White devils no longer in charge of museum tours, Chicago crime rate expected to drop

3,475 Views | 109 Replies | Last: 2 mo ago by Rawhide
cowboycwr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rawhide said:

Quote:

The majority of historians agree it was about civil war. Prove that wrong.

The links I have posted clearly state the cause of the civil war was slavery. That the civil war was about slavery. Yet you keep ignoring that and call me the idiot or say I don't have the ability to discern between the two.

Prove the professional historians wrong.

You post about the opinion of historians. Others have posted factual quotes that came straight from Lincoldn, events that actually happened and bills that actually passed.

You want to rely on what a few historians think instead of seeing the actual facts presented to you.

I guess it's true. We explain it to you, but we can't understand it for you.

Maybe idiot was too strong, but you're at least a clown.


Few??? The majority of them have reached that conclusion through their research, study and break down of the events.

It isn't opinions when they use the evidence to reach a conclusion.

First hand accounts are often wrong, taken out of context and missing the whole picture.

So again I challenge you to prove the vast majority of thousands and thousands of historians wrong.

Call me all the names you want but the challenge is up to you to prove those historians wrong. Apparently you could make a lot of money off of it since it would be groundbreaking work to prove an entire field of experts wrong.

So prove them wrong.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cowboycwr said:

Rawhide said:

cowboycwr said:

Rawhide said:

Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Canada2017 said:

cowboycwr said:

Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Porteroso said:

Redbrickbear said:

Canada2017 said:

Can anyone imagine the outrage if ANY organization fired their staff for being black ?

Why is blatant discrimination against white people perfectly ok ?




I could tell you but I would probably get banned from this site for saying it.

Believe me, nobody gets banned for anything they say in this forum.
Exactly. I have seen some vile stuff posted here and it seems no one gets banned for it. I can only think of one poster banned for things said but they started getting very personal, attacking, etc. Now on the football (or other sports boards) it is a different story and people can and do get banned there for disagreeing about a current coach.
I have seen your pro-Unionist vile stuff on here and I don't think you should get banned.

Live and let live on the interweb froums my bro.
What have I said that was vile? Posting the truth?


Implying Lincoln (who killed 700,000 people) was a good person is vile.

Saying the North fought the war to free slaves is just a low IQ lie.
Lincoln killed zero people. That is truth. You may THINK otherwise but historians don't agree with you. So you are wrong and history proves it.

Saying the North fought the war to free slaves is the truth. Historians and history back me up.
chuckle

A good laugh with my morning coffee.



Thanks .




Sad that you find the truth to be funny...


Your misrepresentation of the truth is what's funny…or to be honest it's quite sad.


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

"President Lincoln has told me time and again of his desire for 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

Lincoln's July 4th Message to Congress: "Finding this condition of things and believing it to be an imperative duty upon the incoming Executive to prevent, if possible, the consummation of such attempt to break the Federal Union, a choice of means to that end became indispensable...I sought only to hold the public places and property not already wrested from the Government and to collect the revenue, relying for the rest on time, discussion, and the ballot box." Lincoln in his speech was referring to the 40% federal sales tax on imports to Southern States under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861.

[At the Hampton's Road conference with Stephens in 1864, he supported reunion and allow the courts to work out the issue of emancipation. Lincoln's obsession was with the Union - not slaves. Lincoln reportedly told the Confederate negotiators that Northern opinion was very much divided on the question of how these new laws would be enforced. Regarding the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln reportedly interpreted it as a war measure that would permanently affect only the 200,000 people who came under direct Army control during the War. Seward reportedly showed the Confederates a copy of the newly adopted Thirteenth Amendment, referred to this document also as a war measure only, and suggested that if they were to rejoin the Union they might be able to prevent its ratification. After further discussion, Lincoln suggested that the Southern states might "avoid, as far as possible, the evils of immediate emancipation" Lincoln also offered possible compensation for emancipation, naming the figure of $400,000,000 which he later proposed to Congress.]

"On the part of the North, this war was carried on, not to liberate the slaves, but by a Federal government 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

Historian Thomas Fleming wrote in A Disease in the Public Mind: A New Understanding of Why We Fought the Civil War. Radical Republican Congressional leaders "unanimously agreed that the integrity of the Union should be preserved, though it cost a million lives," the New York Times reported on Christmas Day 1860. Massachusetts governor John Albion declared, "We must conquer the South!" Pro-war Bostonians amassed in large crowds and urged the governor to "drive the ruffians (southerners) and their families into the Gulf of Mexico and the Negroes with them."

"I have said that the separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation. I have no right to say all the members of the Republican party are in favor of this, nor to say that as a party they are in favor of it. There is nothing in their platform directly on the subject. But I can say a very large proportion of its members are for it, and that the chief plank in their platform is most favorable to that separation. Such separation, if ever effected, must be effected by their colonization overseas." -Abraham Lincoln

"Judge Douglas is especially horrified at the thought of the mixing blood by the white and black races: we are agreed for once---a thousand times agreed." - Abraham Lincoln

"I tell him [Fredrick Douglass] very frankly that I am not in favor of negro citizenship." - Abraham Lincoln

"Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live here with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life." -Abraham Lincoln

"I have no purpose or desire to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races." -Abraham Lincoln

"When Southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery than we, I acknowledge the fact...My first impulse would be if the slaves are freed...send them to Liberia." -Abraham Lincoln, 8/21/1858

[Just four days before his death, speaking to Gen. Benjamin Butler, Lincoln still pressed on with deportation as the only peaceable solution to America's race problem. "I can not believe that the South and North can live in peace, unless we can get rid of the negroes … I believe that it would be better to export them all to some fertile country."]

[When Lincoln did express a hatred of the expansion of the "peculiar institution" in the Lincoln Douglas debates he said nothing about the abolition ever of the south's current institution. By avoiding the issue of liberation, he could secure the support of non abolitionists and not risk losing the anti-slavery vote. One of the foundations of the Republican Party was free soil and labor opportunities for whites; the prevention of the expansion of slavery was one of the methods to accomplish this. Lincoln took it as his duty to hold to the party principles. Without such a strong corner stone to unit the party it would surely fall (Fonner, Free, 215-216). When elected to office Lincoln continued to use slavery as a political tool in an attempt to put an end to the secession crisis. On the eve of the crisis's climax Lincoln admitted that he was willing to give in to the most radical faction of Southern politicians along with their demands, such as ending Northern resistance to an internal slave trade. Lincoln made it a point to stress to the slave holding states that he had no intention of re-structuring race relations (Clinton & Silber, Divided, 78).
The real purpose for barring the expansion of slavery was to provide more land for the white settlers, not to improve the living conditions of savage subordinates. Armed with this idea of the isolation of slavery for the benefit of the white man Lincoln and his party billed themselves as "the only white mans party in the country." The National Era reported that many Americans opposed slavery. The reason that slavery was so strongly opposed by so many whites was due to its negative effects on free labor. There was little to no consideration for the well being or equality of the Negro (Fonner, Free, 265). Though Lincoln did believe that the Negro was a man, he knew that he was lesser man than whites. However even a lesser man was entitled to the basic natural rights of man, however he did believe that equality with whites was a natural right . He did proclaim that the Negro deserved a chance to better himself, but equality among his masters did not seem an attainable goal for the Negro (Fonner, Free, 290).
In 1862 at the White House Lincoln told a group of black leaders, including Fredrick Douglas, that though slavery was a great wrong inflicted on their people the black race would only suffer trying to live as equals in the superior white culture. Lincoln admitted that the Negro deserved a chance to prove themselves capable of bettering themselves. He thought it unlikely and and not desirable that they should do so here in America (McPherson, Battle, 508). Lincoln's solution was colonization. Central America was one of the selected territories. Through colonization the US could be freed of the inferior Negro in a sort of National enema.] -"Was Lincoln an Abolitionist?", Kelly Snell




Majority of historians agree it was about civil war.


https://psmag.com/education/of-course-the-civil-war-was-about-slavery-26265

Majority of historians agree it was about slavery.

https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/slavery-cause-civil-war.htm

And from that same link is Alexander Stevens (VP of the confederacy) saying it was all about slavery.

I could include 100 quotes from others, like you have done, to back up the fact it was about slavery to counter all the quotes you gave.

The articles of secession of the states also mentioned slavery more than they mentioned any other cause.

It was about slavery. The fact you can't accept that historians have proven that shows you are ignorant.








You are again confusing the cause of secession with the cause of the War.

Slavery was no doubt a major factor in the Southern leadership at the time (Senators, Congressmen, etc) wanting to break off and end their political union with the USA.

But the war was over keeping states in the Union...not slavery. The Northern political leadership was happy to keep slavery if it could keep the Union.

The average solider in the South was not fighting for slavery...he was fighting for independence. 90% of CSA soldiers did not own a single slave. The average solider in the North was not fighting against slavery...he was fighting to keep the Union at its current borders.

Lincoln of course the President of the United States himself said the war was NOT against slavery....it was against secession.

The cause of the American colonies wanting to break off from the United Kingdom or Texas wanting to break off from Mexico were the reasons for those wars. Some liberal historians are now trying to argue that slavery was a major reason the Founding Fathers wanted to break off from the United Kingdom....I don't think its true....but it does not matter.

Did the American colonies have the right to form their own independent government? Did Texas have a right to from their own independent government? Did the Southern States have a right to form their own independent government? The answer is yes to all those questions.

"The sacred ideal for us has never been the Federal Union. But the consent of the people and freedom of the States."

"We are, therefore, driven to the acknowledgment that nations and governments, if they can rightfully exist at all, can exist only by consent." -Lysander Spooner, Abolitionist

"The Constitution of the United States authorizes no government, except one depending wholly on voluntary support of the States"

"After the war began, the higher motive of winning independence prevailed over any lower motive of protecting slavery & the men who fought so gallantly regarded their cause, as just & even holy."
-Prof. Morison of Harvard University.

"The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States; and in uniting together they have not forfeited their nationality nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people… If one of the States choose to withdraw from the compact, it would be difficult to disprove its rights of doing so, and the Federal Government would have no means of maintaining its claims directly either by force or right." --DeTocqueville

"To coerce a State [to remain in the Federal union] would be one of the maddest projects ever devised." -Alexander Hamilton

"Secession, in my opinion, is fundamental to the American ideal. Without the threat of the people and States being able to at any time to throw off the yoke of an oppressive central government none of it makes any sense. It would be a negation of the American revolution itself."

"If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation...to a continuance in this Union...I have no hesitation in saying, 'let us separate.'"
- Thomas Jefferson

"I worked night and day for twelve years to prevent the the dissolution of the Union, but I could not. And so the war came."
-President Jefferson Davis 1881


cowboycwr is an idiot. It's possible he knows he's wrong, but just refuses to admit it, take the loss and move one. Nah, he's an idiot.
Prove the majority of historians wrong.

Write them, email them, etc. and call them idiots.

but you won't because you can only call people idiots from behind your keyboard because you have no facts to back it up or prove the majority of historians wrong.
Two days before Lincoln's inauguration as the 16th President, Congress, consisting only of the Northern states, passed overwhelmingly on March 2, 1861, the Corwin Amendment that gave constitutional protection to slavery. Lincoln endorsed the amendment in his inaugural address, saying "I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."

The civil war was about keeping the union together. You're either too stupid to see it, too dishonest to admit it or both.

You don't seem to have the ability to discern between the cause of secession and the cause of the civil war.

End of discussion.



The majority of historians agree it was about civil war. Prove that wrong.

The links I have posted clearly state the cause of the civil war was slavery. That the civil war was about slavery. Yet you keep ignoring that and call me the idiot or say I don't have the ability to discern between the two.

Prove the professional historians wrong.
I have already sited an eminent Harvard historian (but you said we can't quote people lol)

You can read Shelby Foote who was a major historian and adviser to Ken Burns the Civil War doc.

You can and will find a great deal of arguments all over the spectrum.

The consensus is that the issues around slavery was what lead up to the secession crisis...I have admitted that on this thread.

What you will not find is any consensus that the Federal government was waging an anti-slavery war.

The historical record, the debates in Congress, the platform of the Republican Party at the time, and the entire correspondence/records of President Lincoln's administration all point to one and only reason for the War....PRESERVATION OF THE UNION.

The War was fought to keep the Union intact...not to end slavery...and until the last days of the war the Northern leadership was willing to accept slavery if the States could be brought back under the control of the Central government.


And even though you hate quotes...here is another quote for you from imminent Lincoln (and no friend of the South) historian James McPherson.
    "General Sherman, who had lived in the South, liked Southerners and did not at all sympathize with Northern abolitionist views, yet became the most hated and feared destroyer of the South and its whole civilization. And I think he did so because he saw that as necessary to win the war. And I think Lincoln made his decisionsissuing the Emancipation Proclamation, for example, or turning Sherman loose because he saw that as necessary to win the war."
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Rawhide said:

cowboycwr said:

Rawhide said:

Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Canada2017 said:

cowboycwr said:

Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Porteroso said:

Redbrickbear said:

Canada2017 said:

Can anyone imagine the outrage if ANY organization fired their staff for being black ?

Why is blatant discrimination against white people perfectly ok ?




I could tell you but I would probably get banned from this site for saying it.

Believe me, nobody gets banned for anything they say in this forum.
Exactly. I have seen some vile stuff posted here and it seems no one gets banned for it. I can only think of one poster banned for things said but they started getting very personal, attacking, etc. Now on the football (or other sports boards) it is a different story and people can and do get banned there for disagreeing about a current coach.
I have seen your pro-Unionist vile stuff on here and I don't think you should get banned.

Live and let live on the interweb froums my bro.
What have I said that was vile? Posting the truth?


Implying Lincoln (who killed 700,000 people) was a good person is vile.

Saying the North fought the war to free slaves is just a low IQ lie.
Lincoln killed zero people. That is truth. You may THINK otherwise but historians don't agree with you. So you are wrong and history proves it.

Saying the North fought the war to free slaves is the truth. Historians and history back me up.
chuckle

A good laugh with my morning coffee.



Thanks .




Sad that you find the truth to be funny...


Your misrepresentation of the truth is what's funny…or to be honest it's quite sad.


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

"President Lincoln has told me time and again of his desire for 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

Lincoln's July 4th Message to Congress: "Finding this condition of things and believing it to be an imperative duty upon the incoming Executive to prevent, if possible, the consummation of such attempt to break the Federal Union, a choice of means to that end became indispensable...I sought only to hold the public places and property not already wrested from the Government and to collect the revenue, relying for the rest on time, discussion, and the ballot box." Lincoln in his speech was referring to the 40% federal sales tax on imports to Southern States under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861.

[At the Hampton's Road conference with Stephens in 1864, he supported reunion and allow the courts to work out the issue of emancipation. Lincoln's obsession was with the Union - not slaves. Lincoln reportedly told the Confederate negotiators that Northern opinion was very much divided on the question of how these new laws would be enforced. Regarding the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln reportedly interpreted it as a war measure that would permanently affect only the 200,000 people who came under direct Army control during the War. Seward reportedly showed the Confederates a copy of the newly adopted Thirteenth Amendment, referred to this document also as a war measure only, and suggested that if they were to rejoin the Union they might be able to prevent its ratification. After further discussion, Lincoln suggested that the Southern states might "avoid, as far as possible, the evils of immediate emancipation" Lincoln also offered possible compensation for emancipation, naming the figure of $400,000,000 which he later proposed to Congress.]

"On the part of the North, this war was carried on, not to liberate the slaves, but by a Federal government 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

Historian Thomas Fleming wrote in A Disease in the Public Mind: A New Understanding of Why We Fought the Civil War. Radical Republican Congressional leaders "unanimously agreed that the integrity of the Union should be preserved, though it cost a million lives," the New York Times reported on Christmas Day 1860. Massachusetts governor John Albion declared, "We must conquer the South!" Pro-war Bostonians amassed in large crowds and urged the governor to "drive the ruffians (southerners) and their families into the Gulf of Mexico and the Negroes with them."

"I have said that the separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation. I have no right to say all the members of the Republican party are in favor of this, nor to say that as a party they are in favor of it. There is nothing in their platform directly on the subject. But I can say a very large proportion of its members are for it, and that the chief plank in their platform is most favorable to that separation. Such separation, if ever effected, must be effected by their colonization overseas." -Abraham Lincoln

"Judge Douglas is especially horrified at the thought of the mixing blood by the white and black races: we are agreed for once---a thousand times agreed." - Abraham Lincoln

"I tell him [Fredrick Douglass] very frankly that I am not in favor of negro citizenship." - Abraham Lincoln

"Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live here with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life." -Abraham Lincoln

"I have no purpose or desire to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races." -Abraham Lincoln

"When Southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery than we, I acknowledge the fact...My first impulse would be if the slaves are freed...send them to Liberia." -Abraham Lincoln, 8/21/1858

[Just four days before his death, speaking to Gen. Benjamin Butler, Lincoln still pressed on with deportation as the only peaceable solution to America's race problem. "I can not believe that the South and North can live in peace, unless we can get rid of the negroes … I believe that it would be better to export them all to some fertile country."]

[When Lincoln did express a hatred of the expansion of the "peculiar institution" in the Lincoln Douglas debates he said nothing about the abolition ever of the south's current institution. By avoiding the issue of liberation, he could secure the support of non abolitionists and not risk losing the anti-slavery vote. One of the foundations of the Republican Party was free soil and labor opportunities for whites; the prevention of the expansion of slavery was one of the methods to accomplish this. Lincoln took it as his duty to hold to the party principles. Without such a strong corner stone to unit the party it would surely fall (Fonner, Free, 215-216). When elected to office Lincoln continued to use slavery as a political tool in an attempt to put an end to the secession crisis. On the eve of the crisis's climax Lincoln admitted that he was willing to give in to the most radical faction of Southern politicians along with their demands, such as ending Northern resistance to an internal slave trade. Lincoln made it a point to stress to the slave holding states that he had no intention of re-structuring race relations (Clinton & Silber, Divided, 78).
The real purpose for barring the expansion of slavery was to provide more land for the white settlers, not to improve the living conditions of savage subordinates. Armed with this idea of the isolation of slavery for the benefit of the white man Lincoln and his party billed themselves as "the only white mans party in the country." The National Era reported that many Americans opposed slavery. The reason that slavery was so strongly opposed by so many whites was due to its negative effects on free labor. There was little to no consideration for the well being or equality of the Negro (Fonner, Free, 265). Though Lincoln did believe that the Negro was a man, he knew that he was lesser man than whites. However even a lesser man was entitled to the basic natural rights of man, however he did believe that equality with whites was a natural right . He did proclaim that the Negro deserved a chance to better himself, but equality among his masters did not seem an attainable goal for the Negro (Fonner, Free, 290).
In 1862 at the White House Lincoln told a group of black leaders, including Fredrick Douglas, that though slavery was a great wrong inflicted on their people the black race would only suffer trying to live as equals in the superior white culture. Lincoln admitted that the Negro deserved a chance to prove themselves capable of bettering themselves. He thought it unlikely and and not desirable that they should do so here in America (McPherson, Battle, 508). Lincoln's solution was colonization. Central America was one of the selected territories. Through colonization the US could be freed of the inferior Negro in a sort of National enema.] -"Was Lincoln an Abolitionist?", Kelly Snell




Majority of historians agree it was about civil war.


https://psmag.com/education/of-course-the-civil-war-was-about-slavery-26265

Majority of historians agree it was about slavery.

https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/slavery-cause-civil-war.htm

And from that same link is Alexander Stevens (VP of the confederacy) saying it was all about slavery.

I could include 100 quotes from others, like you have done, to back up the fact it was about slavery to counter all the quotes you gave.

The articles of secession of the states also mentioned slavery more than they mentioned any other cause.

It was about slavery. The fact you can't accept that historians have proven that shows you are ignorant.








You are again confusing the cause of secession with the cause of the War.

Slavery was no doubt a major factor in the Southern leadership at the time (Senators, Congressmen, etc) wanting to break off and end their political union with the USA.

But the war was over keeping states in the Union...not slavery. The Northern political leadership was happy to keep slavery if it could keep the Union.

The average solider in the South was not fighting for slavery...he was fighting for independence. 90% of CSA soldiers did not own a single slave. The average solider in the North was not fighting against slavery...he was fighting to keep the Union at its current borders.

Lincoln of course the President of the United States himself said the war was NOT against slavery....it was against secession.

The cause of the American colonies wanting to break off from the United Kingdom or Texas wanting to break off from Mexico were the reasons for those wars. Some liberal historians are now trying to argue that slavery was a major reason the Founding Fathers wanted to break off from the United Kingdom....I don't think its true....but it does not matter.

Did the American colonies have the right to form their own independent government? Did Texas have a right to from their own independent government? Did the Southern States have a right to form their own independent government? The answer is yes to all those questions.

"The sacred ideal for us has never been the Federal Union. But the consent of the people and freedom of the States."

"We are, therefore, driven to the acknowledgment that nations and governments, if they can rightfully exist at all, can exist only by consent." -Lysander Spooner, Abolitionist

"The Constitution of the United States authorizes no government, except one depending wholly on voluntary support of the States"

"After the war began, the higher motive of winning independence prevailed over any lower motive of protecting slavery & the men who fought so gallantly regarded their cause, as just & even holy."
-Prof. Morison of Harvard University.

"The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States; and in uniting together they have not forfeited their nationality nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people… If one of the States choose to withdraw from the compact, it would be difficult to disprove its rights of doing so, and the Federal Government would have no means of maintaining its claims directly either by force or right." --DeTocqueville

"To coerce a State [to remain in the Federal union] would be one of the maddest projects ever devised." -Alexander Hamilton

"Secession, in my opinion, is fundamental to the American ideal. Without the threat of the people and States being able to at any time to throw off the yoke of an oppressive central government none of it makes any sense. It would be a negation of the American revolution itself."

"If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation...to a continuance in this Union...I have no hesitation in saying, 'let us separate.'"
- Thomas Jefferson

"I worked night and day for twelve years to prevent the the dissolution of the Union, but I could not. And so the war came."
-President Jefferson Davis 1881


cowboycwr is an idiot. It's possible he knows he's wrong, but just refuses to admit it, take the loss and move one. Nah, he's an idiot.
Prove the majority of historians wrong.

Write them, email them, etc. and call them idiots.

but you won't because you can only call people idiots from behind your keyboard because you have no facts to back it up or prove the majority of historians wrong.
Two days before Lincoln's inauguration as the 16th President, Congress, consisting only of the Northern states, passed overwhelmingly on March 2, 1861, the Corwin Amendment that gave constitutional protection to slavery. Lincoln endorsed the amendment in his inaugural address, saying "I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."

The civil war was about keeping the union together. You're either too stupid to see it, too dishonest to admit it or both.

You don't seem to have the ability to discern between the cause of secession and the cause of the civil war.

End of discussion.



The majority of historians agree it was about civil war. Prove that wrong.

The links I have posted clearly state the cause of the civil war was slavery. That the civil war was about slavery. Yet you keep ignoring that and call me the idiot or say I don't have the ability to discern between the two.

Prove the professional historians wrong.
I have already sited an eminent Harvard historian (but you said we can't quote people lol)

You can read Shelby Foote who was a major historian and adviser to Ken Burns the Civil War doc.

You can and will find a great deal of arguments all over the spectrum.

The consensus is that the issues around slavery was what lead up to the secession crisis...I have admitted that on this thread.

What you will not find is any consensus that the Federal government was waging an anti-slavery war.

The historical record, the debates in Congress, the platform of the Republican Party at the time, and the entire correspondence/records of President Lincoln's administration all point to one and only reason for the War....PRESERVATION OF THE UNION.

The War was fought to keep the Union intact...not to end slavery...and until the last days of the war the Northern leadership was willing to accept slavery if the States could be brought back under the control of the Central government.


And even though you hate quotes...here is another quote for you from imminent Lincoln (and no friend of the South) historian James McPherson.
    "General Sherman, who had lived in the South, liked Southerners and did not at all sympathize with Northern abolitionist views, yet became the most hated and feared destroyer of the South and its whole civilization. And I think he did so because he saw that as necessary to win the war. And I think Lincoln made his decisionsissuing the Emancipation Proclamation, for example, or turning Sherman loose because he saw that as necessary to win the war."

Have read Sherman's biography .....not a likeable character by any means.

But he was forthright .

Openly admitted that due to his army's 'march to the sea ' atrocities he would be branded a war criminal in the unlikely event the south won the war.
Wangchung
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canada2017 said:

Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Rawhide said:

cowboycwr said:

Rawhide said:

Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Canada2017 said:

cowboycwr said:

Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Porteroso said:

Redbrickbear said:

Canada2017 said:

Can anyone imagine the outrage if ANY organization fired their staff for being black ?

Why is blatant discrimination against white people perfectly ok ?




I could tell you but I would probably get banned from this site for saying it.

Believe me, nobody gets banned for anything they say in this forum.
Exactly. I have seen some vile stuff posted here and it seems no one gets banned for it. I can only think of one poster banned for things said but they started getting very personal, attacking, etc. Now on the football (or other sports boards) it is a different story and people can and do get banned there for disagreeing about a current coach.
I have seen your pro-Unionist vile stuff on here and I don't think you should get banned.

Live and let live on the interweb froums my bro.
What have I said that was vile? Posting the truth?


Implying Lincoln (who killed 700,000 people) was a good person is vile.

Saying the North fought the war to free slaves is just a low IQ lie.
Lincoln killed zero people. That is truth. You may THINK otherwise but historians don't agree with you. So you are wrong and history proves it.

Saying the North fought the war to free slaves is the truth. Historians and history back me up.
chuckle

A good laugh with my morning coffee.



Thanks .




Sad that you find the truth to be funny...


Your misrepresentation of the truth is what's funny…or to be honest it's quite sad.


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

"President Lincoln has told me time and again of his desire for 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

Lincoln's July 4th Message to Congress: "Finding this condition of things and believing it to be an imperative duty upon the incoming Executive to prevent, if possible, the consummation of such attempt to break the Federal Union, a choice of means to that end became indispensable...I sought only to hold the public places and property not already wrested from the Government and to collect the revenue, relying for the rest on time, discussion, and the ballot box." Lincoln in his speech was referring to the 40% federal sales tax on imports to Southern States under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861.

[At the Hampton's Road conference with Stephens in 1864, he supported reunion and allow the courts to work out the issue of emancipation. Lincoln's obsession was with the Union - not slaves. Lincoln reportedly told the Confederate negotiators that Northern opinion was very much divided on the question of how these new laws would be enforced. Regarding the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln reportedly interpreted it as a war measure that would permanently affect only the 200,000 people who came under direct Army control during the War. Seward reportedly showed the Confederates a copy of the newly adopted Thirteenth Amendment, referred to this document also as a war measure only, and suggested that if they were to rejoin the Union they might be able to prevent its ratification. After further discussion, Lincoln suggested that the Southern states might "avoid, as far as possible, the evils of immediate emancipation" Lincoln also offered possible compensation for emancipation, naming the figure of $400,000,000 which he later proposed to Congress.]

"On the part of the North, this war was carried on, not to liberate the slaves, but by a Federal government 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

Historian Thomas Fleming wrote in A Disease in the Public Mind: A New Understanding of Why We Fought the Civil War. Radical Republican Congressional leaders "unanimously agreed that the integrity of the Union should be preserved, though it cost a million lives," the New York Times reported on Christmas Day 1860. Massachusetts governor John Albion declared, "We must conquer the South!" Pro-war Bostonians amassed in large crowds and urged the governor to "drive the ruffians (southerners) and their families into the Gulf of Mexico and the Negroes with them."

"I have said that the separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation. I have no right to say all the members of the Republican party are in favor of this, nor to say that as a party they are in favor of it. There is nothing in their platform directly on the subject. But I can say a very large proportion of its members are for it, and that the chief plank in their platform is most favorable to that separation. Such separation, if ever effected, must be effected by their colonization overseas." -Abraham Lincoln

"Judge Douglas is especially horrified at the thought of the mixing blood by the white and black races: we are agreed for once---a thousand times agreed." - Abraham Lincoln

"I tell him [Fredrick Douglass] very frankly that I am not in favor of negro citizenship." - Abraham Lincoln

"Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live here with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life." -Abraham Lincoln

"I have no purpose or desire to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races." -Abraham Lincoln

"When Southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery than we, I acknowledge the fact...My first impulse would be if the slaves are freed...send them to Liberia." -Abraham Lincoln, 8/21/1858

[Just four days before his death, speaking to Gen. Benjamin Butler, Lincoln still pressed on with deportation as the only peaceable solution to America's race problem. "I can not believe that the South and North can live in peace, unless we can get rid of the negroes … I believe that it would be better to export them all to some fertile country."]

[When Lincoln did express a hatred of the expansion of the "peculiar institution" in the Lincoln Douglas debates he said nothing about the abolition ever of the south's current institution. By avoiding the issue of liberation, he could secure the support of non abolitionists and not risk losing the anti-slavery vote. One of the foundations of the Republican Party was free soil and labor opportunities for whites; the prevention of the expansion of slavery was one of the methods to accomplish this. Lincoln took it as his duty to hold to the party principles. Without such a strong corner stone to unit the party it would surely fall (Fonner, Free, 215-216). When elected to office Lincoln continued to use slavery as a political tool in an attempt to put an end to the secession crisis. On the eve of the crisis's climax Lincoln admitted that he was willing to give in to the most radical faction of Southern politicians along with their demands, such as ending Northern resistance to an internal slave trade. Lincoln made it a point to stress to the slave holding states that he had no intention of re-structuring race relations (Clinton & Silber, Divided, 78).
The real purpose for barring the expansion of slavery was to provide more land for the white settlers, not to improve the living conditions of savage subordinates. Armed with this idea of the isolation of slavery for the benefit of the white man Lincoln and his party billed themselves as "the only white mans party in the country." The National Era reported that many Americans opposed slavery. The reason that slavery was so strongly opposed by so many whites was due to its negative effects on free labor. There was little to no consideration for the well being or equality of the Negro (Fonner, Free, 265). Though Lincoln did believe that the Negro was a man, he knew that he was lesser man than whites. However even a lesser man was entitled to the basic natural rights of man, however he did believe that equality with whites was a natural right . He did proclaim that the Negro deserved a chance to better himself, but equality among his masters did not seem an attainable goal for the Negro (Fonner, Free, 290).
In 1862 at the White House Lincoln told a group of black leaders, including Fredrick Douglas, that though slavery was a great wrong inflicted on their people the black race would only suffer trying to live as equals in the superior white culture. Lincoln admitted that the Negro deserved a chance to prove themselves capable of bettering themselves. He thought it unlikely and and not desirable that they should do so here in America (McPherson, Battle, 508). Lincoln's solution was colonization. Central America was one of the selected territories. Through colonization the US could be freed of the inferior Negro in a sort of National enema.] -"Was Lincoln an Abolitionist?", Kelly Snell




Majority of historians agree it was about civil war.


https://psmag.com/education/of-course-the-civil-war-was-about-slavery-26265

Majority of historians agree it was about slavery.

https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/slavery-cause-civil-war.htm

And from that same link is Alexander Stevens (VP of the confederacy) saying it was all about slavery.

I could include 100 quotes from others, like you have done, to back up the fact it was about slavery to counter all the quotes you gave.

The articles of secession of the states also mentioned slavery more than they mentioned any other cause.

It was about slavery. The fact you can't accept that historians have proven that shows you are ignorant.








You are again confusing the cause of secession with the cause of the War.

Slavery was no doubt a major factor in the Southern leadership at the time (Senators, Congressmen, etc) wanting to break off and end their political union with the USA.

But the war was over keeping states in the Union...not slavery. The Northern political leadership was happy to keep slavery if it could keep the Union.

The average solider in the South was not fighting for slavery...he was fighting for independence. 90% of CSA soldiers did not own a single slave. The average solider in the North was not fighting against slavery...he was fighting to keep the Union at its current borders.

Lincoln of course the President of the United States himself said the war was NOT against slavery....it was against secession.

The cause of the American colonies wanting to break off from the United Kingdom or Texas wanting to break off from Mexico were the reasons for those wars. Some liberal historians are now trying to argue that slavery was a major reason the Founding Fathers wanted to break off from the United Kingdom....I don't think its true....but it does not matter.

Did the American colonies have the right to form their own independent government? Did Texas have a right to from their own independent government? Did the Southern States have a right to form their own independent government? The answer is yes to all those questions.

"The sacred ideal for us has never been the Federal Union. But the consent of the people and freedom of the States."

"We are, therefore, driven to the acknowledgment that nations and governments, if they can rightfully exist at all, can exist only by consent." -Lysander Spooner, Abolitionist

"The Constitution of the United States authorizes no government, except one depending wholly on voluntary support of the States"

"After the war began, the higher motive of winning independence prevailed over any lower motive of protecting slavery & the men who fought so gallantly regarded their cause, as just & even holy."
-Prof. Morison of Harvard University.

"The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States; and in uniting together they have not forfeited their nationality nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people… If one of the States choose to withdraw from the compact, it would be difficult to disprove its rights of doing so, and the Federal Government would have no means of maintaining its claims directly either by force or right." --DeTocqueville

"To coerce a State [to remain in the Federal union] would be one of the maddest projects ever devised." -Alexander Hamilton

"Secession, in my opinion, is fundamental to the American ideal. Without the threat of the people and States being able to at any time to throw off the yoke of an oppressive central government none of it makes any sense. It would be a negation of the American revolution itself."

"If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation...to a continuance in this Union...I have no hesitation in saying, 'let us separate.'"
- Thomas Jefferson

"I worked night and day for twelve years to prevent the the dissolution of the Union, but I could not. And so the war came."
-President Jefferson Davis 1881


cowboycwr is an idiot. It's possible he knows he's wrong, but just refuses to admit it, take the loss and move one. Nah, he's an idiot.
Prove the majority of historians wrong.

Write them, email them, etc. and call them idiots.

but you won't because you can only call people idiots from behind your keyboard because you have no facts to back it up or prove the majority of historians wrong.
Two days before Lincoln's inauguration as the 16th President, Congress, consisting only of the Northern states, passed overwhelmingly on March 2, 1861, the Corwin Amendment that gave constitutional protection to slavery. Lincoln endorsed the amendment in his inaugural address, saying "I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."

The civil war was about keeping the union together. You're either too stupid to see it, too dishonest to admit it or both.

You don't seem to have the ability to discern between the cause of secession and the cause of the civil war.

End of discussion.



The majority of historians agree it was about civil war. Prove that wrong.

The links I have posted clearly state the cause of the civil war was slavery. That the civil war was about slavery. Yet you keep ignoring that and call me the idiot or say I don't have the ability to discern between the two.

Prove the professional historians wrong.
I have already sited an eminent Harvard historian (but you said we can't quote people lol)

You can read Shelby Foote who was a major historian and adviser to Ken Burns the Civil War doc.

You can and will find a great deal of arguments all over the spectrum.

The consensus is that the issues around slavery was what lead up to the secession crisis...I have admitted that on this thread.

What you will not find is any consensus that the Federal government was waging an anti-slavery war.

The historical record, the debates in Congress, the platform of the Republican Party at the time, and the entire correspondence/records of President Lincoln's administration all point to one and only reason for the War....PRESERVATION OF THE UNION.

The War was fought to keep the Union intact...not to end slavery...and until the last days of the war the Northern leadership was willing to accept slavery if the States could be brought back under the control of the Central government.


And even though you hate quotes...here is another quote for you from imminent Lincoln (and no friend of the South) historian James McPherson.
    "General Sherman, who had lived in the South, liked Southerners and did not at all sympathize with Northern abolitionist views, yet became the most hated and feared destroyer of the South and its whole civilization. And I think he did so because he saw that as necessary to win the war. And I think Lincoln made his decisionsissuing the Emancipation Proclamation, for example, or turning Sherman loose because he saw that as necessary to win the war."

Have read Sherman's biography .....not a likeable character by any means.

But he was forthright .

Openly admitted that due to his army's 'march to the sea ' atrocities he would be branded a war criminal in the unlikely event the south won the war.
No direct quotes! We are only allowed to be TOLD what people throughout history thought by people who read their direct quotes and will then tell us what to think! That way we don't have to think and you have to debunk a hIsToRiAn if you want to prove us wrong! Or something.

Fin
Rawhide
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cowboycwr said:

Rawhide said:

Quote:

The majority of historians agree it was about civil war. Prove that wrong.

The links I have posted clearly state the cause of the civil war was slavery. That the civil war was about slavery. Yet you keep ignoring that and call me the idiot or say I don't have the ability to discern between the two.

Prove the professional historians wrong.

You post about the opinion of historians. Others have posted factual quotes that came straight from Lincoldn, events that actually happened and bills that actually passed.

You want to rely on what a few historians think instead of seeing the actual facts presented to you.

I guess it's true. We explain it to you, but we can't understand it for you.

Maybe idiot was too strong, but you're at least a clown.


Few??? The majority of them have reached that conclusion through their research, study and break down of the events.

It isn't opinions when they use the evidence to reach a conclusion.

First hand accounts are often wrong, taken out of context and missing the whole picture.

So again I challenge you to prove the vast majority of thousands and thousands of historians wrong.

Call me all the names you want but the challenge is up to you to prove those historians wrong. Apparently you could make a lot of money off of it since it would be groundbreaking work to prove an entire field of experts wrong.

So prove them wrong.
We've already proved it to you. You just choose not to listen.

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/08/23/know-called-civil-war-not-slavery/
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The myth that the war in 1861 was fought by the North against slavery is a understandable myth...but still a myth.

If the war was not a noble crusade against slavery than how can the horror of 700,000 deaths and the burning of cities be justified?

The United States government has supported every secessionist movement you can imagine.

The war of the colonies to break away from Britain, the war of Mexican independence from Spain, the war in Texas to break away from Mexico, the independence of Cuba from Spain, the independence of Panama from Colombia, the secession of the Balkan states from Yugoslavia (a state dominated by Serbia) in the 1990s, the secession of various states from Austo-Hungary in 1918, the secession of states from the USSR (dominated by Russia), the independence of East Timor from Indonesia, the independence of South Sudan from Sudan, the independence of Bangladesh from Pakistan, and all the movements for independence by many different colonies from Britain and France post WWII.

Heck the US even supported the Muslims of Chechnya in their failed attempt to break off from Russia in the late 1990s.

[U.S. officials did openly meet with Ilyas Akhmadov, who represented the Chechen separatist movement and whom the Russian government described as a terrorist. In addition, former and serving U.S. government officials publicly expressed sympathy for "moderate" Chechen separatists and the separatist cause]

I can find few instances of the US government being against any national independence movement (secession) except when its own states tried to leave in 1861.
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Wangchung said:

Canada2017 said:

Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Rawhide said:

cowboycwr said:

Rawhide said:

Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Canada2017 said:

cowboycwr said:

Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Porteroso said:

Redbrickbear said:

Canada2017 said:

Can anyone imagine the outrage if ANY organization fired their staff for being black ?

Why is blatant discrimination against white people perfectly ok ?




I could tell you but I would probably get banned from this site for saying it.

Believe me, nobody gets banned for anything they say in this forum.
Exactly. I have seen some vile stuff posted here and it seems no one gets banned for it. I can only think of one poster banned for things said but they started getting very personal, attacking, etc. Now on the football (or other sports boards) it is a different story and people can and do get banned there for disagreeing about a current coach.
I have seen your pro-Unionist vile stuff on here and I don't think you should get banned.

Live and let live on the interweb froums my bro.
What have I said that was vile? Posting the truth?


Implying Lincoln (who killed 700,000 people) was a good person is vile.

Saying the North fought the war to free slaves is just a low IQ lie.
Lincoln killed zero people. That is truth. You may THINK otherwise but historians don't agree with you. So you are wrong and history proves it.

Saying the North fought the war to free slaves is the truth. Historians and history back me up.
chuckle

A good laugh with my morning coffee.



Thanks .




Sad that you find the truth to be funny...


Your misrepresentation of the truth is what's funny…or to be honest it's quite sad.


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

"President Lincoln has told me time and again of his desire for 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

Lincoln's July 4th Message to Congress: "Finding this condition of things and believing it to be an imperative duty upon the incoming Executive to prevent, if possible, the consummation of such attempt to break the Federal Union, a choice of means to that end became indispensable...I sought only to hold the public places and property not already wrested from the Government and to collect the revenue, relying for the rest on time, discussion, and the ballot box." Lincoln in his speech was referring to the 40% federal sales tax on imports to Southern States under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861.

[At the Hampton's Road conference with Stephens in 1864, he supported reunion and allow the courts to work out the issue of emancipation. Lincoln's obsession was with the Union - not slaves. Lincoln reportedly told the Confederate negotiators that Northern opinion was very much divided on the question of how these new laws would be enforced. Regarding the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln reportedly interpreted it as a war measure that would permanently affect only the 200,000 people who came under direct Army control during the War. Seward reportedly showed the Confederates a copy of the newly adopted Thirteenth Amendment, referred to this document also as a war measure only, and suggested that if they were to rejoin the Union they might be able to prevent its ratification. After further discussion, Lincoln suggested that the Southern states might "avoid, as far as possible, the evils of immediate emancipation" Lincoln also offered possible compensation for emancipation, naming the figure of $400,000,000 which he later proposed to Congress.]

"On the part of the North, this war was carried on, not to liberate the slaves, but by a Federal government 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

Historian Thomas Fleming wrote in A Disease in the Public Mind: A New Understanding of Why We Fought the Civil War. Radical Republican Congressional leaders "unanimously agreed that the integrity of the Union should be preserved, though it cost a million lives," the New York Times reported on Christmas Day 1860. Massachusetts governor John Albion declared, "We must conquer the South!" Pro-war Bostonians amassed in large crowds and urged the governor to "drive the ruffians (southerners) and their families into the Gulf of Mexico and the Negroes with them."

"I have said that the separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation. I have no right to say all the members of the Republican party are in favor of this, nor to say that as a party they are in favor of it. There is nothing in their platform directly on the subject. But I can say a very large proportion of its members are for it, and that the chief plank in their platform is most favorable to that separation. Such separation, if ever effected, must be effected by their colonization overseas." -Abraham Lincoln

"Judge Douglas is especially horrified at the thought of the mixing blood by the white and black races: we are agreed for once---a thousand times agreed." - Abraham Lincoln

"I tell him [Fredrick Douglass] very frankly that I am not in favor of negro citizenship." - Abraham Lincoln

"Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live here with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life." -Abraham Lincoln

"I have no purpose or desire to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races." -Abraham Lincoln

"When Southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery than we, I acknowledge the fact...My first impulse would be if the slaves are freed...send them to Liberia." -Abraham Lincoln, 8/21/1858

[Just four days before his death, speaking to Gen. Benjamin Butler, Lincoln still pressed on with deportation as the only peaceable solution to America's race problem. "I can not believe that the South and North can live in peace, unless we can get rid of the negroes … I believe that it would be better to export them all to some fertile country."]

[When Lincoln did express a hatred of the expansion of the "peculiar institution" in the Lincoln Douglas debates he said nothing about the abolition ever of the south's current institution. By avoiding the issue of liberation, he could secure the support of non abolitionists and not risk losing the anti-slavery vote. One of the foundations of the Republican Party was free soil and labor opportunities for whites; the prevention of the expansion of slavery was one of the methods to accomplish this. Lincoln took it as his duty to hold to the party principles. Without such a strong corner stone to unit the party it would surely fall (Fonner, Free, 215-216). When elected to office Lincoln continued to use slavery as a political tool in an attempt to put an end to the secession crisis. On the eve of the crisis's climax Lincoln admitted that he was willing to give in to the most radical faction of Southern politicians along with their demands, such as ending Northern resistance to an internal slave trade. Lincoln made it a point to stress to the slave holding states that he had no intention of re-structuring race relations (Clinton & Silber, Divided, 78).
The real purpose for barring the expansion of slavery was to provide more land for the white settlers, not to improve the living conditions of savage subordinates. Armed with this idea of the isolation of slavery for the benefit of the white man Lincoln and his party billed themselves as "the only white mans party in the country." The National Era reported that many Americans opposed slavery. The reason that slavery was so strongly opposed by so many whites was due to its negative effects on free labor. There was little to no consideration for the well being or equality of the Negro (Fonner, Free, 265). Though Lincoln did believe that the Negro was a man, he knew that he was lesser man than whites. However even a lesser man was entitled to the basic natural rights of man, however he did believe that equality with whites was a natural right . He did proclaim that the Negro deserved a chance to better himself, but equality among his masters did not seem an attainable goal for the Negro (Fonner, Free, 290).
In 1862 at the White House Lincoln told a group of black leaders, including Fredrick Douglas, that though slavery was a great wrong inflicted on their people the black race would only suffer trying to live as equals in the superior white culture. Lincoln admitted that the Negro deserved a chance to prove themselves capable of bettering themselves. He thought it unlikely and and not desirable that they should do so here in America (McPherson, Battle, 508). Lincoln's solution was colonization. Central America was one of the selected territories. Through colonization the US could be freed of the inferior Negro in a sort of National enema.] -"Was Lincoln an Abolitionist?", Kelly Snell




Majority of historians agree it was about civil war.


https://psmag.com/education/of-course-the-civil-war-was-about-slavery-26265

Majority of historians agree it was about slavery.

https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/slavery-cause-civil-war.htm

And from that same link is Alexander Stevens (VP of the confederacy) saying it was all about slavery.

I could include 100 quotes from others, like you have done, to back up the fact it was about slavery to counter all the quotes you gave.

The articles of secession of the states also mentioned slavery more than they mentioned any other cause.

It was about slavery. The fact you can't accept that historians have proven that shows you are ignorant.








You are again confusing the cause of secession with the cause of the War.

Slavery was no doubt a major factor in the Southern leadership at the time (Senators, Congressmen, etc) wanting to break off and end their political union with the USA.

But the war was over keeping states in the Union...not slavery. The Northern political leadership was happy to keep slavery if it could keep the Union.

The average solider in the South was not fighting for slavery...he was fighting for independence. 90% of CSA soldiers did not own a single slave. The average solider in the North was not fighting against slavery...he was fighting to keep the Union at its current borders.

Lincoln of course the President of the United States himself said the war was NOT against slavery....it was against secession.

The cause of the American colonies wanting to break off from the United Kingdom or Texas wanting to break off from Mexico were the reasons for those wars. Some liberal historians are now trying to argue that slavery was a major reason the Founding Fathers wanted to break off from the United Kingdom....I don't think its true....but it does not matter.

Did the American colonies have the right to form their own independent government? Did Texas have a right to from their own independent government? Did the Southern States have a right to form their own independent government? The answer is yes to all those questions.

"The sacred ideal for us has never been the Federal Union. But the consent of the people and freedom of the States."

"We are, therefore, driven to the acknowledgment that nations and governments, if they can rightfully exist at all, can exist only by consent." -Lysander Spooner, Abolitionist

"The Constitution of the United States authorizes no government, except one depending wholly on voluntary support of the States"

"After the war began, the higher motive of winning independence prevailed over any lower motive of protecting slavery & the men who fought so gallantly regarded their cause, as just & even holy."
-Prof. Morison of Harvard University.

"The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States; and in uniting together they have not forfeited their nationality nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people… If one of the States choose to withdraw from the compact, it would be difficult to disprove its rights of doing so, and the Federal Government would have no means of maintaining its claims directly either by force or right." --DeTocqueville

"To coerce a State [to remain in the Federal union] would be one of the maddest projects ever devised." -Alexander Hamilton

"Secession, in my opinion, is fundamental to the American ideal. Without the threat of the people and States being able to at any time to throw off the yoke of an oppressive central government none of it makes any sense. It would be a negation of the American revolution itself."

"If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation...to a continuance in this Union...I have no hesitation in saying, 'let us separate.'"
- Thomas Jefferson

"I worked night and day for twelve years to prevent the the dissolution of the Union, but I could not. And so the war came."
-President Jefferson Davis 1881


cowboycwr is an idiot. It's possible he knows he's wrong, but just refuses to admit it, take the loss and move one. Nah, he's an idiot.
Prove the majority of historians wrong.

Write them, email them, etc. and call them idiots.

but you won't because you can only call people idiots from behind your keyboard because you have no facts to back it up or prove the majority of historians wrong.
Two days before Lincoln's inauguration as the 16th President, Congress, consisting only of the Northern states, passed overwhelmingly on March 2, 1861, the Corwin Amendment that gave constitutional protection to slavery. Lincoln endorsed the amendment in his inaugural address, saying "I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."

The civil war was about keeping the union together. You're either too stupid to see it, too dishonest to admit it or both.

You don't seem to have the ability to discern between the cause of secession and the cause of the civil war.

End of discussion.



The majority of historians agree it was about civil war. Prove that wrong.

The links I have posted clearly state the cause of the civil war was slavery. That the civil war was about slavery. Yet you keep ignoring that and call me the idiot or say I don't have the ability to discern between the two.

Prove the professional historians wrong.
I have already sited an eminent Harvard historian (but you said we can't quote people lol)

You can read Shelby Foote who was a major historian and adviser to Ken Burns the Civil War doc.

You can and will find a great deal of arguments all over the spectrum.

The consensus is that the issues around slavery was what lead up to the secession crisis...I have admitted that on this thread.

What you will not find is any consensus that the Federal government was waging an anti-slavery war.

The historical record, the debates in Congress, the platform of the Republican Party at the time, and the entire correspondence/records of President Lincoln's administration all point to one and only reason for the War....PRESERVATION OF THE UNION.

The War was fought to keep the Union intact...not to end slavery...and until the last days of the war the Northern leadership was willing to accept slavery if the States could be brought back under the control of the Central government.


And even though you hate quotes...here is another quote for you from imminent Lincoln (and no friend of the South) historian James McPherson.
    "General Sherman, who had lived in the South, liked Southerners and did not at all sympathize with Northern abolitionist views, yet became the most hated and feared destroyer of the South and its whole civilization. And I think he did so because he saw that as necessary to win the war. And I think Lincoln made his decisionsissuing the Emancipation Proclamation, for example, or turning Sherman loose because he saw that as necessary to win the war."

Have read Sherman's biography .....not a likeable character by any means.

But he was forthright .

Openly admitted that due to his army's 'march to the sea ' atrocities he would be branded a war criminal in the unlikely event the south won the war.
No direct quotes! We are only allowed to be TOLD what people throughout history thought by people who read their direct quotes and will then tell us what to think! That way we don't have to think and you have to debunk a hIsToRiAn if you want to prove us wrong! Or something.

Fin


My favorite Sherman quote remains............


" If I owned Hell and Texas. I'd live in Hell and rent out Texas. "
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"All (Indians) who cling to their old hunting grounds are hostile and will remain so till killed off." - Gen. Sherman

"The more Indians we can kill... the less will have to be killed the next war, for the more I see of these Indians, the more convinced I am that they all have to be killed or be maintained as a species of paupers." - Gen. Sherman

"We must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination, men, women and children... during an assault, the soldiers cannot pause to distinguish between male and female, or even discriminate as to age." Gen. Sherman

"The only good Indian is a dead Indian" -Gen. Sherman

"The young bloods of the South: sons of planters, lawyers about towns, good billiard-players and sportsmen, men of the county... They are splendid riders, first-rate shots and utterly reckless. These men must all be killed by us before we can hope for peace."-Gen. Sherman

"We must kill Nathan Bedford Forrest if it costs 100,000 lives and breaks the Federal Treasury. There will never be peace in Tennessee till Forrest is dead." -Gen. Sherman

"To secure the safety of the navigation of the Mississippi River I would slay millions. On that point I am not only insane, but mad... I think I see one or two quick blows that will astonish these natives of the South and will convince them that, though to stand behind a big tree and shoot at a passing boat is good sport and safe, it may still reach and kill their friends and families hundreds of miles off. For every bullet shot at a steamboat, I would shoot a thousand 30-pounder Parrots into even helpless towns on Red, Ouachita, Yazoo, or wherever a boat can float or soldier march."-Gen. Sherman

"We must stop these swarms of Jews who are trading, bartering and robbing."-Gen. Sherman

"I am satisfied, and have been all the time, that the problem of this war consists in the awful fact that the present class of men in the South must be killed outright rather than in the conquest of territory." -Gen. Sherman

"I regard the death and mangling of a couple thousand men as a small affair, a kind of morning dash and it may be well that we become so hardened." -Gen. Sherman

"If they want war, well and good; we accept the issue, and will dispossess them and put our friends in their place. I know thousands and millions of good people who at simple notice would come to North Alabama and accept the elegant houses there. If the people of Huntsville think different, let them persist in war three years longer, and then they will not be consulted. Three years ago by a little reflection and patience they could have had a hundred years of peace and prosperity, but they preferred war; very well. Last year they could have saved their slaves, but now it is too late." -Gen. Sherman

"If the people raise a howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war, and not popularity-seeking. If they want peace, they and their relatives must surrender." -Gen. Sherman

"All the powers of earth cannot save them, any more than their dead grandfathers. Next year their lands will be taken, for in war we can take them, and rightfully, too, and in another year they may beg in vain for their lives. A people who will persevere in war beyond a certain limit ought to know the consequences. Many, many peoples with less pertinacity have been wiped out of national existence." -Gen. Sherman

"where are your men and appliances of war to contend against us? The North can make a steam engine, locomotive, or railway car; hardly a yard of cloth or pair of shoes can you make. You are rushing into war with one of the most powerful, ingeniously mechanical, and determined people on Earth right at your doors. You are bound to fail. Only in your brave spirit and foolhardy determination are you prepared for war. In all else you are totally unprepared. At first you will make headway, but as your limited resources begin to fail, shut out from the markets of Europe as you will be, your cause will begin to wane. If your people will but stop and think, they must see in the end that you will surely be destroyed" -Gen. Sherman



Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sherman was married to a devout Catholic .

As the years went on they saw each other less and less............to the apparent satisfaction of both .
cowboycwr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Rawhide said:

cowboycwr said:

Rawhide said:

Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Canada2017 said:

cowboycwr said:

Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Porteroso said:

Redbrickbear said:

Canada2017 said:

Can anyone imagine the outrage if ANY organization fired their staff for being black ?

Why is blatant discrimination against white people perfectly ok ?




I could tell you but I would probably get banned from this site for saying it.

Believe me, nobody gets banned for anything they say in this forum.
Exactly. I have seen some vile stuff posted here and it seems no one gets banned for it. I can only think of one poster banned for things said but they started getting very personal, attacking, etc. Now on the football (or other sports boards) it is a different story and people can and do get banned there for disagreeing about a current coach.
I have seen your pro-Unionist vile stuff on here and I don't think you should get banned.

Live and let live on the interweb froums my bro.
What have I said that was vile? Posting the truth?


Implying Lincoln (who killed 700,000 people) was a good person is vile.

Saying the North fought the war to free slaves is just a low IQ lie.
Lincoln killed zero people. That is truth. You may THINK otherwise but historians don't agree with you. So you are wrong and history proves it.

Saying the North fought the war to free slaves is the truth. Historians and history back me up.
chuckle

A good laugh with my morning coffee.



Thanks .




Sad that you find the truth to be funny...


Your misrepresentation of the truth is what's funny…or to be honest it's quite sad.


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

"President Lincoln has told me time and again of his desire for 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

Lincoln's July 4th Message to Congress: "Finding this condition of things and believing it to be an imperative duty upon the incoming Executive to prevent, if possible, the consummation of such attempt to break the Federal Union, a choice of means to that end became indispensable...I sought only to hold the public places and property not already wrested from the Government and to collect the revenue, relying for the rest on time, discussion, and the ballot box." Lincoln in his speech was referring to the 40% federal sales tax on imports to Southern States under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861.

[At the Hampton's Road conference with Stephens in 1864, he supported reunion and allow the courts to work out the issue of emancipation. Lincoln's obsession was with the Union - not slaves. Lincoln reportedly told the Confederate negotiators that Northern opinion was very much divided on the question of how these new laws would be enforced. Regarding the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln reportedly interpreted it as a war measure that would permanently affect only the 200,000 people who came under direct Army control during the War. Seward reportedly showed the Confederates a copy of the newly adopted Thirteenth Amendment, referred to this document also as a war measure only, and suggested that if they were to rejoin the Union they might be able to prevent its ratification. After further discussion, Lincoln suggested that the Southern states might "avoid, as far as possible, the evils of immediate emancipation" Lincoln also offered possible compensation for emancipation, naming the figure of $400,000,000 which he later proposed to Congress.]

"On the part of the North, this war was carried on, not to liberate the slaves, but by a Federal government 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

Historian Thomas Fleming wrote in A Disease in the Public Mind: A New Understanding of Why We Fought the Civil War. Radical Republican Congressional leaders "unanimously agreed that the integrity of the Union should be preserved, though it cost a million lives," the New York Times reported on Christmas Day 1860. Massachusetts governor John Albion declared, "We must conquer the South!" Pro-war Bostonians amassed in large crowds and urged the governor to "drive the ruffians (southerners) and their families into the Gulf of Mexico and the Negroes with them."

"I have said that the separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation. I have no right to say all the members of the Republican party are in favor of this, nor to say that as a party they are in favor of it. There is nothing in their platform directly on the subject. But I can say a very large proportion of its members are for it, and that the chief plank in their platform is most favorable to that separation. Such separation, if ever effected, must be effected by their colonization overseas." -Abraham Lincoln

"Judge Douglas is especially horrified at the thought of the mixing blood by the white and black races: we are agreed for once---a thousand times agreed." - Abraham Lincoln

"I tell him [Fredrick Douglass] very frankly that I am not in favor of negro citizenship." - Abraham Lincoln

"Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live here with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life." -Abraham Lincoln

"I have no purpose or desire to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races." -Abraham Lincoln

"When Southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery than we, I acknowledge the fact...My first impulse would be if the slaves are freed...send them to Liberia." -Abraham Lincoln, 8/21/1858

[Just four days before his death, speaking to Gen. Benjamin Butler, Lincoln still pressed on with deportation as the only peaceable solution to America's race problem. "I can not believe that the South and North can live in peace, unless we can get rid of the negroes … I believe that it would be better to export them all to some fertile country."]

[When Lincoln did express a hatred of the expansion of the "peculiar institution" in the Lincoln Douglas debates he said nothing about the abolition ever of the south's current institution. By avoiding the issue of liberation, he could secure the support of non abolitionists and not risk losing the anti-slavery vote. One of the foundations of the Republican Party was free soil and labor opportunities for whites; the prevention of the expansion of slavery was one of the methods to accomplish this. Lincoln took it as his duty to hold to the party principles. Without such a strong corner stone to unit the party it would surely fall (Fonner, Free, 215-216). When elected to office Lincoln continued to use slavery as a political tool in an attempt to put an end to the secession crisis. On the eve of the crisis's climax Lincoln admitted that he was willing to give in to the most radical faction of Southern politicians along with their demands, such as ending Northern resistance to an internal slave trade. Lincoln made it a point to stress to the slave holding states that he had no intention of re-structuring race relations (Clinton & Silber, Divided, 78).
The real purpose for barring the expansion of slavery was to provide more land for the white settlers, not to improve the living conditions of savage subordinates. Armed with this idea of the isolation of slavery for the benefit of the white man Lincoln and his party billed themselves as "the only white mans party in the country." The National Era reported that many Americans opposed slavery. The reason that slavery was so strongly opposed by so many whites was due to its negative effects on free labor. There was little to no consideration for the well being or equality of the Negro (Fonner, Free, 265). Though Lincoln did believe that the Negro was a man, he knew that he was lesser man than whites. However even a lesser man was entitled to the basic natural rights of man, however he did believe that equality with whites was a natural right . He did proclaim that the Negro deserved a chance to better himself, but equality among his masters did not seem an attainable goal for the Negro (Fonner, Free, 290).
In 1862 at the White House Lincoln told a group of black leaders, including Fredrick Douglas, that though slavery was a great wrong inflicted on their people the black race would only suffer trying to live as equals in the superior white culture. Lincoln admitted that the Negro deserved a chance to prove themselves capable of bettering themselves. He thought it unlikely and and not desirable that they should do so here in America (McPherson, Battle, 508). Lincoln's solution was colonization. Central America was one of the selected territories. Through colonization the US could be freed of the inferior Negro in a sort of National enema.] -"Was Lincoln an Abolitionist?", Kelly Snell




Majority of historians agree it was about civil war.


https://psmag.com/education/of-course-the-civil-war-was-about-slavery-26265

Majority of historians agree it was about slavery.

https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/slavery-cause-civil-war.htm

And from that same link is Alexander Stevens (VP of the confederacy) saying it was all about slavery.

I could include 100 quotes from others, like you have done, to back up the fact it was about slavery to counter all the quotes you gave.

The articles of secession of the states also mentioned slavery more than they mentioned any other cause.

It was about slavery. The fact you can't accept that historians have proven that shows you are ignorant.








You are again confusing the cause of secession with the cause of the War.

Slavery was no doubt a major factor in the Southern leadership at the time (Senators, Congressmen, etc) wanting to break off and end their political union with the USA.

But the war was over keeping states in the Union...not slavery. The Northern political leadership was happy to keep slavery if it could keep the Union.

The average solider in the South was not fighting for slavery...he was fighting for independence. 90% of CSA soldiers did not own a single slave. The average solider in the North was not fighting against slavery...he was fighting to keep the Union at its current borders.

Lincoln of course the President of the United States himself said the war was NOT against slavery....it was against secession.

The cause of the American colonies wanting to break off from the United Kingdom or Texas wanting to break off from Mexico were the reasons for those wars. Some liberal historians are now trying to argue that slavery was a major reason the Founding Fathers wanted to break off from the United Kingdom....I don't think its true....but it does not matter.

Did the American colonies have the right to form their own independent government? Did Texas have a right to from their own independent government? Did the Southern States have a right to form their own independent government? The answer is yes to all those questions.

"The sacred ideal for us has never been the Federal Union. But the consent of the people and freedom of the States."

"We are, therefore, driven to the acknowledgment that nations and governments, if they can rightfully exist at all, can exist only by consent." -Lysander Spooner, Abolitionist

"The Constitution of the United States authorizes no government, except one depending wholly on voluntary support of the States"

"After the war began, the higher motive of winning independence prevailed over any lower motive of protecting slavery & the men who fought so gallantly regarded their cause, as just & even holy."
-Prof. Morison of Harvard University.

"The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States; and in uniting together they have not forfeited their nationality nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people… If one of the States choose to withdraw from the compact, it would be difficult to disprove its rights of doing so, and the Federal Government would have no means of maintaining its claims directly either by force or right." --DeTocqueville

"To coerce a State [to remain in the Federal union] would be one of the maddest projects ever devised." -Alexander Hamilton

"Secession, in my opinion, is fundamental to the American ideal. Without the threat of the people and States being able to at any time to throw off the yoke of an oppressive central government none of it makes any sense. It would be a negation of the American revolution itself."

"If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation...to a continuance in this Union...I have no hesitation in saying, 'let us separate.'"
- Thomas Jefferson

"I worked night and day for twelve years to prevent the the dissolution of the Union, but I could not. And so the war came."
-President Jefferson Davis 1881


cowboycwr is an idiot. It's possible he knows he's wrong, but just refuses to admit it, take the loss and move one. Nah, he's an idiot.
Prove the majority of historians wrong.

Write them, email them, etc. and call them idiots.

but you won't because you can only call people idiots from behind your keyboard because you have no facts to back it up or prove the majority of historians wrong.
Two days before Lincoln's inauguration as the 16th President, Congress, consisting only of the Northern states, passed overwhelmingly on March 2, 1861, the Corwin Amendment that gave constitutional protection to slavery. Lincoln endorsed the amendment in his inaugural address, saying "I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."

The civil war was about keeping the union together. You're either too stupid to see it, too dishonest to admit it or both.

You don't seem to have the ability to discern between the cause of secession and the cause of the civil war.

End of discussion.



The majority of historians agree it was about civil war. Prove that wrong.

The links I have posted clearly state the cause of the civil war was slavery. That the civil war was about slavery. Yet you keep ignoring that and call me the idiot or say I don't have the ability to discern between the two.

Prove the professional historians wrong.
I have already sited an eminent Harvard historian (but you said we can't quote people lol)

You can read Shelby Foote who was a major historian and adviser to Ken Burns the Civil War doc.

You can and will find a great deal of arguments all over the spectrum.

The consensus is that the issues around slavery was what lead up to the secession crisis...I have admitted that on this thread.

What you will not find is any consensus that the Federal government was waging an anti-slavery war.

The historical record, the debates in Congress, the platform of the Republican Party at the time, and the entire correspondence/records of President Lincoln's administration all point to one and only reason for the War....PRESERVATION OF THE UNION.

The War was fought to keep the Union intact...not to end slavery...and until the last days of the war the Northern leadership was willing to accept slavery if the States could be brought back under the control of the Central government.


And even though you hate quotes...here is another quote for you from imminent Lincoln (and no friend of the South) historian James McPherson.
    "General Sherman, who had lived in the South, liked Southerners and did not at all sympathize with Northern abolitionist views, yet became the most hated and feared destroyer of the South and its whole civilization. And I think he did so because he saw that as necessary to win the war. And I think Lincoln made his decisionsissuing the Emancipation Proclamation, for example, or turning Sherman loose because he saw that as necessary to win the war."

Prove the majority of historians wrong that the civil war was about slavery.

What you fail to understand is you have proven my point with your 4th sentence.
cowboycwr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rawhide said:

cowboycwr said:

Rawhide said:

Quote:

The majority of historians agree it was about civil war. Prove that wrong.

The links I have posted clearly state the cause of the civil war was slavery. That the civil war was about slavery. Yet you keep ignoring that and call me the idiot or say I don't have the ability to discern between the two.

Prove the professional historians wrong.

You post about the opinion of historians. Others have posted factual quotes that came straight from Lincoldn, events that actually happened and bills that actually passed.

You want to rely on what a few historians think instead of seeing the actual facts presented to you.

I guess it's true. We explain it to you, but we can't understand it for you.

Maybe idiot was too strong, but you're at least a clown.


Few??? The majority of them have reached that conclusion through their research, study and break down of the events.

It isn't opinions when they use the evidence to reach a conclusion.

First hand accounts are often wrong, taken out of context and missing the whole picture.

So again I challenge you to prove the vast majority of thousands and thousands of historians wrong.

Call me all the names you want but the challenge is up to you to prove those historians wrong. Apparently you could make a lot of money off of it since it would be groundbreaking work to prove an entire field of experts wrong.

So prove them wrong.
We've already proved it to you. You just choose not to listen.

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/08/23/know-called-civil-war-not-slavery/
No you haven't. Prove the majority of historians wrong. Then like I said you might want to publish those findings and make a killing since you would be proving an entire field of professionals wrong.
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
chuckle

Cowboy reminds me of the Hindu woman who was positive the world rested on the back of an enormous turtle.

When asked what was holding up the turtle; she shouted out with glee........

" Another turtle of course. Don't start your silliness with me.......its turtles all the way down !
cowboycwr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canada2017 said:

chuckle

Cowboy reminds me of the Hindu woman who was positive the world rested on the back of an enormous turtle.

When asked what was holding up the turtle; she shouted out with glee........

" Another turtle of course. Don't start your silliness with me.......its turtles all the way down !
So you think the vast majority of historians are wrong?

do you often think the vast majority of professionals are wrong? Or do you read that they have reached a conclusion on something and accept that it is right?
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cowboycwr said:

Canada2017 said:

chuckle

Cowboy reminds me of the Hindu woman who was positive the world rested on the back of an enormous turtle.

When asked what was holding up the turtle; she shouted out with glee........

" Another turtle of course. Don't start your silliness with me.......its turtles all the way down !
So you think the vast majority of historians are wrong?

do you often think the vast majority of professionals are wrong? Or do you read that they have reached a conclusion on something and accept that it is right?
The winners of every war, write the vast majority of the 'histories' . The losers usually prefer to just forget about the horror and humiliation of defeat .

In addition, publishing companies re produce manuscripts that are most likely to sell in a particular market and generate a PROFIT .

For example......the Japanese have a far different interpretation of the events leading up to WW2. The Russians have a totally different view on the Cold War. How many history books are published here in the United States highlighting these divergent views.......very few.

One last example...almost every Civil War buff has heard about Andersonville.
The confederate prison camp where thousands of Union prisoners died of exposure, disease and malnutrition . At war's end the prison commandant was tried as a war criminal and hung .

It wasn't until I went to a history museum in Vicksburg Mississippi that I discovered........

1. The North had SEVERAL 'Andersonville' style prison camps and thousands of southern prisoners died in them.
2. It was LINCOLN who stopped all the prisoner exchanges between the north and south. He correctly concluded such exchanges were more beneficial to the heavily outnumbered southerners . Result.....overcrowded prison camps on both sides. However the north had far more resources to feed and care for their prisoners......they simply chose not to.
3. The commandant of Andersonville had repeatedly attempted to get more food and supplies for his prisoners. But at that point in the war the south could barely feed its own front line troops. So he became the scapegoat.

After leaving Vicksburg I was able to crosscheck everything I had read in the museum. It all checked out . The information is there...if one digs deep enough .


That is the case with the entire Civil War. The loser's side of it is there.....if one digs deep enough .

Most don't.



Rawhide
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cowboycwr said:

Rawhide said:

cowboycwr said:

Rawhide said:

Quote:

The majority of historians agree it was about civil war. Prove that wrong.

The links I have posted clearly state the cause of the civil war was slavery. That the civil war was about slavery. Yet you keep ignoring that and call me the idiot or say I don't have the ability to discern between the two.

Prove the professional historians wrong.

You post about the opinion of historians. Others have posted factual quotes that came straight from Lincoldn, events that actually happened and bills that actually passed.

You want to rely on what a few historians think instead of seeing the actual facts presented to you.

I guess it's true. We explain it to you, but we can't understand it for you.

Maybe idiot was too strong, but you're at least a clown.


Few??? The majority of them have reached that conclusion through their research, study and break down of the events.

It isn't opinions when they use the evidence to reach a conclusion.

First hand accounts are often wrong, taken out of context and missing the whole picture.

So again I challenge you to prove the vast majority of thousands and thousands of historians wrong.

Call me all the names you want but the challenge is up to you to prove those historians wrong. Apparently you could make a lot of money off of it since it would be groundbreaking work to prove an entire field of experts wrong.

So prove them wrong.
We've already proved it to you. You just choose not to listen.

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/08/23/know-called-civil-war-not-slavery/
No you haven't. Prove the majority of historians wrong. Then like I said you might want to publish those findings and make a killing since you would be proving an entire field of professionals wrong.
You know you're right. We haven't proved anything to you, because you don't want to acknowledge the truth. Nothing will be enough proof for you. You have been given quote after quote and facts after facts. You continue to ignore them all.

Lincoln himself could come to you, look you in the face and tell you that he didn't go to war to free the slaves and you still wouldn't believe him.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canada2017 said:

cowboycwr said:

Canada2017 said:

chuckle

Cowboy reminds me of the Hindu woman who was positive the world rested on the back of an enormous turtle.

When asked what was holding up the turtle; she shouted out with glee........

" Another turtle of course. Don't start your silliness with me.......its turtles all the way down !
So you think the vast majority of historians are wrong?

do you often think the vast majority of professionals are wrong? Or do you read that they have reached a conclusion on something and accept that it is right?
The winners of every war, write the vast majority of the 'histories' .


One last example...almost every Civil War buff has heard about Andersonville.
The confederate prison camp where thousands of Union prisoners died of exposure, disease and malnutrition . At war's end the prison commandant was tried as a war criminal and hung .

It wasn't until I went to a history museum in Vicksburg Mississippi that I discovered........

1. The North had SEVERAL 'Andersonville' style prison camps and thousands of southern prisoners died in them.
2. It was LINCOLN who stopped all the prisoner exchanges between the north and south. He correctly concluded such exchanges were more beneficial to the heavily outnumbered southerners . Result.....overcrowded prison camps on both sides. However the north had far more resources to feed and care for their prisoners......they simply chose not to.
3. The commandant of Andersonville had repeatedly attempted to get more food and supplies for his prisoners. But at that point in the war the south could barely feed its own front line troops. So he became the scapegoat.

After leaving Vicksburg I was able to crosscheck everything I had read in the museum. It all checked out . The information is there...if one digs deep enough .


That is the case with the entire Civil War. The loser's side of it is there.....if one digs deep enough .

Most don't.




Yes, the condition of the Northern camps was just unimaginably terrible.

They had food, clothing, and supplies to spare...yet Confederate POWs died by the thousands in Union prison camps.

The South on the other had by this time could not even feed or provide shoes for its own soldiers much less prisoners.

I have never heard a good reason for why the Federal prisons were so under staffed and under supplied.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cowboycwr said:

Canada2017 said:

chuckle

Cowboy reminds me of the Hindu woman who was positive the world rested on the back of an enormous turtle.

When asked what was holding up the turtle; she shouted out with glee........

" Another turtle of course. Don't start your silliness with me.......its turtles all the way down !
So you think the vast majority of historians are wrong?

do you often think the vast majority of professionals are wrong? Or do you read that they have reached a conclusion on something and accept that it is right?
You keep saying historians....do you know what you are talking about?

I have cited noted Historian James McPherson several times. The man has written several books. He is a John Hopkins PHD. Loves Lincoln. He served on the National Civil War Trust. And in general does not like the South in general and hated the Confederate States of America. He advised President Obama in 2009 NOT to send a wreath to the Arlington national cemetery Confederate Monument...something all former Presidents have done.

Yet here is James McPherson (historian) describing the mass desertions by federal troops after the EP was issued.

["The men are much dissatisfied" with it reported a New York captain "and they say it has turned into a Negro war and all the men are now terribly anxious…to return home for it was to preserve the Union that they volunteered for the war." Enlisted men confirmed this observation with a blizzard of bitter comments in letters home. " I am the Boy that will fight for my Country" wrote an Illinois private, but not for these Negroes," A soldier with the 66th Indiana wrote home from Mississippi in February, 1863, that he and his mess mates "will not fight to free the Negro… there is a Regiment here that say they will never fight until the proclamation is withdrawn. In one instance 700 soldiers of the 128th Illinois infantry deserted en masse after the EP was issued.]
Thee University
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cowboycwr said:

Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Porteroso said:

Redbrickbear said:

Canada2017 said:

Can anyone imagine the outrage if ANY organization fired their staff for being black ?

Why is blatant discrimination against white people perfectly ok ?




I could tell you but I would probably get banned from this site for saying it.

Believe me, nobody gets banned for anything they say in this forum.
Exactly. I have seen some vile stuff posted here and it seems no one gets banned for it. I can only think of one poster banned for things said but they started getting very personal, attacking, etc. Now on the football (or other sports boards) it is a different story and people can and do get banned there for disagreeing about a current coach.
I have seen your pro-Unionist vile stuff on here and I don't think you should get banned.

Live and let live on the interweb froums my bro.
What have I said that was vile? Posting the truth?


Implying Lincoln (who killed 700,000 people) was a good person is vile.

Saying the North fought the war to free slaves is just a low IQ lie.
Lincoln killed zero people. That is truth. You may THINK otherwise but historians don't agree with you. So you are wrong and history proves it.

Saying the North fought the war to free slaves is the truth. Historians and history back me up.
Ape Lincoln did not fire a shot. He sentenced 600 to 700K to death. He did not have the balls to meet with the South to negotiate a peaceful resolution. History recorded it. History proves it.

The Northern Aggressors didn't free a single slave. History recorded it. History proves it.

Ape wanted to colonize ALL black former slaves to places like Liberia, Africa or other tropical regions. History recorded it.

Ape did not believe blacks should have the same social and political rights as white. History recorded it.

Ape opposed blacks having the right to vote, serve on juries, to hold office and to intermarry with whites.

We could go on and on with history lessons for you.

The only thing that washed away all of the Lincoln sins in the eyes of Yankees was a bullet from Booth's gun.
"Any people with contempt for their heritage have lost faith in themselves and no nation can long survive without pride in its traditions." - Sir Winston Churchill
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thee University said:

cowboycwr said:

Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Porteroso said:

Redbrickbear said:

Canada2017 said:

Can anyone imagine the outrage if ANY organization fired their staff for being black ?

Why is blatant discrimination against white people perfectly ok ?




I could tell you but I would probably get banned from this site for saying it.

Believe me, nobody gets banned for anything they say in this forum.
Exactly. I have seen some vile stuff posted here and it seems no one gets banned for it. I can only think of one poster banned for things said but they started getting very personal, attacking, etc. Now on the football (or other sports boards) it is a different story and people can and do get banned there for disagreeing about a current coach.
I have seen your pro-Unionist vile stuff on here and I don't think you should get banned.

Live and let live on the interweb froums my bro.
What have I said that was vile? Posting the truth?


Implying Lincoln (who killed 700,000 people) was a good person is vile.

Saying the North fought the war to free slaves is just a low IQ lie.
Lincoln killed zero people. That is truth. You may THINK otherwise but historians don't agree with you. So you are wrong and history proves it.

Saying the North fought the war to free slaves is the truth. Historians and history back me up.
Ape Lincoln did not fire a shot. He sentenced 600 to 700K to death. He did not have the balls to meet with the South to negotiate a peaceful resolution. History recorded it. History proves it.

The Northern Aggressors didn't free a single slave. History recorded it. History proves it.

Ape wanted to colonize ALL black former slaves to places like Liberia, Africa or other tropical regions. History recorded it.

Ape did not believe blacks should have the same social and political rights as white. History recorded it.

Ape opposed blacks having the right to vote, serve on juries, to hold office and to intermarry with whites.

We could go on and on with history lessons for you.

The only thing that washed away all of the Lincoln sins in the eyes of Yankees was a bullet from Booth's gun.
It's very interesting...and strange trick of history/fate... but John Wilkes Booth's killing of Lincoln probably saved a decent portion of the black America population from being deported overseas.

Lincoln was determined to have them removed (if not to Libera) then to somewhere in Central America.

If Lincoln had lived he would have moved forward with these plans. And the more radical Republican acts of Reconstruction would have never passed since he would have vetoed them.
cowboycwr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rawhide said:

cowboycwr said:

Rawhide said:

cowboycwr said:

Rawhide said:

Quote:

The majority of historians agree it was about civil war. Prove that wrong.

The links I have posted clearly state the cause of the civil war was slavery. That the civil war was about slavery. Yet you keep ignoring that and call me the idiot or say I don't have the ability to discern between the two.

Prove the professional historians wrong.

You post about the opinion of historians. Others have posted factual quotes that came straight from Lincoldn, events that actually happened and bills that actually passed.

You want to rely on what a few historians think instead of seeing the actual facts presented to you.

I guess it's true. We explain it to you, but we can't understand it for you.

Maybe idiot was too strong, but you're at least a clown.


Few??? The majority of them have reached that conclusion through their research, study and break down of the events.

It isn't opinions when they use the evidence to reach a conclusion.

First hand accounts are often wrong, taken out of context and missing the whole picture.

So again I challenge you to prove the vast majority of thousands and thousands of historians wrong.

Call me all the names you want but the challenge is up to you to prove those historians wrong. Apparently you could make a lot of money off of it since it would be groundbreaking work to prove an entire field of experts wrong.

So prove them wrong.
We've already proved it to you. You just choose not to listen.

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/08/23/know-called-civil-war-not-slavery/
No you haven't. Prove the majority of historians wrong. Then like I said you might want to publish those findings and make a killing since you would be proving an entire field of professionals wrong.
You know you're right. We haven't proved anything to you, because you don't want to acknowledge the truth. Nothing will be enough proof for you. You have been given quote after quote and facts after facts. You continue to ignore them all.

Lincoln himself could come to you, look you in the face and tell you that he didn't go to war to free the slaves and you still wouldn't believe him.


I know I'm and right and I have the majority of historians, truth and facts on my side.

You have quotes taken out of context.

Prove the historians wrong
cowboycwr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Canada2017 said:

chuckle

Cowboy reminds me of the Hindu woman who was positive the world rested on the back of an enormous turtle.

When asked what was holding up the turtle; she shouted out with glee........

" Another turtle of course. Don't start your silliness with me.......its turtles all the way down !
So you think the vast majority of historians are wrong?

do you often think the vast majority of professionals are wrong? Or do you read that they have reached a conclusion on something and accept that it is right?
You keep saying historians....do you know what you are talking about?

I have cited noted Historian James McPherson several times. The man has written several books. He is a John Hopkins PHD. Loves Lincoln. He served on the National Civil War Trust. And in general does not like the South in general and hated the Confederate States of America. He advised President Obama in 2009 NOT to send a wreath to the Arlington national cemetery Confederate Monument...something all former Presidents have done.

Yet here is James McPherson (historian) describing the mass desertions by federal troops after the EP was issued.

["The men are much dissatisfied" with it reported a New York captain "and they say it has turned into a Negro war and all the men are now terribly anxious…to return home for it was to preserve the Union that they volunteered for the war." Enlisted men confirmed this observation with a blizzard of bitter comments in letters home. " I am the Boy that will fight for my Country" wrote an Illinois private, but not for these Negroes," A soldier with the 66th Indiana wrote home from Mississippi in February, 1863, that he and his mess mates "will not fight to free the Negro… there is a Regiment here that say they will never fight until the proclamation is withdrawn. In one instance 700 soldiers of the 128th Illinois infantry deserted en masse after the EP was issued.]


Yawn. Deflection away from the cause of the war or what it was about.

Prove the historians wrong.
cowboycwr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thee University said:

cowboycwr said:

Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Porteroso said:

Redbrickbear said:

Canada2017 said:

Can anyone imagine the outrage if ANY organization fired their staff for being black ?

Why is blatant discrimination against white people perfectly ok ?




I could tell you but I would probably get banned from this site for saying it.

Believe me, nobody gets banned for anything they say in this forum.
Exactly. I have seen some vile stuff posted here and it seems no one gets banned for it. I can only think of one poster banned for things said but they started getting very personal, attacking, etc. Now on the football (or other sports boards) it is a different story and people can and do get banned there for disagreeing about a current coach.
I have seen your pro-Unionist vile stuff on here and I don't think you should get banned.

Live and let live on the interweb froums my bro.
What have I said that was vile? Posting the truth?


Implying Lincoln (who killed 700,000 people) was a good person is vile.

Saying the North fought the war to free slaves is just a low IQ lie.
Lincoln killed zero people. That is truth. You may THINK otherwise but historians don't agree with you. So you are wrong and history proves it.

Saying the North fought the war to free slaves is the truth. Historians and history back me up.
Ape Lincoln did not fire a shot. He sentenced 600 to 700K to death. He did not have the balls to meet with the South to negotiate a peaceful resolution. History recorded it. History proves it.

The Northern Aggressors didn't free a single slave. History recorded it. History proves it.

Ape wanted to colonize ALL black former slaves to places like Liberia, Africa or other tropical regions. History recorded it.

Ape did not believe blacks should have the same social and political rights as white. History recorded it.

Ape opposed blacks having the right to vote, serve on juries, to hold office and to intermarry with whites.

We could go on and on with history lessons for you.

The only thing that washed away all of the Lincoln sins in the eyes of Yankees was a bullet from Booth's gun.


Yawn.

Prove the majority of historians wrong.
Rawhide
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cowboycwr said:

Rawhide said:

cowboycwr said:

Rawhide said:

cowboycwr said:

Rawhide said:

Quote:

The majority of historians agree it was about civil war. Prove that wrong.

The links I have posted clearly state the cause of the civil war was slavery. That the civil war was about slavery. Yet you keep ignoring that and call me the idiot or say I don't have the ability to discern between the two.

Prove the professional historians wrong.

You post about the opinion of historians. Others have posted factual quotes that came straight from Lincoldn, events that actually happened and bills that actually passed.

You want to rely on what a few historians think instead of seeing the actual facts presented to you.

I guess it's true. We explain it to you, but we can't understand it for you.

Maybe idiot was too strong, but you're at least a clown.


Few??? The majority of them have reached that conclusion through their research, study and break down of the events.

It isn't opinions when they use the evidence to reach a conclusion.

First hand accounts are often wrong, taken out of context and missing the whole picture.

So again I challenge you to prove the vast majority of thousands and thousands of historians wrong.

Call me all the names you want but the challenge is up to you to prove those historians wrong. Apparently you could make a lot of money off of it since it would be groundbreaking work to prove an entire field of experts wrong.

So prove them wrong.
We've already proved it to you. You just choose not to listen.

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/08/23/know-called-civil-war-not-slavery/
No you haven't. Prove the majority of historians wrong. Then like I said you might want to publish those findings and make a killing since you would be proving an entire field of professionals wrong.
You know you're right. We haven't proved anything to you, because you don't want to acknowledge the truth. Nothing will be enough proof for you. You have been given quote after quote and facts after facts. You continue to ignore them all.

Lincoln himself could come to you, look you in the face and tell you that he didn't go to war to free the slaves and you still wouldn't believe him.


I know I'm and right and I have the majority of historians, truth and facts on my side.

You have quotes taken out of context.

Prove the historians wrong
It's already been proved. You just choose to stick your fingers in your ears and you hands over your eyes when it's presented to you.
cowboycwr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rawhide said:

cowboycwr said:

Rawhide said:

cowboycwr said:

Rawhide said:

cowboycwr said:

Rawhide said:

Quote:

The majority of historians agree it was about civil war. Prove that wrong.

The links I have posted clearly state the cause of the civil war was slavery. That the civil war was about slavery. Yet you keep ignoring that and call me the idiot or say I don't have the ability to discern between the two.

Prove the professional historians wrong.

You post about the opinion of historians. Others have posted factual quotes that came straight from Lincoldn, events that actually happened and bills that actually passed.

You want to rely on what a few historians think instead of seeing the actual facts presented to you.

I guess it's true. We explain it to you, but we can't understand it for you.

Maybe idiot was too strong, but you're at least a clown.


Few??? The majority of them have reached that conclusion through their research, study and break down of the events.

It isn't opinions when they use the evidence to reach a conclusion.

First hand accounts are often wrong, taken out of context and missing the whole picture.

So again I challenge you to prove the vast majority of thousands and thousands of historians wrong.

Call me all the names you want but the challenge is up to you to prove those historians wrong. Apparently you could make a lot of money off of it since it would be groundbreaking work to prove an entire field of experts wrong.

So prove them wrong.
We've already proved it to you. You just choose not to listen.

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/08/23/know-called-civil-war-not-slavery/
No you haven't. Prove the majority of historians wrong. Then like I said you might want to publish those findings and make a killing since you would be proving an entire field of professionals wrong.
You know you're right. We haven't proved anything to you, because you don't want to acknowledge the truth. Nothing will be enough proof for you. You have been given quote after quote and facts after facts. You continue to ignore them all.

Lincoln himself could come to you, look you in the face and tell you that he didn't go to war to free the slaves and you still wouldn't believe him.


I know I'm and right and I have the majority of historians, truth and facts on my side.

You have quotes taken out of context.

Prove the historians wrong
It's already been proved. You just choose to stick your fingers in your ears and you hands over your eyes when it's presented to you.


Perhaps you need to tell the historians that. None of them have changed their minds because of some amateur internet posters.

Provide links showing the majority of historians agree with you because of your amateur findings.
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
chuckle



" It's turtles all the way down ! "







Gotta luv the internet .
Malbec
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rawhide said:

cowboycwr said:

Rawhide said:

cowboycwr said:

Rawhide said:

Quote:

The majority of historians agree it was about civil war. Prove that wrong.

The links I have posted clearly state the cause of the civil war was slavery. That the civil war was about slavery. Yet you keep ignoring that and call me the idiot or say I don't have the ability to discern between the two.

Prove the professional historians wrong.

You post about the opinion of historians. Others have posted factual quotes that came straight from Lincoldn, events that actually happened and bills that actually passed.

You want to rely on what a few historians think instead of seeing the actual facts presented to you.

I guess it's true. We explain it to you, but we can't understand it for you.

Maybe idiot was too strong, but you're at least a clown.


Few??? The majority of them have reached that conclusion through their research, study and break down of the events.

It isn't opinions when they use the evidence to reach a conclusion.

First hand accounts are often wrong, taken out of context and missing the whole picture.

So again I challenge you to prove the vast majority of thousands and thousands of historians wrong.

Call me all the names you want but the challenge is up to you to prove those historians wrong. Apparently you could make a lot of money off of it since it would be groundbreaking work to prove an entire field of experts wrong.

So prove them wrong.
We've already proved it to you. You just choose not to listen.

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/08/23/know-called-civil-war-not-slavery/
No you haven't. Prove the majority of historians wrong. Then like I said you might want to publish those findings and make a killing since you would be proving an entire field of professionals wrong.
You know you're right. We haven't proved anything to you, because you don't want to acknowledge the truth. Nothing will be enough proof for you. You have been given quote after quote and facts after facts. You continue to ignore them all.

Lincoln himself could come to you, look you in the face and tell you that he didn't go to war to free the slaves and you still wouldn't believe him.
You have to understand. Firsthand accounts are wrong. If you want the truth, you must rely on the interpretations of academics. The ghost of Lincoln can't help you when he doesn't know the real truth. Now if he brings along an Evergreen State scholar to interpret for you, that's the ticket.
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Malbec said:

Rawhide said:

cowboycwr said:

Rawhide said:

cowboycwr said:

Rawhide said:

Quote:

The majority of historians agree it was about civil war. Prove that wrong.

The links I have posted clearly state the cause of the civil war was slavery. That the civil war was about slavery. Yet you keep ignoring that and call me the idiot or say I don't have the ability to discern between the two.

Prove the professional historians wrong.

You post about the opinion of historians. Others have posted factual quotes that came straight from Lincoldn, events that actually happened and bills that actually passed.

You want to rely on what a few historians think instead of seeing the actual facts presented to you.

I guess it's true. We explain it to you, but we can't understand it for you.

Maybe idiot was too strong, but you're at least a clown.


Few??? The majority of them have reached that conclusion through their research, study and break down of the events.

It isn't opinions when they use the evidence to reach a conclusion.

First hand accounts are often wrong, taken out of context and missing the whole picture.

So again I challenge you to prove the vast majority of thousands and thousands of historians wrong.

Call me all the names you want but the challenge is up to you to prove those historians wrong. Apparently you could make a lot of money off of it since it would be groundbreaking work to prove an entire field of experts wrong.

So prove them wrong.
We've already proved it to you. You just choose not to listen.

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/08/23/know-called-civil-war-not-slavery/
No you haven't. Prove the majority of historians wrong. Then like I said you might want to publish those findings and make a killing since you would be proving an entire field of professionals wrong.
You know you're right. We haven't proved anything to you, because you don't want to acknowledge the truth. Nothing will be enough proof for you. You have been given quote after quote and facts after facts. You continue to ignore them all.

Lincoln himself could come to you, look you in the face and tell you that he didn't go to war to free the slaves and you still wouldn't believe him.
You have to understand. Firsthand accounts are wrong. If you want the truth, you must rely on the interpretations of academics.
Good God is that ever the truth.

And people who should know better often buy into this.
Rawhide
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cowboycwr said:

Rawhide said:

cowboycwr said:

Rawhide said:

cowboycwr said:

Rawhide said:

cowboycwr said:

Rawhide said:

Quote:

The majority of historians agree it was about civil war. Prove that wrong.

The links I have posted clearly state the cause of the civil war was slavery. That the civil war was about slavery. Yet you keep ignoring that and call me the idiot or say I don't have the ability to discern between the two.

Prove the professional historians wrong.

You post about the opinion of historians. Others have posted factual quotes that came straight from Lincoldn, events that actually happened and bills that actually passed.

You want to rely on what a few historians think instead of seeing the actual facts presented to you.

I guess it's true. We explain it to you, but we can't understand it for you.

Maybe idiot was too strong, but you're at least a clown.


Few??? The majority of them have reached that conclusion through their research, study and break down of the events.

It isn't opinions when they use the evidence to reach a conclusion.

First hand accounts are often wrong, taken out of context and missing the whole picture.

So again I challenge you to prove the vast majority of thousands and thousands of historians wrong.

Call me all the names you want but the challenge is up to you to prove those historians wrong. Apparently you could make a lot of money off of it since it would be groundbreaking work to prove an entire field of experts wrong.

So prove them wrong.
We've already proved it to you. You just choose not to listen.

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/08/23/know-called-civil-war-not-slavery/
No you haven't. Prove the majority of historians wrong. Then like I said you might want to publish those findings and make a killing since you would be proving an entire field of professionals wrong.
You know you're right. We haven't proved anything to you, because you don't want to acknowledge the truth. Nothing will be enough proof for you. You have been given quote after quote and facts after facts. You continue to ignore them all.

Lincoln himself could come to you, look you in the face and tell you that he didn't go to war to free the slaves and you still wouldn't believe him.


I know I'm and right and I have the majority of historians, truth and facts on my side.

You have quotes taken out of context.

Prove the historians wrong
It's already been proved. You just choose to stick your fingers in your ears and you hands over your eyes when it's presented to you.


Perhaps you need to tell the historians that. None of them have changed their minds because of some amateur internet posters.

Provide links showing the majority of historians agree with you because of your amateur findings.
Fact: Congress overwhelmingly passed the Corwin Amendment which would've given constitutional protections for slavery.
Fact: Lincoln himself supported the amendment
Fact: In 1862 wrote these words in a letter: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it..."

You should really take the loss and move on. Trying to base facts on opinion is backasswards.
9b1deb4d-3b7d-4bad-9bdd-2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
the phrase reverse racism reminds me of unthawed
Wangchung
How long do you want to ignore this user?
clubhi said:

the phrase reverse racism reminds me of unthawed
That bugs me too. It's racism. There's no such thing as "reverse" racism.
cowboycwr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rawhide said:

cowboycwr said:

Rawhide said:

cowboycwr said:

Rawhide said:

cowboycwr said:

Rawhide said:

cowboycwr said:

Rawhide said:

Quote:

The majority of historians agree it was about civil war. Prove that wrong.

The links I have posted clearly state the cause of the civil war was slavery. That the civil war was about slavery. Yet you keep ignoring that and call me the idiot or say I don't have the ability to discern between the two.

Prove the professional historians wrong.

You post about the opinion of historians. Others have posted factual quotes that came straight from Lincoldn, events that actually happened and bills that actually passed.

You want to rely on what a few historians think instead of seeing the actual facts presented to you.

I guess it's true. We explain it to you, but we can't understand it for you.

Maybe idiot was too strong, but you're at least a clown.


Few??? The majority of them have reached that conclusion through their research, study and break down of the events.

It isn't opinions when they use the evidence to reach a conclusion.

First hand accounts are often wrong, taken out of context and missing the whole picture.

So again I challenge you to prove the vast majority of thousands and thousands of historians wrong.

Call me all the names you want but the challenge is up to you to prove those historians wrong. Apparently you could make a lot of money off of it since it would be groundbreaking work to prove an entire field of experts wrong.

So prove them wrong.
We've already proved it to you. You just choose not to listen.

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/08/23/know-called-civil-war-not-slavery/
No you haven't. Prove the majority of historians wrong. Then like I said you might want to publish those findings and make a killing since you would be proving an entire field of professionals wrong.
You know you're right. We haven't proved anything to you, because you don't want to acknowledge the truth. Nothing will be enough proof for you. You have been given quote after quote and facts after facts. You continue to ignore them all.

Lincoln himself could come to you, look you in the face and tell you that he didn't go to war to free the slaves and you still wouldn't believe him.


I know I'm and right and I have the majority of historians, truth and facts on my side.

You have quotes taken out of context.

Prove the historians wrong
It's already been proved. You just choose to stick your fingers in your ears and you hands over your eyes when it's presented to you.


Perhaps you need to tell the historians that. None of them have changed their minds because of some amateur internet posters.

Provide links showing the majority of historians agree with you because of your amateur findings.
Fact: Congress overwhelmingly passed the Corwin Amendment which would've given constitutional protections for slavery.
Fact: Lincoln himself supported the amendment
Fact: In 1862 wrote these words in a letter: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it..."

You should really take the loss and move on. Trying to base facts on opinion is backasswards.

Prove the majority of historians wrong and then post your link to them all saying they were wrong.
Malbec
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So now the standard is... you're not wrong, as long as you don't say you're wrong. Brilliant.
Rawhide
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Malbec said:

So now the standard is... you're not wrong, as long as you don't say you're wrong. Brilliant.
Me thinks has a very difficult time understanding the difference between actual facts and opinions.

He/she/it/them/they strike as the type that believes the world will end 12 years due to climate change because AOC said so.
Rawhide
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cowboycwr said:

Rawhide said:

cowboycwr said:

Rawhide said:

cowboycwr said:

Rawhide said:

cowboycwr said:

Rawhide said:

cowboycwr said:

Rawhide said:

Quote:

The majority of historians agree it was about civil war. Prove that wrong.

The links I have posted clearly state the cause of the civil war was slavery. That the civil war was about slavery. Yet you keep ignoring that and call me the idiot or say I don't have the ability to discern between the two.

Prove the professional historians wrong.

You post about the opinion of historians. Others have posted factual quotes that came straight from Lincoldn, events that actually happened and bills that actually passed.

You want to rely on what a few historians think instead of seeing the actual facts presented to you.

I guess it's true. We explain it to you, but we can't understand it for you.

Maybe idiot was too strong, but you're at least a clown.


Few??? The majority of them have reached that conclusion through their research, study and break down of the events.

It isn't opinions when they use the evidence to reach a conclusion.

First hand accounts are often wrong, taken out of context and missing the whole picture.

So again I challenge you to prove the vast majority of thousands and thousands of historians wrong.

Call me all the names you want but the challenge is up to you to prove those historians wrong. Apparently you could make a lot of money off of it since it would be groundbreaking work to prove an entire field of experts wrong.

So prove them wrong.
We've already proved it to you. You just choose not to listen.

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/08/23/know-called-civil-war-not-slavery/
No you haven't. Prove the majority of historians wrong. Then like I said you might want to publish those findings and make a killing since you would be proving an entire field of professionals wrong.
You know you're right. We haven't proved anything to you, because you don't want to acknowledge the truth. Nothing will be enough proof for you. You have been given quote after quote and facts after facts. You continue to ignore them all.

Lincoln himself could come to you, look you in the face and tell you that he didn't go to war to free the slaves and you still wouldn't believe him.


I know I'm and right and I have the majority of historians, truth and facts on my side.

You have quotes taken out of context.

Prove the historians wrong
It's already been proved. You just choose to stick your fingers in your ears and you hands over your eyes when it's presented to you.


Perhaps you need to tell the historians that. None of them have changed their minds because of some amateur internet posters.

Provide links showing the majority of historians agree with you because of your amateur findings.
Fact: Congress overwhelmingly passed the Corwin Amendment which would've given constitutional protections for slavery.
Fact: Lincoln himself supported the amendment
Fact: In 1862 wrote these words in a letter: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it..."

You should really take the loss and move on. Trying to base facts on opinion is backasswards.

Prove the majority of historians wrong and then post your link to them all saying they were wrong.
How about you prove them right. And FYI, their opinion isn't an actual fact.
90sBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cowboycwr said:

Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Canada2017 said:

cowboycwr said:

Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Redbrickbear said:

cowboycwr said:

Porteroso said:

Redbrickbear said:

Canada2017 said:

Uh Can anyone imagine the outrage if ANY organization fired their staff for being black ?

Why is blatant discrimination against white people perfectly ok ?




I could tell you but I would probably get banned from this site for saying it.

Believe me, nobody gets banned for anything they say in this forum.
Exactly. I have seen some vile stuff posted here and it seems no one gets banned for it. I can only think of one poster banned for things said but they started getting very personal, attacking, etc. Now on the football (or other sports boards) it is a different story and people can and do get banned there for disagreeing about a current coach.
I have seen your pro-Unionist vile stuff on here and I don't think you should get banned.

Live and let live on the interweb froums my bro.
What have I said that was vile? Posting the truth?


Implying Lincoln (who killed 700,000 people) was a good person is vile.

Saying the North fought the war to free slaves is just a low IQ lie.
Lincoln killed zero people. That is truth. You may THINK otherwise but historians don't agree with you. So you are wrong and history proves it.

Saying the North fought the war to free slaves is the truth. Historians and history back me up.
chuckle

A good laugh with my morning coffee.



Thanks .




Sad that you find the truth to be funny...


Your misrepresentation of the truth is what's funny…or to be honest it's quite sad.


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

"President Lincoln has told me time and again of his desire for 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

Lincoln's July 4th Message to Congress: "Finding this condition of things and believing it to be an imperative duty upon the incoming Executive to prevent, if possible, the consummation of such attempt to break the Federal Union, a choice of means to that end became indispensable...I sought only to hold the public places and property not already wrested from the Government and to collect the revenue, relying for the rest on time, discussion, and the ballot box." Lincoln in his speech was referring to the 40% federal sales tax on imports to Southern States under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861.

[At the Hampton's Road conference with Stephens in 1864, he supported reunion and allow the courts to work out the issue of emancipation. Lincoln's obsession was with the Union - not slaves. Lincoln reportedly told the Confederate negotiators that Northern opinion was very much divided on the question of how these new laws would be enforced. Regarding the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln reportedly interpreted it as a war measure that would permanently affect only the 200,000 people who came under direct Army control during the War. Seward reportedly showed the Confederates a copy of the newly adopted Thirteenth Amendment, referred to this document also as a war measure only, and suggested that if they were to rejoin the Union they might be able to prevent its ratification. After further discussion, Lincoln suggested that the Southern states might "avoid, as far as possible, the evils of immediate emancipation" Lincoln also offered possible compensation for emancipation, naming the figure of $400,000,000 which he later proposed to Congress.]

"On the part of the North, this war was carried on, not to liberate the slaves, but by a Federal government 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

Historian Thomas Fleming wrote in A Disease in the Public Mind: A New Understanding of Why We Fought the Civil War. Radical Republican Congressional leaders "unanimously agreed that the integrity of the Union should be preserved, though it cost a million lives," the New York Times reported on Christmas Day 1860. Massachusetts governor John Albion declared, "We must conquer the South!" Pro-war Bostonians amassed in large crowds and urged the governor to "drive the ruffians (southerners) and their families into the Gulf of Mexico and the Negroes with them."

"I have said that the separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation. I have no right to say all the members of the Republican party are in favor of this, nor to say that as a party they are in favor of it. There is nothing in their platform directly on the subject. But I can say a very large proportion of its members are for it, and that the chief plank in their platform is most favorable to that separation. Such separation, if ever effected, must be effected by their colonization overseas." -Abraham Lincoln

"Judge Douglas is especially horrified at the thought of the mixing blood by the white and black races: we are agreed for once---a thousand times agreed." - Abraham Lincoln

"I tell him [Fredrick Douglass] very frankly that I am not in favor of negro citizenship." - Abraham Lincoln

"Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live here with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life." -Abraham Lincoln

"I have no purpose or desire to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races." -Abraham Lincoln

"When Southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery than we, I acknowledge the fact...My first impulse would be if the slaves are freed...send them to Liberia." -Abraham Lincoln, 8/21/1858

[Just four days before his death, speaking to Gen. Benjamin Butler, Lincoln still pressed on with deportation as the only peaceable solution to America's race problem. "I can not believe that the South and North can live in peace, unless we can get rid of the negroes … I believe that it would be better to export them all to some fertile country."]

[When Lincoln did express a hatred of the expansion of the "peculiar institution" in the Lincoln Douglas debates he said nothing about the abolition ever of the south's current institution. By avoiding the issue of liberation, he could secure the support of non abolitionists and not risk losing the anti-slavery vote. One of the foundations of the Republican Party was free soil and labor opportunities for whites; the prevention of the expansion of slavery was one of the methods to accomplish this. Lincoln took it as his duty to hold to the party principles. Without such a strong corner stone to unit the party it would surely fall (Fonner, Free, 215-216). When elected to office Lincoln continued to use slavery as a political tool in an attempt to put an end to the secession crisis. On the eve of the crisis's climax Lincoln admitted that he was willing to give in to the most radical faction of Southern politicians along with their demands, such as ending Northern resistance to an internal slave trade. Lincoln made it a point to stress to the slave holding states that he had no intention of re-structuring race relations (Clinton & Silber, Divided, 78).
The real purpose for barring the expansion of slavery was to provide more land for the white settlers, not to improve the living conditions of savage subordinates. Armed with this idea of the isolation of slavery for the benefit of the white man Lincoln and his party billed themselves as "the only white mans party in the country." The National Era reported that many Americans opposed slavery. The reason that slavery was so strongly opposed by so many whites was due to its negative effects on free labor. There was little to no consideration for the well being or equality of the Negro (Fonner, Free, 265). Though Lincoln did believe that the Negro was a man, he knew that he was lesser man than whites. However even a lesser man was entitled to the basic natural rights of man, however he did believe that equality with whites was a natural right . He did proclaim that the Negro deserved a chance to better himself, but equality among his masters did not seem an attainable goal for the Negro (Fonner, Free, 290).
In 1862 at the White House Lincoln told a group of black leaders, including Fredrick Douglas, that though slavery was a great wrong inflicted on their people the black race would only suffer trying to live as equals in the superior white culture. Lincoln admitted that the Negro deserved a chance to prove themselves capable of bettering themselves. He thought it unlikely and and not desirable that they should do so here in America (McPherson, Battle, 508). Lincoln's solution was colonization. Central America was one of the selected territories. Through colonization the US could be freed of the inferior Negro in a sort of National enema.] -"Was Lincoln an Abolitionist?", Kelly Snell




Majority of historians agree it was about civil war.


https://psmag.com/education/of-course-the-civil-war-was-about-slavery-26265

Majority of historians agree it was about slavery.

https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/slavery-cause-civil-war.htm

And from that same link is Alexander Stevens (VP of the confederacy) saying it was all about slavery.

I could include 100 quotes from others, like you have done, to back up the fact it was about slavery to counter all the quotes you gave.

The articles of secession of the states also mentioned slavery more than they mentioned any other cause.

It was about slavery. The fact you can't accept that historians have proven that shows you are ignorant.








Did you read the article you linked?

"The North did not, however, go to war to dismantle slavery, as the South did to preserve it. The North fought to preserve the Union, a motivation that, over the course of the war, became inextricably tied to the question of what that Union would look like after the fighting was over would it be free or not?

This is the history on which McPherson's 90 percent to 95 percent of serious historians agree."

The title of the article is "Of course the Civil War Was About Slavery" but the point it is trying to make is that the southern states seceded largely due to slavery, and not simply "states rights". I have seen no one on this thread make that argument. However it states clearly (as noted above) that the north went to war to preserve the union, not to end slavery.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.