BG Hokie wrote:most people, without a full context of history, presume that the Civil War was the war over slavery.
Included among those "most people" are about 95% of Civil War historians.
Correct.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
Good for them. There is no use for such relics of hate in civilized society.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
[quote="ip_law-hokie"]Good for them. There is no use for such relics of hate in civilized society. [quote]Why is this a "relic of hate"?
and why is this not?
Slavery existed under the sanction of the US over ten times longer than it did under the Confederacy. The US flag waved proudly during the genocide of the Native American people, the internment of the citizens of Japanese descent and countless other atrocities.
ip_law-hokie wrote:Good for them. There is no use for such relics of hate in civilized society.
Why is this a "relic of hate"?
and why is this not?
Slavery existed under the sanction of the US over ten times longer than it did under the Confederacy. The US flag waved proudly during the genocide of the Native American people, the internment of the citizens of Japanese descent and countless other atrocities.
Haha.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
Oh please not this again. Even McPherson, a revisionist hack blinded by his worship of the myth of Lincoln as a crusader against slavery, is forced to admit in Causes and Comrades that most individual soldiers mostly weren't fighting for/against slavery, but for/against secession. Even Lincoln explicitly said that he wasn't waging a war to end slavery. That only became a manufactured cause later for political and military purposes.
That slavery may have been one of the factors for some of the states leaving is a separate issue, and it's intellectually dishonest to say that it caused the war. This shouldn't even be a debatable point.
SuwaneeTim820 wrote:
One of, if not THE, foremost authority on the Civil War is Pulitzer Prize winning historian and Professor Emeritus of United States History at Princeton University James M. McPherson who said, “Probably 90 percent, maybe 95 percent of serious historians of the Civil War would agree on the broad questions of what the war was about and what brought it about and what caused it, which was the increasing polarization of the country between the free states and the slave states over issues of slavery, especially the expansion of slavery.”
Marine Hokie wrote:Oh please not this again. Even McPherson, a revisionist hack blinded by his worship of the myth of Lincoln as a crusader against slavery, is forced to admit in Causes and Comrades that most individual soldiers mostly weren't fighting for/against slavery, but for/against secession. Even Lincoln explicitly said that he wasn't waging a war to end slavery. That only became a manufactured cause later for political and military purposes.
That slavery may have been one of the factors for some of the states leaving is a separate issue, and it's intellectually dishonest to say that it caused the war. This shouldn't even be a debatable point.
SuwaneeTim820 wrote:
One of, if not THE, foremost authority on the Civil War is Pulitzer Prize winning historian and Professor Emeritus of United States History at Princeton University James M. McPherson who said, “Probably 90 percent, maybe 95 percent of serious historians of the Civil War would agree on the broad questions of what the war was about and what brought it about and what caused it, which was the increasing polarization of the country between the free states and the slave states over issues of slavery, especially the expansion of slavery.”
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
HokieDan95 wrote:Lee opposed the war and urged reconciliation in public speaking engagements after it. Embittered Southerners didn't want to hear it.
I agree w/r/t Lee. He was a great reconciler (if that's a word). Still, during the war, I'd have considered him a willing participant, and patriot of the cause, and the Confederacy. Southerners embittered really had no choice but to move onward; they were bitter over how things had gone, but I've never read where there was any great resentment towards Lee following the war. The man was lionized & idolized from most of what I've seen.
Now I'm splitting hairs. LOL.
Peace out. And remember the alamo.
So I put (the dead dog) on her doorstep!
Salute the Marines
Soon we'll have planes that fly 22000 mph
"#PedoPete" = Hunter's name for his dad.
Marine Hokie wrote:Oh please not this again. Even McPherson, a revisionist hack blinded by his worship of the myth of Lincoln as a crusader against slavery, is forced to admit in Causes and Comrades that most individual soldiers mostly weren't fighting for/against slavery, but for/against secession. Even Lincoln explicitly said that he wasn't waging a war to end slavery. That only became a manufactured cause later for political and military purposes.
That slavery may have been one of the factors for some of the states leaving is a separate issue, and it's intellectually dishonest to say that it caused the war. This shouldn't even be a debatable point.
they're getting your goat.
You are 100% correct.
So I put (the dead dog) on her doorstep!
Salute the Marines
Soon we'll have planes that fly 22000 mph
"#PedoPete" = Hunter's name for his dad.
Except that it didn't. Slavery isn't an entity. It can't cause anything.
Do you mean to say that either defense of slavery or the desire to free the slaves was the cause of the war? Either of those would be better, but still historically inaccurate. Lincoln himself said that the war was over secession, and that he would not fight a war over slaves. He explicitly said that he believed states have the right to allow slavery, and that the only reason he'd invade the south would be if they secede. Do you not believe him?
ip_law-hokie wrote:Slavery caused the civil war.
Marine Hokie wrote:Oh please not this again. Even McPherson, a revisionist hack blinded by his worship of the myth of Lincoln as a crusader against slavery, is forced to admit in Causes and Comrades that most individual soldiers mostly weren't fighting for/against slavery, but for/against secession. Even Lincoln explicitly said that he wasn't waging a war to end slavery. That only became a manufactured cause later for political and military purposes.
That slavery may have been one of the factors for some of the states leaving is a separate issue, and it's intellectually dishonest to say that it caused the war. This shouldn't even be a debatable point.
SuwaneeTim820 wrote:
One of, if not THE, foremost authority on the Civil War is Pulitzer Prize winning historian and Professor Emeritus of United States History at Princeton University James M. McPherson who said, “Probably 90 percent, maybe 95 percent of serious historians of the Civil War would agree on the broad questions of what the war was about and what brought it about and what caused it, which was the increasing polarization of the country between the free states and the slave states over issues of slavery, especially the expansion of slavery.”
Marine Hokie wrote:Except that it didn't. Slavery isn't an entity. It can't cause anything.
Do you mean to say that either defense of slavery or the desire to free the slaves was the cause of the war? Either of those would be better, but still historically inaccurate. Lincoln himself said that the war was over secession, and that he would not fight a war over slaves. He explicitly said that he believed states have the right to allow slavery, and that the only reason he'd invade the south would be if they secede. Do you not believe him?
ip_law-hokie wrote:Slavery caused the civil war.
Marine Hokie wrote:Oh please not this again. Even McPherson, a revisionist hack blinded by his worship of the myth of Lincoln as a crusader against slavery, is forced to admit in Causes and Comrades that most individual soldiers mostly weren't fighting for/against slavery, but for/against secession. Even Lincoln explicitly said that he wasn't waging a war to end slavery. That only became a manufactured cause later for political and military purposes.
That slavery may have been one of the factors for some of the states leaving is a separate issue, and it's intellectually dishonest to say that it caused the war. This shouldn't even be a debatable point.
SuwaneeTim820 wrote:
One of, if not THE, foremost authority on the Civil War is Pulitzer Prize winning historian and Professor Emeritus of United States History at Princeton University James M. McPherson who said, “Probably 90 percent, maybe 95 percent of serious historians of the Civil War would agree on the broad questions of what the war was about and what brought it about and what caused it, which was the increasing polarization of the country between the free states and the slave states over issues of slavery, especially the expansion of slavery.”
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
There wasn't an entity known as "the south" that seceded. Individual state governments seceded, each for their own reasons, some of which included slavery. That doesn't make the war itself about slavery. The war was fought over secession, independent of any causes of secession itself.
The war was waged to force the states to rejoin the US. Slavery wasn't a factor. In other words, had each state outlawed slavery at the same time as seceding, the war still would have happened.
ip_law-hokie wrote:
The south seceded over slavery.
A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.
Marine Hokie wrote:There wasn't an entity known as "the south" that seceded. Individual state governments seceded, each for their own reasons, some of which included slavery. That doesn't make the war itself about slavery. The war was fought over secession, independent of any causes of secession itself.
The war was waged to force the states to rejoin the US. Slavery wasn't a factor. In other words, had each state outlawed slavery at the same time as seceding, the war still would have happened.
ip_law-hokie wrote:
The south seceded over slavery.
Haha.
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
Marine Hokie wrote:There wasn't an entity known as "the south" that seceded. Individual state governments seceded, each for their own reasons, some of which included slavery. That doesn't make the war itself about slavery. The war was fought over secession, independent of any causes of secession itself.
The war was waged to force the states to rejoin the US. Slavery wasn't a factor. In other words, had each state outlawed slavery at the same time as seceding, the war still would have happened.
ip_law-hokie wrote:
The south seceded over slavery.
solid point.
perfect examples- Michigan, CT, RI, Mass.
Didn't secede. Didn't find themselves at war.
So I put (the dead dog) on her doorstep!
Salute the Marines
Soon we'll have planes that fly 22000 mph
"#PedoPete" = Hunter's name for his dad.
I'm not about to say that I am a Civil War historian. But one of the Youtube comments (can't believe I read them) says:
"I had a leading Civil War historian explain the War like this to our class. Paraphrasing:
People who know nothing about the war say it was about slavery. People who know a fair bit realize that there were a multitude of issues that led to the War. People who have studied the War in detail realize that, yes, it really was about slavery."
Seems about right from my recollection. It seems as if all the other "multitude of issues" had a connection to slavery in some form or another, correct?
Which is why most people just answer: "slavery"
Last edited by Cpt Jagdish on Wed Jul 09, 2014 5:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ip_law-hokie wrote:Good for them. There is no use for such relics of hate in civilized society.
Why is this a "relic of hate"?
and why is this not?
Slavery existed under the sanction of the US over ten times longer than it did under the Confederacy. The US flag waved proudly during the genocide of the Native American people, the internment of the citizens of Japanese descent and countless other atrocities.
ip_law-hokie wrote:Good for them. There is no use for such relics of hate in civilized society.
Why is this a "relic of hate"?
and why is this not?
Slavery existed under the sanction of the US over ten times longer than it did under the Confederacy. The US flag waved proudly during the genocide of the Native American people, the internment of the citizens of Japanese descent and countless other atrocities.
Haha.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
In other words, you've got nothing...
Haha. Silly necks.
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
It's no wonder you resort to things like "haha" or "ok" when you lack facts to support your position that it was a war fought over slavery. Repeating nonsense your middle school history teacher told you without knowing what you're talking about isn't always enough. Your bias is blinding you. You believe the myth of Lincoln as a anti-slavery moral crusader rather than what he actually said and did. Everything I've said is an easily verifiable (or disprovable) fact if you're so inclined.
ip_law-hokie wrote:
Haha.
A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.
Marine Hokie wrote:It's no wonder you resort to things like "haha" or "ok" when you lack facts to support your position that it was a war fought over slavery. Repeating nonsense your middle school history teacher told you without knowing what you're talking about isn't always enough. Your bias is blinding you. You believe the myth of Lincoln as a anti-slavery moral crusader rather than what he actually said and did. Everything I've said is an easily verifiable (or disprovable) fact if you're so inclined.
ip_law-hokie wrote:
Haha.
OK. As long as you believe your bullshit, I guess it's fine. Carry on.
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
Cpt Jagdish wrote:
"I had a leading Civil War historian explain the War like this to our class. Paraphrasing:
People who know nothing about the war say it was about slavery. People who know a fair bit realize that there were a multitude of issues that led to the War. People who have studied the War in detail realize that, yes, it really was about slavery."
Marine Hokie wrote:It's no wonder you resort to things like "haha" or "ok" when you lack facts to support your position that it was a war fought over slavery. Repeating nonsense your middle school history teacher told you without knowing what you're talking about isn't always enough. Your bias is blinding you. You believe the myth of Lincoln as a anti-slavery moral crusader rather than what he actually said and did. Everything I've said is an easily verifiable (or disprovable) fact if you're so inclined.
ip_law-hokie wrote:
Haha.
OK. As long as you believe your bullshit, I guess it's fine. Carry on.
Speaking of BS...you've yet to address a single point brought up in this thread.
Good point. Non-seceding states were not invaded.
Delaware and Maryland were also slave states. If the war had been about slavery, one would think that they'd have been invaded too. As it were, Delaware was mostly left alone, and Maryland was occupied only for the purpose of prohibiting secession. Secessionists in Maryland were imprisoned, while slaveowners were not.
RiverguyVT wrote:
solid point.
perfect examples- Michigan, CT, RI, Mass.
Didn't secede. Didn't find themselves at war.
A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.
Marine Hokie wrote:It's no wonder you resort to things like "haha" or "ok" when you lack facts to support your position that it was a war fought over slavery. Repeating nonsense your middle school history teacher told you without knowing what you're talking about isn't always enough. Your bias is blinding you. You believe the myth of Lincoln as a anti-slavery moral crusader rather than what he actually said and did. Everything I've said is an easily verifiable (or disprovable) fact if you're so inclined.
ip_law-hokie wrote:
Haha.
OK. As long as you believe your bullshit, I guess it's fine. Carry on.
Speaking of BS...you've yet to address a single point brought up in this thread.
Why do I want to engage in a legalistic debate with necks who refuse to consider common sense. You guys win: slavery had nothing to do with the war. everyone thinks that.
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
