About That Alleged Racial Incident at the BYU-Duke Match

23,321 Views | 446 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by Jack Bauer
BearFan33
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jack Bauer said:

What the hell is this on CNN??


new management
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearFan33 said:

Jack Bauer said:

What the hell is this on CNN??


new management
New CEO said that MSNBC stole their most hard core leftists viewership so they are trying to pivot back to the middle to compete for eye balls.
Forest Bueller_bf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jack Bauer said:

What the hell is this on CNN??


He actually called it the "Outrage Olympics" as if cable networks aren't constantly in outrage mode.

Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I think 99% of people would really appreciate a straight news channel. I'm fine with an opinion show, but mark it as an opinion / commentary show. I actually think Fox does a pretty good job at this. People go crazy about Fox with Tucker Carlson, but it is very clear you're watching an opinion show. It's straight news is probably more balanced than CNN or MSNBC, which I am not sure even does news.
Johnny Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Harrison Bergeron said:

I think 99% of people would really appreciate a straight news channel. I'm fine with an opinion show, but mark it as an opinion / commentary show. I actually think Fox does a pretty good job at this. People go crazy about Fox with Tucker Carlson, but it is very clear you're watching an opinion show. It's straight news is probably more balanced than CNN or MSNBC, which I am not sure even does news.

I agree. Obviously the prime time lineup for Fox News is composed of conservative opinion shows, but they don't attempt to disguise that fact and there is a clear difference between their opinion shows and their straight news shows. Because the other major networks they compete with virtually all slant hard left even on what is presented as "straight news", Fox News' straight news shows seem to many to slant hard right by comparison, but in actuality they're the closest things we currently have to straight up unbiased journalism -at least among the major networks.
Fre3dombear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ATL Bear said:

Fre3dombear said:

ATL Bear said:

UTExan said:

This thread has quickly evolved to the legitimacy of secession and apparently how those who desire to secede or be separate are somehow traitors despite their beliefs that they stand on principle. If we treated all persons desiring to secede as traitors, then we should have arrested and tried New Englanders during the War of 1812, because their commercial interests with England were threatened and they were prepared to leave the Union and return to England.
The same goes for the Mormons in 1858 who were prepared to wage long term guerilla warfare against the US Army as it entered the Utah territory.
What we really ought to be asking, IMO, is how do we move forward on race and create a truly inclusive society? If we do it by force and arbitrarily favor one group, we will see a backlash against that favoritism. Indeed, our Reconstruction period showed us the foolishness of that as Radical Republicans like Thaddeus Stevens sought to make federal action openly discriminatory and punitive against the south. If we do it by socialization ( our churches, which ought to be leading this are an example ) we can make it work. But false accusations of racism and never holding race grifters to account only breeds resentment from those falsely accused and sets back the work of race reconciliation.
It isn't about secession. It's about the denialism of the primary reason for secession. The attempt to minimize slavery's role in it is comical, and the mental contortions necessary to present it otherwise are bizarre. Slavery was the South's economic interest. Slavery was its "States Right". Slavery was the reason for seceding.


It's amazing some people believe 18 and 19 year old men left their wives, kids, families and homes to die to make sure some nameless black person could be free

And of that were the case, the thanklessness of todays generations for those that died to help those that couldn't help themselves is appalling.

Interesting take on history though but great propaganda for the easily duped
Yes, freedom has never been something that has been fought for throughout history... And preserving a union is so not a faceless endeavor…. Name definitely doesn't check out.


As such the learned individual that you are, I'm sure even you can find her Abe Lincoln's own quote that the civil war was not to free the slaves.

But believe what you want. It used to be a free country. And now thanks to socialist democrats and those easily duped, even a man is a woman

progress, science and stuff
90sBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Serious question for attorneys here regarding the Godmother. Could her social media tweets be used to disqualify her from cases if she were to be elected a judge?
Jack Bauer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
90sBear said:

Serious question for attorneys here regarding the Godmother. Could her social media tweets be used to disqualify her from cases if she were to be elected a judge?
Seriously.

She basically says white people are awful, how can she be an unbiased judge?
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Fre3dombear said:

ATL Bear said:

Fre3dombear said:

ATL Bear said:

UTExan said:

This thread has quickly evolved to the legitimacy of secession and apparently how those who desire to secede or be separate are somehow traitors despite their beliefs that they stand on principle. If we treated all persons desiring to secede as traitors, then we should have arrested and tried New Englanders during the War of 1812, because their commercial interests with England were threatened and they were prepared to leave the Union and return to England.
The same goes for the Mormons in 1858 who were prepared to wage long term guerilla warfare against the US Army as it entered the Utah territory.
What we really ought to be asking, IMO, is how do we move forward on race and create a truly inclusive society? If we do it by force and arbitrarily favor one group, we will see a backlash against that favoritism. Indeed, our Reconstruction period showed us the foolishness of that as Radical Republicans like Thaddeus Stevens sought to make federal action openly discriminatory and punitive against the south. If we do it by socialization ( our churches, which ought to be leading this are an example ) we can make it work. But false accusations of racism and never holding race grifters to account only breeds resentment from those falsely accused and sets back the work of race reconciliation.
It isn't about secession. It's about the denialism of the primary reason for secession. The attempt to minimize slavery's role in it is comical, and the mental contortions necessary to present it otherwise are bizarre. Slavery was the South's economic interest. Slavery was its "States Right". Slavery was the reason for seceding.


It's amazing some people believe 18 and 19 year old men left their wives, kids, families and homes to die to make sure some nameless black person could be free

And of that were the case, the thanklessness of todays generations for those that died to help those that couldn't help themselves is appalling.

Interesting take on history though but great propaganda for the easily duped
Yes, freedom has never been something that has been fought for throughout history... And preserving a union is so not a faceless endeavor…. Name definitely doesn't check out.


As such the learned individual that you are, I'm sure even you can find her Abe Lincoln's own quote that the civil war was not to free the slaves.

But believe what you want. It used to be a free country. And now thanks to socialist democrats and those easily duped, even a man is a woman

progress, science and stuff


The Civil War was fought to preserve slavery. As a consequence of its outcome, slavery was legally ended in the United States.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

Fre3dombear said:

ATL Bear said:

Fre3dombear said:

ATL Bear said:

UTExan said:

This thread has quickly evolved to the legitimacy of secession and apparently how those who desire to secede or be separate are somehow traitors despite their beliefs that they stand on principle. If we treated all persons desiring to secede as traitors, then we should have arrested and tried New Englanders during the War of 1812, because their commercial interests with England were threatened and they were prepared to leave the Union and return to England.
The same goes for the Mormons in 1858 who were prepared to wage long term guerilla warfare against the US Army as it entered the Utah territory.
What we really ought to be asking, IMO, is how do we move forward on race and create a truly inclusive society? If we do it by force and arbitrarily favor one group, we will see a backlash against that favoritism. Indeed, our Reconstruction period showed us the foolishness of that as Radical Republicans like Thaddeus Stevens sought to make federal action openly discriminatory and punitive against the south. If we do it by socialization ( our churches, which ought to be leading this are an example ) we can make it work. But false accusations of racism and never holding race grifters to account only breeds resentment from those falsely accused and sets back the work of race reconciliation.
It isn't about secession. It's about the denialism of the primary reason for secession. The attempt to minimize slavery's role in it is comical, and the mental contortions necessary to present it otherwise are bizarre. Slavery was the South's economic interest. Slavery was its "States Right". Slavery was the reason for seceding.


It's amazing some people believe 18 and 19 year old men left their wives, kids, families and homes to die to make sure some nameless black person could be free

And of that were the case, the thanklessness of todays generations for those that died to help those that couldn't help themselves is appalling.

Interesting take on history though but great propaganda for the easily duped
Yes, freedom has never been something that has been fought for throughout history... And preserving a union is so not a faceless endeavor…. Name definitely doesn't check out.


As such the learned individual that you are, I'm sure even you can find her Abe Lincoln's own quote that the civil war was not to free the slaves.

But believe what you want. It used to be a free country. And now thanks to socialist democrats and those easily duped, even a man is a woman

progress, science and stuff


The Civil War was fought to preserve slavery. As a consequence of its outcome, slavery was legally ended in the United States.


Wrong.

The war in 1861 was not a civil war. It was a secessionist war/war of independence. Slavery was ended by the Federal government because it could economically and militarily hurt the South.

The war was most certainly not fought to preserve slavery since the North had no desire to interfere with slavery in the border states or the Deep South.
Johnny Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

Fre3dombear said:

ATL Bear said:

Fre3dombear said:

ATL Bear said:

UTExan said:

This thread has quickly evolved to the legitimacy of secession and apparently how those who desire to secede or be separate are somehow traitors despite their beliefs that they stand on principle. If we treated all persons desiring to secede as traitors, then we should have arrested and tried New Englanders during the War of 1812, because their commercial interests with England were threatened and they were prepared to leave the Union and return to England.
The same goes for the Mormons in 1858 who were prepared to wage long term guerilla warfare against the US Army as it entered the Utah territory.
What we really ought to be asking, IMO, is how do we move forward on race and create a truly inclusive society? If we do it by force and arbitrarily favor one group, we will see a backlash against that favoritism. Indeed, our Reconstruction period showed us the foolishness of that as Radical Republicans like Thaddeus Stevens sought to make federal action openly discriminatory and punitive against the south. If we do it by socialization ( our churches, which ought to be leading this are an example ) we can make it work. But false accusations of racism and never holding race grifters to account only breeds resentment from those falsely accused and sets back the work of race reconciliation.
It isn't about secession. It's about the denialism of the primary reason for secession. The attempt to minimize slavery's role in it is comical, and the mental contortions necessary to present it otherwise are bizarre. Slavery was the South's economic interest. Slavery was its "States Right". Slavery was the reason for seceding.


It's amazing some people believe 18 and 19 year old men left their wives, kids, families and homes to die to make sure some nameless black person could be free

And of that were the case, the thanklessness of todays generations for those that died to help those that couldn't help themselves is appalling.

Interesting take on history though but great propaganda for the easily duped
Yes, freedom has never been something that has been fought for throughout history... And preserving a union is so not a faceless endeavor…. Name definitely doesn't check out.


As such the learned individual that you are, I'm sure even you can find her Abe Lincoln's own quote that the civil war was not to free the slaves.

But believe what you want. It used to be a free country. And now thanks to socialist democrats and those easily duped, even a man is a woman

progress, science and stuff


The Civil War was fought to preserve slavery. As a consequence of its outcome, slavery was legally ended in the United States.

Wrong.

From the North's perspective the war was fought to preserve the Union. From the South's perspective it was fought to defend the independence of the new seceded nation they were trying to build. As the war raged, an additional and secondary war goal of Lincoln's and the North ultimately became the abolition of slavery (the Emancipation Proclamation was issued on 1/1/1863 after over a year and a half of bloody fighting), but it was never the main or overriding goal and the notion that the entire thing was ALL about a grand crusade to end slavery is a myth. Granted, it's a popular myth - but still - a myth.

The best long term consequence of the war, however, was that legal slavery ended in our country.
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

D. C. Bear said:

Fre3dombear said:

ATL Bear said:

Fre3dombear said:

ATL Bear said:

UTExan said:

This thread has quickly evolved to the legitimacy of secession and apparently how those who desire to secede or be separate are somehow traitors despite their beliefs that they stand on principle. If we treated all persons desiring to secede as traitors, then we should have arrested and tried New Englanders during the War of 1812, because their commercial interests with England were threatened and they were prepared to leave the Union and return to England.
The same goes for the Mormons in 1858 who were prepared to wage long term guerilla warfare against the US Army as it entered the Utah territory.
What we really ought to be asking, IMO, is how do we move forward on race and create a truly inclusive society? If we do it by force and arbitrarily favor one group, we will see a backlash against that favoritism. Indeed, our Reconstruction period showed us the foolishness of that as Radical Republicans like Thaddeus Stevens sought to make federal action openly discriminatory and punitive against the south. If we do it by socialization ( our churches, which ought to be leading this are an example ) we can make it work. But false accusations of racism and never holding race grifters to account only breeds resentment from those falsely accused and sets back the work of race reconciliation.
It isn't about secession. It's about the denialism of the primary reason for secession. The attempt to minimize slavery's role in it is comical, and the mental contortions necessary to present it otherwise are bizarre. Slavery was the South's economic interest. Slavery was its "States Right". Slavery was the reason for seceding.


It's amazing some people believe 18 and 19 year old men left their wives, kids, families and homes to die to make sure some nameless black person could be free

And of that were the case, the thanklessness of todays generations for those that died to help those that couldn't help themselves is appalling.

Interesting take on history though but great propaganda for the easily duped
Yes, freedom has never been something that has been fought for throughout history... And preserving a union is so not a faceless endeavor…. Name definitely doesn't check out.


As such the learned individual that you are, I'm sure even you can find her Abe Lincoln's own quote that the civil war was not to free the slaves.

But believe what you want. It used to be a free country. And now thanks to socialist democrats and those easily duped, even a man is a woman

progress, science and stuff


The Civil War was fought to preserve slavery. As a consequence of its outcome, slavery was legally ended in the United States.


Wrong.

The war in 1861 was not a civil war. It was a secessionist war/war of independence. Slavery was ended by the Federal government because it could economically and militarily hurt the South.

The war was most certainly not fought to preserve slavery since the North had no desire to interfere with slavery in the border states or the Deep South.


Why don't you believe the southern states who said they were fighting to preserve slavery?
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Johnny Bear said:

D. C. Bear said:

Fre3dombear said:

ATL Bear said:

Fre3dombear said:

ATL Bear said:

UTExan said:

This thread has quickly evolved to the legitimacy of secession and apparently how those who desire to secede or be separate are somehow traitors despite their beliefs that they stand on principle. If we treated all persons desiring to secede as traitors, then we should have arrested and tried New Englanders during the War of 1812, because their commercial interests with England were threatened and they were prepared to leave the Union and return to England.
The same goes for the Mormons in 1858 who were prepared to wage long term guerilla warfare against the US Army as it entered the Utah territory.
What we really ought to be asking, IMO, is how do we move forward on race and create a truly inclusive society? If we do it by force and arbitrarily favor one group, we will see a backlash against that favoritism. Indeed, our Reconstruction period showed us the foolishness of that as Radical Republicans like Thaddeus Stevens sought to make federal action openly discriminatory and punitive against the south. If we do it by socialization ( our churches, which ought to be leading this are an example ) we can make it work. But false accusations of racism and never holding race grifters to account only breeds resentment from those falsely accused and sets back the work of race reconciliation.
It isn't about secession. It's about the denialism of the primary reason for secession. The attempt to minimize slavery's role in it is comical, and the mental contortions necessary to present it otherwise are bizarre. Slavery was the South's economic interest. Slavery was its "States Right". Slavery was the reason for seceding.


It's amazing some people believe 18 and 19 year old men left their wives, kids, families and homes to die to make sure some nameless black person could be free

And of that were the case, the thanklessness of todays generations for those that died to help those that couldn't help themselves is appalling.

Interesting take on history though but great propaganda for the easily duped
Yes, freedom has never been something that has been fought for throughout history... And preserving a union is so not a faceless endeavor…. Name definitely doesn't check out.


As such the learned individual that you are, I'm sure even you can find her Abe Lincoln's own quote that the civil war was not to free the slaves.

But believe what you want. It used to be a free country. And now thanks to socialist democrats and those easily duped, even a man is a woman

progress, science and stuff


The Civil War was fought to preserve slavery. As a consequence of its outcome, slavery was legally ended in the United States.

Wrong.

From the North's perspective the war was fought to preserve the Union. From the South's perspective it was fought to defend the independence of the new seceded nation they were trying to build. As the war raged, an additional and secondary war goal of Lincoln's and the North ultimately became the abolition of slavery (the Emancipation Proclamation was issued on 1/1/1863 after over a year and a half of bloody fighting), but it was never the main or overriding goal and the notion that the entire thing was ALL about a grand crusade to end slavery is a myth. Granted, it's a popular myth - but still - a myth.

The best long term consequence of the war, however, was that legal slavery ended in our country.


Why don't you believe the southern states who said they were fighting to preserve slavery?
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

Johnny Bear said:

D. C. Bear said:

Fre3dombear said:

ATL Bear said:

Fre3dombear said:

ATL Bear said:

UTExan said:

This thread has quickly evolved to the legitimacy of secession and apparently how those who desire to secede or be separate are somehow traitors despite their beliefs that they stand on principle. If we treated all persons desiring to secede as traitors, then we should have arrested and tried New Englanders during the War of 1812, because their commercial interests with England were threatened and they were prepared to leave the Union and return to England.
The same goes for the Mormons in 1858 who were prepared to wage long term guerilla warfare against the US Army as it entered the Utah territory.
What we really ought to be asking, IMO, is how do we move forward on race and create a truly inclusive society? If we do it by force and arbitrarily favor one group, we will see a backlash against that favoritism. Indeed, our Reconstruction period showed us the foolishness of that as Radical Republicans like Thaddeus Stevens sought to make federal action openly discriminatory and punitive against the south. If we do it by socialization ( our churches, which ought to be leading this are an example ) we can make it work. But false accusations of racism and never holding race grifters to account only breeds resentment from those falsely accused and sets back the work of race reconciliation.
It isn't about secession. It's about the denialism of the primary reason for secession. The attempt to minimize slavery's role in it is comical, and the mental contortions necessary to present it otherwise are bizarre. Slavery was the South's economic interest. Slavery was its "States Right". Slavery was the reason for seceding.


It's amazing some people believe 18 and 19 year old men left their wives, kids, families and homes to die to make sure some nameless black person could be free

And of that were the case, the thanklessness of todays generations for those that died to help those that couldn't help themselves is appalling.

Interesting take on history though but great propaganda for the easily duped
Yes, freedom has never been something that has been fought for throughout history... And preserving a union is so not a faceless endeavor…. Name definitely doesn't check out.


As such the learned individual that you are, I'm sure even you can find her Abe Lincoln's own quote that the civil war was not to free the slaves.

But believe what you want. It used to be a free country. And now thanks to socialist democrats and those easily duped, even a man is a woman

progress, science and stuff


The Civil War was fought to preserve slavery. As a consequence of its outcome, slavery was legally ended in the United States.

Wrong.

From the North's perspective the war was fought to preserve the Union. From the South's perspective it was fought to defend the independence of the new seceded nation they were trying to build. As the war raged, an additional and secondary war goal of Lincoln's and the North ultimately became the abolition of slavery (the Emancipation Proclamation was issued on 1/1/1863 after over a year and a half of bloody fighting), but it was never the main or overriding goal and the notion that the entire thing was ALL about a grand crusade to end slavery is a myth. Granted, it's a popular myth - but still - a myth.

The best long term consequence of the war, however, was that legal slavery ended in our country.


Why don't you believe the southern states who said they were fighting to preserve slavery?


They never said they were fighting a war to preserve slavery (something already protected under U.S.) Federal law.

They said quite clearly they were fighting to break off from the Federal government in DC

And to defend themselves from what they saw as a foreign military invasion.
Fre3dombear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Johnny Bear said:

D. C. Bear said:

Fre3dombear said:

ATL Bear said:

Fre3dombear said:

ATL Bear said:

UTExan said:

This thread has quickly evolved to the legitimacy of secession and apparently how those who desire to secede or be separate are somehow traitors despite their beliefs that they stand on principle. If we treated all persons desiring to secede as traitors, then we should have arrested and tried New Englanders during the War of 1812, because their commercial interests with England were threatened and they were prepared to leave the Union and return to England.
The same goes for the Mormons in 1858 who were prepared to wage long term guerilla warfare against the US Army as it entered the Utah territory.
What we really ought to be asking, IMO, is how do we move forward on race and create a truly inclusive society? If we do it by force and arbitrarily favor one group, we will see a backlash against that favoritism. Indeed, our Reconstruction period showed us the foolishness of that as Radical Republicans like Thaddeus Stevens sought to make federal action openly discriminatory and punitive against the south. If we do it by socialization ( our churches, which ought to be leading this are an example ) we can make it work. But false accusations of racism and never holding race grifters to account only breeds resentment from those falsely accused and sets back the work of race reconciliation.
It isn't about secession. It's about the denialism of the primary reason for secession. The attempt to minimize slavery's role in it is comical, and the mental contortions necessary to present it otherwise are bizarre. Slavery was the South's economic interest. Slavery was its "States Right". Slavery was the reason for seceding.


It's amazing some people believe 18 and 19 year old men left their wives, kids, families and homes to die to make sure some nameless black person could be free

And of that were the case, the thanklessness of todays generations for those that died to help those that couldn't help themselves is appalling.

Interesting take on history though but great propaganda for the easily duped
Yes, freedom has never been something that has been fought for throughout history... And preserving a union is so not a faceless endeavor…. Name definitely doesn't check out.


As such the learned individual that you are, I'm sure even you can find her Abe Lincoln's own quote that the civil war was not to free the slaves.

But believe what you want. It used to be a free country. And now thanks to socialist democrats and those easily duped, even a man is a woman

progress, science and stuff


The Civil War was fought to preserve slavery. As a consequence of its outcome, slavery was legally ended in the United States.

Wrong.

From the North's perspective the war was fought to preserve the Union. From the South's perspective it was fought to defend the independence of the new seceded nation they were trying to build. As the war raged, an additional and secondary war goal of Lincoln's and the North ultimately became the abolition of slavery (the Emancipation Proclamation was issued on 1/1/1863 after over a year and a half of bloody fighting), but it was never the main or overriding goal and the notion that the entire thing was ALL about a grand crusade to end slavery is a myth. Granted, it's a popular myth - but still - a myth.

The best long term consequence of the war, however, was that legal slavery ended in our country.


Exactly. Political footballs existed back then before football even.

Amazing anyone really believes it was whites laying down their lives to save unnamed and unknown blacks who couldn't help themselves

But as we've seen, you can convince people that vote Democrat socialist of a lot of things pretty easily.

One thing they do want to ensure is that if you don't look like them and were against slavery and none of your ancestors had anything to do with slavery and in fact may have even been slaves themselves, you owe the people of today who were never enslaved.

Because…reasons
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

D. C. Bear said:

Johnny Bear said:

D. C. Bear said:

Fre3dombear said:

ATL Bear said:

Fre3dombear said:

ATL Bear said:

UTExan said:

This thread has quickly evolved to the legitimacy of secession and apparently how those who desire to secede or be separate are somehow traitors despite their beliefs that they stand on principle. If we treated all persons desiring to secede as traitors, then we should have arrested and tried New Englanders during the War of 1812, because their commercial interests with England were threatened and they were prepared to leave the Union and return to England.
The same goes for the Mormons in 1858 who were prepared to wage long term guerilla warfare against the US Army as it entered the Utah territory.
What we really ought to be asking, IMO, is how do we move forward on race and create a truly inclusive society? If we do it by force and arbitrarily favor one group, we will see a backlash against that favoritism. Indeed, our Reconstruction period showed us the foolishness of that as Radical Republicans like Thaddeus Stevens sought to make federal action openly discriminatory and punitive against the south. If we do it by socialization ( our churches, which ought to be leading this are an example ) we can make it work. But false accusations of racism and never holding race grifters to account only breeds resentment from those falsely accused and sets back the work of race reconciliation.
It isn't about secession. It's about the denialism of the primary reason for secession. The attempt to minimize slavery's role in it is comical, and the mental contortions necessary to present it otherwise are bizarre. Slavery was the South's economic interest. Slavery was its "States Right". Slavery was the reason for seceding.


It's amazing some people believe 18 and 19 year old men left their wives, kids, families and homes to die to make sure some nameless black person could be free

And of that were the case, the thanklessness of todays generations for those that died to help those that couldn't help themselves is appalling.

Interesting take on history though but great propaganda for the easily duped
Yes, freedom has never been something that has been fought for throughout history... And preserving a union is so not a faceless endeavor…. Name definitely doesn't check out.


As such the learned individual that you are, I'm sure even you can find her Abe Lincoln's own quote that the civil war was not to free the slaves.

But believe what you want. It used to be a free country. And now thanks to socialist democrats and those easily duped, even a man is a woman

progress, science and stuff


The Civil War was fought to preserve slavery. As a consequence of its outcome, slavery was legally ended in the United States.

Wrong.

From the North's perspective the war was fought to preserve the Union. From the South's perspective it was fought to defend the independence of the new seceded nation they were trying to build. As the war raged, an additional and secondary war goal of Lincoln's and the North ultimately became the abolition of slavery (the Emancipation Proclamation was issued on 1/1/1863 after over a year and a half of bloody fighting), but it was never the main or overriding goal and the notion that the entire thing was ALL about a grand crusade to end slavery is a myth. Granted, it's a popular myth - but still - a myth.

The best long term consequence of the war, however, was that legal slavery ended in our country.


Why don't you believe the southern states who said they were fighting to preserve slavery?


They never said they were fighting a war to preserve slavery (something already protected under U.S.) Federal law.

They said quite clearly they were fighting to break off from the Federal government in DC

And to defend themselves from what they saw as a foreign military invasion.


Read the reasons they gave for leaving the union. They left to protect slavery, so they fought to protect slavery and, because they lost, they failed to protect slavery.
Johnny Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

Redbrickbear said:

D. C. Bear said:

Johnny Bear said:

D. C. Bear said:

Fre3dombear said:

ATL Bear said:

Fre3dombear said:

ATL Bear said:

UTExan said:

This thread has quickly evolved to the legitimacy of secession and apparently how those who desire to secede or be separate are somehow traitors despite their beliefs that they stand on principle. If we treated all persons desiring to secede as traitors, then we should have arrested and tried New Englanders during the War of 1812, because their commercial interests with England were threatened and they were prepared to leave the Union and return to England.
The same goes for the Mormons in 1858 who were prepared to wage long term guerilla warfare against the US Army as it entered the Utah territory.
What we really ought to be asking, IMO, is how do we move forward on race and create a truly inclusive society? If we do it by force and arbitrarily favor one group, we will see a backlash against that favoritism. Indeed, our Reconstruction period showed us the foolishness of that as Radical Republicans like Thaddeus Stevens sought to make federal action openly discriminatory and punitive against the south. If we do it by socialization ( our churches, which ought to be leading this are an example ) we can make it work. But false accusations of racism and never holding race grifters to account only breeds resentment from those falsely accused and sets back the work of race reconciliation.
It isn't about secession. It's about the denialism of the primary reason for secession. The attempt to minimize slavery's role in it is comical, and the mental contortions necessary to present it otherwise are bizarre. Slavery was the South's economic interest. Slavery was its "States Right". Slavery was the reason for seceding.


It's amazing some people believe 18 and 19 year old men left their wives, kids, families and homes to die to make sure some nameless black person could be free

And of that were the case, the thanklessness of todays generations for those that died to help those that couldn't help themselves is appalling.

Interesting take on history though but great propaganda for the easily duped
Yes, freedom has never been something that has been fought for throughout history... And preserving a union is so not a faceless endeavor…. Name definitely doesn't check out.


As such the learned individual that you are, I'm sure even you can find her Abe Lincoln's own quote that the civil war was not to free the slaves.

But believe what you want. It used to be a free country. And now thanks to socialist democrats and those easily duped, even a man is a woman

progress, science and stuff


The Civil War was fought to preserve slavery. As a consequence of its outcome, slavery was legally ended in the United States.

Wrong.

From the North's perspective the war was fought to preserve the Union. From the South's perspective it was fought to defend the independence of the new seceded nation they were trying to build. As the war raged, an additional and secondary war goal of Lincoln's and the North ultimately became the abolition of slavery (the Emancipation Proclamation was issued on 1/1/1863 after over a year and a half of bloody fighting), but it was never the main or overriding goal and the notion that the entire thing was ALL about a grand crusade to end slavery is a myth. Granted, it's a popular myth - but still - a myth.

The best long term consequence of the war, however, was that legal slavery ended in our country.


Why don't you believe the southern states who said they were fighting to preserve slavery?


They never said they were fighting a war to preserve slavery (something already protected under U.S.) Federal law.

They said quite clearly they were fighting to break off from the Federal government in DC

And to defend themselves from what they saw as a foreign military invasion.


Read the reasons they gave for leaving the union. They left to protect slavery, so they fought to protect slavery and, because they lost, they failed to protect slavery.

Wrong.

They fought to protect their newly formed country. Yes, legal slavery existed as a part of their way of life, but what was really a fight for states rights was about a lot more than just protecting slavery. They lost the fight and again, the best consequence of that was that slavery ended.
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Johnny Bear said:

D. C. Bear said:

Redbrickbear said:

D. C. Bear said:

Johnny Bear said:

D. C. Bear said:

Fre3dombear said:

ATL Bear said:

Fre3dombear said:

ATL Bear said:

UTExan said:

This thread has quickly evolved to the legitimacy of secession and apparently how those who desire to secede or be separate are somehow traitors despite their beliefs that they stand on principle. If we treated all persons desiring to secede as traitors, then we should have arrested and tried New Englanders during the War of 1812, because their commercial interests with England were threatened and they were prepared to leave the Union and return to England.
The same goes for the Mormons in 1858 who were prepared to wage long term guerilla warfare against the US Army as it entered the Utah territory.
What we really ought to be asking, IMO, is how do we move forward on race and create a truly inclusive society? If we do it by force and arbitrarily favor one group, we will see a backlash against that favoritism. Indeed, our Reconstruction period showed us the foolishness of that as Radical Republicans like Thaddeus Stevens sought to make federal action openly discriminatory and punitive against the south. If we do it by socialization ( our churches, which ought to be leading this are an example ) we can make it work. But false accusations of racism and never holding race grifters to account only breeds resentment from those falsely accused and sets back the work of race reconciliation.
It isn't about secession. It's about the denialism of the primary reason for secession. The attempt to minimize slavery's role in it is comical, and the mental contortions necessary to present it otherwise are bizarre. Slavery was the South's economic interest. Slavery was its "States Right". Slavery was the reason for seceding.


It's amazing some people believe 18 and 19 year old men left their wives, kids, families and homes to die to make sure some nameless black person could be free

And of that were the case, the thanklessness of todays generations for those that died to help those that couldn't help themselves is appalling.

Interesting take on history though but great propaganda for the easily duped
Yes, freedom has never been something that has been fought for throughout history... And preserving a union is so not a faceless endeavor…. Name definitely doesn't check out.


As such the learned individual that you are, I'm sure even you can find her Abe Lincoln's own quote that the civil war was not to free the slaves.

But believe what you want. It used to be a free country. And now thanks to socialist democrats and those easily duped, even a man is a woman

progress, science and stuff


The Civil War was fought to preserve slavery. As a consequence of its outcome, slavery was legally ended in the United States.

Wrong.

From the North's perspective the war was fought to preserve the Union. From the South's perspective it was fought to defend the independence of the new seceded nation they were trying to build. As the war raged, an additional and secondary war goal of Lincoln's and the North ultimately became the abolition of slavery (the Emancipation Proclamation was issued on 1/1/1863 after over a year and a half of bloody fighting), but it was never the main or overriding goal and the notion that the entire thing was ALL about a grand crusade to end slavery is a myth. Granted, it's a popular myth - but still - a myth.

The best long term consequence of the war, however, was that legal slavery ended in our country.


Why don't you believe the southern states who said they were fighting to preserve slavery?


They never said they were fighting a war to preserve slavery (something already protected under U.S.) Federal law.

They said quite clearly they were fighting to break off from the Federal government in DC

And to defend themselves from what they saw as a foreign military invasion.


Read the reasons they gave for leaving the union. They left to protect slavery, so they fought to protect slavery and, because they lost, they failed to protect slavery.

Wrong.

They fought to protect their newly formed country. Yes, legal slavery existed as a part of their way of life, but what was really a fight for states rights was about a lot more than just protecting slavery. They lost the fight and again, the best consequence of that was that slavery ended.

A country they tried to form to protect slavery.
Without slavery, they would not have left.
Oso del lago
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DC bear. Figures
cowboycwr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

D. C. Bear said:

Johnny Bear said:

D. C. Bear said:

Fre3dombear said:

ATL Bear said:

Fre3dombear said:

ATL Bear said:

UTExan said:

This thread has quickly evolved to the legitimacy of secession and apparently how those who desire to secede or be separate are somehow traitors despite their beliefs that they stand on principle. If we treated all persons desiring to secede as traitors, then we should have arrested and tried New Englanders during the War of 1812, because their commercial interests with England were threatened and they were prepared to leave the Union and return to England.
The same goes for the Mormons in 1858 who were prepared to wage long term guerilla warfare against the US Army as it entered the Utah territory.
What we really ought to be asking, IMO, is how do we move forward on race and create a truly inclusive society? If we do it by force and arbitrarily favor one group, we will see a backlash against that favoritism. Indeed, our Reconstruction period showed us the foolishness of that as Radical Republicans like Thaddeus Stevens sought to make federal action openly discriminatory and punitive against the south. If we do it by socialization ( our churches, which ought to be leading this are an example ) we can make it work. But false accusations of racism and never holding race grifters to account only breeds resentment from those falsely accused and sets back the work of race reconciliation.
It isn't about secession. It's about the denialism of the primary reason for secession. The attempt to minimize slavery's role in it is comical, and the mental contortions necessary to present it otherwise are bizarre. Slavery was the South's economic interest. Slavery was its "States Right". Slavery was the reason for seceding.


It's amazing some people believe 18 and 19 year old men left their wives, kids, families and homes to die to make sure some nameless black person could be free

And of that were the case, the thanklessness of todays generations for those that died to help those that couldn't help themselves is appalling.

Interesting take on history though but great propaganda for the easily duped
Yes, freedom has never been something that has been fought for throughout history... And preserving a union is so not a faceless endeavor…. Name definitely doesn't check out.


As such the learned individual that you are, I'm sure even you can find her Abe Lincoln's own quote that the civil war was not to free the slaves.

But believe what you want. It used to be a free country. And now thanks to socialist democrats and those easily duped, even a man is a woman

progress, science and stuff


The Civil War was fought to preserve slavery. As a consequence of its outcome, slavery was legally ended in the United States.

Wrong.

From the North's perspective the war was fought to preserve the Union. From the South's perspective it was fought to defend the independence of the new seceded nation they were trying to build. As the war raged, an additional and secondary war goal of Lincoln's and the North ultimately became the abolition of slavery (the Emancipation Proclamation was issued on 1/1/1863 after over a year and a half of bloody fighting), but it was never the main or overriding goal and the notion that the entire thing was ALL about a grand crusade to end slavery is a myth. Granted, it's a popular myth - but still - a myth.

The best long term consequence of the war, however, was that legal slavery ended in our country.


Why don't you believe the southern states who said they were fighting to preserve slavery?


They never said they were fighting a war to preserve slavery (something already protected under U.S.) Federal law.

They said quite clearly they were fighting to break off from the Federal government in DC

And to defend themselves from what they saw as a foreign military invasion.


Yes they did. All of them mention slavery in their secession statements. Multiple times.
cowboycwr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Johnny Bear said:

D. C. Bear said:

Redbrickbear said:

D. C. Bear said:

Johnny Bear said:

D. C. Bear said:

Fre3dombear said:

ATL Bear said:

Fre3dombear said:

ATL Bear said:

UTExan said:

This thread has quickly evolved to the legitimacy of secession and apparently how those who desire to secede or be separate are somehow traitors despite their beliefs that they stand on principle. If we treated all persons desiring to secede as traitors, then we should have arrested and tried New Englanders during the War of 1812, because their commercial interests with England were threatened and they were prepared to leave the Union and return to England.
The same goes for the Mormons in 1858 who were prepared to wage long term guerilla warfare against the US Army as it entered the Utah territory.
What we really ought to be asking, IMO, is how do we move forward on race and create a truly inclusive society? If we do it by force and arbitrarily favor one group, we will see a backlash against that favoritism. Indeed, our Reconstruction period showed us the foolishness of that as Radical Republicans like Thaddeus Stevens sought to make federal action openly discriminatory and punitive against the south. If we do it by socialization ( our churches, which ought to be leading this are an example ) we can make it work. But false accusations of racism and never holding race grifters to account only breeds resentment from those falsely accused and sets back the work of race reconciliation.
It isn't about secession. It's about the denialism of the primary reason for secession. The attempt to minimize slavery's role in it is comical, and the mental contortions necessary to present it otherwise are bizarre. Slavery was the South's economic interest. Slavery was its "States Right". Slavery was the reason for seceding.


It's amazing some people believe 18 and 19 year old men left their wives, kids, families and homes to die to make sure some nameless black person could be free

And of that were the case, the thanklessness of todays generations for those that died to help those that couldn't help themselves is appalling.

Interesting take on history though but great propaganda for the easily duped
Yes, freedom has never been something that has been fought for throughout history... And preserving a union is so not a faceless endeavor…. Name definitely doesn't check out.


As such the learned individual that you are, I'm sure even you can find her Abe Lincoln's own quote that the civil war was not to free the slaves.

But believe what you want. It used to be a free country. And now thanks to socialist democrats and those easily duped, even a man is a woman

progress, science and stuff


The Civil War was fought to preserve slavery. As a consequence of its outcome, slavery was legally ended in the United States.

Wrong.

From the North's perspective the war was fought to preserve the Union. From the South's perspective it was fought to defend the independence of the new seceded nation they were trying to build. As the war raged, an additional and secondary war goal of Lincoln's and the North ultimately became the abolition of slavery (the Emancipation Proclamation was issued on 1/1/1863 after over a year and a half of bloody fighting), but it was never the main or overriding goal and the notion that the entire thing was ALL about a grand crusade to end slavery is a myth. Granted, it's a popular myth - but still - a myth.

The best long term consequence of the war, however, was that legal slavery ended in our country.


Why don't you believe the southern states who said they were fighting to preserve slavery?


They never said they were fighting a war to preserve slavery (something already protected under U.S.) Federal law.

They said quite clearly they were fighting to break off from the Federal government in DC

And to defend themselves from what they saw as a foreign military invasion.


Read the reasons they gave for leaving the union. They left to protect slavery, so they fought to protect slavery and, because they lost, they failed to protect slavery.

Wrong.

They fought to protect their newly formed country. Yes, legal slavery existed as a part of their way of life, but what was really a fight for states rights was about a lot more than just protecting slavery. They lost the fight and again, the best consequence of that was that slavery ended.


Wrong. Read their secession declarations. Protecting slavery is why they did it.
Johnny Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cowboycwr said:

Johnny Bear said:

D. C. Bear said:

Redbrickbear said:

D. C. Bear said:

Johnny Bear said:

D. C. Bear said:

Fre3dombear said:

ATL Bear said:

Fre3dombear said:

ATL Bear said:

UTExan said:

This thread has quickly evolved to the legitimacy of secession and apparently how those who desire to secede or be separate are somehow traitors despite their beliefs that they stand on principle. If we treated all persons desiring to secede as traitors, then we should have arrested and tried New Englanders during the War of 1812, because their commercial interests with England were threatened and they were prepared to leave the Union and return to England.
The same goes for the Mormons in 1858 who were prepared to wage long term guerilla warfare against the US Army as it entered the Utah territory.
What we really ought to be asking, IMO, is how do we move forward on race and create a truly inclusive society? If we do it by force and arbitrarily favor one group, we will see a backlash against that favoritism. Indeed, our Reconstruction period showed us the foolishness of that as Radical Republicans like Thaddeus Stevens sought to make federal action openly discriminatory and punitive against the south. If we do it by socialization ( our churches, which ought to be leading this are an example ) we can make it work. But false accusations of racism and never holding race grifters to account only breeds resentment from those falsely accused and sets back the work of race reconciliation.
It isn't about secession. It's about the denialism of the primary reason for secession. The attempt to minimize slavery's role in it is comical, and the mental contortions necessary to present it otherwise are bizarre. Slavery was the South's economic interest. Slavery was its "States Right". Slavery was the reason for seceding.


It's amazing some people believe 18 and 19 year old men left their wives, kids, families and homes to die to make sure some nameless black person could be free

And of that were the case, the thanklessness of todays generations for those that died to help those that couldn't help themselves is appalling.

Interesting take on history though but great propaganda for the easily duped
Yes, freedom has never been something that has been fought for throughout history... And preserving a union is so not a faceless endeavor…. Name definitely doesn't check out.


As such the learned individual that you are, I'm sure even you can find her Abe Lincoln's own quote that the civil war was not to free the slaves.

But believe what you want. It used to be a free country. And now thanks to socialist democrats and those easily duped, even a man is a woman

progress, science and stuff


The Civil War was fought to preserve slavery. As a consequence of its outcome, slavery was legally ended in the United States.

Wrong.

From the North's perspective the war was fought to preserve the Union. From the South's perspective it was fought to defend the independence of the new seceded nation they were trying to build. As the war raged, an additional and secondary war goal of Lincoln's and the North ultimately became the abolition of slavery (the Emancipation Proclamation was issued on 1/1/1863 after over a year and a half of bloody fighting), but it was never the main or overriding goal and the notion that the entire thing was ALL about a grand crusade to end slavery is a myth. Granted, it's a popular myth - but still - a myth.

The best long term consequence of the war, however, was that legal slavery ended in our country.


Why don't you believe the southern states who said they were fighting to preserve slavery?


They never said they were fighting a war to preserve slavery (something already protected under U.S.) Federal law.

They said quite clearly they were fighting to break off from the Federal government in DC

And to defend themselves from what they saw as a foreign military invasion.


Read the reasons they gave for leaving the union. They left to protect slavery, so they fought to protect slavery and, because they lost, they failed to protect slavery.

Wrong.

They fought to protect their newly formed country. Yes, legal slavery existed as a part of their way of life, but what was really a fight for states rights was about a lot more than just protecting slavery. They lost the fight and again, the best consequence of that was that slavery ended.


Wrong. Read their secession declarations. Protecting slavery is why they did it.

The vast majority of the boys, teenagers, and men who fought for the Confederacy didn't own slaves and were never going to own slaves. Does it make sense that all of these men would've suffered, starved, bled and died the way they did so some rich guy who lived 50 miles away that they didn't run in the same circles with could continue to own slaves? Granted, I'm sure they were fine with slavery continuing, but it's nonsensical to think that they would've willingly gone through what they went through simply to preserve slavery. They were mainly fighting to defend their homes, their states, and the new country they were trying to establish.
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Johnny Bear said:

cowboycwr said:

Johnny Bear said:

D. C. Bear said:

Redbrickbear said:

D. C. Bear said:

Johnny Bear said:

D. C. Bear said:

Fre3dombear said:

ATL Bear said:

Fre3dombear said:

ATL Bear said:

UTExan said:

This thread has quickly evolved to the legitimacy of secession and apparently how those who desire to secede or be separate are somehow traitors despite their beliefs that they stand on principle. If we treated all persons desiring to secede as traitors, then we should have arrested and tried New Englanders during the War of 1812, because their commercial interests with England were threatened and they were prepared to leave the Union and return to England.
The same goes for the Mormons in 1858 who were prepared to wage long term guerilla warfare against the US Army as it entered the Utah territory.
What we really ought to be asking, IMO, is how do we move forward on race and create a truly inclusive society? If we do it by force and arbitrarily favor one group, we will see a backlash against that favoritism. Indeed, our Reconstruction period showed us the foolishness of that as Radical Republicans like Thaddeus Stevens sought to make federal action openly discriminatory and punitive against the south. If we do it by socialization ( our churches, which ought to be leading this are an example ) we can make it work. But false accusations of racism and never holding race grifters to account only breeds resentment from those falsely accused and sets back the work of race reconciliation.
It isn't about secession. It's about the denialism of the primary reason for secession. The attempt to minimize slavery's role in it is comical, and the mental contortions necessary to present it otherwise are bizarre. Slavery was the South's economic interest. Slavery was its "States Right". Slavery was the reason for seceding.


It's amazing some people believe 18 and 19 year old men left their wives, kids, families and homes to die to make sure some nameless black person could be free

And of that were the case, the thanklessness of todays generations for those that died to help those that couldn't help themselves is appalling.

Interesting take on history though but great propaganda for the easily duped
Yes, freedom has never been something that has been fought for throughout history... And preserving a union is so not a faceless endeavor…. Name definitely doesn't check out.


As such the learned individual that you are, I'm sure even you can find her Abe Lincoln's own quote that the civil war was not to free the slaves.

But believe what you want. It used to be a free country. And now thanks to socialist democrats and those easily duped, even a man is a woman

progress, science and stuff


The Civil War was fought to preserve slavery. As a consequence of its outcome, slavery was legally ended in the United States.

Wrong.

From the North's perspective the war was fought to preserve the Union. From the South's perspective it was fought to defend the independence of the new seceded nation they were trying to build. As the war raged, an additional and secondary war goal of Lincoln's and the North ultimately became the abolition of slavery (the Emancipation Proclamation was issued on 1/1/1863 after over a year and a half of bloody fighting), but it was never the main or overriding goal and the notion that the entire thing was ALL about a grand crusade to end slavery is a myth. Granted, it's a popular myth - but still - a myth.

The best long term consequence of the war, however, was that legal slavery ended in our country.


Why don't you believe the southern states who said they were fighting to preserve slavery?


They never said they were fighting a war to preserve slavery (something already protected under U.S.) Federal law.

They said quite clearly they were fighting to break off from the Federal government in DC

And to defend themselves from what they saw as a foreign military invasion.


Read the reasons they gave for leaving the union. They left to protect slavery, so they fought to protect slavery and, because they lost, they failed to protect slavery.

Wrong.

They fought to protect their newly formed country. Yes, legal slavery existed as a part of their way of life, but what was really a fight for states rights was about a lot more than just protecting slavery. They lost the fight and again, the best consequence of that was that slavery ended.


Wrong. Read their secession declarations. Protecting slavery is why they did it.

The vast majority of the boys, teenagers, and men who fought for the Confederacy didn't own slaves and were never going to own slaves. Does it make sense that all of these men would've suffered, starved, bled and died the way they did so some rich guy who lived 50 miles away that they didn't run in the same circles with could continue to own slaves? Granted, I'm sure they were fine with slavery continuing, but it's nonsensical to think that they would've willingly gone through what they went through simply to preserve slavery.



The semi famous comment by a captured southern soldier ….

' Why are you fighting us ? ' asked the young Union captain . 'To keep your slaves ? '

' Don't care about darkies one way or the other . ' replied the ragged, hollowed eyed prisoner . '

' I'm fighting you because you are HERE. '


D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Johnny Bear said:

cowboycwr said:

Johnny Bear said:

D. C. Bear said:

Redbrickbear said:

D. C. Bear said:

Johnny Bear said:

D. C. Bear said:

Fre3dombear said:

ATL Bear said:

Fre3dombear said:

ATL Bear said:

UTExan said:

This thread has quickly evolved to the legitimacy of secession and apparently how those who desire to secede or be separate are somehow traitors despite their beliefs that they stand on principle. If we treated all persons desiring to secede as traitors, then we should have arrested and tried New Englanders during the War of 1812, because their commercial interests with England were threatened and they were prepared to leave the Union and return to England.
The same goes for the Mormons in 1858 who were prepared to wage long term guerilla warfare against the US Army as it entered the Utah territory.
What we really ought to be asking, IMO, is how do we move forward on race and create a truly inclusive society? If we do it by force and arbitrarily favor one group, we will see a backlash against that favoritism. Indeed, our Reconstruction period showed us the foolishness of that as Radical Republicans like Thaddeus Stevens sought to make federal action openly discriminatory and punitive against the south. If we do it by socialization ( our churches, which ought to be leading this are an example ) we can make it work. But false accusations of racism and never holding race grifters to account only breeds resentment from those falsely accused and sets back the work of race reconciliation.
It isn't about secession. It's about the denialism of the primary reason for secession. The attempt to minimize slavery's role in it is comical, and the mental contortions necessary to present it otherwise are bizarre. Slavery was the South's economic interest. Slavery was its "States Right". Slavery was the reason for seceding.


It's amazing some people believe 18 and 19 year old men left their wives, kids, families and homes to die to make sure some nameless black person could be free

And of that were the case, the thanklessness of todays generations for those that died to help those that couldn't help themselves is appalling.

Interesting take on history though but great propaganda for the easily duped
Yes, freedom has never been something that has been fought for throughout history... And preserving a union is so not a faceless endeavor…. Name definitely doesn't check out.


As such the learned individual that you are, I'm sure even you can find her Abe Lincoln's own quote that the civil war was not to free the slaves.

But believe what you want. It used to be a free country. And now thanks to socialist democrats and those easily duped, even a man is a woman

progress, science and stuff


The Civil War was fought to preserve slavery. As a consequence of its outcome, slavery was legally ended in the United States.

Wrong.

From the North's perspective the war was fought to preserve the Union. From the South's perspective it was fought to defend the independence of the new seceded nation they were trying to build. As the war raged, an additional and secondary war goal of Lincoln's and the North ultimately became the abolition of slavery (the Emancipation Proclamation was issued on 1/1/1863 after over a year and a half of bloody fighting), but it was never the main or overriding goal and the notion that the entire thing was ALL about a grand crusade to end slavery is a myth. Granted, it's a popular myth - but still - a myth.

The best long term consequence of the war, however, was that legal slavery ended in our country.


Why don't you believe the southern states who said they were fighting to preserve slavery?


They never said they were fighting a war to preserve slavery (something already protected under U.S.) Federal law.

They said quite clearly they were fighting to break off from the Federal government in DC

And to defend themselves from what they saw as a foreign military invasion.


Read the reasons they gave for leaving the union. They left to protect slavery, so they fought to protect slavery and, because they lost, they failed to protect slavery.

Wrong.

They fought to protect their newly formed country. Yes, legal slavery existed as a part of their way of life, but what was really a fight for states rights was about a lot more than just protecting slavery. They lost the fight and again, the best consequence of that was that slavery ended.


Wrong. Read their secession declarations. Protecting slavery is why they did it.

The vast majority of the boys, teenagers, and men who fought for the Confederacy didn't own slaves and were never going to own slaves. Does it make sense that all of these men would've suffered, starved, bled and died the way they did so some rich guy who lived 50 miles away that they didn't run in the same circles with could continue to own slaves? Granted, I'm sure they were fine with slavery continuing, but it's nonsensical to think that they would've willingly gone through what they went through simply to preserve slavery. They were mainly fighting to defend their homes, their states, and the new country they were trying to establish.


The vast majority of the boys, teenagers, and men who fought for the Confederacy didn't have a voice in the decision to leave the union so as to protect slavery. Foot soldiers don't get to make those decisions. Those who want to decide otherwise and not fight are occasionally murdered for their trouble.
cowboycwr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Johnny Bear said:

cowboycwr said:

Johnny Bear said:

D. C. Bear said:

Redbrickbear said:

D. C. Bear said:

Johnny Bear said:

D. C. Bear said:

Fre3dombear said:

ATL Bear said:

Fre3dombear said:

ATL Bear said:

UTExan said:

This thread has quickly evolved to the legitimacy of secession and apparently how those who desire to secede or be separate are somehow traitors despite their beliefs that they stand on principle. If we treated all persons desiring to secede as traitors, then we should have arrested and tried New Englanders during the War of 1812, because their commercial interests with England were threatened and they were prepared to leave the Union and return to England.
The same goes for the Mormons in 1858 who were prepared to wage long term guerilla warfare against the US Army as it entered the Utah territory.
What we really ought to be asking, IMO, is how do we move forward on race and create a truly inclusive society? If we do it by force and arbitrarily favor one group, we will see a backlash against that favoritism. Indeed, our Reconstruction period showed us the foolishness of that as Radical Republicans like Thaddeus Stevens sought to make federal action openly discriminatory and punitive against the south. If we do it by socialization ( our churches, which ought to be leading this are an example ) we can make it work. But false accusations of racism and never holding race grifters to account only breeds resentment from those falsely accused and sets back the work of race reconciliation.
It isn't about secession. It's about the denialism of the primary reason for secession. The attempt to minimize slavery's role in it is comical, and the mental contortions necessary to present it otherwise are bizarre. Slavery was the South's economic interest. Slavery was its "States Right". Slavery was the reason for seceding.


It's amazing some people believe 18 and 19 year old men left their wives, kids, families and homes to die to make sure some nameless black person could be free

And of that were the case, the thanklessness of todays generations for those that died to help those that couldn't help themselves is appalling.

Interesting take on history though but great propaganda for the easily duped
Yes, freedom has never been something that has been fought for throughout history... And preserving a union is so not a faceless endeavor…. Name definitely doesn't check out.


As such the learned individual that you are, I'm sure even you can find her Abe Lincoln's own quote that the civil war was not to free the slaves.

But believe what you want. It used to be a free country. And now thanks to socialist democrats and those easily duped, even a man is a woman

progress, science and stuff


The Civil War was fought to preserve slavery. As a consequence of its outcome, slavery was legally ended in the United States.

Wrong.

From the North's perspective the war was fought to preserve the Union. From the South's perspective it was fought to defend the independence of the new seceded nation they were trying to build. As the war raged, an additional and secondary war goal of Lincoln's and the North ultimately became the abolition of slavery (the Emancipation Proclamation was issued on 1/1/1863 after over a year and a half of bloody fighting), but it was never the main or overriding goal and the notion that the entire thing was ALL about a grand crusade to end slavery is a myth. Granted, it's a popular myth - but still - a myth.

The best long term consequence of the war, however, was that legal slavery ended in our country.


Why don't you believe the southern states who said they were fighting to preserve slavery?


They never said they were fighting a war to preserve slavery (something already protected under U.S.) Federal law.

They said quite clearly they were fighting to break off from the Federal government in DC

And to defend themselves from what they saw as a foreign military invasion.


Read the reasons they gave for leaving the union. They left to protect slavery, so they fought to protect slavery and, because they lost, they failed to protect slavery.

Wrong.

They fought to protect their newly formed country. Yes, legal slavery existed as a part of their way of life, but what was really a fight for states rights was about a lot more than just protecting slavery. They lost the fight and again, the best consequence of that was that slavery ended.


Wrong. Read their secession declarations. Protecting slavery is why they did it.

The vast majority of the boys, teenagers, and men who fought for the Confederacy didn't own slaves and were never going to own slaves. Does it make sense that all of these men would've suffered, starved, bled and died the way they did so some rich guy who lived 50 miles away that they didn't run in the same circles with could continue to own slaves? Granted, I'm sure they were fine with slavery continuing, but it's nonsensical to think that they would've willingly gone through what they went through simply to preserve slavery. They were mainly fighting to defend their homes, their states, and the new country they were trying to establish.
LOL.

They fought because they were lied to, drafted, forced to go fight and told it was all about "states rights" and this new (illegal) country they tried to start.
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cowboycwr said:

Johnny Bear said:

cowboycwr said:

Johnny Bear said:

D. C. Bear said:

Redbrickbear said:

D. C. Bear said:

Johnny Bear said:

D. C. Bear said:

Fre3dombear said:

ATL Bear said:

Fre3dombear said:

ATL Bear said:

UTExan said:

This thread has quickly evolved to the legitimacy of secession and apparently how those who desire to secede or be separate are somehow traitors despite their beliefs that they stand on principle. If we treated all persons desiring to secede as traitors, then we should have arrested and tried New Englanders during the War of 1812, because their commercial interests with England were threatened and they were prepared to leave the Union and return to England.
The same goes for the Mormons in 1858 who were prepared to wage long term guerilla warfare against the US Army as it entered the Utah territory.
What we really ought to be asking, IMO, is how do we move forward on race and create a truly inclusive society? If we do it by force and arbitrarily favor one group, we will see a backlash against that favoritism. Indeed, our Reconstruction period showed us the foolishness of that as Radical Republicans like Thaddeus Stevens sought to make federal action openly discriminatory and punitive against the south. If we do it by socialization ( our churches, which ought to be leading this are an example ) we can make it work. But false accusations of racism and never holding race grifters to account only breeds resentment from those falsely accused and sets back the work of race reconciliation.
It isn't about secession. It's about the denialism of the primary reason for secession. The attempt to minimize slavery's role in it is comical, and the mental contortions necessary to present it otherwise are bizarre. Slavery was the South's economic interest. Slavery was its "States Right". Slavery was the reason for seceding.


It's amazing some people believe 18 and 19 year old men left their wives, kids, families and homes to die to make sure some nameless black person could be free

And of that were the case, the thanklessness of todays generations for those that died to help those that couldn't help themselves is appalling.

Interesting take on history though but great propaganda for the easily duped
Yes, freedom has never been something that has been fought for throughout history... And preserving a union is so not a faceless endeavor…. Name definitely doesn't check out.


As such the learned individual that you are, I'm sure even you can find her Abe Lincoln's own quote that the civil war was not to free the slaves.

But believe what you want. It used to be a free country. And now thanks to socialist democrats and those easily duped, even a man is a woman

progress, science and stuff


The Civil War was fought to preserve slavery. As a consequence of its outcome, slavery was legally ended in the United States.

Wrong.

From the North's perspective the war was fought to preserve the Union. From the South's perspective it was fought to defend the independence of the new seceded nation they were trying to build. As the war raged, an additional and secondary war goal of Lincoln's and the North ultimately became the abolition of slavery (the Emancipation Proclamation was issued on 1/1/1863 after over a year and a half of bloody fighting), but it was never the main or overriding goal and the notion that the entire thing was ALL about a grand crusade to end slavery is a myth. Granted, it's a popular myth - but still - a myth.

The best long term consequence of the war, however, was that legal slavery ended in our country.


Why don't you believe the southern states who said they were fighting to preserve slavery?


They never said they were fighting a war to preserve slavery (something already protected under U.S.) Federal law.

They said quite clearly they were fighting to break off from the Federal government in DC

And to defend themselves from what they saw as a foreign military invasion.


Read the reasons they gave for leaving the union. They left to protect slavery, so they fought to protect slavery and, because they lost, they failed to protect slavery.

Wrong.

They fought to protect their newly formed country. Yes, legal slavery existed as a part of their way of life, but what was really a fight for states rights was about a lot more than just protecting slavery. They lost the fight and again, the best consequence of that was that slavery ended.


Wrong. Read their secession declarations. Protecting slavery is why they did it.

The vast majority of the boys, teenagers, and men who fought for the Confederacy didn't own slaves and were never going to own slaves. Does it make sense that all of these men would've suffered, starved, bled and died the way they did so some rich guy who lived 50 miles away that they didn't run in the same circles with could continue to own slaves? Granted, I'm sure they were fine with slavery continuing, but it's nonsensical to think that they would've willingly gone through what they went through simply to preserve slavery. They were mainly fighting to defend their homes, their states, and the new country they were trying to establish.
LOL.

They fought because they were lied to, drafted, forced to go fight and told it was all about "states rights" and this new (illegal) country they tried to start.


In the later part of the war both sides resorted to the draft ….with disastrous consequences for each .

However at the beginning of the war southern men overwhelmingly , enthusiastically volunteered for combat .

In the north however wealthy men were allowed to ' hire a replacement' to avoid military service.

Thousands did .

Including the father of future president Theodore Roosevelt.
To his everlasting shame .
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canada2017 said:

cowboycwr said:

Johnny Bear said:

cowboycwr said:

Johnny Bear said:

D. C. Bear said:

Redbrickbear said:

D. C. Bear said:

Johnny Bear said:

D. C. Bear said:

Fre3dombear said:

ATL Bear said:

Fre3dombear said:

ATL Bear said:

UTExan said:

This thread has quickly evolved to the legitimacy of secession and apparently how those who desire to secede or be separate are somehow traitors despite their beliefs that they stand on principle. If we treated all persons desiring to secede as traitors, then we should have arrested and tried New Englanders during the War of 1812, because their commercial interests with England were threatened and they were prepared to leave the Union and return to England.
The same goes for the Mormons in 1858 who were prepared to wage long term guerilla warfare against the US Army as it entered the Utah territory.
What we really ought to be asking, IMO, is how do we move forward on race and create a truly inclusive society? If we do it by force and arbitrarily favor one group, we will see a backlash against that favoritism. Indeed, our Reconstruction period showed us the foolishness of that as Radical Republicans like Thaddeus Stevens sought to make federal action openly discriminatory and punitive against the south. If we do it by socialization ( our churches, which ought to be leading this are an example ) we can make it work. But false accusations of racism and never holding race grifters to account only breeds resentment from those falsely accused and sets back the work of race reconciliation.
It isn't about secession. It's about the denialism of the primary reason for secession. The attempt to minimize slavery's role in it is comical, and the mental contortions necessary to present it otherwise are bizarre. Slavery was the South's economic interest. Slavery was its "States Right". Slavery was the reason for seceding.


It's amazing some people believe 18 and 19 year old men left their wives, kids, families and homes to die to make sure some nameless black person could be free

And of that were the case, the thanklessness of todays generations for those that died to help those that couldn't help themselves is appalling.

Interesting take on history though but great propaganda for the easily duped
Yes, freedom has never been something that has been fought for throughout history... And preserving a union is so not a faceless endeavor…. Name definitely doesn't check out.


As such the learned individual that you are, I'm sure even you can find her Abe Lincoln's own quote that the civil war was not to free the slaves.

But believe what you want. It used to be a free country. And now thanks to socialist democrats and those easily duped, even a man is a woman

progress, science and stuff


The Civil War was fought to preserve slavery. As a consequence of its outcome, slavery was legally ended in the United States.

Wrong.

From the North's perspective the war was fought to preserve the Union. From the South's perspective it was fought to defend the independence of the new seceded nation they were trying to build. As the war raged, an additional and secondary war goal of Lincoln's and the North ultimately became the abolition of slavery (the Emancipation Proclamation was issued on 1/1/1863 after over a year and a half of bloody fighting), but it was never the main or overriding goal and the notion that the entire thing was ALL about a grand crusade to end slavery is a myth. Granted, it's a popular myth - but still - a myth.

The best long term consequence of the war, however, was that legal slavery ended in our country.


Why don't you believe the southern states who said they were fighting to preserve slavery?


They never said they were fighting a war to preserve slavery (something already protected under U.S.) Federal law.

They said quite clearly they were fighting to break off from the Federal government in DC

And to defend themselves from what they saw as a foreign military invasion.


Read the reasons they gave for leaving the union. They left to protect slavery, so they fought to protect slavery and, because they lost, they failed to protect slavery.

Wrong.

They fought to protect their newly formed country. Yes, legal slavery existed as a part of their way of life, but what was really a fight for states rights was about a lot more than just protecting slavery. They lost the fight and again, the best consequence of that was that slavery ended.


Wrong. Read their secession declarations. Protecting slavery is why they did it.

The vast majority of the boys, teenagers, and men who fought for the Confederacy didn't own slaves and were never going to own slaves. Does it make sense that all of these men would've suffered, starved, bled and died the way they did so some rich guy who lived 50 miles away that they didn't run in the same circles with could continue to own slaves? Granted, I'm sure they were fine with slavery continuing, but it's nonsensical to think that they would've willingly gone through what they went through simply to preserve slavery. They were mainly fighting to defend their homes, their states, and the new country they were trying to establish.
LOL.

They fought because they were lied to, drafted, forced to go fight and told it was all about "states rights" and this new (illegal) country they tried to start.


In the later part of the war both sides resorted to the draft ….with disastrous consequences for each .

However at the beginning of the war southern men overwhelmingly , enthusiastically volunteered for combat .

In the north however wealthy men were allowed to ' hire a replacement' to avoid military service.

Thousands did .

Including the father of future president Theodore Roosevelt.
To his everlasting shame .
Whether people were drafted or went willingly (or were murdered for declining to betray the United States as happened to a few Texans), the war was still fought in a fruitless attempt to preserve slavery. Southerners could also buy their way out of the draft.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cowboycwr said:

Johnny Bear said:

cowboycwr said:

Johnny Bear said:

D. C. Bear said:

Redbrickbear said:

D. C. Bear said:

Johnny Bear said:

D. C. Bear said:

Fre3dombear said:

ATL Bear said:

Fre3dombear said:

ATL Bear said:

UTExan said:

This thread has quickly evolved to the legitimacy of secession and apparently how those who desire to secede or be separate are somehow traitors despite their beliefs that they stand on principle. If we treated all persons desiring to secede as traitors, then we should have arrested and tried New Englanders during the War of 1812, because their commercial interests with England were threatened and they were prepared to leave the Union and return to England.
The same goes for the Mormons in 1858 who were prepared to wage long term guerilla warfare against the US Army as it entered the Utah territory.
What we really ought to be asking, IMO, is how do we move forward on race and create a truly inclusive society? If we do it by force and arbitrarily favor one group, we will see a backlash against that favoritism. Indeed, our Reconstruction period showed us the foolishness of that as Radical Republicans like Thaddeus Stevens sought to make federal action openly discriminatory and punitive against the south. If we do it by socialization ( our churches, which ought to be leading this are an example ) we can make it work. But false accusations of racism and never holding race grifters to account only breeds resentment from those falsely accused and sets back the work of race reconciliation.
It isn't about secession. It's about the denialism of the primary reason for secession. The attempt to minimize slavery's role in it is comical, and the mental contortions necessary to present it otherwise are bizarre. Slavery was the South's economic interest. Slavery was its "States Right". Slavery was the reason for seceding.


It's amazing some people believe 18 and 19 year old men left their wives, kids, families and homes to die to make sure some nameless black person could be free

And of that were the case, the thanklessness of todays generations for those that died to help those that couldn't help themselves is appalling.

Interesting take on history though but great propaganda for the easily duped
Yes, freedom has never been something that has been fought for throughout history... And preserving a union is so not a faceless endeavor…. Name definitely doesn't check out.


As such the learned individual that you are, I'm sure even you can find her Abe Lincoln's own quote that the civil war was not to free the slaves.

But believe what you want. It used to be a free country. And now thanks to socialist democrats and those easily duped, even a man is a woman

progress, science and stuff


The Civil War was fought to preserve slavery. As a consequence of its outcome, slavery was legally ended in the United States.

Wrong.

From the North's perspective the war was fought to preserve the Union. From the South's perspective it was fought to defend the independence of the new seceded nation they were trying to build. As the war raged, an additional and secondary war goal of Lincoln's and the North ultimately became the abolition of slavery (the Emancipation Proclamation was issued on 1/1/1863 after over a year and a half of bloody fighting), but it was never the main or overriding goal and the notion that the entire thing was ALL about a grand crusade to end slavery is a myth. Granted, it's a popular myth - but still - a myth.

The best long term consequence of the war, however, was that legal slavery ended in our country.


Why don't you believe the southern states who said they were fighting to preserve slavery?


They never said they were fighting a war to preserve slavery (something already protected under U.S.) Federal law.

They said quite clearly they were fighting to break off from the Federal government in DC

And to defend themselves from what they saw as a foreign military invasion.


Read the reasons they gave for leaving the union. They left to protect slavery, so they fought to protect slavery and, because they lost, they failed to protect slavery.

Wrong.

They fought to protect their newly formed country. Yes, legal slavery existed as a part of their way of life, but what was really a fight for states rights was about a lot more than just protecting slavery. They lost the fight and again, the best consequence of that was that slavery ended.


Wrong. Read their secession declarations. Protecting slavery is why they did it.

The vast majority of the boys, teenagers, and men who fought for the Confederacy didn't own slaves and were never going to own slaves. Does it make sense that all of these men would've suffered, starved, bled and died the way they did so some rich guy who lived 50 miles away that they didn't run in the same circles with could continue to own slaves? Granted, I'm sure they were fine with slavery continuing, but it's nonsensical to think that they would've willingly gone through what they went through simply to preserve slavery. They were mainly fighting to defend their homes, their states, and the new country they were trying to establish.
LOL.

They fought because they were lied to, drafted, forced to go fight and told it was all about "states rights" and this new (illegal) country they tried to start.


What is an "illegal country"?

I'm sure the British thought the USA was "illegal".

Russian thinks Ukraine is "illegal"

China thinks Taiwan is "illegal"

Countries belong to the people who inhabit them and self determination is the right of all free people.

Virginia for instance is 200 years older as a political community & government than the United States of America.

D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Johnny Bear said:

cowboycwr said:

Johnny Bear said:

D. C. Bear said:

Redbrickbear said:

D. C. Bear said:

Johnny Bear said:

D. C. Bear said:

Fre3dombear said:

ATL Bear said:

Fre3dombear said:

ATL Bear said:

UTExan said:

This thread has quickly evolved to the legitimacy of secession and apparently how those who desire to secede or be separate are somehow traitors despite their beliefs that they stand on principle. If we treated all persons desiring to secede as traitors, then we should have arrested and tried New Englanders during the War of 1812, because their commercial interests with England were threatened and they were prepared to leave the Union and return to England.
The same goes for the Mormons in 1858 who were prepared to wage long term guerilla warfare against the US Army as it entered the Utah territory.
What we really ought to be asking, IMO, is how do we move forward on race and create a truly inclusive society? If we do it by force and arbitrarily favor one group, we will see a backlash against that favoritism. Indeed, our Reconstruction period showed us the foolishness of that as Radical Republicans like Thaddeus Stevens sought to make federal action openly discriminatory and punitive against the south. If we do it by socialization ( our churches, which ought to be leading this are an example ) we can make it work. But false accusations of racism and never holding race grifters to account only breeds resentment from those falsely accused and sets back the work of race reconciliation.
It isn't about secession. It's about the denialism of the primary reason for secession. The attempt to minimize slavery's role in it is comical, and the mental contortions necessary to present it otherwise are bizarre. Slavery was the South's economic interest. Slavery was its "States Right". Slavery was the reason for seceding.


It's amazing some people believe 18 and 19 year old men left their wives, kids, families and homes to die to make sure some nameless black person could be free

And of that were the case, the thanklessness of todays generations for those that died to help those that couldn't help themselves is appalling.

Interesting take on history though but great propaganda for the easily duped
Yes, freedom has never been something that has been fought for throughout history... And preserving a union is so not a faceless endeavor…. Name definitely doesn't check out.


As such the learned individual that you are, I'm sure even you can find her Abe Lincoln's own quote that the civil war was not to free the slaves.

But believe what you want. It used to be a free country. And now thanks to socialist democrats and those easily duped, even a man is a woman

progress, science and stuff


The Civil War was fought to preserve slavery. As a consequence of its outcome, slavery was legally ended in the United States.

Wrong.

From the North's perspective the war was fought to preserve the Union. From the South's perspective it was fought to defend the independence of the new seceded nation they were trying to build. As the war raged, an additional and secondary war goal of Lincoln's and the North ultimately became the abolition of slavery (the Emancipation Proclamation was issued on 1/1/1863 after over a year and a half of bloody fighting), but it was never the main or overriding goal and the notion that the entire thing was ALL about a grand crusade to end slavery is a myth. Granted, it's a popular myth - but still - a myth.

The best long term consequence of the war, however, was that legal slavery ended in our country.


Why don't you believe the southern states who said they were fighting to preserve slavery?


They never said they were fighting a war to preserve slavery (something already protected under U.S.) Federal law.

They said quite clearly they were fighting to break off from the Federal government in DC

And to defend themselves from what they saw as a foreign military invasion.


Read the reasons they gave for leaving the union. They left to protect slavery, so they fought to protect slavery and, because they lost, they failed to protect slavery.

Wrong.

They fought to protect their newly formed country. Yes, legal slavery existed as a part of their way of life, but what was really a fight for states rights was about a lot more than just protecting slavery. They lost the fight and again, the best consequence of that was that slavery ended.


Wrong. Read their secession declarations. Protecting slavery is why they did it.

The vast majority of the boys, teenagers, and men who fought for the Confederacy didn't own slaves and were never going to own slaves. Does it make sense that all of these men would've suffered, starved, bled and died the way they did so some rich guy who lived 50 miles away that they didn't run in the same circles with could continue to own slaves? Granted, I'm sure they were fine with slavery continuing, but it's nonsensical to think that they would've willingly gone through what they went through simply to preserve slavery. They were mainly fighting to defend their homes, their states, and the new country they were trying to establish.
LOL.

They fought because they were lied to, drafted, forced to go fight and told it was all about "states rights" and this new (illegal) country they tried to start.


What is an "illegal country"?

I'm sure the British thought the USA was "illegal".

Russian thinks Ukraine is "illegal"

China thinks Taiwan is "illegal"

Counties belong to the people who inhabit them and self determination is the right of all free people.

Virginia for instance is 200 years older as a political community and government than the United Stated of America.




If I decided to make my own country on some random land in Falls County, I would have just as much a right to do so as South Carolina had to leave the union in 1860, that being none at all.

We were an "illegal country" until we won and got the British crown to agree that we were legitimate instead of rounding our guys up and hanging them for the treason they most assuredly committed.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Johnny Bear said:

cowboycwr said:

Johnny Bear said:

D. C. Bear said:

Redbrickbear said:

D. C. Bear said:

Johnny Bear said:

D. C. Bear said:

Fre3dombear said:

ATL Bear said:

Fre3dombear said:

ATL Bear said:

UTExan said:

This thread has quickly evolved to the legitimacy of secession and apparently how those who desire to secede or be separate are somehow traitors despite their beliefs that they stand on principle. If we treated all persons desiring to secede as traitors, then we should have arrested and tried New Englanders during the War of 1812, because their commercial interests with England were threatened and they were prepared to leave the Union and return to England.
The same goes for the Mormons in 1858 who were prepared to wage long term guerilla warfare against the US Army as it entered the Utah territory.
What we really ought to be asking, IMO, is how do we move forward on race and create a truly inclusive society? If we do it by force and arbitrarily favor one group, we will see a backlash against that favoritism. Indeed, our Reconstruction period showed us the foolishness of that as Radical Republicans like Thaddeus Stevens sought to make federal action openly discriminatory and punitive against the south. If we do it by socialization ( our churches, which ought to be leading this are an example ) we can make it work. But false accusations of racism and never holding race grifters to account only breeds resentment from those falsely accused and sets back the work of race reconciliation.
It isn't about secession. It's about the denialism of the primary reason for secession. The attempt to minimize slavery's role in it is comical, and the mental contortions necessary to present it otherwise are bizarre. Slavery was the South's economic interest. Slavery was its "States Right". Slavery was the reason for seceding.


It's amazing some people believe 18 and 19 year old men left their wives, kids, families and homes to die to make sure some nameless black person could be free

And of that were the case, the thanklessness of todays generations for those that died to help those that couldn't help themselves is appalling.

Interesting take on history though but great propaganda for the easily duped
Yes, freedom has never been something that has been fought for throughout history... And preserving a union is so not a faceless endeavor…. Name definitely doesn't check out.


As such the learned individual that you are, I'm sure even you can find her Abe Lincoln's own quote that the civil war was not to free the slaves.

But believe what you want. It used to be a free country. And now thanks to socialist democrats and those easily duped, even a man is a woman

progress, science and stuff


The Civil War was fought to preserve slavery. As a consequence of its outcome, slavery was legally ended in the United States.

Wrong.

From the North's perspective the war was fought to preserve the Union. From the South's perspective it was fought to defend the independence of the new seceded nation they were trying to build. As the war raged, an additional and secondary war goal of Lincoln's and the North ultimately became the abolition of slavery (the Emancipation Proclamation was issued on 1/1/1863 after over a year and a half of bloody fighting), but it was never the main or overriding goal and the notion that the entire thing was ALL about a grand crusade to end slavery is a myth. Granted, it's a popular myth - but still - a myth.

The best long term consequence of the war, however, was that legal slavery ended in our country.


Why don't you believe the southern states who said they were fighting to preserve slavery?


They never said they were fighting a war to preserve slavery (something already protected under U.S.) Federal law.

They said quite clearly they were fighting to break off from the Federal government in DC

And to defend themselves from what they saw as a foreign military invasion.


Read the reasons they gave for leaving the union. They left to protect slavery, so they fought to protect slavery and, because they lost, they failed to protect slavery.

Wrong.

They fought to protect their newly formed country. Yes, legal slavery existed as a part of their way of life, but what was really a fight for states rights was about a lot more than just protecting slavery. They lost the fight and again, the best consequence of that was that slavery ended.


Wrong. Read their secession declarations. Protecting slavery is why they did it.

The vast majority of the boys, teenagers, and men who fought for the Confederacy didn't own slaves and were never going to own slaves. Does it make sense that all of these men would've suffered, starved, bled and died the way they did so some rich guy who lived 50 miles away that they didn't run in the same circles with could continue to own slaves? Granted, I'm sure they were fine with slavery continuing, but it's nonsensical to think that they would've willingly gone through what they went through simply to preserve slavery. They were mainly fighting to defend their homes, their states, and the new country they were trying to establish.
LOL.

They fought because they were lied to, drafted, forced to go fight and told it was all about "states rights" and this new (illegal) country they tried to start.


What is an "illegal country"?

I'm sure the British thought the USA was "illegal".

Russian thinks Ukraine is "illegal"

China thinks Taiwan is "illegal"

Counties belong to the people who inhabit them and self determination is the right of all free people.

Virginia for instance is 200 years older as a political community and government than the United Stated of America.




If I decided to make my own country on some random land in Falls County, I would have just as much a right to do so as South Carolina had to leave the union in 1860, that being none at all.

We were an "illegal country" until we won and got the British crown to agree that we were legitimate instead of rounding our guys up and hanging them for the treason they most assuredly committed.


You continue to deny States the right to their independence and compare sovereign political communities that have existed for hundreds of years with you and some dip**** buddies in falls county.

No where does the United States Constitution say that a State that has freely joined the United States Union can not withdraw its membership and resume an independent character.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"Claim for your own States that jurisdiction & that government which you, better than all others, can exercise for yourselves, for you best know your own interests, & that which will do the most to advance the happiness & prosperity of your country."
-Gov. Thomas Seymour, Connecticut 7/4/1863
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

D. C. Bear said:

Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Johnny Bear said:

cowboycwr said:

Johnny Bear said:

D. C. Bear said:

Redbrickbear said:

D. C. Bear said:

Johnny Bear said:

D. C. Bear said:

Fre3dombear said:

ATL Bear said:

Fre3dombear said:

ATL Bear said:

UTExan said:

This thread has quickly evolved to the legitimacy of secession and apparently how those who desire to secede or be separate are somehow traitors despite their beliefs that they stand on principle. If we treated all persons desiring to secede as traitors, then we should have arrested and tried New Englanders during the War of 1812, because their commercial interests with England were threatened and they were prepared to leave the Union and return to England.
The same goes for the Mormons in 1858 who were prepared to wage long term guerilla warfare against the US Army as it entered the Utah territory.
What we really ought to be asking, IMO, is how do we move forward on race and create a truly inclusive society? If we do it by force and arbitrarily favor one group, we will see a backlash against that favoritism. Indeed, our Reconstruction period showed us the foolishness of that as Radical Republicans like Thaddeus Stevens sought to make federal action openly discriminatory and punitive against the south. If we do it by socialization ( our churches, which ought to be leading this are an example ) we can make it work. But false accusations of racism and never holding race grifters to account only breeds resentment from those falsely accused and sets back the work of race reconciliation.
It isn't about secession. It's about the denialism of the primary reason for secession. The attempt to minimize slavery's role in it is comical, and the mental contortions necessary to present it otherwise are bizarre. Slavery was the South's economic interest. Slavery was its "States Right". Slavery was the reason for seceding.


It's amazing some people believe 18 and 19 year old men left their wives, kids, families and homes to die to make sure some nameless black person could be free

And of that were the case, the thanklessness of todays generations for those that died to help those that couldn't help themselves is appalling.

Interesting take on history though but great propaganda for the easily duped
Yes, freedom has never been something that has been fought for throughout history... And preserving a union is so not a faceless endeavor…. Name definitely doesn't check out.


As such the learned individual that you are, I'm sure even you can find her Abe Lincoln's own quote that the civil war was not to free the slaves.

But believe what you want. It used to be a free country. And now thanks to socialist democrats and those easily duped, even a man is a woman

progress, science and stuff


The Civil War was fought to preserve slavery. As a consequence of its outcome, slavery was legally ended in the United States.

Wrong.

From the North's perspective the war was fought to preserve the Union. From the South's perspective it was fought to defend the independence of the new seceded nation they were trying to build. As the war raged, an additional and secondary war goal of Lincoln's and the North ultimately became the abolition of slavery (the Emancipation Proclamation was issued on 1/1/1863 after over a year and a half of bloody fighting), but it was never the main or overriding goal and the notion that the entire thing was ALL about a grand crusade to end slavery is a myth. Granted, it's a popular myth - but still - a myth.

The best long term consequence of the war, however, was that legal slavery ended in our country.


Why don't you believe the southern states who said they were fighting to preserve slavery?


They never said they were fighting a war to preserve slavery (something already protected under U.S.) Federal law.

They said quite clearly they were fighting to break off from the Federal government in DC

And to defend themselves from what they saw as a foreign military invasion.


Read the reasons they gave for leaving the union. They left to protect slavery, so they fought to protect slavery and, because they lost, they failed to protect slavery.

Wrong.

They fought to protect their newly formed country. Yes, legal slavery existed as a part of their way of life, but what was really a fight for states rights was about a lot more than just protecting slavery. They lost the fight and again, the best consequence of that was that slavery ended.


Wrong. Read their secession declarations. Protecting slavery is why they did it.

The vast majority of the boys, teenagers, and men who fought for the Confederacy didn't own slaves and were never going to own slaves. Does it make sense that all of these men would've suffered, starved, bled and died the way they did so some rich guy who lived 50 miles away that they didn't run in the same circles with could continue to own slaves? Granted, I'm sure they were fine with slavery continuing, but it's nonsensical to think that they would've willingly gone through what they went through simply to preserve slavery. They were mainly fighting to defend their homes, their states, and the new country they were trying to establish.
LOL.

They fought because they were lied to, drafted, forced to go fight and told it was all about "states rights" and this new (illegal) country they tried to start.


What is an "illegal country"?

I'm sure the British thought the USA was "illegal".

Russian thinks Ukraine is "illegal"

China thinks Taiwan is "illegal"

Counties belong to the people who inhabit them and self determination is the right of all free people.

Virginia for instance is 200 years older as a political community and government than the United Stated of America.




If I decided to make my own country on some random land in Falls County, I would have just as much a right to do so as South Carolina had to leave the union in 1860, that being none at all.

We were an "illegal country" until we won and got the British crown to agree that we were legitimate instead of rounding our guys up and hanging them for the treason they most assuredly committed.


You continue to deny States the right to their independence and compare sovereign political communities that have existed for hundreds of years with you and some dip**** buddies in falls county.

No where does the United States Constitution say that a State that has freely joined the United States Union can not withdraw its membership and resume an independent character.


The states are not independent countries. This is settled law.
cowboycwr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Johnny Bear said:

cowboycwr said:

Johnny Bear said:

D. C. Bear said:

Redbrickbear said:

D. C. Bear said:

Johnny Bear said:

D. C. Bear said:

Fre3dombear said:

ATL Bear said:

Fre3dombear said:

ATL Bear said:

UTExan said:

This thread has quickly evolved to the legitimacy of secession and apparently how those who desire to secede or be separate are somehow traitors despite their beliefs that they stand on principle. If we treated all persons desiring to secede as traitors, then we should have arrested and tried New Englanders during the War of 1812, because their commercial interests with England were threatened and they were prepared to leave the Union and return to England.
The same goes for the Mormons in 1858 who were prepared to wage long term guerilla warfare against the US Army as it entered the Utah territory.
What we really ought to be asking, IMO, is how do we move forward on race and create a truly inclusive society? If we do it by force and arbitrarily favor one group, we will see a backlash against that favoritism. Indeed, our Reconstruction period showed us the foolishness of that as Radical Republicans like Thaddeus Stevens sought to make federal action openly discriminatory and punitive against the south. If we do it by socialization ( our churches, which ought to be leading this are an example ) we can make it work. But false accusations of racism and never holding race grifters to account only breeds resentment from those falsely accused and sets back the work of race reconciliation.
It isn't about secession. It's about the denialism of the primary reason for secession. The attempt to minimize slavery's role in it is comical, and the mental contortions necessary to present it otherwise are bizarre. Slavery was the South's economic interest. Slavery was its "States Right". Slavery was the reason for seceding.


It's amazing some people believe 18 and 19 year old men left their wives, kids, families and homes to die to make sure some nameless black person could be free

And of that were the case, the thanklessness of todays generations for those that died to help those that couldn't help themselves is appalling.

Interesting take on history though but great propaganda for the easily duped
Yes, freedom has never been something that has been fought for throughout history... And preserving a union is so not a faceless endeavor…. Name definitely doesn't check out.


As such the learned individual that you are, I'm sure even you can find her Abe Lincoln's own quote that the civil war was not to free the slaves.

But believe what you want. It used to be a free country. And now thanks to socialist democrats and those easily duped, even a man is a woman

progress, science and stuff


The Civil War was fought to preserve slavery. As a consequence of its outcome, slavery was legally ended in the United States.

Wrong.

From the North's perspective the war was fought to preserve the Union. From the South's perspective it was fought to defend the independence of the new seceded nation they were trying to build. As the war raged, an additional and secondary war goal of Lincoln's and the North ultimately became the abolition of slavery (the Emancipation Proclamation was issued on 1/1/1863 after over a year and a half of bloody fighting), but it was never the main or overriding goal and the notion that the entire thing was ALL about a grand crusade to end slavery is a myth. Granted, it's a popular myth - but still - a myth.

The best long term consequence of the war, however, was that legal slavery ended in our country.


Why don't you believe the southern states who said they were fighting to preserve slavery?


They never said they were fighting a war to preserve slavery (something already protected under U.S.) Federal law.

They said quite clearly they were fighting to break off from the Federal government in DC

And to defend themselves from what they saw as a foreign military invasion.


Read the reasons they gave for leaving the union. They left to protect slavery, so they fought to protect slavery and, because they lost, they failed to protect slavery.

Wrong.

They fought to protect their newly formed country. Yes, legal slavery existed as a part of their way of life, but what was really a fight for states rights was about a lot more than just protecting slavery. They lost the fight and again, the best consequence of that was that slavery ended.


Wrong. Read their secession declarations. Protecting slavery is why they did it.

The vast majority of the boys, teenagers, and men who fought for the Confederacy didn't own slaves and were never going to own slaves. Does it make sense that all of these men would've suffered, starved, bled and died the way they did so some rich guy who lived 50 miles away that they didn't run in the same circles with could continue to own slaves? Granted, I'm sure they were fine with slavery continuing, but it's nonsensical to think that they would've willingly gone through what they went through simply to preserve slavery. They were mainly fighting to defend their homes, their states, and the new country they were trying to establish.
LOL.

They fought because they were lied to, drafted, forced to go fight and told it was all about "states rights" and this new (illegal) country they tried to start.


What is an "illegal country"?

I'm sure the British thought the USA was "illegal".

Russian thinks Ukraine is "illegal"

China thinks Taiwan is "illegal"

Countries belong to the people who inhabit them and self determination is the right of all free people.

Virginia for instance is 200 years older as a political community & government than the United States of America.




One that is formed illegally and not recognized by the world as a country.

So are the people all over the US who declare themselves and their property to be countries within the US actually countries?
cowboycwr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

"Claim for your own States that jurisdiction & that government which you, better than all others, can exercise for yourselves, for you best know your own interests, & that which will do the most to advance the happiness & prosperity of your country."
-Gov. Thomas Seymour, Connecticut 7/4/1863


Quotes prove nothing.

Remember this one? "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

It was said and can be quoted. That must prove it is true!!!!!
Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
At the end of the day we can tell the difference between Asians and Indians working hard and building wealth and bleks waiting on the porch for a handout. But let's pretend t'racism is a thing.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.