What do you think?

Posted: Thu Aug 14, 2008 7:46 pm Post subject: What do you think?

The south simply wanted to create a nation ruled by the consent of the governed, not by the dictates of the elites. If only history were taught accurately and with contemporary political agendas left out of the mix. Rolling Eyes

_________________

Despite all my rage I am still just a rat in a cage!

Posted: Thu Aug 14, 2008 8:49 pm Post subject:

last edited by

Posted: Thu Aug 14, 2008 8:50 pm Post subject:

I think it is impossible to grasp such concepts without actually having lived in the time. All one has, now in this day and age, to base their feelings on the matter are the written, and therefore interpretive, and most likely edited opinions of those who were actually allowed by law to read and write at the time. A plantation owner for instance had "rights" that were clearly different than a slaves or even the plantation owners own wife (right to vote, etc...), who's rights based on today's contemporary political agenda cannot be considered anything less than allowed injustice.

Therefore, even if graciously accepting their individual positions in that era, in that society, they all had different agendas and opinions concerning, and the interpretation of the words "freedom", "governed","consent, and "elite".

Only problem was only certain folks were allowed to voice and print their opinions. It's not like they had cnn you know.

One persons acceptance of historical accuracy from the point of view of the enslaved, the slave owner or the plantations owners wife must be considered. And that is something no one will truly ever know.

Posted: Thu Aug 14, 2008 9:15 pm Post subject:

Guys, with all due respect, your responses are exactly why educating people about that period in our nation's history is so important. You have bought in to the "one" side of the debate and not looked at the other factors.

1860 census: less than 5% of white southrons owned slaves. So are we to believe that ALL southrons fought to preserve slavery?

The Constitution of the Confederate States outlawed further importation of African slaves into the country, the U.S. Constitution had no such provision.

Rather than reading books by generals, who speak primarily to tactics in battles, or politicians, who speak primarily to the politics of the time, one should read books written by the poor schlubs who had to carry a musket in the ranks. Why were they there? Why were they willing to put their lives on the line? The answers may surprise you.

I guess I thought that our membership and regulars were capable of civil discourse about this and other topics, and that many of them might find this topic of interest. Our conversations about similar topics, on ventrilo, have proven informative and interesting. I hope I am not mistaken in assuming that the same can be said of the forums. I may be proven wrong, but I had a higher opinion of the membership than that.
_________________

Despite all my rage I am still just a rat in a cage!

Posted: Thu Aug 14, 2008 9:21 pm Post subject:

"One persons acceptance of historical accuracy from the point of view of the enslaved, the slave owner or the plantations owners wife must be considered. And that is something no one will truly ever know. "

I guess you were there?

Posted: Thu Aug 14, 2008 10:38 pm Post subject:

I prefer Mary Ann over Ginger. She just seems like she would be funner. Cool

_________________
Out of all the things I've lost I miss my mind the most.
www.MillionaireMavericksClub.com
www.SpidersMoneyWeb.com

Posted: Thu Aug 14, 2008 11:11 pm Post subject:

Cynic, on this topic, when it comes to my beliefs and opinions, you are merely "preaching to the choir"...

And wanting to get married or not, I'd take Mary Ann over Ginger any day of the week, and twice on tuesdays...
_________________
Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out!

{uZa}fcbcynic · Posted: Thu Aug 14, 2008 11:31 pm Post subject:

BR, I have simply spent my entire life (my interest started as a child) reading every book I could find on the subject. Aside from checking books out of the library I have amassed my own library, of which I am quite proud, on the subject. My living room is a wall-to-wall library on that and other subject matter.

Taking into account ALL facets of the politics, regional attitudes, financial interests, numerous personal accounts, my knowledge of world history, and my knowledge of the human animal and his ongoing battle between good and evil, I have been able to come to some commonsense conclusions. If one knows human nature, puts that together with the lessons learned from history, and is able to apply a certain amount of empathy with those who have gone before us, then one may be able to better understand the issues of the day in a broader sense.

I am curious to know what you think the point I'm trying to make is. I get the impression that you are attributing to me attitudes and beliefs that I do not hold. This is not unusual when one's world-view is challenged or one is asked to entertain another viewpoint, but if I know specifically what you think I am trying to imply I can better rebut your contentions and allay your concerns. That is how I understand civil discourse to work.

One of my concerns in the telling of history is that we apply contemporary mores to historical times. The fact is that in the 19th century the U.S. was a racist nation. ALL of the U.S., not just the south. Did you know, for instance, that states like Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio passed laws forbiding free blacks from moving into those states? The abolition movement was a very small, but vocal minority at the time, not encompassing ALL the northern states that went to war to prevent secession.

Did slavery suck? Sure it did. I certainly wouldn't want to be a slave. But the picture that is painted of the south is done with a pretty broad brush, a brush that seems to exclude the culpability of the northern states that benefitted from that "Peculiar Institution." The fact is that there was a very strong anti-slavery faction in the south as well, but one seldom reads about that because it doesn't fit the template that has been set for us.

Many slave holders recognized that the institution of slavery was outdated and needed to be phased out. Now I readily acknowledge that their reasons for doing so may not have been as noble as we might hope, but financially they saw that industrialization and machinery were making a change in the agricultural world as well. The reason for a slow phasing out of slavery was the recognition of the need to educate slaves before simply turning them loose into society. Can you imagine the problems that millions of uneducated people in the workforce would create (look at the problems we have now with illegal emigrants).

The sad thing is that while other nations had abolished slavery peacefully (I know it's hard to believe, but slavery did not start in the U.S.) our nation saw over 600,000 of our citizens kill each other before it ended here, and it simply did not have to be that way. I could continue with the real reasons for the war (mostly financial), but I would have to know that you are truly interested in learning more about it before I take the time to go into depth on that topic. However, if you really do wish to learn something different about that period of our nation's history I would be more than happy to do so.

In the meantime I would recommend a few books that you might find of interest. They are well researched and written by men whose scholarly approach to their writing has been lauded by their contemporaries. They are:

The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War by Thomas Dilorenzo

Lincoln Unmasked by Thomas Dilorenzo

It should be noted that Dilorenzo is an economics professor at Loyola College in Maryland and has his Ph.D. in economics from Virginia Tech.

The South Was Right! by James Ronald Kennedy and Walter Donald Kennedy

Myths of American Slavery by Walter Donald Kennedy

There are many others that may give you pause for thought and provide you with information that you may not have gotten in the public school system. These are a good start and are very good reads (not dry or boring). I hope you find them as interesting as I did.

Posted: Thu Aug 14, 2008 11:32 pm Post subject:

Posted: Fri Aug 15, 2008 2:31 am Post subject:

Posted: Fri Aug 15, 2008 4:58 am Post subject:

Ginger vs. Mary Ann? that post was deleted but still

why not both? with Mrs. Howell on Tuesdays just to get named in the will....

Posted: Fri Aug 15, 2008 4:59 am Post subject:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,336817,00.html

Cool

Posted: Fri Aug 15, 2008 7:22 am Post subject:

Posted: Fri Aug 15, 2008 7:23 am Post subject:

Posted: Fri Aug 15, 2008 8:20 am Post subject:

Many knew Lincoln had little love for enslaved blacks and didn't wage war against the South for their benefit. Lincoln made it plain, saying, "I will say, then, that I am not, nor have ever been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races... I am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

The very words of his 1863 Emancipation Proclamation revealed his deceit and cunning; it freed those slaves held "within any State or designated part of a State the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States." It didn't apply to slaves in West Virginia and areas and states not in rebellion. Like Gen Ulysses Grant's slaves, they had to wait for the 13th Amendment.

The above was written by Walter Williams years ago, he is a Professor at George Mason Univ, African-American! This terrible conflict was not totally about slavery, but a war to "preserve the Union" I am a Southerner and proud and ashame of the way the whole US treated blacks, not just the South.

"The War Between the States, through force of arms, settled the question of secession, enabling the federal government to run roughshod over state's right specified by the Constitution's 10th Amendment." -W. Williams