BLOG: UNPROVOKED WAR!

Tom Jackson
Apr 15, 2011

The Civil War began 150 years ago, on Tuesday.

The Sandusky Register carried articles on the war's beginning in its April 15, 1861, issue. The "News by Telegraph" section inside the newspaper, carrying dispatches from around the country, had a series of articles on the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter and the responses to it. In the style of the time, the paper has a series of headlines. The one on top says UNPROVOKED WAR!

The New York Times has a wonderful new blog, Disunion, that's providing a day-by-day account of the events of 150 years ago. It's addictive.

We're going to have many articles in this paper on the Civil War and Erie County's connection to it. Two of them will run Sunday.

My home state, Oklahoma, didn't play a big role in the Civil War. It wasn't a state then, it was Indian Territory, but it nonetheless was a Civil War battleground, too. The biggest battle in Oklahoma, Honey Springs, featured white soldiers, American Indian warriors and black soldiers. 

The battle was an interesting moment in black history. It was possibly the first Civil War battle in which black troops played a major role.

In fact, the 1st Kansas Colored Infantry won the battle, driving back a Confederate charge. The  Union commander, Maj. Gen. James G. Blunt, wrote, "Their coolness and bravery I have never seen surpassed; they were in the hottest of the fight, and opposed to Texas troops twice their number, whom they completely routed."

 

Comments

KURTje

Well tom this area is huge in Civil War history, if memory serves the most Union soilders were from Ohio (33% ?)                Ohio's contribution in leadership is large also.  

Captain Gutz

Ohio's contribution to Union leadership is HUGE! The only major player on the Union side not from Ohio was Lincoln, but I take solace from the fact that McClellan was not from Ohio.

brutus smith

 The south didn't learn their lesson the 1st time.

Snoozer

I wish the south would have won! The civil war wasn"t about slavery as i once believed. Its about as equivalent as going to a temporary service for a job! or why everything is made in china today? Just think how free america might be today.

Captain Gutz

Snoozer,

So you are saying that the Civil War would have happened even if slavery never existed?

SamAdams

Snoozer is right. The Civil War wasn't about slavery. It was about states' rights.

President Lincoln could have issued an Emancipation Proclamation at any time, including PRIOR to the War. He didn't do it until it was deemed a potential game-changer by freeing slaves (which he had no authority to do at the time) in the hopes they'd rise up and fight on the side of the Union and give the North some much-needed support from behind enemy lines.

The point, of course, isn't that there's nothing wrong with slavery. I can't think of anything RIGHT about slavery. But the pretense that War was declared over slavery is incorrect, and that error continues to be perpetuated in many history classes. It was fought over secession and whether or not states admitted to the Union could later LEAVE the Union. Lincoln used force to promote his own views that they could not.

History classes also very rarely touch on the fact that black men and women weren't typically viewed as equal in the North, either. They just weren't OFFICIALLY enslaved. The idea that persons of color (black, Native American, Chinese, etc.) were equals wasn't anywhere NEAR settled by the Civil War!

Added note: To the best of my knowledge, only Texas and Arizona were admitted to the US with the caveat that they be able to secede without penalty should they choose that option. In the case of Arizona, residents of the Territory tried to put secession into the proposed State Constitution. The federal government refused to accept it, so Arizona removed that point and was admitted as a state. One of the first acts of the new State Legislature in Arizona was to amend the State Constitution to put the secession clause back in.

6079 Smith W

  A couple points:

 The North abused the Irish and German immigrants, misusing them for cheap labor; the South had the Negro.   If Gen. Jackson had been allowed by Gen. Lee to pursue the fleeing Federal troops back into DC after the First Battle of Manassas, the War Between the States would more than likely had a quick end.   Study the Reconstruction; the North continued to discriminate against blacks while imposing draconian revenge on the South.   Funny, there’s a social phenomena occurring called the Reverse Migration. Educated blacks are increasingly finding fewer job opportunities in the North and are moving to the South for a better life.   In the 2010 census, Atlanta became #2 in the number of black inhabitants, pushing Chicago to #3.  

 

http://onpoint.wbur.org/2011/03/28/reverse-migration

  

 

 

brutus smith

 More revisionist history. If we had done this we coulda, woulda, shoulda .......... ROFLMAO!

6079 Smith W

 

“There was no historical precedent for a society’s basic institutions being overturned by ballot; democracy possessed very real limits. Neither George III nor Jefferson Davis were deposed in America by elections or legal writ, but by war.” -   T. R. Fehrenbach

Funny, during Reconstruction the North continued to refuse blacks the right to vote but required that it be given in the South.          
SamAdams

Brutus,

What's "revisionist" here? Do you suggest the Germans, Irish, Chinese, etc. WEREN'T discriminated against by the north? Or are you claiming that the southern states DIDN'T secede? Or maybe that Lincoln had no problem with their secession?

I don't see anything "revisionist." There are just more FACTS discussed here than are typically talked about in the average American History class.

brutus smith

 sam a, the Irish, Polish and Chinese were exploited and  discrinated against by business people, not just by the "north".

 

The American Civil War (1861–1865), also less commonly known as the War Between the States (among other names), was a civil war in the United States of America. Eleven Southern slave states declared their secession from the United States and formed the Confederate States of America, also known as "the Confederacy". Led by Jefferson Davis, the Confederacy fought for its independence from the United States. The U.S. federal government was supported by twenty mostly-Northern free states in which slavery already had been abolished, and by five slave states that became known as the border states. These twenty-five states, referred to as the Union, had a much larger base of population and industry than the South. After four years of bloody, devastating warfare (mostly within the Southern states), the Confederacy surrendered and slavery was outlawed everywhere in the nation. The restoration of the Union, and the Reconstruction Era that followed, dealt with issues that remained unresolved for generations.

brutus smith

 sam a, What was the state's rights issue? Let me think......... Oh yeah, slavery! Good grief, take some comprehension classes.

goofus

 

Apr 16, 2011
10:01 AM

brutus smith says

 More revisionist history. If we had done this we coulda, woulda, shoulda .......... ROFLMAO

Dork!!

SamAdams

Brutus,

Nope. The states' rights issue was over SECESSION. I grant you that the southern states seceded over the issue of slavery, but the war was actually fought over whether or not a state (or states) could leave the union. There was a point prior to the war, in fact, where there was very nearly an agreement that slave states could STAY slave states. Secession effectively ended that, and it became an all or nothing proposition. Up until that time, there hadn't been any shots fired. Debate? Yes. War? Nope.

brutus smith

 sam a, is that little voice in your head telling you that? Since 99.9% of history says differently, you confederate sympathizers are always trying to come up with something different.

Captain Gutz

SamA,

While it is arguable that the war was fought because the slave states seceded, there would have been no secession without the peculiar institution. While there were slave states that did not secede, there were no free states that did.

Indeed, a new state was carved out of a slave state during the war. That new state was formed by free men who held no slaves and had no desire to do so.

So you are saying that the Civil War would have happened even if slavery never existed? There is no precedent for any state attempting to secede for any other reason. (Maybe Utah?)

 

6079 Smith W
ol' bs defending a Repub – OMG!!!   The North only won the war because those evil businessmen exploited the Irish and Germans in their Northern factories in order to produce armaments for Lincoln’s War.   The fascist Lincoln also conscripted poor people as well as the Germans and Irish immigrants to be cannon fodder for his war, while the wealthy could buy their way out.   

Guess ya gotta run roughshod over the Constitution in order to save the nation huh?    

KURTje

Again sMITH your education has failed you.         All countries, All cultures, & All races have been dominated by others. History not me verifies this.   Stop waving flags & other symbols you non-vet.   Better still move to Texazz like you said  you were going to.                                                      pdb

BW1's picture
BW1

Sam, you're only partially correct.  Secession was NOT over slavery.  It was over a states' rights (and not rights to slavery Brutus) to economic and other types of souvereignty.  The Northern states, by virtue of their higher population density, dominated the House of Representatives, which is the only part of the government with the power to initiate tax or spending bills.  They had used this to set national economic policy to favor their own industrializing economies with exhorbitant protective tariffs - 40%, which were wrecking the economy of the South. These tariffs provided most of the federal government's funding (which was a large part of Lincoln's motivation for not letting then secede.)

On February 3, 1865, U.S.Secretary of State Seward, Confederate Vice President Stephens and other representatives held a secret peace conference at Hampton Roads, VA.  The Union representatives offered readmission to the Union and the preservation of slavery.  The Confederate representatives countered that they could not rejoin the union without a reduction of the tariff to 10%.  The Union representatives refused - it was on that issue that they failed to reach agreement.

Lincoln was a tyrant who suspended most of the Bill of Rights, imprisoning and killing people for PROTESTING against the draft (Free Speech, anyone? How's that sit with your hippy sensibilities, Brutus?) In addition, he ignored the Constitution's Separation of Powers, effectively committing a coup de tat by threatening to imprison the Supreme Court if they published their ruling against him on the suspension of habeas corpus.  He changed the United States from a voluntary union of states into an empire held together by force.

By the way, Sam, Montana's admission agreement to the Union stipulated the right to secede, and spelled out what would constitute grounds for it.

brutus smith

 You know bw1 and sam a, why is it I can only find "proof" of your revisionist history only on right wingnut BLOGS? No true historian can verify what you say, only what's bouncing around the right wingnut echo chamber.

Marcus M

Moderators have removed this comment because it contained lengthy or off-topic excerpts from other websites. Discussion Guidelines

KURTje

"We hold these truths to be self evident that ALL men are created equal........"               In the preamble it didn't say   -     unless you are non-white.              Think on that .          THAT goes counter to the constitution.              Those southerners derserved what we Northern people gave them.

6079 Smith W
Know this: Even Lincoln believed that the Negro was inferior and did not consider them equal to whites.   A major point is that the South reacted irrationally; they feared the election of Lincoln and what it could entail.   If the Southern states would not have seceded and began the war, the odds are that Lincoln would have been a politically mediocre president who would have been incapable of legislating his abolitionist philosophy.  

Sadly, in the history of the world, the U.S. is the only country that eliminated the institution of slavery through war. 

 More-than-likely slavery would have eventually been eliminated through the increased use of mechanization.

   
brutus smith

 Oh, OK Darth.

BW1's picture
BW1

Brutus, your research skills are sorely deficient:

Congressman Clement Vallandigham of Ohio, for speaking out in criticism of Lincoln and the war, was arrested, subjected to a military tribunal (shades of Bush, Brutus?) and deported.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cle...

The Supreme Court ruling that was not published under Lincoln's threat to Chief Justice Roger Taney was ex parte Merryman - you can look it up in any index of SCOTUS cases.
The ruling that retroactively after the war ruled Lincoln's orders violated the Constitution was ex parte Milligan.  Again, Brutus, it's in the court archives.

Regarding the peace conference, there are plenty of references, including in the Lincoln archive of the ILLINOIS (you know, the state that gave us Obama?) State historical Library.

Captain Gutz, slavery was not the primary issue, and Lincoln made assurances he would not seek to force its end, prior to the war.  The issue was, as it always is, money and economics.
The Southern states retained slavery because it was essential to their pre-industrial agrarian economy.  Strong abolitionism in the North had long been limited to fringe religious groups,
but it gained support as the industrial revolution took hold and transformed the economy to one which had no role for slavery.  Until that point, while Northerners held no slaves personally,
they were heavily invested in the slave trade.

The federal government had enacted economic policies that favored the Northern industrial economy, and was bleeding the South with taxes. The South was heavily depedent on foreign trade to
parlay their cotton and other agricultural products for the good manufactured by Europe, and the 40% tariff was strangling them.  As Marcus points out, Lincoln's primary aim was reversing secession.
Why?  FOLLOW THE MONEY!!!!  It was about maintaining centralized federal power, which would never work if states could walk away, especially states that were largely funding the federal government.

Lincoln's prosecution of the war was no more about the slaves than Bush's wars were about the poor oppressed Iraqi's, or Obama's war is about the poor oppressed Libyans.
 

Factitious

BW1, you dip, of course it was about money. Slavery was far and away the biggest money issue and most people can't even think of anything else. Slavery permits making a lot of money by treating fellow human beings as animals, and the South's entire socio-economic structure was at stake.

Brutus is right and SamAdams is full of it. The states' rights issue was slavery. Euphamization, code words and changing the subject are all techniques for defending the indefensible. Slavery was difficult to defend on moral grounds, so the folks who liked slavery pretended it was all about states' rights, hypocritically pretending to defend a moral priciple, but when they said "states' rights," everyone knew they were talking about slavery.

It didn't end with the Civil War. The Dixiecrats, splintering from the Dems in 1948, talked about states' rights but everyone knew the right they wanted to preserve was the right to subordinate minorities. It was about preserving segregation.

In this case the rest of the Democrats won and the Dixiecrats soon dissolved.

Unfortunately, eager for working-class votes, Southern Republicans picked up the states' rights mantle and today the GOP has positioned itself as the defender of states' rights, i.e. the right to protect the wealthy powerful elite on the backs of the poor and powerless through backward social, environmental and economic policies.

Greedy selfish people don't like a strong federal government because they think it's easier to have their way with state and local governments.

This is less true with increasing wealth concentration -- buying even national elections is now completely affordable, and perfectly legal, now the the corrupt Supreme Court has legalized practically limitless corporate payoffs disguised as "campaign contributions."

BW1's picture
BW1

It feels good to say it was about slavery, but Lincoln himself is on record saying it was not.  Slavery was a good bit to inflame the masses, but it wasn't the real economic issue.  Without the onerous federal tariffs, slavery would have fizzled out on its own, because the South would be able to afford all the new ways of mechanizing farming. 

Left to itself, slavery would have ended in another 10 years at the most, and Lincoln was smart enough to know that, and politically wise enough to know it was the preferable route.   The war was about making the states subordinate to the federal government in every way. 

Slavery continued in other countries long after the Civil War was over.  Why didn't the USA go to war to end it in those places?  It would have been no different.  If Lincoln had let the Confederacy go its own way, he would have effectively ended slavery in the United States.  It would only exist in foreign countries, as it did after the war.  It was about getting back the cash cow that funded the federal government

Money  is nothing but a marker for power.  In the end, it's always power.

brutus smith

 bw, this isn't a right wingnut blog where you repeat a lie enough and it morphs into the truth.

buckeye15

It is usually pretty easy to understand why the far right makes up things and practices their revisionist history, but I am still struggling to fully understand this  renewed readoptive revisionism about the reasons for the Civil War.  Oh I understand why southerners want to protect their honor, so they parse their words carefully, and try to make it sound less disgusting, but now we have a widespread movement spreading this crap around.

Say whatever you want wingnuts, but the southern states seceded to protect their "rights" to own people.  From the Mississippi declaration of secession:

"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."

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ou...

The confederacy formed, and seceded over the right to own people. ..Period...

 

 

 

KURTje

Exactly Buckeye!           Another reason I  F with people displaying a rebel flag.    They deserved the @ss whipping handed   2them.

BW1's picture
BW1

Brutus, you're welcome to point out specific places where I'm incorrect - you're the one repeating yourself, with the litany of unsubstantiated, one line naked assertions.

I've already demonstrated that references are available at non-right wing sites.

 

BW1's picture
BW1

Wow buckeye15.  Did Mississippi, the ONLY state declaration that mentions the issue of slavery happen to be the first one you read, and you ran with it, or or did you happen to read THE OTHER TWELVE, and conveniently skip them because they contained no mention of the issue of slavery?  Based on your logic, the Unabomber's manifesto speaks for all the environmentalists in the world.

It's notable that THE OTHER TWELVE declarations mentioned ongoing and pre-existing federal oppression and abuse, years before the anyone lifted a finger to end slavery.  Arkansas declaration cites as its sole motivation the Union's military response to other states' secession.

Captain Gutz

Here's an easy question for all readers , do you believe the US Civil War would have occured had slavery not existed in the US?

Yes or no?

brutus smith

 b w, it's funny you sight quotes from Congressmen who thought like you. Fast forward modern day to Sen. Jon Kyl from Arizona saying that abortions are 90% of what Planned Parenthood does when its only 3%. Someone like you 150 years from now will use that quote to support their position.

glassman

 Proud to sport my bloodstripes for the U.S.A.

6079 Smith W
@ CG:   No, the War Between the States would more than likely not have occurred had NC secessionists not fired on Ft. Sumter.   If war came, most in both the North and South expected it to be short with both sides eventually going their own way.   The nation had the deeply divisive issue of slavery since it’s founding. This country almost ended before it began.   Study Geo. Washington and his acts of diplomacy between the Northern colonies and the Southern ones over the issue of slavery.   For one: Slaves were expensive in the North because they were essentially useless during the cold months. Hence it was never a popular institution in those climes.   We in the 21st Century have our own issues. For one, big govt. which is a direct outgrown of the loss of state sovereignty byway of the direct outgrowth of that terrible conflict and it’s aftermath.     BTW: Railroads took adventurers out to shoot buffalo, which helped starve the Plains Indians, and eventually forced them onto the reservations. Gen. Sherman knew in GA and later in TX that cutting off the enemy's food supply leads to their annihilation.

 

brutus smith

 Fired on Ft. Sumter=states rights=SLAVERY! Why so intent on re-writing history now?

6079 Smith W
After the demise of slavery, sharecropping was the alternative livelihood for many blacks.   In many ways, sharecropping was a far worse institution because blacks were now free to starve on their own.   The North may have “freed the slaves,” but they largely dropped the ball after the conflict. The North made promises but for the most part failed to deliver.   “Forty acres and a mule” was a myth that persists to this day.   What about the millions of the Earth’s inhabitants who live in oppressive societies who are virtual slaves to their govts.?   Perhaps the ignorant self-righteous in America should seek to help free them through armed conflict?   Let’s attack Iran, N. Korea and Cuba or maybe Libya or Serbia????   History may not repeat, but it rhymes; fools tend to repeat the folly incessantly with their simplistic thinking and their search for easy answers and quick solutions.         
BW1's picture
BW1

Brutus said "b w, it's funny you sight quotes from Congressmen who thought like you"

Brutus, you seem confused. I have not CITED any quotes from any Congressmen. Do you perhaps refer to me CITING **EVENTS** surrounding certain Congressmen at the time of the war? If so, then what exactly is supposed to be the relevance of their thoughts or ideals? Take your time and think it through - I mentioned that members of Congress and draft opponents were arrested/deported/killed FOR SPEAKING OUT. Do you honestly now mean to claim that the First Amendment only applies to those who agree with you?

"Fast forward modern day to Sen. Jon Kyl from Arizona saying that abortions are 90% of what Planned Parenthood does when its only 3%. Someone like you 150 years from now will use that quote to support their position."

Again, you seem confused. Let me spell it out. There is no parallel to anything regarding Sen. Kyl, and what he said is completely irrelevant to the point at hand, unless he was arrested and sent to Gitmo for saying it, which would be a parallel to what I CITED. I used no quotes from any member of Congress. I wrote about actions taken by the Federal government against a congressman for what he said, but I didn't mention what he actually said, because it's not relevant.

To clarify my point, I'll outline what would, unlike your Kyl example, represent an actual relevant parallel, and perhaps it will better illustrate for you what my objections are to the actions in question. A parallel would be if, when Kucinich spoke out against the war in Iraq, Bush had declared him an enemy combatant, had him arrested and shipped off to Gitmo, and then subsequently dropped in the middle of Afghanistan with no ID. If that happened, do you think there would be any validity to defending Bush's actions by expressing disagreement with Kucinich's point of view? Because that's the tack you're taking here.

brutus smith

 Anyhow, slavery was the reason for the war, end of story.

BW1's picture
BW1

Thus spake brutus, and so it MUST be true.  Bless his heart.

Brutus, didn't you say something about repetition not establishing proof?  Do you ever have anything of substance to offer, or is this repeated naked assertion the extent of your abilities? 

 

 

brutus smith

 Like I said, I can feed you right wingnuts FACTS all day long, and still all you do is vomit.

6079 Smith W

@ bs:

Only the simple minded and uneducated would conclude that slavery was the "reason" for Northern aggression against the Southern states - EOS.

 

brutus smith

 winnie, for your viewing pleasure. ayn rand in her own words:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7zwO88nRH8

 

This is the cold hearted, selfish, un-Christian woman the tea baggers and Rethugs adore. Reminds me of a couple of women who post on here.

6079 Smith W

@ bs:

Thanks.

AR was a Russian émigré who knew first hand the slavery and death of Marxism that you ignorantly embrace.

Here's one for you to enjoy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cSsB_jvk6U

 

brutus smith

 I am a little confused, because you subscribe to most of the things depicted in your video. I bet you play that 24/7 wishing you could have that here.

BW1's picture
BW1

brutus said "I am a little confused,"

THAT is the most coherent thing you've said in this thread

"because you subscribe to most of the things depicted in your video. I bet you play that 24/7 wishing you could have that here"

And then lucidity slips through your fingers.  This makes no sense, since most of what the video depicted were speeches, articles and posters, and most of those were directly from the Marxists whose ideas YOU have espoused in comments too numerous to count.

brutus smith

 bw, when you say something of substance I will respond. Your comprehension of things is childlike. Read the posts to see what I was reponding to.

6079 Smith W
brutus smith writes:   “This is the cold hearted, selfish, un-Christian woman the tea baggers and Rethugs adore.”   "Actually a bunch (of) Stone Age right wingnuts wrote the Old Testament." (brutus smith, Sept. 10, 2010)   “Those of us born and raised Catholic,” (brutus smith, Nov. 25, 2010)   So you hate Jews and defend the brutalilty of the Inquistion?    

So were you an adult at the beginning of the Civil War, would we have seen you down at the recruiting station signing up to help "free the slaves" ? There were few if any age limits.

 

 

6079 Smith W

brutus smith writes:

"I am a little confused,"

You're just now realizing that Cupcake? ROFLMAO!!!

 

patriot5

Why was it ok for free blacks to own slaves, we never hear of that. The last US census report circa 1860 Showed about 8 million whites lived in slave states. It list fewer than 385k owned slaves, even if all those were white owners that’s about 4.8% that owned one or more slaves for the south.

 

High school history show you that free blacks bought slaves only to free them, not usually the case though according to the country's leading African American historian, Duke University professor John Hope Franklin, records that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city alone. That’s more than the whole 4.8% of white owners. This is a truer picture of the Old South, one never presented by the nation's mind molders. Statistics from the time prove that when free, blacks disproportionately became slave masters.

He goes on to say In 1860 there were at least six Negroes in Louisiana who owned 65 or more slaves The largest number, 152 slaves, were owned by the widow C. Richards and her son P.C. Richards.. Another Negro slave magnate in Louisiana, with over 100 slaves, was Antoine Dubuclet, a sugar planter whose estate was valued at (in 1860 dollars) $264,000 (3). That year, the mean wealth of southern white men was $3,978 (4). Average number were 5 slaves, only the top 1% owned over 50 slaves.

In Charleston, South Carolina in 1860 125 free Negroes owned slaves; six of them owning 10 or more. Of the $1.5 million in taxable property owned by free Negroes in Charleston, more than $300,000 represented slave holdings (5). In North Carolina 69 free Negroes were slave owners (6).

A black who was born a slave, later became one of the biggest cotton farmers, William Ellison, he perfected cheap slave labor. He was a known slave breeder, who sold slaves and hired slave hunters when his ran away, figures show he had more wealth, more slaves than most any white holders. His family went on to be one the largest producers for the confederates.

So theres two sides to the whole slave issue, black slave owners, but we never hear or them, had as much to fight for as their white counterparts.

 

 

 

 

KURTje

Moderators have removed this comment because it contained personal attacks. Discussion Guidelines

no planb

kURTje, says:" Another reason I  F with people displaying a rebel flag.    They deserved the @ss whipping handed   2them." from these posts I gather Kurt did his time in the service. Imagine being extracted out of sh%% and the slick that taxis you has a nice big confederate flag painted on it. Numerous cc's and hp's had those painted onto their "ships", as well as the official insignias. Either on the cowling, nose, tail, doors if had any. Think they were racist? That was long before the pc police got involved in the military. 

BW1's picture
BW1

 

 

 

 

 brutus smith said "Like I said, I can feed you right wingnuts FACTS all day long, and still all you do is vomit."

You CAN?  Well then, when are you going to start?  We're all waiting. You've yet to offer anything relevant or meaningful.  You have two posts in this thread that amount to more than  just one-liners of naked assertion or ad hominems, and neither of them addresses any aspect of the issue.   What facts have you offered?  All I've seen is one quote from a current Senator that is so unrelated to the issue at hand it has me wondering if you even know what we're discussing. 

A good start would be to look beyond your high school history class and realize that it only taught you the official, currently and locally fashionable view of things.  If you have any doubts about that, a good way to dispel them would be to have a discussion about the causes and results of the War of 1812 with a Canadian or a British person.  That will be an eye opener.
 

I have another question for you, Brutus.  Why do you think we went into Iraq?   I doubt you believe the official reasons given any more than I do.   So the question is, do you think lying was invented in your lifetime, or maybe that it's been a common practice for longer than that?
 

Henry Ford said "History is a lie agreed upon" - to which I add "by those who manage to hold onto power."
 

KURTje

Plan b you are right. Never said much said  much about about it on the "block".  Being from here and raised on a farm.   Then after my Parris Island education & other events saw 1rst hand those that displayed stars & bars & their  thought process along with their speech.   See  my linage is German & I wouldn't insult people with a swaticka.  It is wrong.   Both symbols represent hate .   Maybe you'll  enjoy flying it on your mountain.   I love my America & the North.  She needs celebrated for all the good that was done.

6079 Smith W

The majority of the "race riots" in the 1960s occurred in the North - few in the South.

Northern cities like Detroit and Cleveland are crumbling under the weights of poverty and taxation. The South as a whole is booming economically and socially.

Educated blacks are returning to the South due to the increasing lack of job opportunities and high unemployment in the North.

Seems like Mr. Lincoln helped the North get what they asked for a long time ago.

Misplaced pride in the failing North and hatred of the South reads like Yankee ignorance regarding the true nature of past and current events.

I may be a born and bred Buckeye - but I LOVE the South and West.

 

brutus smith

 Gee, I wonder why the blacks fled the south? Wouldn't be because of all the hangings going on? Naw.

6079 Smith W
"Confused" writes:   "Gee, I wonder why the blacks fled the south?"   Easy - jobs. It was called the Great Migration.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Migration_(African_American)   The poor sharecroppers of the South came North during the Twentieth Century to work in the good paying Northern factories.   Now that Northern industry has been on a fast decline due primarily to heavy govt. regulation and high taxation; the North is now stuck with high levels of black unemployment as well as excessive expenses for taxpayer funded health and welfare benefits.   The Northern educated blacks are returning to the South in what has been called "The Reverse Migration."   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Great_Migration   In the 2010 Census, Atlanta became the #2 city with the largest black population and Chicago dropped to #3.  

The dumb Yankees paid to educated 'em and the South gets the benefits.   Funny how the mostly liberal North never stops paying for its hubris. :)    

brutus smith

 winnie, you and ayn rand seem to have a lot in common.

Ayn Rand, Hugely Popular Author and Inspiration to Right-Wing Leaders, Was a Big Admirer of Serial Killer 

So what, and who, was Ayn Rand for and against? The best way to get to the bottom of it is to take a look at how she developed the superhero of her novel,Atlas Shrugged, John Galt. Back in the late 1920s, as Ayn Rand was working out her philosophy, she became enthralled by a real-life American serial killer, William Edward Hickman, whose gruesome, sadistic dismemberment of 12-year-old girl named Marion Parker in 1927 shocked the nation. Rand filled her early notebooks with worshipful praise of Hickman. According to biographer Jennifer Burns, author of Goddess of the Market, Rand was so smitten by Hickman that she modeled her first literary creation — Danny Renahan, the protagonist of her unfinished first novel, The Little Street — on him.

You liked a famous German serial killer of the late 30's, early 40's.

6079 Smith W

Happy Texas Independence Day!

Battle of San Jacinto: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_San_Jacinto

 

---------------

@ "Confused":

AR is highly irrelevant when considering that you have and do support Obama's slaughter of innocent women and children in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Libya.