New book sheds light on Lincoln's racial views

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Factual information that you disagree with is not propaganda.

If you see this book in your local bookstore (http://www.amazon.com/South-Was-Right-Walter-Kennedy/dp/1565540247), I highly suggest you take a look at it.  It has a lot of eye-opening facts about the war and the events leading up to it and immediately following.

I read the Texas Declaration of Secession.

Unless they were lying at the time I see no reason to look further.

[DumbAss Tanker]

The South's economy was gutted when Lee surrendered in Appomattox.

HOLY SHIT!!! You mean CHOICES HAVE CONSEQUENCES???!!!!???  WHO THE F*CK KNEW????????

 

[Splashdown]

Kittens and pie. Does it get any cuter?

[TexasCop]

I read the Texas Declaration of Secession.

Unless they were lying at the time I see no reason to look further.

Fine, shut the door and live in ignorance.  It's not going to bother me a bit.  But you really should learn the difference between a factor and a cause.

[TexasCop]

HOLY SHIT!!! You mean CHOICES HAVE CONSEQUENCES???!!!!???  WHO THE F*CK KNEW????????

 

He didn't CHOOSE to surrender.  He was forced into capitulation.  This stuff is in books, you know.

[Rebel]

With the enactment of the 13th Amendment; which was the proper legislative remedy to the debate as enshrined by the constitution. If one faction of a debate wants a policy they are obligated to politically seek legislative remedy (read: peaceably).

Ok, so slaves in the North were freed 3 years after the North "supposedly" invaded the South to free the slaves. Got it.

BTW, the actual year slaves in Maryland and Delaware were freed was 1866.

[TexasCop]

Yeah, the South seceeded from the North to protect the institution of slavery the government declared illegal.
 
Oh, but wait, they didn't.............
 
Slavery was still LEGAL in the United States when the South seceeded. 

[DumbAss Tanker]

He didn't CHOOSE to surrender.  He was forced into capitulation.  This stuff is in books, you know.

Choices are often constrained, they are still choices.  But I was referring to the choice to secede.  The outcome after that was solely dependent on the Union's will to keep fighting, a thing the South sorely 'misunderestimated' from start to finish.  Appomatox was just the final scene in a play the South chose to set in motion.

[TexasCop]

Additionally,

In his first inaugural, Lincoln sought to appease the states that had seceded by endorsing a constitutional amendment to make slavery permanent in the 15 states where it then existed. He even offered to help the Southern states run down fugitive slaves.

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html#Texas
 
(opinionated source, yes, but verifiable by others)
 
If slavery was the reason for secession, why didn't the Southern states stick around and ratify this amendment?
 
Sorry, just stating facts, as much as you might dislike them....

[TexasCop]

Choices are often constrained, they are still choices.  But I was referring to the choice to secede.  The outcome after that was solely dependent on the Union's will to keep fighting, a thing the South sorely 'misunderestimated' from start to finish.  Appomatox was just the final scene in a play the South chose to set in motion.

The South didn't expect to get invaded, either.  Their goal was a peaceful secession.

[DumbAss Tanker]

The South didn't expect to get invaded, either.  Their goal was a peaceful secession.

Sounds a lot like consequences.  Real people often do not react to things the way you wished they would.

There was a tremendous amount of magical thinking in the secessionist movement, updated to proper standards of modern public school PC indoctrination, they would have fit in fantastically with today's Democrat Party.

[TexasCop]

Really?  I say just the opposite for how our children are taught the causes of the war.  Our children are fed the liberal version of how it was the great war to cure us of the evils of slavery, when I submit that slavery was a mere factor.

[DumbAss Tanker]

You can believe whatever you want.  It's not going to change the outcome.

[TexasCop]

Nope, but still makes for great debate, 
 
Interestingly enough, it ultimately worked out for the better.  I don't believe we could have beaten Hitler as a divided nation.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Nope, but still makes for great debate, 
 
Interestingly enough, it ultimately worked out for the better.  I don't believe we could have beaten Hitler as a divided nation.

True...we became a veritable Chuck Norris of countries, so mighty that only we ourselves could defeat us...which it appears the DemonRats are doing their level best to accomplish.

 

[TexasCop]

God has a plan for us all, even if it pisses us off when it's in motion.   

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Fine, shut the door and live in ignorance.  It's not going to bother me a bit.  But you really should learn the difference between a factor and a cause.

That is little better than Eferrari's infamous "LOL" This offers nothing new. No points. No testable assertions.

I've cited the original documents. What exactly is lacking? what service will the book you offered do over the texts I offered?

Did the historians read the original texts then explain them for me? I can read the originals at the link I provided.

Will your prefered authors tell me Grant kept his slaves 7 months after the end of hostilities or will they tell me Grant freed his slaves before the 13th Amend was ratified?

Do I need Howard Zinn to enlighten me as to the causes and motivations of WW2?

From having read the Texas DoS and CotCSA I do know that Texas seceded for the expressed purpose to preserve slavery and the CotCSA codified slavery. What explanation is lacking?

If I have misstated the facts please feel free to bring the original documents forward for examination or if you prefer I may do so.

[Crazy Horse]

Anybody want PIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Splashdown]

Next up for discussion:

The presidential timbre of Ron Paul.

[Red October]

Its old news that Lincoln wanted the slaves to be colonized elsewhere.  He changed his tune when Fredrick Douglas rebuked him and it occured to Lincoln that in order to win, he needed to give the slaves a stake in the country.  It was the 19th century, people.  I'm not going to turn against preserving the union just because Obama sucks today and Lincoln may have once used the n word.

[Rebel]

From having read the Texas DoS and CotCSA I do know that Texas seceded for the expressed purpose to preserve slavery and the CotCSA codified slavery. What explanation is lacking?

What does that have to do with the North invading? Are you saying the North invaded simply because the South seceded? If so, what is the legal basis for invading the South over secession? Is it somewhere in the founding documents?

[TexasCop]

That is little better than Eferrari's.....

It's the big picture you're not seeing.  You still haven't answered my question I posed earlier.  Lincoln promised a Constitutional amendment promising slavery for eternity if the South stayed in the Union.  Why didn't the states stay in to vote this through?
 
Because it wasn't about slavery.  It was about economics and federal government meddling.  Sound familiar?  When the government barred the return of fugitive slaves, the South did not see that as an attack on their rights to own slaves.  They saw it as an infringment on their rights as an American citizen.  Slavery was LEGAL, yet suddenly there were laws saying their property couldn't be returned?  Add the Morrill Tarrif on top of this where the government tried to force the South to trade with the North.  This pissed them off.  They turned to their states, who were SUPPOSED to have greater power than the federal government, but suddenly discovered they did not.  That's when they decided to split and try it again.  Then the question begs as to why they then established a national government in Richmond, but that's for another debate.
 
You're eyeing the entire subject through the eyes of a 21st century American, which I think is why we're not connecting here.  They didn't think like we do back then.  

[TexasCop]

I've studied the Civil War extensively.  I used to give lectures on secession at historical events.  I was a Civil War reenactor for a number of years and dressed out as both Confederate and Union.  I've visited nearly every major battlefield in the U.S. and have assisted numerous tourists with the interpretation of troop movements.  Most importantly, I've been ghost hunting at night on the battlefield at Gettysburg.   
 
This isn't a passing fancy for me, it's an obsession.  If I come across as brash, I apologize.  I usually point to sources and let people come to the light on their own, but since I like you I decided to break it down.  The best of all the resources I've come across is the book, "The South was Right."  It's actually very non-partisan and will truly surprise you with stuff you'll think you should have known, but didn't.

[Red October]

I've studied the Civil War extensively.  I used to give lectures on secession at historical events.  I was a Civil War reenactor for a number of years and dressed out as both Confederate and Union.  I've visited nearly every major battlefield in the U.S. and have assisted numerous tourists with the interpretation of troop movements.  Most importantly, I've been ghost hunting at night on the battlefield at Gettysburg.  
 
This isn't a passing fancy for me, it's an obsession.  If I come across as brash, I apologize.  I usually point to sources and let people come to the light on their own, but since I like you I decided to break it down.  The best of all the resources I've come across is the book, "The South was Right."  It's actually very non-partisan and will truly surprise you with stuff you'll think you should have known, but didn't.

Thats awesome!  I would love to do that.  

Here's my thing.  Every time this subject comes up and I side with Lincoln, people think its a DU-esque bias against the south.  It isn't.  I love the south.  I love the history, the weather, & the people.  I've lived in the south twice.  I prefer the NHL to NASCAR, but I digress.  And of course we would all abhor slavery so that shouldn't even be up for discussion.  My bias is against the system of government the CSA wanted to adopt and the precedent seccession would have set for the United States.  You want a strong country, the kind that can win both world wars?  Then you can't have one that fractures apart with the shifting of every wind.  If you expect not to be at the mercy of Rome, you have to be Rome.  And I think the US strikes as good a balance between power and liberty as there's ever been in the history of the world

[dutch508]

I've studied the Civil War extensively.  I used to give lectures on secession at historical events.  I was a Civil War reenactor for a number of years and dressed out as both Confederate and Union.  I've visited nearly every major battlefield in the U.S. and have assisted numerous tourists with the interpretation of troop movements.  Most importantly, I've been ghost hunting at night on the battlefield at Gettysburg.   
 
This isn't a passing fancy for me, it's an obsession.  If I come across as brash, I apologize.  I usually point to sources and let people come to the light on their own, but since I like you I decided to break it down.  The best of all the resources I've come across is the book, "The South was Right."  It's actually very non-partisan and will truly surprise you with stuff you'll think you should have known, but didn't.

Obsession? No shit. Bottom line. The South lost.

Now get back to ****ing work.