Distortions of truth and history: Lee, a better friend of slaves than Lincoln

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by jimmytrick


You are just not paying attention. Lee tried to get the CSA to free the slaves. If he had suceeded the South would have probably gained its freedom.

If he had succeeded in that the CSA would have rejoined the US in all probability. Slavery was by far the biggest issue. Yes I know the Texans don't like me saying that but it remains true. Without slavery there would never have been a CSA.

[Carver]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Another forgotten fact of history is how Europeans flocked to the North during the war. So we can blame them for the South's defeat.

That Europeans are far more enlightened than southerners is well established fact.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten


Or maybe they believe that because it is the truth. Slavery was certainly a factor in the war, but so was state rights, economic concerns and any number of other things. You seem to be the one pushing a simple, one-dimensional view here...

Slavery was by far the primary factor. The states rights issues were almost entirely about slavery as can be seen in the what the South said. The economic concerns again were mostly slave economics. The value of the slaves was a major issue. Most of those 'any number of things' were either minor issues of little consequence or were strongly related or directly related to slavery.

[Capt Dizle]

Ethel, I saw Mel Gibson betray his county, England, in "The Patriot".

You need to watch more movies to broaden your education.

And, btw, he did it twice, betraying England again in "Braveheart".

[loinburger]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Ethel, I saw Mel Gibson betray his county, England, in "The Patriot".

You need to watch more movies to broaden your education.

And, btw, he did it twice, betraying England again in "Braveheart".

Gibson's an Australian. Australia hasn't been part of England for quite awhile now.

[Capt Dizle]

I can see this is going over your head. His characters in the movies were English subjects. Get it. Oh, never mind.

[Drake Tungsten]

Some of the posters here have reminded me of a favorite quote from "The Simpsons"...

Proctor: All right, here's your last question. What was the cause of the Civil War?

Apu: Actually, there were numerous causes. Aside from the obvious schism between the abolitionists and the anti-abolitionists, there were economic factors, both domestic and inter--

Proctor: Wait, wait... just say slavery.

Apu: Slavery it is, sir.

Have to love that quality American education...

[loinburger]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
His characters in the movies were English subjects. Get it. Oh, never mind.

Hardy har har, your wit is astounding. Next time you make a joke, be sure to give us fair warning so we can be sure to avoid it.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ethelred


Slavery was by far the primary factor. The states rights issues were almost entirely about slavery as can be seen in the what the South said. The economic concerns again were mostly slave economics. The value of the slaves was a major issue. Most of those 'any number of things' were either minor issues of little consequence or were strongly related or directly related to slavery.

Ethel, I don't think these guys are aware at the large number of competent historians who have consistently argued that slavery was the central issue that eventually brought about the Civil War.
This is not a narrow view, when you take into consideration the other issues, while bearing in mind that the issue of slavery was the central issue.

Read primary sources, and read good, thorough, secondary sources of both sides; the historians that support your argument, and the historians that support my argument.

[Ramo]

Lee, who enslaved free blacks and shipped 'em South during his invasion of Maryland, and who massacred surrendering blacks, certainly was a viscious bastard. He was not simply a good person caught between his state and his country.

Long before Lincoln acted, Lee argued with the CSA government that the slaves must be freed.

Actually, he argued that, to increase the Confederate armies' manpower, slaves who'd fight for the CSA should be freed.

pretending that Lincoln was Evil

Pretending?

How can a person who impoverished farmers through industrial protectionism (and caused the death of over a million people in enforcing these policies), crushed worker freedoms by using federal troops to break strikes, slaughtered Amerindians, imprisoned those who disagreed with his policies, or enslaved hundreds of thousands with conscription possibly not be considered evil?

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Ethel, I saw Mel Gibson betray his county, England, in "The Patriot".

You need to watch more movies to broaden your education.

And, btw, he did it twice, betraying England again in "Braveheart".

He is a US citizen so he only the character betrayed England. Yes I should watch it. I have it on DVD. Since Christmas. I still haven't watched it.

In Braveheart there was no betrayal. England was trying to complete a conquest. That is not the same as a revolt against one's own country. In my oppinion he would have had to side with England to betray his country in that movie.

Of course as an Irish-American I must always side against England in any dispute where the US isn't involved on England's side.

[Capt Dizle]

Okay loinburger, I will adopt the following system.

-Green is a low risk of joking.

-Blue is a general joking risk, and officials are asked to review and update emergency response procedures.

-Yellow is an "elevated condition," meaning there is a significant risk of joking. Increased surveillance of critical locations and implementation of some emergency response plans are called for.

-Orange signifies a high risk of joking, meaning the forum nazis should coordinate security efforts with armed forces or law enforcement agencies and take additional precautions at public events.

-Red means a "severe risk" of joking and may require the positioning of specially trained teams, closing of public forums, facilities and monitoring of transportation systems.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Ramo




Pretending?

How can a person who impoverished farmers through industrial protectionism (and caused the death of over a million people in enforcing these policies), crushed worker freedoms by using federal troops to break strikes, slaughtered Amerindians, imprisoned those who disagreed with his policies, or enslaved hundreds of thousands with conscription possibly not be considered evil?

The same way few people think Washington was evil.

A million? You will need to justify that claim. No fair adding the Civil War casualties in or blaming him for bad weather.

Conscription isn't slavery. I am sure you disagree but that is a personal definition and I am not beholden to your own secret dictionary. Nor the Libertarian dictionary. If you quote the Cato Institute I will laugh.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ramo

Pretending?

How can a person who impoverished farmers through industrial protectionism (and caused the death of over a million people in enforcing these policies), crushed worker freedoms by using federal troops to break strikes, slaughtered Amerindians, imprisoned those who disagreed with his policies, or enslaved hundreds of thousands with conscription possibly not be considered evil?

Actually, many historians argue that Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus did not have a great, negative impact on freedom of speech, or political campaigning of Democrats, with one famous exception.

You're exaggerating Lincoln's war-time policies.
Read "The Fate of Liberty--Abraham Lincoln and Civil Liberties" by Mark E. Neely, Jr.

He argues that it was more of state and local corruption by overly zealous Northern officers, and not Lincoln himself.
Even Seward, who sought to exert great power through this policy, could not live up to his harsh words, due to constant reviews of appeal cases by some of those arrested.

[Ramo]

The same way few people think Washington was evil.

Huh?

FYI, I think he was evil..

A million? You will need to justify that claim. No fair adding the Civil War casualties in or blaming him for bad weather.

Why is this "unfair"?

Conscription isn't slavery.

Then tell me what you consider to be slavery.

Nor the Libertarian dictionary. If you quote the Cato Institute I will laugh.

I don't think you have a grasp on my political preferences yet.

Actually, many historians argue that Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus did not have a great, negative impact on freedom of speech, or political campaigning of Democrats, with one famous exception.

He took 30,000 political prisoners. Given the population at the time, you don't consider that a great impact?

You're exaggerating Lincoln's war-time policies.
Read "The Fate of Liberty--Abraham Lincoln and Civil Liberties" by Mark E. Neely, Jr.

Do you have a link?