ESPN...JOINS IN ROBERT E. LEE FUN...

[Bernie Sanders]

speak for yourself

[Symmetry]

.it was only after the war...FORREST ,Nathan...formed the KKK to fight back at the South's loss...He quit when the KKK became to sick of a group,for his religious beliefs...He was only trying to restart the civil war...NOT START A RACE WAR...IF ONLY THE LEFT WOULD GET IT RIGHT...The SOUTH's leaders of the civil war if around today...Would round up those kkk and nazis,because they would see them a Threat to the C.S.A...values as well...The C.S.A...was full of gallantry and chivalry something those two groups lack,HELL today's America for that matter... ...Maybe more people should watch,or read "Gone with the Wind"...To see what the South and the war was really all about...

So you admire the KKK, and the Nazis, but just their early work?

[armati]

How We Know The So-Called “Civil War” Was Not Over Slavery

Paul Craig Roberts

When I read Professor Thomas DiLorenzo’s article ( http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/08 ... ca-empire/ ) the question that lept to mind was, “How come the South is said to have fought for slavery when the North wasn’t fighting against slavery?”

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.”

Quite clearly, the North was not prepared to go to war in order to end slavery when on the very eve of war the US Congress and incoming president were in the process of making it unconstitutional to abolish slavery.

Here we have absolute total proof that the North wanted the South kept in the Union far more than the North wanted to abolish slavery.

If the South’s real concern was maintaining slavery, the South would not have turned down the constitutional protection of slavery offered them on a silver platter by Congress and the President. Clearly, for the South also the issue was not slavery.

The real issue between North and South could not be reconciled on the basis of accommodating slavery. The real issue was economic as DiLorenzo, Charles Beard and other historians have documented. The North offered to preserve slavery irrevocably, but the North did not offer to give up the high tariffs and economic policies that the South saw as inimical to its interests.

Blaming the war on slavery was the way the northern court historians used morality to cover up Lincoln’s naked aggression and the war crimes of his generals. Demonizing the enemy with moral language works for the victor. And it is still ongoing. We see in the destruction of statues the determination to shove remaining symbols of the Confederacy down the Memory Hole.

Today the ignorant morons, thoroughly brainwashed by Identity Politics, are demanding removal of memorials to Robert E. Lee, an alleged racist toward whom they express violent hatred. This presents a massive paradox. Robert E. Lee was the first person offered command of the Union armies. How can it be that a “Southern racist” was offered command of the Union Army if the Union was going to war to free black slaves?

Virginia did not secede until April 17, 1861, two days after Lincoln called up troops for the invasion of the South.

Surely there must be some hook somewhere that the dishonest court historians can use on which to hang an explanation that the war was about slavery. It is not an easy task. Only a small minority of southerners owned slaves. Slaves were brought to the New World by Europeans as a labor force long prior to the existence of the US and the Southern states in order that the abundant land could be exploited. For the South slavery was an inherited institution that pre-dated the South. Diaries and letters of soldiers fighting for the Confederacy and those fighting for the Union provide no evidence that the soldiers were fighting for or against slavery. Princeton historian, Pulitzer Prize winner, Lincoln Prize winner, president of the American Historical Association, and member of the editorial board of Encyclopedia Britannica, James M. McPherson, in his book based on the correspondence of one thousand soldiers from both sides, What They Fought For, 1861-1865, reports that they fought for two different understandings of the Constitution.

As for the Emancipation Proclamation, on the Union side, military officers were concerned that the Union troops would desert if the Emancipation Proclamation gave them the impression that they were being killed and maimed for the sake of blacks. That is why Lincoln stressed that the proclamation was a “war measure” to provoke an internal slave rebellion that would draw Southern troops off the front lines.

If we look carefully we can find a phony hook in the South Carolina Declaration of Causes of Secession (December 20, 1860) as long as we ignore the reasoning of the document. Lincoln’s election caused South Carolina to secede. During his campaign for president Lincoln used rhetoric aimed at the abolitionist vote. (Abolitionists did want slavery abolished for moral reasons, though it is sometimes hard to see their morality through their hate, but they never controlled the government.)

South Carolina saw in Lincoln’s election rhetoric intent to violate the US Constitution, which was a voluntary agreement, and which recognized each state as a free and independent state. After providing a history that supported South Carolina’s position, the document says that to remove all doubt about the sovereignty of states “an amendment was added, which declared that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.”

South Carolina saw slavery as the issue being used by the North to violate the sovereignty of states and to further centralize power in Washington. The secession document makes the case that the North, which controlled the US government, had broken the compact on which the Union rested and, therefore, had made the Union null and void. For example, South Carolina pointed to Article 4 of the US Constitution, which reads: “No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.” Northern states had passed laws that nullified federal laws that upheld this article of the compact. Thus, the northern states had deliberately broken the compact on which the union was formed.

The obvious implication was that every aspect of states’ rights protected by the 10th Amendment could now be violated. And as time passed they were, so South Carolina’s reading of the situation was correct.

The secession document reads as a defense of the powers of states and not as a defense of slavery. Here is the document: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/libr ... secession/

Read it and see what you decide.

A court historian, who is determined to focus attention away from the North’s destruction of the US Constitution and the war crimes that accompanied the Constitution’s destruction, will seize on South Carolina’s use of slavery as the example of the issue the North used to subvert the Constitution. The court historian’s reasoning is that as South Carolina makes a to-do about slavery, slavery must have been the cause of the war.

As South Carolina was the first to secede, its secession document probably was the model for other states. If so, this is the avenue by which court historians, that is, those who replace real history with fake history, turn the war into a war over slavery.

Once people become brainwashed, especially if it is by propaganda that serves power, they are more or less lost forever. It is extremely difficult to bring them to truth. Just look at the pain and suffering inflicted on historian David Irving for documenting the truth about the war crimes committed by the allies against the Germans. There is no doubt that he is correct, but the truth is unacceptable.

The same is the case with the War of Northern Aggression. Lies masquerading as history have been institutionalized for 150 years. An institutionalized lie is highly resistant to truth.

Education has so deteriorated in the US that many people can no longer tell the difference between an explanation and an excuse or justification. In the US denunciation of an orchestrated hate object is a safer path for a writer than explanation. Truth is the casualty.

That truth is so rare everywhere in the Western World is why the West is doomed. The United States, for example, has an entire population that is completely ignorant of its own history.

As George Orwell said, the best way to destroy a people is to destroy their history

[Symmetry]

Ah- famous holocaust denier David Irving. What a shock that once again, those who think that the Nazis were the real victims, and those that think that the US Civil War had some noble principle that had nothing to do with slavery are one in the same.

Germany had to acknowledge its history after the second world war. The American South is still in the process of acknowledging it, at least to my mind, after a post-war period of trying to re-write it.

[armati]

An interesting statement Symmetry.

After pointing out repeated evidence the war between the states was not over slavery.

.The war between the states, "noble principle", was state rights and tariffs.

Maybe take the time and read the article.

It might be time people found out a little truth concerning history?

What did Napoleon say? History is just an agreed upon fraud? Something like that.

[Bernie Sanders]

An interesting statement Symmetry.

After pointing out repeated evidence the war between the states was not over slavery.

.The war between the states, "noble principle", was state rights and tariffs.

Maybe take the time and read the article.

It might be time people found out a little truth concerning history?

What did Napoleon say? History is just an agreed upon fraud? Something like that.

Best shot for freedom

[Dukasaur]

After pointing out repeated evidence the war between the states was not over slavery.

.The war between the states, "noble principle", was state rights and tariffs.

States' rights and tariffs were certainly matters of contention, but they wouldn't have brought about the fracture of the country. The tariff could have been argued over and brought to compromises; it was a pragmatic matter that could have been worked out. Slavery was the only issue on which people drew lines in the sand and were prepared to fight to the death over. From 1820 onward, slavery was the number one issue in every election and every debate.

[ConfederateSS]

After pointing out repeated evidence the war between the states was not over slavery.

.The war between the states, "noble principle", was state rights and tariffs.

States' rights and tariffs were certainly matters of contention, but they wouldn't have brought about the fracture of the country. The tariff could have been argued over and brought to compromises; it was a pragmatic matter that could have been worked out. Slavery was the only issue on which people drew lines in the sand and were prepared to fight to the death over. From 1820 onward, slavery was the number one issue in every election and every debate.

....BIG MATTERS.......FOR THE ONLY ONES WHO DID MOST OF THE FIGHTING WERE POOR FARM BOYS AND MOUNTAIN BOYS,WHO DID NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH SLAVERY....------They were told the yankees are invading our homes...Because back then...We didn't see ourselves as UNITED STATES...BUT AS A VIRGINIAN ,A NEW YORKER...NOT AN AMERICAN...So to most the war was about,THE WAR BETWEEN THE STATES,THEY DIDN'T EVEN CALL IT A CIVIL WAR IN THE SOUTH...,SO THOSE WHO WISH TO DESTROY THE PAST MIGHT WANT TO LEARN THE PAST...QUIT BEING A BUNCH OF BABIES IN 2017.........For a lot of people in the South,those symbols mean fighting and dying with Honor...PERIOD!!!!!!...To them it was just about stopping A yankee invasion.... ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)...People from the South will agree that for a few white rich who didn't fight,got out of it...Like most rich do in any war...It was about slavery,but for a whole lot more it had other meanings...If only the blacks would understand that fact...The war was not only about them...Stop trying to erase that fact from history...

[Dukasaur]

Great summation here: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/civil-war-slavery_n_7639988

Let's let the Southern states and their Civil War leaders speak for themselves.

Some excerpts:

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.

The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.

The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.

It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.

It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.

It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.

It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.

It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.

It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.

The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the *forms* [emphasis in the original] of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.

By the secession of six of the slave-holding States, and the certainty that others will speedily do likewise, Texas has no alternative but to remain in an isolated connection with the North, or unite her destinies with the South.

The full text of those is interesting reading, and it makes it crystal clear that, although secondary irritants did exist, secession was first and foremost about preserving slavery:
https://www.civilwar.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states#virginia

[Bernie Sanders]

After pointing out repeated evidence the war between the states was not over slavery.

.The war between the states, "noble principle", was state rights and tariffs.

States' rights and tariffs were certainly matters of contention, but they wouldn't have brought about the fracture of the country. The tariff could have been argued over and brought to compromises; it was a pragmatic matter that could have been worked out. Slavery was the only issue on which people drew lines in the sand and were prepared to fight to the death over. From 1820 onward, slavery was the number one issue in every election and every debate.

....BIG MATTERS.......FOR THE ONLY ONES WHO DID MOST OF THE FIGHTING WERE POOR FARM BOYS AND MOUNTAIN BOYS,WHO DID NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH SLAVERY....------They were told the yankees are invading our homes...Because back then...We didn't see ourselves as UNITED STATES...BUT AS A VIRGINIAN ,A NEW YORKER...NOT AN AMERICAN...So to most the war was about,THE WAR BETWEEN THE STATES,THEY DIDN'T EVEN CALL IT A CIVIL WAR IN THE SOUTH...,SO THOSE WHO WISH TO DESTROY THE PAST MIGHT WANT TO LEARN THE PAST...QUIT BEING A BUNCH OF BABIES IN 2017.........For a lot of people in the South,those symbols mean fighting and dying with Honor...PERIOD!!!!!!...To them it was just about stopping A yankee invasion.... ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)...People from the South will agree that for a few white rich who didn't fight,got out of it...Like most rich do in any war...It was about slavery,but for a whole lot more it had other meanings...If only the blacks would understand that fact...The war was not only about them...Stop trying to erase that fact from history...

..For a lot of people in the South,those symbols mean fighting and dying with Honor...PERIOD!!!!!!


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Pillow

Murdering Negroes who surrendered. Southern honor, heh?

Confederate SS you are one sick fuk!

[armati]

The secession document reads as a defense of the powers of states and not as a defense of slavery. Here is the document: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/libr ... secession/

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.

......on the very eve of war the US Congress and incoming president were in the process of making it unconstitutional to abolish slavery.

The North offered to preserve slavery irrevocably, but the North did not offer to give up the high tariffs and economic policies

Encyclopedia Britannica, James M. McPherson, in his book based on the correspondence of one thousand soldiers from both sides, What They Fought For, 1861-1865, reports that they fought for two different understandings of the Constitution.

As for the Emancipation Proclamation, on the Union side, military officers were concerned that the Union troops would desert if the Emancipation Proclamation gave them the impression that they were being killed and maimed for the sake of blacks. That is why Lincoln stressed that the proclamation was a “war measure” to provoke an internal slave rebellion that would draw Southern troops off the front lines.

A few points, and a question, if the north was more than willing to make it unconstitutional to end slavery, what was the war about?
Common sense gentlemen, it had to be about something else.

Even if there were people in the south spouting off about keeping slavery, they had made and achieved their point.
So what was the war about?

Hmmmm, I hear the war of independence was about taxes, maybe taxes and tariffs was a big deal then.. hmmmmm
I guess we cant be sure about that, .... or can we?

Well, just maybe it had something to do with state rights.

Whatever it was, our education system is sure gonna do the best it can to keep people guessing.

[owenshooter]

The secession document reads as a defense of the powers of states and not as a defense of slavery.

*giggle*... it is written in such a way as an attempt to frame states vs. federal, in an effort to reframe the debate. however, the
main STATE right they were fighting for WAS SLAVERY. the north called it what it was and the south, knowing their worlds were
about to become way more difficult, tried to make it about something else (despite that argument encompassing slavery as a
right held by the states)... nice try... i give you a C- for effort... the black jesus has rendered your point moot...-Bj

[armati]

Is it just me or is it some people dont read or understand the meaning of what they read?

.......US Congress and incoming president were in the process of making it unconstitutional to abolish slavery.

The North offered to PRESERVE SLAVERY irrevocably, but the North DID NOT OFFER to give up the high tariffs and economic policies.

You didnt answer my question Mr owenshooter, the south already had slavery handed to them, what right were they willing to die for?
It wasnt slavery, they already had that.

The states right question is with us today, and it still has nothing to do with slavery.
Why do some people think its important?
I mean, whats the big deal with state rights anyway?
Why the heck shouldnt the fed determine the laws and practices of the states?

hmmm, pot is legal in Colorado, or is it? the fed says no, whos right?
The question of State rights are still with us today.

[ConfederateSS]

--------Like most liberal jackasses you see what you want to see!!...I said nothing about Slave owners,Head Big Wigs making speeches ,I said poor farm boys and mountain boys who had nothing to do with the political aspects of the war.....THE BOYS ON THE FRONT LINES DYING!!!!spilling their blood for their homes and families...not white rich slaves owners...JUST STOP BEING SO BLIND TO OTHER ASPECTS OF THE WAR BETWEEN THE STATES!!!!!!! ...ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)...Stop trying to put a label on 19th cen. events in the year of Our Lord...2017..A.D...yeah! that's right P.C..police ..A.D..BABY...

[riskllama]

what's so civil about war, anyways?

[Thorthoth]

what's so civil about war, anyways?

Polite society always slaughters llamas with the utmost of refinement.

[Bernie Sanders]

--------Like most liberal jackasses you see what you want to see!!...I said nothing about Slave owners,Head Big Wigs making speeches ,I said poor farm boys and mountain boys who had nothing to do with the political aspects of the war.....THE BOYS ON THE FRONT LINES DYING!!!!spilling their blood for their homes and families...not white rich slaves owners...JUST STOP BEING SO BLIND TO OTHER ASPECTS OF THE WAR BETWEEN THE STATES!!!!!!! ...ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)...Stop trying to put a label on 19th cen. events in the year of Our Lord...2017..A.D...yeah! that's right P.C..police ..A.D..BABY...

Uneducated crackers running in defense of the rich elitists aka plantation owners. The same rich guys who, bought, stole or forced the poor white farmers off their lands. ( Yes, these poor white farmers were sitting on lands their family stole from Indians) Dying with honor? More like dying for the elitists of Southern Aristocracy.

Now we have the RNC telling poor crackers that Mexicans are stealing your jobs. Minorities are bankrupting our country.