Moderator: Community Team
SultanOfSurreal wrote:i am not, so much as i am surprised that such people exist at all, 150 years after the war. it takes some real stupidity to claim that the south was fighting for anything else than the preservation of slavery.
holding these traitors, who murdered their own countrymen to uphold this the most evil and perverse of institutions, in anything but the deepest of contempt is awful. it also requires equal parts cognitive dissonance, ignorance of history, and latent racism, in doses big enough to kill a bull elephant
discuss
The Neon Peon wrote:I live in Texas. As far as I can tell, Texas is too stupid to figure out that they are not the best in everything. We have some of highest crime rates, teen pregnancy rates, low overall education, most capital punishment, the dumbest board of education ever (they just voted down a bill proposing that certain parts of biology education have to be medically accurate)... but the the retards here still think that Texas is best.
sigh...
With that said, take your guess as to if they think it is their fault in the civil war.
SultanOfSurreal wrote:i am not, so much as i am surprised that such people exist at all, 150 years after the war. it takes some real stupidity to claim that the south was fighting for anything else than the preservation of slavery.
holding these traitors, who murdered their own countrymen to uphold this the most evil and perverse of institutions, in anything but the deepest of contempt is awful. it also requires equal parts cognitive dissonance, ignorance of history, and latent racism, in doses big enough to kill a bull elephant
discuss
PLAYER57832 wrote:SultanOfSurreal wrote:i am not, so much as i am surprised that such people exist at all, 150 years after the war. it takes some real stupidity to claim that the south was fighting for anything else than the preservation of slavery.
holding these traitors, who murdered their own countrymen to uphold this the most evil and perverse of institutions, in anything but the deepest of contempt is awful. it also requires equal parts cognitive dissonance, ignorance of history, and latent racism, in doses big enough to kill a bull elephant
discuss
Slavery is among the greatest of ills of humanity ever (below child sacrifice).
However, to say that the civil war was fought over slavery is to say that thousands of white northerners went to war to free black slaves.
The south was fighting to preserve its way of life. Slavery, yes, was a part of that. However, the war was about cotton versus industry, a basically aristocratic system versus the somewhat more egalitarien north. It was about whether a group of states that has decided it does not like the way the government is going should have the right to simply up and leave.
SultanOfSurreal wrote:i am not, so much as i am surprised that such people exist at all, 150 years after the war. it takes some real stupidity to claim that the south was fighting for anything else than the preservation of slavery.
holding these traitors, who murdered their own countrymen to uphold this the most evil and perverse of institutions, in anything but the deepest of contempt is awful. it also requires equal parts cognitive dissonance, ignorance of history, and latent racism, in doses big enough to kill a bull elephant
discuss
Maxleod wrote:Not strike, he's the only one with a functioning brain.
Maxleod wrote:Not strike, he's the only one with a functioning brain.
strike wolf wrote:I do not support or try to defend the South as a whole for the war, I stated quite clearly that I felt that the North was undeniably in the right. What I argued was Robert E. Lee's reasoning for entering the war which you said was just so he could keep his slaves. I don't think he was the greatest person ever. I simply believe he was a better general and mostly tried to correct you on the reasons that he joined the war for the South.
luns101 wrote:
Personally, I do believe the Civil War was fought over slavery. Whenever a student has tried to convince me that the war was fought simply because of states' rights I reply, "A state's right to do what?"
InkL0sed wrote:I wonder how many people in this thread actually know what "apologist" means...

SultanOfSurreal wrote:strike wolf wrote:I do not support or try to defend the South as a whole for the war, I stated quite clearly that I felt that the North was undeniably in the right. What I argued was Robert E. Lee's reasoning for entering the war which you said was just so he could keep his slaves. I don't think he was the greatest person ever. I simply believe he was a better general and mostly tried to correct you on the reasons that he joined the war for the South.
i am not talking just about you or just about the generals thread, i have seen plenty of other apologists in plenty of other threads
however your lame excuse for lee's treason is wholly unconvincing and merely turns him from a slave-monger to a weak willed jingoist
Maxleod wrote:Not strike, he's the only one with a functioning brain.
b.k. barunt wrote:luns101 wrote:
Personally, I do believe the Civil War was fought over slavery. Whenever a student has tried to convince me that the war was fought simply because of states' rights I reply, "A state's right to do what?"
According to our Constitution (as irrelevant to Lincoln's republicans as it is to Bush's) any of the original 13 states had the right to secede from the Union if they so desired. Next time a student asks you, maybe you could give them a more educated response. I was going to ignore sultan's little hissy fit of petulant ranting, but this, coming from a teacher, is just sad.
The southern states had long been getting a raw deal from our government, and the movement for secession was well on its way years before Lincoln ever took office. Andrew Jackson fought vehemently against it during his presidency. Lincoln used slavery as an emotional issue to make his denial of the right to secede seem justifiable, and i guess he hoped that folks would just forget about his signing the Fugitive Slave Act a few years earlier.
Honibaz
GabonX wrote:"There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil."
- Robert E. Lee
SultanOfSurreal wrote:lee's treason
Simon Viavant wrote:b.k. barunt wrote:luns101 wrote:
Personally, I do believe the Civil War was fought over slavery. Whenever a student has tried to convince me that the war was fought simply because of states' rights I reply, "A state's right to do what?"
According to our Constitution (as irrelevant to Lincoln's republicans as it is to Bush's) any of the original 13 states had the right to secede from the Union if they so desired. Next time a student asks you, maybe you could give them a more educated response. I was going to ignore sultan's little hissy fit of petulant ranting, but this, coming from a teacher, is just sad.
The southern states had long been getting a raw deal from our government, and the movement for secession was well on its way years before Lincoln ever took office. Andrew Jackson fought vehemently against it during his presidency. Lincoln used slavery as an emotional issue to make his denial of the right to secede seem justifiable, and i guess he hoped that folks would just forget about his signing the Fugitive Slave Act a few years earlier.
Honibaz
Just because the constitution says they can secede doesn't mean it wasn't about slavery.
And I believe that provision in the constitution gave, um, Virginia, Georgia, and the Carolinas the right to secede.
Simon Viavant wrote:b.k. barunt wrote:luns101 wrote:
Personally, I do believe the Civil War was fought over slavery. Whenever a student has tried to convince me that the war was fought simply because of states' rights I reply, "A state's right to do what?"
According to our Constitution (as irrelevant to Lincoln's republicans as it is to Bush's) any of the original 13 states had the right to secede from the Union if they so desired. Next time a student asks you, maybe you could give them a more educated response. I was going to ignore sultan's little hissy fit of petulant ranting, but this, coming from a teacher, is just sad.
The southern states had long been getting a raw deal from our government, and the movement for secession was well on its way years before Lincoln ever took office. Andrew Jackson fought vehemently against it during his presidency. Lincoln used slavery as an emotional issue to make his denial of the right to secede seem justifiable, and i guess he hoped that folks would just forget about his signing the Fugitive Slave Act a few years earlier.
Honibaz
Just because the constitution says they can secede doesn't mean it wasn't about slavery.
And I believe that provision in the constitution gave, um, Virginia, Georgia, and the Carolinas the right to secede.
GabonX wrote:SultanOfSurreal wrote:lee's treason
It was a common belief of the time that a person's state was more important than the whole of the United States.against his state. At the time this was the standard of treason.
It's quite clear that you do not understand the intricacies of history. In addition, it seems that you have been jaded by modern politically correct ideology to the point where you can not empathize with a person who holds a differing perspective..
b.k. barunt wrote:Simon Viavant wrote:b.k. barunt wrote:luns101 wrote:
Personally, I do believe the Civil War was fought over slavery. Whenever a student has tried to convince me that the war was fought simply because of states' rights I reply, "A state's right to do what?"
According to our Constitution (as irrelevant to Lincoln's republicans as it is to Bush's) any of the original 13 states had the right to secede from the Union if they so desired. Next time a student asks you, maybe you could give them a more educated response. I was going to ignore sultan's little hissy fit of petulant ranting, but this, coming from a teacher, is just sad.
The southern states had long been getting a raw deal from our government, and the movement for secession was well on its way years before Lincoln ever took office. Andrew Jackson fought vehemently against it during his presidency. Lincoln used slavery as an emotional issue to make his denial of the right to secede seem justifiable, and i guess he hoped that folks would just forget about his signing the Fugitive Slave Act a few years earlier.
Honibaz
Just because the constitution says they can secede doesn't mean it wasn't about slavery.
And I believe that provision in the constitution gave, um, Virginia, Georgia, and the Carolinas the right to secede.
Um, if you're going to quote someone, try reading what you quoted before replying to it, um, so maybe you won't look stoopid - here - i'll repeat it for you:
The movement for secession was well under way long before Lincoln took office. Now lets apply some deductive reasoning here - if the southern states wanted to secede before Lincoln took office, and Lincoln was the one who abolished slavery, um, still too hard for you to follow?
Honibaz
b.k. barunt wrote:Simon Viavant wrote:b.k. barunt wrote:luns101 wrote:
Personally, I do believe the Civil War was fought over slavery. Whenever a student has tried to convince me that the war was fought simply because of states' rights I reply, "A state's right to do what?"
According to our Constitution (as irrelevant to Lincoln's republicans as it is to Bush's) any of the original 13 states had the right to secede from the Union if they so desired. Next time a student asks you, maybe you could give them a more educated response. I was going to ignore sultan's little hissy fit of petulant ranting, but this, coming from a teacher, is just sad.
The southern states had long been getting a raw deal from our government, and the movement for secession was well on its way years before Lincoln ever took office. Andrew Jackson fought vehemently against it during his presidency. Lincoln used slavery as an emotional issue to make his denial of the right to secede seem justifiable, and i guess he hoped that folks would just forget about his signing the Fugitive Slave Act a few years earlier.
Honibaz
Just because the constitution says they can secede doesn't mean it wasn't about slavery.
And I believe that provision in the constitution gave, um, Virginia, Georgia, and the Carolinas the right to secede.
Um, if you're going to quote someone, try reading what you quoted before replying to it, um, so maybe you won't look stoopid - here - i'll repeat it for you:
The movement for secession was well under way long before Lincoln took office. Now lets apply some deductive reasoning here - if the southern states wanted to secede before Lincoln took office, and Lincoln was the one who abolished slavery, um, still too hard for you to follow?
Honibaz
SultanOfSurreal wrote:GabonX wrote:SultanOfSurreal wrote:lee's treason
It was a common belief of the time that a person's state was more important than the whole of the United States.against his state. At the time this was the standard of treason.
It's quite clear that you do not understand the intricacies of history. In addition, it seems that you have been jaded by modern politically correct ideology to the point where you can not empathize with a person who holds a differing perspective..
you're right, i cannot empathize with people who murdered fellow citizens so they could keep other citizens in bondage
This was not the position of motivation of Robert E. Lee. The man was much more complex than you give him credit for.
just as i cannot empathize with classical spartans who practiced infanticideBut I bet you can empathize with people who have abortions; just as i cannot empathize with medieval europeans who crusaded against, tortured, and murdered jews and muslims over religious differencesWhat about the muslims who did these things back then? What about the muslims who do these things today?I have the sneaking suspicion that you empathize with people not based on action but rather a misguided understanding of the world.. so why, i ask you, must i empathize with the clearly backwards and incorrect beliefs of bygone years?It's essential if you want to truly understand history, but that's kind of a moot point...