Saw a poll the other day(here?) that 52% republicans and 40% democrats want secession

I bet those numbers are low

Historic times we're in?

Thee University said:

---

Woodrow Wilson, writing in History of the American People, proposed that, "It was necessary to put the South at a moral disadvantage by transforming the contest from a war waged against states fighting for their independence into a war waged against states fighting for the maintenance and extension of slavery."

Prior to the proclamation, Lincoln confessed to New York Tribune editor Horace Greeley, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."

Charles Dickens observed of the proclamation, "The Northern onslaught upon slavery is no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern states."

---

This make sense to me

North was probably ripping off South with taxes and South had enough of it

Remind anyone of today?

Thee University said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

South won't rise again...that's for sure.

---

Not to fight the Yankees but to secede from the liberal policies and areas of the left leaning idiots in the United States.

Secession can come in a number of different ways.

We are already divided.

---

Yes we are hopelessly divided. In fact we are more divided now than the respective populations above and below the Mason Dixon Line .

As a result...... with very few exceptions....... any significant combat would not involve states versus states.


Initially any serious fighting would be far more muddled.
Region versus region. Community versus community. Neighborhood versus neighborhood.



More like the Spanish Civil War than a repeat of the War Between the States.

clubhi said:

---

Thee University said:

---

clubhi said:

---

last time it happened the confederacy got smashed

---

Really?

360K union soldiers killed by Lincoln. 258K confederate soldiers killed by Lincoln. It took 2.1 million Yankess to squeak by 1.1 million Confederates.

The Confederacy was kicking the Yankee's a$$e$ until Lincoln hoodwinked 180K Irish right off the boats to fight.

The only smashing of the confederacy was during Lincoln's "Reconstruction"

---

sorry for your loss

---

It was a loss for the entire United States.

"The American people, both North and South, went into the [Civil] war as citizens of their respective states, they came out as subjects ... what they thus lost they have never got back." -H. L. Mencken

https://theamericanmercury.org/2010/04/the-calamity-of-appomattox/

Thee University said:

---

clubhi said:

---

Thee University said:

---

clubhi said:

---

last time it happened the confederacy got smashed

---

Really?

360K union soldiers killed by Lincoln. 258K confederate soldiers killed by Lincoln. It took 2.1 million Yankess to squeak by 1.1 million Confederates.

The Confederacy was kicking the Yankee's a$$e$ until Lincoln hoodwinked 180K Irish right off the boats to fight.

The only smashing of the confederacy was during Lincoln's "Reconstruction"

---

sorry for your loss

---

Don't feel sorry for me.

The South WILL rise again.

---

If Dixie can keep some sense of its own unique cultural, ethnic, and spiritual identity it might out live the USA empire.

Just like Ukraine, Armenia, Latvia, and the Central Asian states outlived the USSR empire.

As it stands oddly enough Quebec and its French speaking Quebecois people might be the nation that is in the best shape to emerge intact when the current North America ruling oligarchy collapses.

cowboycwr said:

---

Thee University said:

---

clubhi said:

---

Thee University said:

---

clubhi said:

---

last time it happened the confederacy got smashed

---

Really?

360K union soldiers killed by Lincoln. 258K confederate soldiers killed by Lincoln. It took 2.1 million Yankess to squeak by 1.1 million Confederates.

The Confederacy was kicking the Yankee's a$$e$ until Lincoln hoodwinked 180K Irish right off the boats to fight.

The only smashing of the confederacy was during Lincoln's "Reconstruction"

---

sorry for your loss

---

Don't feel sorry for me.

The South WILL rise again.

---

No it won't. Not many people today care about their state enough to fight for it. Especially not since so many people move states, don't live in the same hometown all their life, etc.

---

Sad ...but probably true.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Thee University said:

---

clubhi said:

---

Thee University said:

---

clubhi said:

---

last time it happened the confederacy got smashed

---

Really?

360K union soldiers killed by Lincoln. 258K confederate soldiers killed by Lincoln. It took 2.1 million Yankess to squeak by 1.1 million Confederates.

The Confederacy was kicking the Yankee's a$$e$ until Lincoln hoodwinked 180K Irish right off the boats to fight.

The only smashing of the confederacy was during Lincoln's "Reconstruction"

---

sorry for your loss

---

Don't feel sorry for me.

The South WILL rise again.

---

As it stands oddly enough Quebec and its French speaking Quebecois people might be the nation that is in the best shape to emerge intact when the current North America ruling oligarchy collapses.

---

My relatives in Quebec believe the province economically collapses within 7 years of gaining full independence .

Thee University said:

---

Woodrow Wilson, writing in History of the American People, proposed that, "It was necessary to put the South at a moral disadvantage by transforming the contest from a war waged against states fighting for their independence into a war waged against states fighting for the maintenance and extension of slavery."

Prior to the proclamation, Lincoln confessed to New York Tribune editor Horace Greeley, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."

Charles Dickens observed of the proclamation, "The Northern onslaught upon slavery is no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern states."

---

Indeed it was a propaganda victory to pretend the war was fought by Lincoln to "free the slaves" instead of preserve land from seceding away from the central governments control.

If not Lincoln stands similar in most respects to King George III in 1776 or Santa Anna in 1836

Expect of course George III was a figure head monarch and Santa Anna had the guts to lead his own armies in battle.

Canada2017 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Thee University said:

---

clubhi said:

---

Thee University said:

---

clubhi said:

---

last time it happened the confederacy got smashed

---

Really?

360K union soldiers killed by Lincoln. 258K confederate soldiers killed by Lincoln. It took 2.1 million Yankess to squeak by 1.1 million Confederates.

The Confederacy was kicking the Yankee's a$$e$ until Lincoln hoodwinked 180K Irish right off the boats to fight.

The only smashing of the confederacy was during Lincoln's "Reconstruction"

---

sorry for your loss

---

Don't feel sorry for me.

The South WILL rise again.

---

As it stands oddly enough Quebec and its French speaking Quebecois people might be the nation that is in the best shape to emerge intact when the current North America ruling oligarchy collapses.

---

My relatives in Quebec believe the province economically collapses within 7 years of gaining full independence .

---

Probably true... that's why it would be foolish for Quebec to claim its independence from the Dominion of Canada today.

But 50 or 100 years from now?

Well that might be a very different story.

If someone was talking about Latvian independence in 1979 people would have called him a idiot. But in 1991 it was not a fantasy but a reality.

History is stranger than fiction.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Thee University said:

---

clubhi said:

---

Thee University said:

---

clubhi said:

---

last time it happened the confederacy got smashed

---

Really?

360K union soldiers killed by Lincoln. 258K confederate soldiers killed by Lincoln. It took 2.1 million Yankess to squeak by 1.1 million Confederates.

The Confederacy was kicking the Yankee's a$$e$ until Lincoln hoodwinked 180K Irish right off the boats to fight.

The only smashing of the confederacy was during Lincoln's "Reconstruction"

---

sorry for your loss

---

Don't feel sorry for me.

The South WILL rise again.

---

If Dixie can keep some sense of its own unique cultural, ethnic, and spiritual identity it might out live the USA empire.

Just like Ukraine, Armenia, Latvia, and the Central Asian states outlived the USSR empire.

As it stands oddly enough Quebec and its French speaking Quebecois people might be the nation that is in the best shape to emerge intact when the current North America ruling oligarchy collapses.

---

^^^ Interesting observations here for sure

Never been to Quebec but have lived in LA(Lower Alabama Florida Panhandle) 26 years and have grown to love The South

People of The South seem bonded but idk how to 100% for sure judge we'd be able to survive after the current North American oligarchs crumble.

On a side note, the thought of these oligarchs being banished is a great thought. When do you see this happening as it almost seems unimaginable even though I'm hearing more and more of this chatter as they expand their totalitarian ways more by the minute

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

WOW. Biden just dismissed Senator @kyrstensinema being harassed and cornered into a bathroom this weekend, saying "it happens to everybody... it's part of the process."

WATCH. This is absolute insanity. pic.twitter.com/UUmRnEJIkm

— Danny De Urbina (@dannydeurbina) October 4, 2021

Well I'm starting to think he doesn't have much dementia, but a whole lotta stupid going on.

---

It's both. The "stupid" has been there throughout much of his career. Don't forget Obummer once said "never underestimate Joe's ability to **** things up". The dementia part is a fairly recent phenomenon.

Canada2017 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Thee University said:

---

clubhi said:

---

last time it happened the confederacy got smashed

---

Really?

360K union soldiers killed by Lincoln. 258K confederate soldiers killed by Lincoln. It took 2.1 million Yankess to squeak by 1.1 million Confederates.

The Confederacy was kicking the Yankee's a$$e$ until Lincoln hoodwinked 180K Irish right off the boats to fight.

The only smashing of the confederacy was during Lincoln's "Reconstruction"

---

Horribly flawed, wrong and revisionist history.

Lincoln didn't start the war. The slave owners did.

The slave owners killed those union soldiers.

The suave owners killed those mostly poor southerners who fought so the shave owners could keep slaves.

Lincoln was dead during reconstruction.

Everything you posted was absolute garbage and not true.

---

Lincoln absolutely started the war...not even a close call.

Many wealthy slave owners in the South had sent their sons to universities in the North. Had business connections in the North . They knew first hand the difference in industrial capabilities .These wealthy slave owners had the most to lose in a war with the North ....and knew they had little chance to win unless England or France actively supported the South .

Radical Republicans instituted the worst policies of Reconstruction . They weren't exactly upset that Lincoln was in his grave as his proposed post war policies were much easier on the South .

South won't rise again...that's for sure.

---

False. Just False. South Carolina fired the first shots. That is a 100% fact. The south started to jump ship before he was in office. The south started the war.

4th and Inches said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Thee University said:

---

clubhi said:

---

last time it happened the confederacy got smashed

---

Really?

360K union soldiers killed by Lincoln. 258K confederate soldiers killed by Lincoln. It took 2.1 million Yankess to squeak by 1.1 million Confederates.

The Confederacy was kicking the Yankee's a$$e$ until Lincoln hoodwinked 180K Irish right off the boats to fight.

The only smashing of the confederacy was during Lincoln's "Reconstruction"

---

Horribly flawed, wrong and revisionist history. (Most versions of it are)

Lincoln didn't start the war. The slave owners did. (Not true, they asked to leave and Lincoln said no. The war was started by Lincoln)

The slave owners killed those union soldiers. (Not true)

The suave owners killed those mostly poor southerners who fought so the shave owners could keep slaves. (Not true)

Lincoln was dead during reconstruction. (True)

Everything you posted was absolute garbage and not true.(most everything you posted is as well)

---

see bracketed responses

---

Nope. False. Everything I posted is 100% true and backed up by documented facts.

South Carolina fired the first shots. They started the war. Many states left BEFORE Lincoln took office.

So yeah everything I posted was fact and your simply saying "not true" doesn't make it less of a fact.

Thee University said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Thee University said:

---

clubhi said:

---

last time it happened the confederacy got smashed

---

Really?

360K union soldiers killed by Lincoln. 258K confederate soldiers killed by Lincoln. It took 2.1 million Yankess to squeak by 1.1 million Confederates.

The Confederacy was kicking the Yankee's a$$e$ until Lincoln hoodwinked 180K Irish right off the boats to fight.

The only smashing of the confederacy was during Lincoln's "Reconstruction"

---

Horribly flawed, wrong and revisionist history.

Lincoln didn't start the war. The slave owners did.

The slave owners killed those union soldiers.

The suave owners killed those mostly poor southerners who fought so the shave owners could keep slaves.

Lincoln was dead during reconstruction.

Everything you posted was absolute garbage and not true.

---

Here is more truth for your idiotic lies above:

Soon after Jefferson Davis became the first president of the CSA, he dispatched a commission to Washington, DC to negotiate a treaty and an offer to pay for all Federal property in the South. But Lincoln refused to meet with the emissaries, believing acknowledgment would discredit his position that secession was illegal.
And that thinking also thwarted the final attempt to resolve the dilemma through peaceful means.

At the time Southern states began seceding, many of the Union forts within their borders were abandoned, save a few. Consider that the US Military (and government) at the start of the Civil War resembled little like what we have today. The United States had a standing army of about sixteen thousand men in 1861, most of whom served in poorly equipped outposts.

Fort Sumter, a sparsely populated duty collection point in Charleston harbor, was one of the few forts where Union personnel remained. As was evident from Lincoln's contemporaries, an attempt to send Union troops into any of the Confederate states would provoke a war.

Lincoln knew that if South Carolina and the Confederacy allowed the fort to be provisioned, it would make a mockery of their sovereignty. And if the Confederacy fired on the Union ships, it would have been the Confederacy, not Lincoln who fired the first shots of the war.

"He was a master of the situation," wrote Lincoln's private secretaries John G. Nicolay and John Hay. "Master if the rebels hesitated or repented, because they would thereby forfeit their prestige with the South; master if they persisted, for he would then command a united North."

Lincoln knew what he was doing when he ordered Fort Sumter to be resupplied. He was a cunning politician and Fort Sumter was his opportunity. He seized it believing it would be a short war. He couldn't have been more wrong.

Viewing the Civil War as a crusade to end slavery is simply not correct; abolitionists never accounted for more than a sizeable minority in the North. The cause of war in 1861 wasn't slavery. It was about the loss of millions in tax revenues.

The Confederate states had no aspirations to rule the Union any more than George Washington sought control over Great Britain in 1776. In both the American Revolutionary War and the "Civil War," independence was the goal.

The idea that the Civil War was some sort of a morality play about freeing Southern slaves is an ideological distortion that obfuscates many of the atrocities that occurred during and after the war.

But if we accept the idea that Lincoln was waging war to free the slaves, it helps justify the loss of over 600,000 American lives. Not to mention the financial cost of the war, which many historians believe could have been avoided.

From all outward accounts, Lincoln wanted a war with the South some might say he needed it and that's what he got. The loss of tax revenues from the Southern ports would not go unpunished as he promised in his inaugural address.

But after more than a year at war, the Union's prospects for victory were in doubt.

Losses to the Army in significant battles had the Union mired in a bloody quagmire. Moreover, Britain and France were considering support for the Confederacy by recognizing it as a sovereign country, which could have concretized secession and put Lincoln's forces at risk of having to fight against Confederate allies from Europe.

It's important to recognize that up until September 1862, the stated purpose of the war had been to preserve the Union. With the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln sought to change the focus of the war.
But the Emancipation Proclamation freed no one. Not a single slave.

---

Yawn. More southern lies that have no basis in the facts of what happened.

The civil war was about slavery. End of discussion.

south carolina Fired the first shots.

End of discussion.

cowboycwr said:

---

Yawn. More southern lies that have no basis in the facts of what happened.

The civil war was about slavery. End of discussion.

south carolina Fired the first shots.

End of discussion.

---

Yelling "end of discussion" like a child does not actually end the discussion.

And no....the war was not over slavery. It was over the right of states to secede from the Federal Union.

"To hold Fort Sumter may have seemed to Lincoln a duty but to the Virginians it savored of coercion; and coercion in this case meant forcing a State which had legally seceded, back into the Union. If an attempt was made to coerce a State, Virginia would join the Southern Confederacy." -Rhodes

"Slavery is no more the cause of this current war that Mr. Lincoln has chosen to wage than gold is the cause of robbery." Governor Joel Parker of New Jersey, 1863

"My enemies pretend I am now carrying on this war for the purpose of abolition...If I could preserve the Union without freeing any slave I would do it." Abraham Lincoln, Aug 15, 1864

"President Lincoln desires the right to hold slaves to be fully recognized. This war is prosecuted for the Union, hence no question concerning slavery will arise." Simon Cameron: Union SEC. OF WAR 1861-1862

"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." - Abraham Lincoln

"If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them." - Abraham Lincoln

[On May 26, 1862, Union Maj. Gen. David Hunter emancipated slaves in South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida, declaring all "persons ... heretofore held as slaves ... forever free". Lincoln, embarrassed by the order, rescinded Hunter's declaration, and canceled the emancipation.]

[In August 1861, Maj. Gen. John C. Fremont, Union commander of the Western Department, declared martial law in Missouri, confiscated Confederate supporters' property, and emancipated slaves. President Lincoln immediately ordered Fremont to rescind his emancipation declaration, stating: "There is great danger that ... the liberating slaves of traitorous owners, will alarm our Southern Union friends, and turn them against us perhaps ruin our prospects in Kentucky." After Fremont refused to rescind the emancipation order, President Lincoln terminated him from active duty on November 2, 1861.]

Thee University said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Yawn. More southern lies that have no basis in the facts of what happened.

The civil war was about slavery. End of discussion.

south carolina Fired the first shots.

End of discussion.

---

Good grief you are a naive dunce. You could not have possibly graduated from Baylor.

A great deal of what I post here is written by Yankees who have studied the Civil War era and studied letters, articles and comments from those who were actually alive during that time.

The only truth to your comments above is that SC did fire the first shots but did so only when Lincoln baited them to do so.

Start of discussion!

---

The civil war was about slavery.

South Carolina started the war, not Lincoln.

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Yawn. More southern lies that have no basis in the facts of what happened.

The civil war was about slavery. End of discussion.

south carolina Fired the first shots.

End of discussion.

---

Yelling "end of discussion" like a child does not actually end the discussion.

And no....the war was not over slavery. It was over the right of states to secede from the Federal Union.

"To hold Fort Sumter may have seemed to Lincoln a duty but to the Virginians it savored of coercion; and coercion in this case meant forcing a State which had legally seceded, back into the Union. If an attempt was made to coerce a State, Virginia would join the Southern Confederacy." -Rhodes

"Slavery is no more the cause of this current war that Mr. Lincoln has chosen to wage than gold is the cause of robbery." Governor Joel Parker of New Jersey, 1863

"My enemies pretend I am now carrying on this war for the purpose of abolition...If I could preserve the Union without freeing any slave I would do it." Abraham Lincoln, Aug 15, 1864

"President Lincoln desires the right to hold slaves to be fully recognized. This war is prosecuted for the Union, hence no question concerning slavery will arise." Simon Cameron: Union SEC. OF WAR 1861-1862

"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." - Abraham Lincoln

"If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them." - Abraham Lincoln

[On May 26, 1862, Union Maj. Gen. David Hunter emancipated slaves in South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida, declaring all "persons ... heretofore held as slaves ... forever free". Lincoln, embarrassed by the order, rescinded Hunter's declaration, and canceled the emancipation.]

[In August 1861, Maj. Gen. John C. Fremont, Union commander of the Western Department, declared martial law in Missouri, confiscated Confederate supporters' property, and emancipated slaves. President Lincoln immediately ordered Fremont to rescind his emancipation declaration, stating: "There is great danger that ... the liberating slaves of traitorous owners, will alarm our Southern Union friends, and turn them against us perhaps ruin our prospects in Kentucky." After Fremont refused to rescind the emancipation order, President Lincoln terminated him from active duty on November 2, 1861.]

---

It does when it is the truth.

The war was about slavery.

the south started the war.

anyone who says differently is over 50 and repeating the lies their racist southern family members taught them.

Wangchung said:

---

Because only racists study history written before 2008.

---

Yes that is exactly what I said.....


Oh wait no it isn't.

Only racists try to defend ANYTHING the CSA did, the racist slave owners did, try to defend the civil war as anything other than a fight to keep the racist institution of slavery alive, protect statues built to losers of a war to protect slavery, or defend a flag that stood for slavery.

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Yawn. More southern lies that have no basis in the facts of what happened.

The civil war was about slavery. End of discussion.

south carolina Fired the first shots.

End of discussion.

---

Yelling "end of discussion" like a child does not actually end the discussion.

And no....the war was not over slavery. It was over the right of states to secede from the Federal Union.

"To hold Fort Sumter may have seemed to Lincoln a duty but to the Virginians it savored of coercion; and coercion in this case meant forcing a State which had legally seceded, back into the Union. If an attempt was made to coerce a State, Virginia would join the Southern Confederacy." -Rhodes

"Slavery is no more the cause of this current war that Mr. Lincoln has chosen to wage than gold is the cause of robbery." Governor Joel Parker of New Jersey, 1863

"My enemies pretend I am now carrying on this war for the purpose of abolition...If I could preserve the Union without freeing any slave I would do it." Abraham Lincoln, Aug 15, 1864

"President Lincoln desires the right to hold slaves to be fully recognized. This war is prosecuted for the Union, hence no question concerning slavery will arise." Simon Cameron: Union SEC. OF WAR 1861-1862

"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." - Abraham Lincoln

"If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them." - Abraham Lincoln

[On May 26, 1862, Union Maj. Gen. David Hunter emancipated slaves in South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida, declaring all "persons ... heretofore held as slaves ... forever free". Lincoln, embarrassed by the order, rescinded Hunter's declaration, and canceled the emancipation.]

[In August 1861, Maj. Gen. John C. Fremont, Union commander of the Western Department, declared martial law in Missouri, confiscated Confederate supporters' property, and emancipated slaves. President Lincoln immediately ordered Fremont to rescind his emancipation declaration, stating: "There is great danger that ... the liberating slaves of traitorous owners, will alarm our Southern Union friends, and turn them against us perhaps ruin our prospects in Kentucky." After Fremont refused to rescind the emancipation order, President Lincoln terminated him from active duty on November 2, 1861.]

---

It does when it is the truth.

The war was about slavery.

the south started the war.

anyone who says differently is over 50 and repeating the lies their racist southern family members taught them.

---

This is getting tired and old.

But again try and read some actual history.

The Federal government fought a war to defend the territorial integrity of the Union. Not to end slavery.

Unionist slave owners in Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, and even New Jersey owned slaves during the entire war.

Lincoln started the war by sending Federal troops into the Southern States to force them at bayonet point back into the Union.

In this way he was no different than King George III or Gen. Santa Anna.

Thee University said:

---

clubhi said:

---

last time it happened the confederacy got smashed

---

Really?

360K union soldiers killed by Lincoln. 258K confederate soldiers killed by Lincoln. It took 2.1 million Yankess to squeak by 1.1 million Confederates.

The Confederacy was kicking the Yankee's a$$e$ until Lincoln hoodwinked 180K Irish right off the boats to fight.

The only smashing of the confederacy was during Lincoln's "Reconstruction"

---

You seem quite proud of the confederacy here.

"On the part of the North, the war was carried on, not to liberate the slaves, but by a federal gov't that had always perverted and violated the Constitution, to keep the slaves in bondage; & was still willing to do so, if the slaveholders could be thereby induced to stay in the Union." -Lysander Spooner, Abolitionist

"The first 90 years our government rested on consent & that that was the only rightful basis on which any gov't could rest, the late war has practically demonstrated that our government rests upon force"- Lysander Spooner, Abolitionist

Lysander Spooner was a unique man. He apposed slavery and also opposed Lincoln's illegal war.

He argued that the right of the states to secede derives from the natural right of slaves to be free. Both true at the same time.

He took up the cause of fighting against slavery before it was popular. And defended the right of secession after the war when it was unpopular.

Man was seriously principled.

Buddha Bear said:

---

Thee University said:

---

clubhi said:

---

last time it happened the confederacy got smashed

---

Really?

360K union soldiers killed by Lincoln. 258K confederate soldiers killed by Lincoln. It took 2.1 million Yankess to squeak by 1.1 million Confederates.

The Confederacy was kicking the Yankee's a$$e$ until Lincoln hoodwinked 180K Irish right off the boats to fight.

The only smashing of the confederacy was during Lincoln's "Reconstruction"

---

You seem quite proud of the confederacy here.

---

The military accomplishments of a small rural nation of 9 million (3 mil. of whom were slaves) against a much more powerful industrialized nation of 30 million is impressive.

Military officers from Europe (English, French, Prussian) were sent to observe the war. They were impressed by the fighting spirit and military valor of the average southern solider....but saw the North as simply too materially strong.

[In 1863, the Prussian military command sent a man by the name of Justus Scheibert to observe the war, with instructions to pay special attention to "the effects of rifled cannon fire on earth, masonry, and iron, and the operation of armor on land and at sea." In 1863, Scheibert was a thirty-one-year-old captain in the Prussian army and an expert on military fortifications and engineering and he began to heavily sympathized with the Confederacy . . . In his time observing the war, Scheibert was present for several major battles, including the Battle of Chancellorsville, the Battle of Gettysburg, and the Siege of Charleston Harbor. " The he went back to Germany and wrote a report.

"Scheibert's fondness for the South seems to stem from personal experience of being among southern soldiers and a practical military perspective, as he had no respect for the Northern military or political leadership, which he viewed as an ill-qualified mess of bureaucracy. In his account of his travels written directly following the war, Scheibert unfavorably compares President Lincoln's lack of significant military experience with the wartime experience of Jefferson Davis, deriding him as 'not currently equal to the task' of transforming the Union army from an 'armed mob' into an effective fighting force."

Heroes von Boerke, a Prussian military officer, actually served in JEB Stuart's cavalry alongside Stuart. He was a large man and well-regarded. Arthur Freemantle followed along with Longstreet during Gettysburg.

Somewhere between 25%-33% of the entire southern White male population died in the war.

95% of southern troops were native born Americans. Nearly 40% of all Union troops were immigrants.

"Jeff Davis has succeeded perfectly in inspiring his people with the truth that liberty & gov't are worth fighting for; that pay & pensions are silly nothings compared to the prize fought for. Now, I would only wish to inspire our people with the same idea"
-Gen. Sherman

"The average southern solider started out fighting for paper currency worth less than the U.S. dollar in purchasing power, he later fought on when the paper money issued to him became worthless, and eventually continue to fight when he was not paid at all."

"Well paid and well equipped the average Union soldier often complained about fighting. Almost never paid and always ill-equipped the Confederate solider endure almost unimaginable hardship more stoically."

"The confederate soldier fought because he was provoked, intimidated, and ultimately invaded"
-Sen. James Webb, Born Fighting: a History of the Scots-Irish in America

"Secession may have been wrong in the abstract, and now has been tried and settled by the arbitrament of the sword and bayonet, but I am as firm in my convictions today of the right of secession as I was in 1861. The South is our country, the North is the country of those who live there. We are an agricultural people; they are a manufacturing people. They are the descendants of the old Puritan Plymouth Rock stock, and we of the South from the aristocratic Cavaliers and hard fighting Ulster-Scot. We believe in the doctrine of State Rights, they in the doctrine of Federal centralization. We had as every much right to leave this Union as we did to enter it in the first place. ~ Private Sam Watkins, CSA

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Yawn. More southern lies that have no basis in the facts of what happened.

The civil war was about slavery. End of discussion.

south carolina Fired the first shots.

End of discussion.

---

Yelling "end of discussion" like a child does not actually end the discussion.

And no....the war was not over slavery. It was over the right of states to secede from the Federal Union.

"To hold Fort Sumter may have seemed to Lincoln a duty but to the Virginians it savored of coercion; and coercion in this case meant forcing a State which had legally seceded, back into the Union. If an attempt was made to coerce a State, Virginia would join the Southern Confederacy." -Rhodes

"Slavery is no more the cause of this current war that Mr. Lincoln has chosen to wage than gold is the cause of robbery." Governor Joel Parker of New Jersey, 1863

"My enemies pretend I am now carrying on this war for the purpose of abolition...If I could preserve the Union without freeing any slave I would do it." Abraham Lincoln, Aug 15, 1864

"President Lincoln desires the right to hold slaves to be fully recognized. This war is prosecuted for the Union, hence no question concerning slavery will arise." Simon Cameron: Union SEC. OF WAR 1861-1862

"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." - Abraham Lincoln

"If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them." - Abraham Lincoln

[On May 26, 1862, Union Maj. Gen. David Hunter emancipated slaves in South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida, declaring all "persons ... heretofore held as slaves ... forever free". Lincoln, embarrassed by the order, rescinded Hunter's declaration, and canceled the emancipation.]

[In August 1861, Maj. Gen. John C. Fremont, Union commander of the Western Department, declared martial law in Missouri, confiscated Confederate supporters' property, and emancipated slaves. President Lincoln immediately ordered Fremont to rescind his emancipation declaration, stating: "There is great danger that ... the liberating slaves of traitorous owners, will alarm our Southern Union friends, and turn them against us perhaps ruin our prospects in Kentucky." After Fremont refused to rescind the emancipation order, President Lincoln terminated him from active duty on November 2, 1861.]

---

It does when it is the truth.

The war was about slavery.

the south started the war.

anyone who says differently is over 50 and repeating the lies their racist southern family members taught them.

---

This is getting tired and old.

But again try and read some actual history.

The Federal government fought a war to defend the territorial integrity of the Union. Not to end slavery.

Unionist slave owners in Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, and even New Jersey owned slaves during the entire war.

Lincoln started the war by sending Federal troops into the Southern States to force them at bayonet point back into the Union.

In this way he was no different than King George III or Gen. Santa Anna.

---

To further reinforce your accurate point, consider when the Emancipation Proclamation was announced (which effectively made ending slavery an additional goal of the war from the North's perspective), which was January 1, 1863. At that point the war had been raging since April 12, 1861 - so if it was all about ending or keeping slavery, then what in the world was all the fighting and carnage about for the almost 1 3/4 years prior to then?? It's also noteworthy that at the time, the Proclamation was quite controversial in the North, as many people that were on board with fighting to force the secessionist states back into the Union weren't on board with fighting and dying to free slaves.

Furthermore, since most of the Confederate soldiers weren't wealthy enough to own slaves and were never going be wealthy enough to do so, common sense tells you that they wouldn't be willing to suffer, starve, get grievously wounded, or die like they did by the hundreds of thousands just so some rich plantation owner who lived 50 miles away that they didn't know or even run in the same circles with could keep his slaves. They were fighting for their states and for the independence of the Confederacy. It's of course tragic and wrong that a part of the way of life of their states included the evil practice of legalized slavery, which of course ended as the most positive thing that happened as a result of the War, but it's wrong and way overly simplistic to think that's all they were fighting about. The people who think otherwise are like the simpletons that think World War II in Europe was all about stopping the Holocaust - another popular myth.

4th and Inches said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Thee University said:

---

clubhi said:

---

last time it happened the confederacy got smashed

---

Really?

360K union soldiers killed by Lincoln. 258K confederate soldiers killed by Lincoln. It took 2.1 million Yankess to squeak by 1.1 million Confederates.

The Confederacy was kicking the Yankee's a$$e$ until Lincoln hoodwinked 180K Irish right off the boats to fight.

The only smashing of the confederacy was during Lincoln's "Reconstruction"

---

Horribly flawed, wrong and revisionist history. (Most versions of it are)

Lincoln didn't start the war. The slave owners did. (Not true, they asked to leave and Lincoln said no. The war was started by Lincoln) l

The slave owners killed those union soldiers. (Not true)

The suave owners killed those mostly poor southerners who fought so the shave owners could keep slaves. (Not true)

Lincoln was dead during reconstruction. (True)

Everything you posted was absolute garbage and not true.(most everything you posted is as well)

---

see bracketed responses

---

Nope. False. Everything I posted is 100% true and backed up by documented facts.

South Carolina fired the first shots. They started the war. Many states left BEFORE Lincoln took office.

So yeah everything I posted was fact and your simply saying "not true" doesn't make it less of a fact.

---

lol.

Leaving doesnt start a war,so you are wrong about that

BUT trying to resupply a union fort in a contested area could be construed as an act of war. Lincoln did it to fight. Facts arent on your side. Have a nice day.

---

Sorry but the facts are on my side.

Who fired first?

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Yawn. More southern lies that have no basis in the facts of what happened.

The civil war was about slavery. End of discussion.

south carolina Fired the first shots.

End of discussion.

---

Yelling "end of discussion" like a child does not actually end the discussion.

And no....the war was not over slavery. It was over the right of states to secede from the Federal Union.

"To hold Fort Sumter may have seemed to Lincoln a duty but to the Virginians it savored of coercion; and coercion in this case meant forcing a State which had legally seceded, back into the Union. If an attempt was made to coerce a State, Virginia would join the Southern Confederacy." -Rhodes

"Slavery is no more the cause of this current war that Mr. Lincoln has chosen to wage than gold is the cause of robbery." Governor Joel Parker of New Jersey, 1863

"My enemies pretend I am now carrying on this war for the purpose of abolition...If I could preserve the Union without freeing any slave I would do it." Abraham Lincoln, Aug 15, 1864

"President Lincoln desires the right to hold slaves to be fully recognized. This war is prosecuted for the Union, hence no question concerning slavery will arise." Simon Cameron: Union SEC. OF WAR 1861-1862

"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." - Abraham Lincoln

"If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them." - Abraham Lincoln

[On May 26, 1862, Union Maj. Gen. David Hunter emancipated slaves in South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida, declaring all "persons ... heretofore held as slaves ... forever free". Lincoln, embarrassed by the order, rescinded Hunter's declaration, and canceled the emancipation.]

[In August 1861, Maj. Gen. John C. Fremont, Union commander of the Western Department, declared martial law in Missouri, confiscated Confederate supporters' property, and emancipated slaves. President Lincoln immediately ordered Fremont to rescind his emancipation declaration, stating: "There is great danger that ... the liberating slaves of traitorous owners, will alarm our Southern Union friends, and turn them against us perhaps ruin our prospects in Kentucky." After Fremont refused to rescind the emancipation order, President Lincoln terminated him from active duty on November 2, 1861.]

---

It does when it is the truth.

The war was about slavery.

the south started the war.

anyone who says differently is over 50 and repeating the lies their racist southern family members taught them.

---

This is getting tired and old.

But again try and read some actual history.

The Federal government fought a war to defend the territorial integrity of the Union. Not to end slavery.

Unionist slave owners in Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, and even New Jersey owned slaves during the entire war.

Lincoln started the war by sending Federal troops into the Southern States to force them at bayonet point back into the Union.

In this way he was no different than King George III or Gen. Santa Anna.

---

Sent troops to retake territory in rebellion. Yawn.

It was about slavery.

Wangchung said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Because only racists study history written before 2008.

---

Yes that is exactly what I said.....


Oh wait no it isn't.

Only racists try to defend ANYTHING the CSA did, the racist slave owners did, try to defend the civil war as anything other than a fight to keep the racist institution of slavery alive, protect statues built to losers of a war to protect slavery, or defend a flag that stood for slavery.

---

That's what I said! Any facts previous to 2008 are racist! Anyone who dares to read historical documents that claim the civil war was about anything other than slavery and racism is a racist! Facts are racist! History is racist! All that matters is the modern day lens through which we assume things, not facts, not the personal writings of the people who lived it. Not sure where you think you and I disagree.

---

Facts like South Carolina fired first and started the war?

Rawhide said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Yawn. More southern lies that have no basis in the facts of what happened.

The civil war was about slavery. End of discussion.

south carolina Fired the first shots.

End of discussion.

---

Yelling "end of discussion" like a child does not actually end the discussion.

And no....the war was not over slavery. It was over the right of states to secede from the Federal Union.

"To hold Fort Sumter may have seemed to Lincoln a duty but to the Virginians it savored of coercion; and coercion in this case meant forcing a State which had legally seceded, back into the Union. If an attempt was made to coerce a State, Virginia would join the Southern Confederacy." -Rhodes

"Slavery is no more the cause of this current war that Mr. Lincoln has chosen to wage than gold is the cause of robbery." Governor Joel Parker of New Jersey, 1863

"My enemies pretend I am now carrying on this war for the purpose of abolition...If I could preserve the Union without freeing any slave I would do it." Abraham Lincoln, Aug 15, 1864

"President Lincoln desires the right to hold slaves to be fully recognized. This war is prosecuted for the Union, hence no question concerning slavery will arise." Simon Cameron: Union SEC. OF WAR 1861-1862

"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." - Abraham Lincoln

"If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them." - Abraham Lincoln

[On May 26, 1862, Union Maj. Gen. David Hunter emancipated slaves in South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida, declaring all "persons ... heretofore held as slaves ... forever free". Lincoln, embarrassed by the order, rescinded Hunter's declaration, and canceled the emancipation.]

[In August 1861, Maj. Gen. John C. Fremont, Union commander of the Western Department, declared martial law in Missouri, confiscated Confederate supporters' property, and emancipated slaves. President Lincoln immediately ordered Fremont to rescind his emancipation declaration, stating: "There is great danger that ... the liberating slaves of traitorous owners, will alarm our Southern Union friends, and turn them against us perhaps ruin our prospects in Kentucky." After Fremont refused to rescind the emancipation order, President Lincoln terminated him from active duty on November 2, 1861.]

---

It does when it is the truth.

The war was about slavery.

the south started the war.

anyone who says differently is over 50 and repeating the lies their racist southern family members taught them.

---

Did you learn that at your CRT class?

---

Nope. CRT is horrible and not based in facts like South Carolina started the war.

but I guess you think the US started WW2 not Japan.

cowboycwr said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

It does when it is the truth.

The war was about slavery.

the south started the war.

anyone who says differently is over 50 and repeating the lies their racist southern family members taught them.

---

Did you learn that at your CRT class?

---

Nope. CRT is horrible and not based in facts like South Carolina started the war.

but I guess you think the US started WW2 not Japan.

---

Was Japan a part of the US and did its people vote to leave?

Was Pearl Harbor a military base located in a Japanese prefecture?

If the answer is no to those questions then the example given is erroneous.

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Yawn. More southern lies that have no basis in the facts of what happened.

The civil war was about slavery. End of discussion.

south carolina Fired the first shots.

End of discussion.

---

Yelling "end of discussion" like a child does not actually end the discussion.

And no....the war was not over slavery. It was over the right of states to secede from the Federal Union.

"To hold Fort Sumter may have seemed to Lincoln a duty but to the Virginians it savored of coercion; and coercion in this case meant forcing a State which had legally seceded, back into the Union. If an attempt was made to coerce a State, Virginia would join the Southern Confederacy." -Rhodes

"Slavery is no more the cause of this current war that Mr. Lincoln has chosen to wage than gold is the cause of robbery." Governor Joel Parker of New Jersey, 1863

"My enemies pretend I am now carrying on this war for the purpose of abolition...If I could preserve the Union without freeing any slave I would do it." Abraham Lincoln, Aug 15, 1864

"President Lincoln desires the right to hold slaves to be fully recognized. This war is prosecuted for the Union, hence no question concerning slavery will arise." Simon Cameron: Union SEC. OF WAR 1861-1862

"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." - Abraham Lincoln

"If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them." - Abraham Lincoln

[On May 26, 1862, Union Maj. Gen. David Hunter emancipated slaves in South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida, declaring all "persons ... heretofore held as slaves ... forever free". Lincoln, embarrassed by the order, rescinded Hunter's declaration, and canceled the emancipation.]

[In August 1861, Maj. Gen. John C. Fremont, Union commander of the Western Department, declared martial law in Missouri, confiscated Confederate supporters' property, and emancipated slaves. President Lincoln immediately ordered Fremont to rescind his emancipation declaration, stating: "There is great danger that ... the liberating slaves of traitorous owners, will alarm our Southern Union friends, and turn them against us perhaps ruin our prospects in Kentucky." After Fremont refused to rescind the emancipation order, President Lincoln terminated him from active duty on November 2, 1861.]

---

It does when it is the truth.

The war was about slavery.

the south started the war.

anyone who says differently is over 50 and repeating the lies their racist southern family members taught them.

---

This is getting tired and old.

But again try and read some actual history.

The Federal government fought a war to defend the territorial integrity of the Union. Not to end slavery.

Unionist slave owners in Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, and even New Jersey owned slaves during the entire war.

Lincoln started the war by sending Federal troops into the Southern States to force them at bayonet point back into the Union.

In this way he was no different than King George III or Gen. Santa Anna.

---

Sent troops to retake territory in rebellion. Yawn.

It was about slavery.

---

Was the American war of independence about slavery? Was the Texas war of independence about slavery?

Both central governments (Britain & Mexico) sent troops to retake territory from a rebellion.

Both were wrong to have done so against the wishes of the actual people who lived in those territories.