War of Northeern Aggression

[mactbone]

Call it what it is, and has been referred as since it happened - The Civil War.

Parts of one country fighting another country = a civil war.

Why do the revisionists have to mess everything up? Oh, no big bad North... ohhh scary... pffft BS, the Union was within it's rights no matter what you want to say because might=right, if nothing else.

[Al B. Sure!]

nah I think they mean that the South seceded so the CSA was an independent nation making the Civil War a war between two seperate nations. War of Northern Aggression might not be the best term, however, considered Confederates launched the first attack at Fort Sumter.


thanks

[mactbone]

I can say I'm smarter than Einstein until I'm blue in the face, doesn't make it true.

[David Floyd]

the Union was within it's rights no matter what you want to say because might=right

I guess there's no arguing with that

In other news, it has been determined that the Holocaust was A-OK because Hitler was stronger than the Jews

[TCO]

I'm a Virginian...so I've gone through my romantize the South and Virginia period.

But...the bottom line is: after that war, blacks weren't slaves. Before it they were. The North was right.

[David Floyd]

But...the bottom line is: after that war, blacks weren't slaves. Before it they were. It was a net plus.

Only for the slaves, not for the Southern whites

[mactbone]

When was the last time you felt oppressed because the Union exercised their power to keep the states from seceding? When was the last time the Union practiced genocide on the South? When was the last time the Jews enslaved an ethnic group?

[David Floyd]

It's the same principle of might makes right - you can't apply it to certain situations and not others.

[chequita guevara]

For a period of 30 years or so, most Southern Whites were better off, also, since the power of the slave holders had been temporarily broken. It wasn't 'till the 1890's that the former masters returned to complete power, again disenfranchising poor whites.

Please stop making the mistake that so many do, of conflating white interests as a whole with the interests of a small group of rich white men.

[David Floyd]

For a period of 30 years or so, most Southern Whites were better off, also, since the power of the slave holders had been temporarily broken. It wasn't 'till the 1890's that the former masters returned to complete power, again disenfranchising poor whites.

Please stop making the mistake that so many do, of conflating white interests as a whole with the interests of a small group of rich white men.

Oh I get it - in chegitz-land, better off means losing States Rights and self-rule

[*End Is Forever*]

Who exactly is revising the term? First I've heard of it...

[mactbone]

Alright then, ignore might makes right. In the eyes of the Union the South did not secede, it was only an insurrection.

Hmmm, maybe we should call it "The War of Southern Folly"?

[*End Is Forever*]

Are you suggesting that abolishing slavery was wrong because it disenfranchised a few white farmers, David?

[David Floyd]

In the eyes of the Union the South did not secede, it was only an insurrection.

And because the Union won, might makes right....Stalin though that starving Ukrainians was OK, and because he won, it IS OK. Right?

[mactbone]

"Who is using it"

About every Southern Revisionist, who can't see the ttruth in front of them.

Floyd: What good are State's rights without a decent job? Second, what specific state rights disappeared after it was over? Would you give up your possesions, in order that you could enjoy State rights?

BTW, AFAIK Southerners can still vote, just tell me when I'm wrong about that. In fact, there has been more than one southerner in the White House since then.