historian said:

---

The same is true of every major & minor mainstream news outlet, regardless of medium. This includes the so-called elites. The three out any standard of integrity long ago, if they ever really had any. The Pulitzer is now about who has the boldest fascist lies instead of anything about real journalism. They all act like they graduated from the Joseph Goebbels School of Journalism because their only real skills involve rank propaganda. Heck, many have trouble with basic grammar!

---

I actually meant to post "grammar" not "journalism" LOL.

I think it all broke really under Reagan and then the flood gates opened under George W. Bush. Thinking about the Iran hostage crises, the oligarch media attempted to cover it objectively whereas today it would just be spun to blame Trump. I do think it is connected to the hiring practices of both unqualified candidates and more women - we see over and over again the less bent toward objectivity and rationality and more focused on hysterics and agendas. Not that men are immune - as it can be witnessed here daily - but as women start to control then men fall in line.

cowboycwr said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

historian said:

---

Not always. For decades, the Civil War was told in a way to the South. And there are historians who will look at events from different perspectives. These can be quite valuable.

---

You have got to be kidding.

The Civil War has always been taught in schools from the northern perspective. Lincoln has been elevated to sainthood while Davis has been vilified. Most historians know of the horrors of Andersonville by heart, but the appalling conditions of northern prison camps are ignored.

---

Depends on where you are from/ what school you are looking at.

I would say for over 100 years in southern schools the civil war would have been taught very differently than how it was right in northern schools.

For the next 50 years I would say it slowly started to change.

I know here in TX I had one history teacher that taught it from a very "southern view" even using the term "war of northern aggression " and one who taught it as history and was very objective in their presentation of the facts.

So I wouldn't say it has been taught by the textbook companies/publishing companies as favorable for the south but rather that way in the south by southern teachers. But I'm sure in the north it has always been taught in favor of the north.

---

For over a century the only means of mass disbursement of subjective propaganda was through books, magazines and newspapers. And the largest publishing companies were in northern states.

And to generate profits such companies wisely produced a version of the South most readily accepted by their readers.

Such material went throughout the country. Possibly its biggest impact was in the Midwest and West Coast.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

historian said:

---

The same is true of every major & minor mainstream news outlet, regardless of medium. This includes the so-called elites. The three out any standard of integrity long ago, if they ever really had any. The Pulitzer is now about who has the boldest fascist lies instead of anything about real journalism. They all act like they graduated from the Joseph Goebbels School of Journalism because their only real skills involve rank propaganda. Heck, many have trouble with basic grammar!

---

I actually meant to post "grammar" not "journalism" LOL.

I think it all broke really under Reagan and then the flood gates opened under George W. Bush. Thinking about the Iran hostage crises, the oligarch media attempted to cover it objectively whereas today it would just be spun to blame Trump. I do think it is connected to the hiring practices of both unqualified candidates and more women - we see over and over again the less bent toward objectivity and rationality and more focused on hysterics and agendas. Not that men are immune - as it can be witnessed here daily - but as women start to control then men fall in line.

---

True but it's been a problem for well over a century. The difference in the 1980s is that more alternate news sources sprang up and more people are ignoring MSM and their lies.

Prominent Leftists were praising Mussolini, Hitler & Stalin in the 1920s & 1930s. They even covered up Stalin's mass murders and downplayed the Holocaust in the NYT.

I don't if the journalist profession ever truly had a genuine standard of ethics & integrity. They have always been mostly hacks. DEI made that much worse, as bigotry does with everything.

KaiBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

historian said:

---

Not always. For decades, the Civil War was told in a way to the South. And there are historians who will look at events from different perspectives. These can be quite valuable.

---

You have got to be kidding.

The Civil War has always been taught in schools from the northern perspective. Lincoln has been elevated to sainthood while Davis has been vilified. Most historians know of the horrors of Andersonville by heart, but the appalling conditions of northern prison camps are ignored.

---

Depends on where you are from/ what school you are looking at.

I would say for over 100 years in southern schools the civil war would have been taught very differently than how it was right in northern schools.

For the next 50 years I would say it slowly started to change.

I know here in TX I had one history teacher that taught it from a very "southern view" even using the term "war of northern aggression " and one who taught it as history and was very objective in their presentation of the facts.

So I wouldn't say it has been taught by the textbook companies/publishing companies as favorable for the south but rather that way in the south by southern teachers. But I'm sure in the north it has always been taught in favor of the north.

---

For over a century the only means of mass disbursement of subjective propaganda was through books, magazines and newspapers. And the largest publishing companies were in northern states.

And to generate profits such companies wisely produced a version of the South most readily accepted by their readers.

Such material went throughout the country. Possibly its biggest impact was in the Midwest and West Coast.

---

200 years ago and more there were other media available for distributing info: pamphlets, posters, public speaking, etc. They often proved very effective. The abolitionists, for example, used all these techniques and more to open people's eye to the evils of slavery. It had a snowball effect on the country.

We should remember that most cities back in the day had at least one newspaper. Larger cities had multiple, some highly specialized focusing on one particular issue such as abolition, temperance, & suffrage.

If the North wanted to abolish slavery ( which by 1860 was proving to be increasingly unprofitable ) all they had to do was follow Great Britain's model.

COMPENSATE the slave owners. As a healthy male field hand was worth over $ 900.

In a day when a skilled white carpenter was fortunate to earn 4 dollars a day.

Obviously slaves were extremely valuable. The equivalent of a new Ford F150.

To lose such economic assets without compensation would have destroyed the South. But that is exactly what Northern abolitionists wanted.

The economic and political subjugation of the South.

And they succeeded.

The South did not recover for over 120 years.

The north could not abolish slavery unilaterally. The South had too much power to block any such measures. Think of the govt shutdowns our fascists have engineered repeatedly over the years.

Also, northern politicians like Abe Lincoln did not believe abolishing slavery was constitutional. They were principled men determined to follow the law. Their goal was to stop the spread of slavery into new territories thinking it would eventually collapse.

Lastly, the north was far from unified. Northern Dems, never would have gone along with it. Even during the Civil War there were Copperheads who wanted to negotiate with the south to achieve a settlement. Lincoln was not so popular and only won reelection because Sherman's March to the Sea demonstrated northern military power decisively.

...

historian said:

---

The north could not abolish slavery unilaterally. The South had too much power to block any such measures. Think of the govt shutdowns our fascists have engineered repeatedly over the years.

Also, northern politicians like Abe Lincoln did not believe abolishing slavery was constitutional. They were principled men determined to follow the law. Their goal was to stop the spread of slavery into new territories thinking it would eventually collapse.

Lastly, the north was far from unified. Northern Dems, never would have gone along with it. Even during the Civil War there were Copperheads who wanted to negotiate with the south to achieve a settlement. Lincoln was not so popular and only won reelection because Sherman's March to the Sea demonstrated northern military power decisively.

---

You know better……

A. Since slavery would be prohibited in new states the balance in the US senate would have been inevitably slanted to
pass laws detrimental to the South. A fact southerners were keenly aware of.
B. Lincoln was the most outspoken anti slavery presidential nominee of the 1860 election. Even as a congressman or when out of office he repeatedly spoke out against slavery.
C. The South only wanted to leave the Union peacefully. It was Lincoln who repeatedly invaded the South. Not the other way around. Educated southerners knew they had little chance of winning any protracted war with the industrialized North and its huge population advantage. Gone Wirh The Wind was FICTION; not factual. Most of the southern elite educated their children in northern universities and / or had extensive business connections with the North. They hoped England and / France would intervene for the South…..and when that did not occur….the South was doomed.
D. Sherman openly acknowledged that if the North somehow lost the war…. He would likely be hung as a WAR CRIMINAL.
As troops under his command routinely robbed , burned and ( occasionally ) raped civilians…..on their way through Georgia and Carolina. Cities 'mysteriously' were burned.


But winners write the vast majority of the history books.

Always have ….. always will.

KaiBear said:

---

historian said:

---

The north could not abolish slavery unilaterally. The South had too much power to block any such measures. Think of the govt shutdowns our fascists have engineered repeatedly over the years.

Also, northern politicians like Abe Lincoln did not believe abolishing slavery was constitutional. They were principled men determined to follow the law. Their goal was to stop the spread of slavery into new territories thinking it would eventually collapse.

Lastly, the north was far from unified. Northern Dems, never would have gone along with it. Even during the Civil War there were Copperheads who wanted to negotiate with the south to achieve a settlement. Lincoln was not so popular and only won reelection because Sherman's March to the Sea demonstrated northern military power decisively.

---

You know better……

A. Since slavery would be prohibited in new states the balance in the US senate would have been inevitably slanted to
pass laws detrimental to the South. A fact southerners were keenly aware of.
B. Lincoln was the most outspoken anti slavery presidential nominee of the 1860 election. Even as a congressman or when out of office he repeatedly spoke out against slavery.
C. The South only wanted to leave the Union peacefully. It was Lincoln who repeatedly invaded the South. Not the other way around. Educated southerners knew they had little chance of winning any protracted war with the industrialized North and its huge population advantage. Gone Wirh The Wind was FICTION; not factual. Most of the southern elite educated their children in northern universities and / or had extensive business connections with the North. They hoped England and / France would intervene for the South…..and when that did not occur….the South was doomed.
D. Sherman openly acknowledged that if the North somehow lost the war…. He would likely be hung as a WAR CRIMINAL.
As troops under his command routinely robbed , burned and ( occasionally ) raped civilians…..on their way through Georgia and Carolina. Cities 'mysteriously' were burned.


But winners write the vast majority of the history books.

Always have ….. always will.

---

How does a president invade part of their own country????

cowboycwr said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

historian said:

---

The north could not abolish slavery unilaterally. The South had too much power to block any such measures. Think of the govt shutdowns our fascists have engineered repeatedly over the years.

Also, northern politicians like Abe Lincoln did not believe abolishing slavery was constitutional. They were principled men determined to follow the law. Their goal was to stop the spread of slavery into new territories thinking it would eventually collapse.

Lastly, the north was far from unified. Northern Dems, never would have gone along with it. Even during the Civil War there were Copperheads who wanted to negotiate with the south to achieve a settlement. Lincoln was not so popular and only won reelection because Sherman's March to the Sea demonstrated northern military power decisively.

---

You know better……

A. Since slavery would be prohibited in new states the balance in the US senate would have been inevitably slanted to
pass laws detrimental to the South. A fact southerners were keenly aware of.
B. Lincoln was the most outspoken anti slavery presidential nominee of the 1860 election. Even as a congressman or when out of office he repeatedly spoke out against slavery.
C. The South only wanted to leave the Union peacefully. It was Lincoln who repeatedly invaded the South. Not the other way around. Educated southerners knew they had little chance of winning any protracted war with the industrialized North and its huge population advantage. Gone Wirh The Wind was FICTION; not factual. Most of the southern elite educated their children in northern universities and / or had extensive business connections with the North. They hoped England and / France would intervene for the South…..and when that did not occur….the South was doomed.
D. Sherman openly acknowledged that if the North somehow lost the war…. He would likely be hung as a WAR CRIMINAL.
As troops under his command routinely robbed , burned and ( occasionally ) raped civilians…..on their way through Georgia and Carolina. Cities 'mysteriously' were burned.


But winners write the vast majority of the history books.

Always have ….. always will.

---

How does a president invade part of their own country????

---

England 'invaded' their own country; but lost the war.

So history books are slanted on behalf of the 'patriots' and are biased against the 'loyalists'.

That's just how it works.

cowboycwr said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

historian said:

---

The north could not abolish slavery unilaterally. The South had too much power to block any such measures. Think of the govt shutdowns our fascists have engineered repeatedly over the years.

Also, northern politicians like Abe Lincoln did not believe abolishing slavery was constitutional. They were principled men determined to follow the law. Their goal was to stop the spread of slavery into new territories thinking it would eventually collapse.

Lastly, the north was far from unified. Northern Dems, never would have gone along with it. Even during the Civil War there were Copperheads who wanted to negotiate with the south to achieve a settlement. Lincoln was not so popular and only won reelection because Sherman's March to the Sea demonstrated northern military power decisively.

---

You know better……

A. Since slavery would be prohibited in new states the balance in the US senate would have been inevitably slanted to
pass laws detrimental to the South. A fact southerners were keenly aware of.
B. Lincoln was the most outspoken anti slavery presidential nominee of the 1860 election. Even as a congressman or when out of office he repeatedly spoke out against slavery.
C. The South only wanted to leave the Union peacefully. It was Lincoln who repeatedly invaded the South. Not the other way around. Educated southerners knew they had little chance of winning any protracted war with the industrialized North and its huge population advantage. Gone Wirh The Wind was FICTION; not factual. Most of the southern elite educated their children in northern universities and / or had extensive business connections with the North. They hoped England and / France would intervene for the South…..and when that did not occur….the South was doomed.
D. Sherman openly acknowledged that if the North somehow lost the war…. He would likely be hung as a WAR CRIMINAL.
As troops under his command routinely robbed , burned and ( occasionally ) raped civilians…..on their way through Georgia and Carolina. Cities 'mysteriously' were burned.


But winners write the vast majority of the history books.

Always have ….. always will.

---

How does a president invade part of their own country????

---

England 'invaded' their own country; but lost the war.

So history books are slanted on behalf of the 'patriots' and are biased against the 'loyalists'.

That's just how it works.

---

A country cannot invade itself.

By that thinking the US currently is invading itself with all these military bases around the country…..

---

From our perspective England 'invaded' the colonies which was part of the British Empire.

However since we won our independence ( due to an extreme amount of financial and military aid from
France ) our version of the historical events dominate.

cowboycwr said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

historian said:

---

The north could not abolish slavery unilaterally. The South had too much power to block any such measures. Think of the govt shutdowns our fascists have engineered repeatedly over the years.

Also, northern politicians like Abe Lincoln did not believe abolishing slavery was constitutional. They were principled men determined to follow the law. Their goal was to stop the spread of slavery into new territories thinking it would eventually collapse.

Lastly, the north was far from unified. Northern Dems, never would have gone along with it. Even during the Civil War there were Copperheads who wanted to negotiate with the south to achieve a settlement. Lincoln was not so popular and only won reelection because Sherman's March to the Sea demonstrated northern military power decisively.

---

You know better……

A. Since slavery would be prohibited in new states the balance in the US senate would have been inevitably slanted to
pass laws detrimental to the South. A fact southerners were keenly aware of.
B. Lincoln was the most outspoken anti slavery presidential nominee of the 1860 election. Even as a congressman or when out of office he repeatedly spoke out against slavery.
C. The South only wanted to leave the Union peacefully. It was Lincoln who repeatedly invaded the South. Not the other way around. Educated southerners knew they had little chance of winning any protracted war with the industrialized North and its huge population advantage. Gone Wirh The Wind was FICTION; not factual. Most of the southern elite educated their children in northern universities and / or had extensive business connections with the North. They hoped England and / France would intervene for the South…..and when that did not occur….the South was doomed.
D. Sherman openly acknowledged that if the North somehow lost the war…. He would likely be hung as a WAR CRIMINAL.
As troops under his command routinely robbed , burned and ( occasionally ) raped civilians…..on their way through Georgia and Carolina. Cities 'mysteriously' were burned.


But winners write the vast majority of the history books.

Always have ….. always will.

---

How does a president invade part of their own country????

---

One has to keep that in the context of the times, when it was still largely the united States. It was really after the Civil War that the nation became the United States.

cowboycwr said:

---

The leaders probably realize that they are.

However, they also realize that their sheep will eat up whatever they feed to them. Especially if you keep their attention focused on a new topic every few weeks or so.

So they know they can keep lying and create the narrative they want and the idiots that support them will continue to eat it up. At least for the foreseeable future.

---

Those on the left aren't sheep. Think horns and butting people.

Harrison Bergon: " One has to keep that in the context of the times, when it was still largely the united States. It was really after the Civil War that the nation became the United States."

Nah.

That happened, where it did, after World War 2. Between 1865 and 1941, the United States was deeply affected by the Civil War, and for practical purposes was fractured into several regions, generally focused on some urban areas. You may note, for example, that "Tri-State Area" is a common phrase which is used to refer to a number is states, such as the New York/New Jersey/Connecticut area (focused on NYC), Illinois/Indiana/Wisconsin (focused on Chicago), Idaho/Montana/Wyoming (focused on Yellowstone Park), California/Nevada/Oregon (focused on Los Angeles/San Francisco), or West Virginia/Kentucky/Ohio (focused on Cleveland).

If you traveled between different regions during that time, you would discover cultural attitudes, historical education, and even statutes different from other regions. This also contributes to patterns of immigrants settling into certain regions that felt compatible with their original country.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

historian said:

---

The north could not abolish slavery unilaterally. The South had too much power to block any such measures. Think of the govt shutdowns our fascists have engineered repeatedly over the years.

Also, northern politicians like Abe Lincoln did not believe abolishing slavery was constitutional. They were principled men determined to follow the law. Their goal was to stop the spread of slavery into new territories thinking it would eventually collapse.

Lastly, the north was far from unified. Northern Dems, never would have gone along with it. Even during the Civil War there were Copperheads who wanted to negotiate with the south to achieve a settlement. Lincoln was not so popular and only won reelection because Sherman's March to the Sea demonstrated northern military power decisively.

---

You know better……

A. Since slavery would be prohibited in new states the balance in the US senate would have been inevitably slanted to
pass laws detrimental to the South. A fact southerners were keenly aware of.
B. Lincoln was the most outspoken anti slavery presidential nominee of the 1860 election. Even as a congressman or when out of office he repeatedly spoke out against slavery.
C. The South only wanted to leave the Union peacefully. It was Lincoln who repeatedly invaded the South. Not the other way around. Educated southerners knew they had little chance of winning any protracted war with the industrialized North and its huge population advantage. Gone Wirh The Wind was FICTION; not factual. Most of the southern elite educated their children in northern universities and / or had extensive business connections with the North. They hoped England and / France would intervene for the South…..and when that did not occur….the South was doomed.
D. Sherman openly acknowledged that if the North somehow lost the war…. He would likely be hung as a WAR CRIMINAL.
As troops under his command routinely robbed , burned and ( occasionally ) raped civilians…..on their way through Georgia and Carolina. Cities 'mysteriously' were burned.


But winners write the vast majority of the history books.

Always have ….. always will.

---

How does a president invade part of their own country????

---

One has to keep that in the context of the times, when it was still largely the united States. It was really after the Civil War that the nation became the United States.

---

We are not even the United States of the 1990's. Just an ethnic mess with the best and biggest Navy in the world.

KaiBear said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

historian said:

---

The north could not abolish slavery unilaterally. The South had too much power to block any such measures. Think of the govt shutdowns our fascists have engineered repeatedly over the years.

Also, northern politicians like Abe Lincoln did not believe abolishing slavery was constitutional. They were principled men determined to follow the law. Their goal was to stop the spread of slavery into new territories thinking it would eventually collapse.

Lastly, the north was far from unified. Northern Dems, never would have gone along with it. Even during the Civil War there were Copperheads who wanted to negotiate with the south to achieve a settlement. Lincoln was not so popular and only won reelection because Sherman's March to the Sea demonstrated northern military power decisively.

---

You know better……

A. Since slavery would be prohibited in new states the balance in the US senate would have been inevitably slanted to
pass laws detrimental to the South. A fact southerners were keenly aware of.
B. Lincoln was the most outspoken anti slavery presidential nominee of the 1860 election. Even as a congressman or when out of office he repeatedly spoke out against slavery.
C. The South only wanted to leave the Union peacefully. It was Lincoln who repeatedly invaded the South. Not the other way around. Educated southerners knew they had little chance of winning any protracted war with the industrialized North and its huge population advantage. Gone Wirh The Wind was FICTION; not factual. Most of the southern elite educated their children in northern universities and / or had extensive business connections with the North. They hoped England and / France would intervene for the South…..and when that did not occur….the South was doomed.
D. Sherman openly acknowledged that if the North somehow lost the war…. He would likely be hung as a WAR CRIMINAL.
As troops under his command routinely robbed , burned and ( occasionally ) raped civilians…..on their way through Georgia and Carolina. Cities 'mysteriously' were burned.


But winners write the vast majority of the history books.

Always have ….. always will.

---

How does a president invade part of their own country????

---

One has to keep that in the context of the times, when it was still largely the united States. It was really after the Civil War that the nation became the United States.

---

We are not even the United States of the 1990's. Just an ethnic mess with the best and biggest Navy in the world.

---

I am actually very happy with our military. Our armed forces led the nation in racial desegregation and cultural tolerance. It's been my experience that people who serve in the military are familiar with different cultures in the world, with different backstories for the men and women who serve. That's why I believe WW2 is what gelled the US as a common nation made up of many, E pluribus unum in actual truth.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Harrison Bergon: " One has to keep that in the context of the times, when it was still largely the united States. It was really after the Civil War that the nation became the United States."

Nah.

That happened, where it did, after World War 2. Between 1865 and 1941, the United States was deeply affected by the Civil War, and for practical purposes was fractured into several regions, generally focused on some urban areas. You may note, for example, that "Tri-State Area" is a common phrase which is used to refer to a number is states, such as the New York/New Jersey/Connecticut area (focused on NYC), Illinois/Indiana/Wisconsin (focused on Chicago), Idaho/Montana/Wyoming (focused on Yellowstone Park), California/Nevada/Oregon (focused on Los Angeles/San Francisco), or West Virginia/Kentucky/Ohio (focused on Cleveland).

If you traveled between different regions during that time, you would discover cultural attitudes, historical education, and even statutes different from other regions. This also contributes to patterns of immigrants settling into certain regions that felt compatible with their original country.

---

I mean I hate to break it to you but World War 2 was after the Civil War.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Harrison Bergon: " One has to keep that in the context of the times, when it was still largely the united States. It was really after the Civil War that the nation became the United States."

Nah.

That happened, where it did, after World War 2. Between 1865 and 1941, the United States was deeply affected by the Civil War, and for practical purposes was fractured into several regions, generally focused on some urban areas. You may note, for example, that "Tri-State Area" is a common phrase which is used to refer to a number is states, such as the New York/New Jersey/Connecticut area (focused on NYC), Illinois/Indiana/Wisconsin (focused on Chicago), Idaho/Montana/Wyoming (focused on Yellowstone Park), California/Nevada/Oregon (focused on Los Angeles/San Francisco), or West Virginia/Kentucky/Ohio (focused on Cleveland).

If you traveled between different regions during that time, you would discover cultural attitudes, historical education, and even statutes different from other regions. This also contributes to patterns of immigrants settling into certain regions that felt compatible with their original country.

---

I mean I hate to break it to you but World War 2 was after the Civil War.

---

Yes, and if you read what I posted you will note I said the shift was 1941, not 1865.

Between 1865 and 1941 things became more polarized, not less, than the pre-Civil War US, in most major population area.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Harrison Bergon: " One has to keep that in the context of the times, when it was still largely the united States. It was really after the Civil War that the nation became the United States."

Nah.

That happened, where it did, after World War 2. Between 1865 and 1941, the United States was deeply affected by the Civil War, and for practical purposes was fractured into several regions, generally focused on some urban areas. You may note, for example, that "Tri-State Area" is a common phrase which is used to refer to a number is states, such as the New York/New Jersey/Connecticut area (focused on NYC), Illinois/Indiana/Wisconsin (focused on Chicago), Idaho/Montana/Wyoming (focused on Yellowstone Park), California/Nevada/Oregon (focused on Los Angeles/San Francisco), or West Virginia/Kentucky/Ohio (focused on Cleveland).

If you traveled between different regions during that time, you would discover cultural attitudes, historical education, and even statutes different from other regions. This also contributes to patterns of immigrants settling into certain regions that felt compatible with their original country.

---

I mean I hate to break it to you but World War 2 was after the Civil War.

---

Yes, and if you read what I posted you will note I said the shift was 1941, not 1865.

Between 1865 and 1941 things became more polarized, not less, than the pre-Civil War US, in most major population area.

---

Yes, and if you read what I posted you will note I said the shift was after the Civil War not in 1865.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Harrison Bergon: " One has to keep that in the context of the times, when it was still largely the united States. It was really after the Civil War that the nation became the United States."

Nah.

That happened, where it did, after World War 2. Between 1865 and 1941, the United States was deeply affected by the Civil War, and for practical purposes was fractured into several regions, generally focused on some urban areas. You may note, for example, that "Tri-State Area" is a common phrase which is used to refer to a number is states, such as the New York/New Jersey/Connecticut area (focused on NYC), Illinois/Indiana/Wisconsin (focused on Chicago), Idaho/Montana/Wyoming (focused on Yellowstone Park), California/Nevada/Oregon (focused on Los Angeles/San Francisco), or West Virginia/Kentucky/Ohio (focused on Cleveland).

If you traveled between different regions during that time, you would discover cultural attitudes, historical education, and even statutes different from other regions. This also contributes to patterns of immigrants settling into certain regions that felt compatible with their original country.

---

I mean I hate to break it to you but World War 2 was after the Civil War.

---

Yes, and if you read what I posted you will note I said the shift was 1941, not 1865.

Between 1865 and 1941 things became more polarized, not less, than the pre-Civil War US, in most major population area.

---

Yes, and if you read what I posted you will note I said the shift was after the Civil War not in 1865.

---

The connotation of the phrase "after the Civil war" implies the period immediate after, commonly called Reconstruction. If you wanted to point to 1941 and on, you'd say something like 'after the Great Depression', offering a time point closer to the actual range.

It's like saying George Washington was known for his leadership 'After the Renaissance' or that the Wright Brothers took their famous flight 'after Paul Revere's famous ride'.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Harrison Bergon: " One has to keep that in the context of the times, when it was still largely the united States. It was really after the Civil War that the nation became the United States."

Nah.

That happened, where it did, after World War 2. Between 1865 and 1941, the United States was deeply affected by the Civil War, and for practical purposes was fractured into several regions, generally focused on some urban areas. You may note, for example, that "Tri-State Area" is a common phrase which is used to refer to a number is states, such as the New York/New Jersey/Connecticut area (focused on NYC), Illinois/Indiana/Wisconsin (focused on Chicago), Idaho/Montana/Wyoming (focused on Yellowstone Park), California/Nevada/Oregon (focused on Los Angeles/San Francisco), or West Virginia/Kentucky/Ohio (focused on Cleveland).

If you traveled between different regions during that time, you would discover cultural attitudes, historical education, and even statutes different from other regions. This also contributes to patterns of immigrants settling into certain regions that felt compatible with their original country.

---

I mean I hate to break it to you but World War 2 was after the Civil War.

---

Yes, and if you read what I posted you will note I said the shift was 1941, not 1865.

Between 1865 and 1941 things became more polarized, not less, than the pre-Civil War US, in most major population area.

---

Yes, and if you read what I posted you will note I said the shift was after the Civil War not in 1865.

---

The connotation of the phrase "after the Civil war" implies the period immediate after, commonly called Reconstruction. If you wanted to point to 1941 and on, you'd say something like 'after the Great Depression', offering a time point closer to the actual range.

It's like saying George Washington was known for his leadership 'After the Renaissance' or that the Wright Brothers took their famous flight 'after Paul Revere's famous ride'.

---

Dude ... sometimes you just have to resist the desire to argue just to argue.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Harrison Bergon: " One has to keep that in the context of the times, when it was still largely the united States. It was really after the Civil War that the nation became the United States."

Nah.

That happened, where it did, after World War 2. Between 1865 and 1941, the United States was deeply affected by the Civil War, and for practical purposes was fractured into several regions, generally focused on some urban areas. You may note, for example, that "Tri-State Area" is a common phrase which is used to refer to a number is states, such as the New York/New Jersey/Connecticut area (focused on NYC), Illinois/Indiana/Wisconsin (focused on Chicago), Idaho/Montana/Wyoming (focused on Yellowstone Park), California/Nevada/Oregon (focused on Los Angeles/San Francisco), or West Virginia/Kentucky/Ohio (focused on Cleveland).

If you traveled between different regions during that time, you would discover cultural attitudes, historical education, and even statutes different from other regions. This also contributes to patterns of immigrants settling into certain regions that felt compatible with their original country.

---

I mean I hate to break it to you but World War 2 was after the Civil War.

---

Yes, and if you read what I posted you will note I said the shift was 1941, not 1865.

Between 1865 and 1941 things became more polarized, not less, than the pre-Civil War US, in most major population area.

---

Yes, and if you read what I posted you will note I said the shift was after the Civil War not in 1865.

---

The connotation of the phrase "after the Civil war" implies the period immediate after, commonly called Reconstruction. If you wanted to point to 1941 and on, you'd say something like 'after the Great Depression', offering a time point closer to the actual range.

It's like saying George Washington was known for his leadership 'After the Renaissance' or that the Wright Brothers took their famous flight 'after Paul Revere's famous ride'.

---

Dude ... sometimes you just have to resist the desire to argue just to argue.

---

And you?

KaiBear said:

---

historian said:

---

The north could not abolish slavery unilaterally. The South had too much power to block any such measures. Think of the govt shutdowns our fascists have engineered repeatedly over the years.

Also, northern politicians like Abe Lincoln did not believe abolishing slavery was constitutional. They were principled men determined to follow the law. Their goal was to stop the spread of slavery into new territories thinking it would eventually collapse.

Lastly, the north was far from unified. Northern Dems, never would have gone along with it. Even during the Civil War there were Copperheads who wanted to negotiate with the south to achieve a settlement. Lincoln was not so popular and only won reelection because Sherman's March to the Sea demonstrated northern military power decisively.

---

You know better……

A. Since slavery would be prohibited in new states the balance in the US senate would have been inevitably slanted to
pass laws detrimental to the South. A fact southerners were keenly aware of.
B. Lincoln was the most outspoken anti slavery presidential nominee of the 1860 election. Even as a congressman or when out of office he repeatedly spoke out against slavery.
C. The South only wanted to leave the Union peacefully. It was Lincoln who repeatedly invaded the South. Not the other way around. Educated southerners knew they had little chance of winning any protracted war with the industrialized North and its huge population advantage. Gone Wirh The Wind was FICTION; not factual. Most of the southern elite educated their children in northern universities and / or had extensive business connections with the North. They hoped England and / France would intervene for the South…..and when that did not occur….the South was doomed.
D. Sherman openly acknowledged that if the North somehow lost the war…. He would likely be hung as a WAR CRIMINAL.
As troops under his command routinely robbed , burned and ( occasionally ) raped civilians…..on their way through Georgia and Carolina. Cities 'mysteriously' were burned.


But winners write the vast majority of the history books.

Always have ….. always will.

---

A. Anti-slavery politicians did not seek abolition. They sought an end to the expansion of slavery. They did not believe they could constitutionally abolish. In the end, they needed a constitutional amendment (13th). The abolitionists had limited political influence in 1860.
B. Lincoln was the only anti-slavery presidential nominee in 1860, out of 4. And he did not seek abolition. He even reversed some emancipations by the army in the early months of the war for fear the border states might join the south.
C. The South started the Civil War by shooting at federal forces (kinda like Minneapolis traitors attacking ICE). And this was because they lost the 1860 election and refused to accept the results of the electorate (like the fascists' reaction to Trump each time). The crazy thing is that they guaranteed they would lose when they ran 2 candidates in 1860 so the votes would be split.
Of course Gone With the Wind is fiction, with gross distortions of history. But the romanticization of the antebellum south was not isolated. It permeated much of pop culture, like woke & DEI trash does today, and had intellectual support as well, like woke today.
D. The Union Army acted like most armies in most wars throughout human history, including the Confederates. It is often ugly and brutal. That's one reason it's accurately said that "War is hell" (Sherman). But it was not a war that the North started.

… meaning the United States as we and the rest of the world conceive of it. The modern U.S. is very much a product of the Cold War, Vietnam, and the Islamofascist War against civilization (exemplified but not limited to 9-11).

canoso said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

The leaders probably realize that they are.

However, they also realize that their sheep will eat up whatever they feed to them. Especially if you keep their attention focused on a new topic every few weeks or so.

So they know they can keep lying and create the narrative they want and the idiots that support them will continue to eat it up. At least for the foreseeable future.

---

Those on the left aren't sheep. Think horns and butting people.

---

They often act like sheep in their blind support for the stupidest ideas and most evil policies: abortion on demand, open borders, setting criminals loose to commit more crimes, the climate cult, the trans cult, the covid cult, BLM, DEI, snd every other form of Marxism.

The U.S. had plenty of polarization before 1865, especially leading up to it. It became so severe that the nation split and fought the bloodiest war in its history to resolve those issues. We also had multiple divisive and unpopular presidents in our early history: Thomas Jefferson was loved by the voters but the Federalists feared him and tried to undermine him before he took office (Midnight Appointments), JQA was very unpopular and only won through a political desk (Corrupt Bargain), and many politicians hated Andrew Jackson (similar to their hatred of Trump today).

historian said:

---

The U.S. had plenty of polarization before 1865, especially leading up to it. It became so severe that the nation split and fought the bloodiest war in its history to resolve those issues. We also had multiple divisive and unpopular presidents in our early history: Thomas Jefferson was loved by the voters but the Federalists feared him and tried to undermine him before he took office (Midnight Appointments), JQA was very unpopular and only won through a political desk (Corrupt Bargain), and many politicians hated Andrew Jackson (similar to their hatred of Trump today).

---

Agreed, I was responding to the notion that the Civil War led to social homogenizing.

The geography, immigrant demographics and economic behaviors of various places and times have all been important factors keeping different regions disparate in perspective and opinion.

historian said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

historian said:

---

The north could not abolish slavery unilaterally. The South had too much power to block any such measures. Think of the govt shutdowns our fascists have engineered repeatedly over the years.

Also, northern politicians like Abe Lincoln did not believe abolishing slavery was constitutional. They were principled men determined to follow the law. Their goal was to stop the spread of slavery into new territories thinking it would eventually collapse.

Lastly, the north was far from unified. Northern Dems, never would have gone along with it. Even during the Civil War there were Copperheads who wanted to negotiate with the south to achieve a settlement. Lincoln was not so popular and only won reelection because Sherman's March to the Sea demonstrated northern military power decisively.

---

You know better……

A. Since slavery would be prohibited in new states the balance in the US senate would have been inevitably slanted to
pass laws detrimental to the South. A fact southerners were keenly aware of.
B. Lincoln was the most outspoken anti slavery presidential nominee of the 1860 election. Even as a congressman or when out of office he repeatedly spoke out against slavery.
C. The South only wanted to leave the Union peacefully. It was Lincoln who repeatedly invaded the South. Not the other way around. Educated southerners knew they had little chance of winning any protracted war with the industrialized North and its huge population advantage. Gone Wirh The Wind was FICTION; not factual. Most of the southern elite educated their children in northern universities and / or had extensive business connections with the North. They hoped England and / France would intervene for the South…..and when that did not occur….the South was doomed.
D. Sherman openly acknowledged that if the North somehow lost the war…. He would likely be hung as a WAR CRIMINAL.
As troops under his command routinely robbed , burned and ( occasionally ) raped civilians…..on their way through Georgia and Carolina. Cities 'mysteriously' were burned.


But winners write the vast majority of the history books.

Always have ….. always will.

---

A. Anti-slavery politicians did not seek abolition. They sought an end to the expansion of slavery. They did not believe they could constitutionally abolish. In the end, they needed a constitutional amendment (13th). The abolitionists had limited political influence in 1860.
B. Lincoln was the only anti-slavery presidential nominee in 1870, out of 4. And he did not seek abolition. He even reversed some emancipations by the army in the early months of the war for fear the border states might join the south.
C. The South started the Civil War by shooting at federal forces (kinda like Minneapolis traitors attacking ICE). And this was because they lost the 1860 election and refused to accept the results of the electorate (like the fascists' reaction to Trump each time). The crazy thing is that they guaranteed they would lose when they ran 2 candidates in 1860 so the votes would be split.
Of course Gone With the Wind is fiction, with gross distortions of history. But the romanticization of the antebellum south was not isolated. It permeated much of pop culture, like woke & DEI trash does today, and had intellectual support as well, like woke today.
D. The Union Army acted like most armies in most wars throughout human history, including the Confederates. It is often ugly and brutal. That's one reason it's accurately said that "War is hell" (Sherman). But it was not a war that the North started.

---

A. simply not true...not in the slightest
B. Lincoln was long dead in 1870
C. Feds invaded the South. Not the other way around. Period.
D. North began the war....a war of political and economic domination. They could have avoided a war the same way Great Britain did. By paying compensation for lost investment.

historian said:

---

canoso said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

The leaders probably realize that they are.

However, they also realize that their sheep will eat up whatever they feed to them. Especially if you keep their attention focused on a new topic every few weeks or so.

So they know they can keep lying and create the narrative they want and the idiots that support them will continue to eat it up. At least for the foreseeable future.

---

Those on the left aren't sheep. Think horns and butting people.

---

They often act like sheep in their blind support for the stupidest ideas and most evil policies: abortion on demand, open borders, setting criminals loose to commit more crimes, the climate cult, the trans cult, the covid cult, BLM, DEI, snd every other form of Marxism.

---

I'm still going with the horned creatures that deliberately butt people just for kicks.

KaiBear said:

---

historian said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

historian said:

---

The north could not abolish slavery unilaterally. The South had too much power to block any such measures. Think of the govt shutdowns our fascists have engineered repeatedly over the years.

Also, northern politicians like Abe Lincoln did not believe abolishing slavery was constitutional. They were principled men determined to follow the law. Their goal was to stop the spread of slavery into new territories thinking it would eventually collapse.

Lastly, the north was far from unified. Northern Dems, never would have gone along with it. Even during the Civil War there were Copperheads who wanted to negotiate with the south to achieve a settlement. Lincoln was not so popular and only won reelection because Sherman's March to the Sea demonstrated northern military power decisively.

---

You know better……

A. Since slavery would be prohibited in new states the balance in the US senate would have been inevitably slanted to
pass laws detrimental to the South. A fact southerners were keenly aware of.
B. Lincoln was the most outspoken anti slavery presidential nominee of the 1860 election. Even as a congressman or when out of office he repeatedly spoke out against slavery.
C. The South only wanted to leave the Union peacefully. It was Lincoln who repeatedly invaded the South. Not the other way around. Educated southerners knew they had little chance of winning any protracted war with the industrialized North and its huge population advantage. Gone Wirh The Wind was FICTION; not factual. Most of the southern elite educated their children in northern universities and / or had extensive business connections with the North. They hoped England and / France would intervene for the South…..and when that did not occur….the South was doomed.
D. Sherman openly acknowledged that if the North somehow lost the war…. He would likely be hung as a WAR CRIMINAL.
As troops under his command routinely robbed , burned and ( occasionally ) raped civilians…..on their way through Georgia and Carolina. Cities 'mysteriously' were burned.


But winners write the vast majority of the history books.

Always have ….. always will.

---

A. Anti-slavery politicians did not seek abolition. They sought an end to the expansion of slavery. They did not believe they could constitutionally abolish. In the end, they needed a constitutional amendment (13th). The abolitionists had limited political influence in 1860.
B. Lincoln was the only anti-slavery presidential nominee in 1870, out of 4. And he did not seek abolition. He even reversed some emancipations by the army in the early months of the war for fear the border states might join the south.
C. The South started the Civil War by shooting at federal forces (kinda like Minneapolis traitors attacking ICE). And this was because they lost the 1860 election and refused to accept the results of the electorate (like the fascists' reaction to Trump each time). The crazy thing is that they guaranteed they would lose when they ran 2 candidates in 1860 so the votes would be split.
Of course Gone With the Wind is fiction, with gross distortions of history. But the romanticization of the antebellum south was not isolated. It permeated much of pop culture, like woke & DEI trash does today, and had intellectual support as well, like woke today.
D. The Union Army acted like most armies in most wars throughout human history, including the Confederates. It is often ugly and brutal. That's one reason it's accurately said that "War is hell" (Sherman). But it was not a war that the North started.

---

A. simply not true...not in the slightest
B. Lincoln was long dead in 1870
C. Feds invaded the South. Not the other way around. Period.
D. North began the war....a war of political and economic domination. They could have avoided a war the same way Great Britain did. By paying compensation for lost investment.

---

The north did not invade the south as it is impossible for a country to invade themselves.

The south fired the first shots thus starting the war.

canoso said:

---

historian said:

---

canoso said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

The leaders probably realize that they are.

However, they also realize that their sheep will eat up whatever they feed to them. Especially if you keep their attention focused on a new topic every few weeks or so.

So they know they can keep lying and create the narrative they want and the idiots that support them will continue to eat it up. At least for the foreseeable future.

---

Those on the left aren't sheep. Think horns and butting people.

---

They often act like sheep in their blind support for the stupidest ideas and most evil policies: abortion on demand, open borders, setting criminals loose to commit more crimes, the climate cult, the trans cult, the covid cult, BLM, DEI, snd every other form of Marxism.

---

I'm still going with the horned creatures that deliberately butt people just for kicks.

---

Right? Sheep go to heaven, goats go to hell.

cowboycwr said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

historian said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

historian said:

---

The north could not abolish slavery unilaterally. The South had too much power to block any such measures. Think of the govt shutdowns our fascists have engineered repeatedly over the years.

Also, northern politicians like Abe Lincoln did not believe abolishing slavery was constitutional. They were principled men determined to follow the law. Their goal was to stop the spread of slavery into new territories thinking it would eventually collapse.

Lastly, the north was far from unified. Northern Dems, never would have gone along with it. Even during the Civil War there were Copperheads who wanted to negotiate with the south to achieve a settlement. Lincoln was not so popular and only won reelection because Sherman's March to the Sea demonstrated northern military power decisively.

---

You know better……

A. Since slavery would be prohibited in new states the balance in the US senate would have been inevitably slanted to
pass laws detrimental to the South. A fact southerners were keenly aware of.
B. Lincoln was the most outspoken anti slavery presidential nominee of the 1860 election. Even as a congressman or when out of office he repeatedly spoke out against slavery.
C. The South only wanted to leave the Union peacefully. It was Lincoln who repeatedly invaded the South. Not the other way around. Educated southerners knew they had little chance of winning any protracted war with the industrialized North and its huge population advantage. Gone Wirh The Wind was FICTION; not factual. Most of the southern elite educated their children in northern universities and / or had extensive business connections with the North. They hoped England and / France would intervene for the South…..and when that did not occur….the South was doomed.
D. Sherman openly acknowledged that if the North somehow lost the war…. He would likely be hung as a WAR CRIMINAL.
As troops under his command routinely robbed , burned and ( occasionally ) raped civilians…..on their way through Georgia and Carolina. Cities 'mysteriously' were burned.


But winners write the vast majority of the history books.

Always have ….. always will.

---

A. Anti-slavery politicians did not seek abolition. They sought an end to the expansion of slavery. They did not believe they could constitutionally abolish. In the end, they needed a constitutional amendment (13th). The abolitionists had limited political influence in 1860.
B. Lincoln was the only anti-slavery presidential nominee in 1870, out of 4. And he did not seek abolition. He even reversed some emancipations by the army in the early months of the war for fear the border states might join the south.
C. The South started the Civil War by shooting at federal forces (kinda like Minneapolis traitors attacking ICE). And this was because they lost the 1860 election and refused to accept the results of the electorate (like the fascists' reaction to Trump each time). The crazy thing is that they guaranteed they would lose when they ran 2 candidates in 1860 so the votes would be split.
Of course Gone With the Wind is fiction, with gross distortions of history. But the romanticization of the antebellum south was not isolated. It permeated much of pop culture, like woke & DEI trash does today, and had intellectual support as well, like woke today.
D. The Union Army acted like most armies in most wars throughout human history, including the Confederates. It is often ugly and brutal. That's one reason it's accurately said that "War is hell" (Sherman). But it was not a war that the North started.

---

A. simply not true...not in the slightest
B. Lincoln was long dead in 1870
C. Feds invaded the South. Not the other way around. Period.
D. North began the war....a war of political and economic domination. They could have avoided a war the same way Great Britain did. By paying compensation for lost investment.

---

The north did not invade the south as it is impossible for a country to invade themselves.

The south fired the first shots thus starting the war.

---

Going full circle still again.

The South no more started the Civil War than Poland attacked nazi Germany starting WW2.

It always comes down to who wins the war.

The Allies won WW2 so their version of events took hold.

The North won the Civil War so their version of events became gospel.


( And for what it's worth the Patriots won their War of Independence so their version of events has forever been taught in public schools. And it is as biased and slanted as any aspect of American history ).