. Black were mistreated there too.

nicely put.  

tempo_n_groove

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/17/aclu-condemned-for-defending-charlottesville-white-nationalist-protest.html

Thoughts?

brianlux

I still confused by the thread title.  Is this about the confederacy erasing history.  If so, what part of history are they erasing and why?  Or is it history erasing the confederacy?  But, no, that can't be.  History doesn't do anything, it just is.  I don't understand this thread title.

brianlux

tempo_n_groove said:

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/17/aclu-condemned-for-defending-charlottesville-white-nationalist-protest.html

Thoughts?

I've been more than a little nonplussed by the ACLU for a number of years now.  They've done great work in the past.   They were hugely helpful and influential during the 60's civil rights era.  The have been strong defenders of upholding the constitution (we're all in favor of that, right?) and yet for some time now they seem to be... I don't know... like defending someones right to yell "fire!" in a crowed theater that is not burning.  Sorry to say, I've kind of had to back off my on support.

PJfanwillneverleave1

Can any American on here explain why that you will fight to the death to have the right to assemble but you will fight anyone who doesn't agree about taking a statue down?

elvistheking44

brianlux said:

I still confused by the thread title.  Is this about the confederacy erasing history.  If so, what part of history are they erasing and why?  Or is it history erasing the confederacy?  But, no, that can't be.  History doesn't do anything, it just is.  I don't understand this thread title.

Seriously?  Insert comma after confederacy.

brianlux

elvistheking44 said:

brianlux said:

I still confused by the thread title.  Is this about the confederacy erasing history.  If so, what part of history are they erasing and why?  Or is it history erasing the confederacy?  But, no, that can't be.  History doesn't do anything, it just is.  I don't understand this thread title.

Seriously?  Insert comma after confederacy.

Is it really that much work to make the thread title say what it means?  Or is it, "The Confederacy Erasing, History",  i.e. a History of the Confederacy with erasers in hand. 

Hey, not to worry.  It's just my dumb sense of humor. 

mrussel1

The Confederacy:  Erasing History

brianlux

mrussel1 said:

The Confederacy:  Erasing History

Or as we say in these parts, "The Confederacy:  Erasing Erhnocentrism".

God damn, I hope our southern brothers and sister and northern brother and sister will someday learn to get along.  That or set off a long line of nukes at the Mason Dixon line to form a no man's land and say fuck all, we're done with each other.  The former would be so much more pleasant though.

Halifax2TheMax

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

The Confederacy:  Erasing History

Or as we say in these parts, "The Confederacy:  Erasing Erhnocentrism".

God damn, I hope our southern brothers and sister and northern brother and sister will someday learn to get along.  That or set off a long line of nukes at the Mason Dixon line to form a no man's land and say fuck all, we're done with each other.  The former would be so much more pleasant though.

Fuck Texas. Give it back to Mexico. Better yet, let it secede and then be taken over by Mexico. Why pay to dispose?

JC29856

Give me slaves or give me death! 
I'm suppose to believe that confederates were the only soldiers in the history of civilization that fought and died for owning slaves, that farmers chose death with slaves over life without. 

PJPOWER

Halifax2TheMax said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

The Confederacy:  Erasing History

Or as we say in these parts, "The Confederacy:  Erasing Erhnocentrism".

God damn, I hope our southern brothers and sister and northern brother and sister will someday learn to get along.  That or set off a long line of nukes at the Mason Dixon line to form a no man's land and say fuck all, we're done with each other.  The former would be so much more pleasant though.

Fuck Texas. Give it back to Mexico. Better yet, let it secede and then be taken over by Mexico. Why pay to dispose?

My thoughts on California as well!

mrussel1

JC29856 said:

Give me slaves or give me death! 
I'm suppose to believe that confederates were the only soldiers in the history of civilization that fought and died for owning slaves, that farmers chose death with slaves over life without. 

Troll comments as usual

CM189191

tempo_n_groove said:

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/17/aclu-condemned-for-defending-charlottesville-white-nationalist-protest.html

Thoughts?

I'm OK with this. ACLU defended Unite the Rights permit to peacefully assemble after it had been revoked. It was Unite the Right who fucked it all up by not actually following the permit and peacefully assembling. 

mrussel1

I'm okay with the ACLU too.  They defend speech no matter if they agree with it or not.  They are pretty consistent in this.