It's a little more complicated than slavery.
It was mascaraed as "states rights", but the right of the states to do what? Abolish or keep slavery. Look what happened when they were given the right to vote on it in places like Kansas and what happened? Every pro-slavery person around(from other states) would come to vote on it, and when the states got their rights...you'd get things like the Fugitive Slave Law, was that a good thing? No. The main reason for the war, the reason the states seceded were about SLAVERY. Again, I know there were other smaller reasons, but it boiled down to slavery not the other way around. I'm firmly against leaving social issues to the states really always, back them and in today's age too.Originally Posted by sup-rbeast
Lincoln was against slavery since he was a boy, he campaigned on keeping it out of the new states, was he racist? Yup, but hated slavery. He didn't hate the South though, he was pretty sympathetic considering, he wouldn't have been really good to us if he hadn't been shot.
When it comes down to slavery, we were wrong, the South was wrong, we lost and we're much better for it. Do you think that McDonnell just happened to leave out the part about slavery because it was insignificant? No, it's because he knows that what it boiled down to, which anyone can see...whether it be me that lives here or someone from another state, that's embarrassing to me, the whole Jackson-Lee Day thing is pretty embarrassing too. This didn't come from teachers either, pretty much the opposite is what I heard in school, which the "War of Northern Aggression" is pretty wide spread in the South. McDonnell is trying to stir shit, that's all this is and it looks very bad on us IMO.
That's all true, I haven't said anything like that though, so I don't know where you're getting it. But when that "disagreeing" causes others to become second-class citizens, that's a problem and that's wrong(it's not opinion, it's wrong). And also, if you do drive down the road with it in your back window, don't complain if someone does call you a racist or something. I don't think it means your racists at all, I just think it's stupid, I see no point in it. We all have 1 flag.
When their discrimination is effecting others, then I have no sympathy for them, they're in the wrong and it's pretty clear.
It's a little more complicated than slavery.
And I've said at aleast 3 times there were other causes and reasons for fighting, but it all boils down to slavery.
How? You do know that Robert E. Lee opposed slavery don't you? Slavery was an issue but it was not the only issue in the war.
[QUOTE=R13;182068
He didn't hate the South though, he was pretty sympathetic considering, he wouldn't have been really good to us if he hadn't been shot.
.[/QUOTE] Yes, remember the nice homecoming bonfire he had WTS throw in Atlanta where all those bad rebels were hiding as kids and ladies?
We'll keep the lights on for you.
Spuds
I swear..you younger folks swear up and down that y'all get a good education now days..and then you turn right around and act like ya can't comprehend what folks write...lol. Slavery was just one issue that states and the nation disagreed on back then. If you want to be contrite or stubborn about it, that's fine...but don't play stupid.
...And if you ain't down with that, I got 2 words for ya....
Lincoln's wiping of his ass with the Constitution is the reason the federal government is so out of control now.
[IMG]http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l53/blpjr77/culpeper1.jpg[/IMG]
That's very much up for debate, there's some evidence, but that's a view that the South took up to defend him...from what I've read on it, he thought it was necessary for them to progress, that's not really being against it. And once again, I've said that there was other issues, but slavery was the main issue for the war and for secession - Alexander Stephens agrees with me.
He didn't have Sherman do that, hell he was under Grants command. Even with that said, the objection was to take Atlanta, that's all Lincoln wanted. The "scorched earth" tactic was Shermans idea, it's brutal, but what some soldiers did(the things you mentioned) wasn't part of it...it was to cut off supplies, he didn't, Lincoln didn't nor anyone commanded raping or anything. He also freed 10,000 slaves in that March.
Lincoln was blasted for being too lenient on the South, a lot of his party wanted to punish them pretty harshly. He could have hanged the Confederate commanders, but was handing out pardons left and right. He wanted the war to be over and the country to be together again, he was going to be extremely good to the South during Reconstruction...but what do we do? Kill the one guy that wanted to help us.
And I've agreed that there were other issues, but slavery was THE issue, there's no denying that - unless you're Bob McDonnell.
________________________________
It get's more and more embarrassing, now Obama is blasting McDonnell, a lot of attention on VA that I don't want...thanks Bob.
(CNN) -- Virginia's proclamation of Confederate History Month without any reference to slavery was unacceptable, President Obama said in an interview broadcast Friday.
"Well, you know, I'm a big history buff. And I think that understanding the history of the Confederacy and understanding the history of the Civil War is something that every American and every young American should be a part of," he told ABC in an interview taped Thursday.
"Now, I don't think you can understand the Confederacy and the Civil War unless you understand slavery. And so, I think that was a -- an unacceptable omission. I think the governor's now acknowledged that."
Obama was referring to Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, who apologized Wednesday for leaving out any reference to slavery in his recent proclamation designating April as Confederate History Month, calling it a "major omission."
McDonnell, a Republican, also said he would amend the proclamation.
ABC asked the nation's first African-American president to weigh in on the controversy.
"I think it's just a reminder that when we talk about issues like slavery that are so fraught with pain and emotion, that we'd better do so thinking through how this is going to affect a lot of people, and their sense of whether they're part of a commonwealth or part of our broader society."
McDonnell's written apology said, "The failure to include any reference to slavery was a mistake, and for that I apologize to any fellow Virginian who has been offended or disappointed."
"The abomination of slavery divided our nation, deprived people of their God-given inalienable rights, and led to the Civil War," the statement said. "Slavery was an evil, vicious and inhumane practice which degraded human beings to property, and it has left a stain on the soul of this state and nation."
The new language added to the proclamation says that "it is important for all Virginians to understand that the institution of slavery led to this war and was an evil and inhumane practice that deprived people of their God-given inalienable rights."
It adds that "all Virginians are thankful for its permanent eradication from our orders."
McDonnell's statement noted that while Virginia was home to the capital of the Confederacy, it was also the first state in the nation to elect an African-American governor, L. Douglas Wilder, whom McDonnell called "my friend."
In an interview with CNN on Wednesday, Wilder said McDonnell's apology and his introduction of additional proclamation language was "the right thing for him to have done."
"Most people recognize that slavery was the cause of the [Civil] war," Wilder said, noting that McDonnell had called him Wednesday. "The war was not a glorious thing in our past. It was something that we were able to withstand in terms of tearing the country apart. ... Thank God that war ended with the Confederacy losing."
Not all of Wilder's fellow Democrats were willing to forgive McDonnell so quickly Wednesday.
"He has a right to apologize," Virginia state Sen. Henry Marsh III, who is also African-American, told CNN on Wednesday. "But I don't accept that as a good answer, because this is a pattern of this governor.
"He says the wrong thing, he sends a signal to his base, and then he makes an apology," Marsh said. "It's a question of whether or not he's sincere or not."
McDonnell is the first Virginia governor in eight years to issue a proclamation declaring April as Confederate History Month.
Two previous Democratic administrations refused to do so.
"It is important for all Virginians to reflect upon our Commonwealth's shared history, to understand the sacrifices of the Confederate leaders, soldiers and citizens during the period of the Civil War, and to recognize how our history has led to our present," the proclamation reads in part.
Former Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine, now the Democratic National Committee chairman, issued a statement Wednesday blasting the exclusion of slavery from the original proclamation.
"Governor McDonnell's decision to designate April as Confederate History Month without condemning, or even acknowledging, the pernicious stain of slavery or its role in the war disregards history, is insensitive to the extraordinary efforts of Americans to eliminate slavery and bind the nation's wounds, and offends millions of Americans of all races and in all parts of our nation," Kaine wrote.
"A failure to acknowledge the central role of slavery in the Confederacy and deeming insignificant the reprehensible transgression of moral standards of liberty and equality that slavery represented is simply not acceptable in the America of the 21st century," he continued.
Obama: Governor's failure to mention slavery unacceptable - CNN.com
That indeed is why the government is as it is today..the greatest power grab for the executive branch happened 8-9 years ago when W. claimed even more powers for a sitting president.. Obama's claim of the same powers leads to ridicule. Where were all these Constitution waving conservatives when Bush was ripping their FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS away? And R13 you should have paid more attention in US History class..or learn to not be spoonfed info, cuz you have missed the boat as far as the Civil War goes.
...And if you ain't down with that, I got 2 words for ya....
"He didn't have Sherman do that, hell he was under Grants command. Even with that said, the objection was to take Atlanta, that's all Lincoln wanted. The "scorched earth" tactic was Shermans idea, it's brutal, but what some soldiers did(the things you mentioned) wasn't part of it...it was to cut off supplies, he didn't, Lincoln didn't nor anyone commanded raping or anything. He also freed 10,000 slaves in that March.
Lincoln was blasted for being too lenient on the South, a lot of his party wanted to punish them pretty harshly. He could have hanged the Confederate commanders, but was handing out pardons left and right. He wanted the war to be over and the country to be together again, he was going to be extremely good to the South during Reconstruction...but what do we do? Kill the one guy that wanted to help us."
Silly me, I thought Lincoln was the CIC , and calling Grant's shots- he did appoint him. And as far as "Him" helping us? It is what it is ,and I didn't have a horse in that race. The whole war was about cheap labor.
We'll keep the lights on for you.
Spuds
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks