...I just realized Lincoln was the Hitler of the 19th century.

[Mr Natural]

Who instigated that shot?

The South by demanding that the US Army surrender a US fort.

That would be incorrect. Lincoln knew that the south would not allow him to resupply that fort, and he needed that incident to get public opinion on his side for a war.

Doesn't change the fact that the South fired the first shot.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Who instigated that shot?

The South by demanding that the US Army surrender a US fort.

That would be incorrect. Lincoln knew that the south would not allow him to resupply that fort, and he needed that incident to get public opinion on his side for a war.

Then the intelligent thing for the South at that point would have been to walk off the field. If you know that the other side needs a reason to fight, don't give it to them.

I've seen a lot of arguments about the responsibility for the Civil War, who fired first, etc, but everything I've ever studied on the issue shows that if the South wanted to, they could have won independence without a shot fired. Emancipate the slaves and you pick up European backing immediately. Make a decision to let the North fire first and you get public opinion on your side and undercut the support for the war right away.

For the South, a conventional war with the North was unwinnable. The absolute only shot the South had was to demoralize the North quickly or bring the Europeans in immediately. In spite of that, the South seemed to make bad decision after bad decision.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The South by demanding that the US Army surrender a US fort.

That would be incorrect. Lincoln knew that the south would not allow him to resupply that fort, and he needed that incident to get public opinion on his side for a war.

Doesn't change the fact that the South fired the first shot.

So you're ok with Lincoln deliberately antagonizing the south to start a war?

 

[Mr Natural]

That would be incorrect. Lincoln knew that the south would not allow him to resupply that fort, and he needed that incident to get public opinion on his side for a war.

Doesn't change the fact that the South fired the first shot.

So you're ok with Lincoln deliberately antagonizing the south to start a war?

So you're OK with a rebel force firing on a US fort?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The South by demanding that the US Army surrender a US fort.

That would be incorrect. Lincoln knew that the south would not allow him to resupply that fort, and he needed that incident to get public opinion on his side for a war.

Then the intelligent thing for the South at that point would have been to walk off the field. If you know that the other side needs a reason to fight, don't give it to them.

I've seen a lot of arguments about the responsibility for the Civil War, who fired first, etc, but everything I've ever studied on the issue shows that if the South wanted to, they could have won independence without a shot fired. Emancipate the slaves and you pick up European backing immediately. Make a decision to let the North fire first and you get public opinion on your side and undercut the support for the war right away.

For the South, a conventional war with the North was unwinnable. The absolute only shot the South had was to demoralize the North quickly or bring the Europeans in immediately. In spite of that, the South seemed to make bad decision after bad decision.

There can be no question that the south made bad decisions. Judging from the way the Civil War went down firing on Fort Sumter would have to be judged as a huge mistake, but that doesn't change the fact that it was Lincoln who wanted the war and not the south. And of course you're correct about slavery, it was certainly one of their downfalls.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Doesn't change the fact that the South fired the first shot.

So you're ok with Lincoln deliberately antagonizing the south to start a war?

So you're OK with a rebel force firing on a US fort?

I'm perfectly fine with a sovereign nation protesting against a foreign military within their borders. I certainly wouldn't want a Chinese fort here in the U.S.

 

[hortysir]

So you're ok with Lincoln deliberately antagonizing the south to start a war?

So you're OK with a rebel force firing on a US fort?

I'm perfectly fine with a sovereign nation protesting against a foreign military within their borders. I certainly wouldn't want a Chinese fort here in the U.S.

psssst......




It's called Wal-Mart

 

[JakeStarkey]

That would be incorrect. Lincoln knew that the south would not allow him to resupply that fort, and he needed that incident to get public opinion on his side for a war.

Then the intelligent thing for the South at that point would have been to walk off the field. If you know that the other side needs a reason to fight, don't give it to them.

I've seen a lot of arguments about the responsibility for the Civil War, who fired first, etc, but everything I've ever studied on the issue shows that if the South wanted to, they could have won independence without a shot fired. Emancipate the slaves and you pick up European backing immediately. Make a decision to let the North fire first and you get public opinion on your side and undercut the support for the war right away.

For the South, a conventional war with the North was unwinnable. The absolute only shot the South had was to demoralize the North quickly or bring the Europeans in immediately. In spite of that, the South seemed to make bad decision after bad decision.

There can be no question that the south made bad decisions. Judging from the way the Civil War went down firing on Fort Sumter would have to be judged as a huge mistake, but that doesn't change the fact that it was Lincoln who wanted the war and not the south. And of course you're correct about slavery, it was certainly one of their downfalls.

Lincoln made it very clear that the South could stay in the Union with its slaves and its culture constitutionally protected. The South ignored constitutional and electoral process, and waged war against the North.

The South was completely at fault in the matter.

 

[JBeukema]

Doesn't change the fact that the South fired the first shot.

So you're ok with Lincoln deliberately antagonizing the south to start a war?

So you're OK with a rebel force firing on a US fort?

As okay as he is with a rebel force firing in the Crown, I imagine.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The South was never a sovereign nation, period.

 

[Kalam]

No, I don't think they were right. They kept slaves as well.

The British were taxing this country unjustly, and that is why the Revolution happened.

Try again.

The north kept slaves as well.

Really? Then why did the slaves run from the south to the north?

I'll give you a hint........it's called freedom.

I'd call it false hope.

"Yes, I will pull off that liberal's halo that he spends such efforts cultivating! The North's liberals have been for so long pointing accusing fingers at the South and getting away with it that they have fits when they are exposed as the world's worst hypocrites....America's most dangerous and threatening black man is the one who has been kept sealed up by the Northerner in the black ghettoes - the Northern white power structure's system to keep talking democracy while keeping the black man out of sight somewhere, around the corner." - The Autobiography of Malcolm X, pp. 276-277​

Being black anywhere in the United States pretty much meant living as a pariah until the mid-20th century.

 

[Mr Natural]

The South was never a sovereign nation, period.

They like to think they were.

 

[JBeukema]

funny that they want to argue the validity of the American Revolution and self-determination


if there's some actual justification for attacking the Confederacy, argue that case

 

[Dr.Traveler]

That would be incorrect. Lincoln knew that the south would not allow him to resupply that fort, and he needed that incident to get public opinion on his side for a war.

Then the intelligent thing for the South at that point would have been to walk off the field. If you know that the other side needs a reason to fight, don't give it to them.

I've seen a lot of arguments about the responsibility for the Civil War, who fired first, etc, but everything I've ever studied on the issue shows that if the South wanted to, they could have won independence without a shot fired. Emancipate the slaves and you pick up European backing immediately. Make a decision to let the North fire first and you get public opinion on your side and undercut the support for the war right away.

For the South, a conventional war with the North was unwinnable. The absolute only shot the South had was to demoralize the North quickly or bring the Europeans in immediately. In spite of that, the South seemed to make bad decision after bad decision.

There can be no question that the south made bad decisions. Judging from the way the Civil War went down firing on Fort Sumter would have to be judged as a huge mistake, but that doesn't change the fact that it was Lincoln who wanted the war and not the south. And of course you're correct about slavery, it was certainly one of their downfalls.

I still to this day think that if you'd had someone with the political skills equal to Lee's military skills in a leadership role in the South, they'd have walked free. From a military stand point the South was in an unwinnable situation, but from a political stand point the South was literally holding all the cards. The Europeans were looking for an opening to break up American Hegemony in the New World, Abolishionists were a fringe movement right up to the outbreak of war, and public opinion wasn't really in favor of fighting the South.

Instead, the South played right into Lincoln's hands. Once they blew the political options, they lost the war. It was only a matter of time.

That's why the whole question of who started it remains largely moot. Whether it was the North or the South that started it, the South lost and the North won because the South took the worst possible path towards independence.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The South acted stupidly and illegitimately from the get go. It got what it deserved: crushing.

 

[ABikerSailor]

No, I don't think they were right. They kept slaves as well.

The British were taxing this country unjustly, and that is why the Revolution happened.

Try again.

The north kept slaves as well.

Here you go 'tard..........

Slavery in the United States
Main article: Slavery in the United States

Although the trans-Atlantic slave trade ended shortly after the American Revolution, slavery remained a central economic institution in the Southern states. All the Northern states passed emancipation acts between 1780 and 1804; most of these arranged for gradual emancipation.[108] In the South, however, slavery expanded with the westward movement of population. Historian Peter Kolchin wrote, "By breaking up existing families and forcing slaves to relocate far from everyone and everything they knew" this migration "replicated (if on a reduced level) many of [the] horrors" of the Atlantic slave trade.[109] Historian Ira Berlin called this forced migration the Second Middle Passage. Characterizing it as the "central event” in the life of a slave between the American Revolution and the Civil War, Berlin wrote that whether they were uprooted themselves or simply lived in fear that they or their families would be involuntarily moved, "the massive deportation traumatized black people, both slave and free."[110] By 1860, 500,000 slaves had grown to 4 million. As long as slavery expanded, it remained profitable and powerful and was unlikely to disappear. Antislavery forces, however, proposed to put it on the path to extinction by stopping further expansion. If it became unprofitable, few people would spend the large sums of cash needed to buy and keep slaves, and the system would fade away quietly as it had in most countries in world history.

The plantation system, based on tobacco growing in Virginia, North Carolina, and Kentucky, and rice in South Carolina, expanded into lush new cotton lands in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi—and needed more slaves. But slave importation became illegal in 1808. Although complete statistics are lacking, it is estimated that 1,000,000 slaves moved west from the Old South between 1790 and 1860. Most of the slaves were moved from Maryland, Virginia, and the Carolinas. Michael Tadman, in a 1989 book Speculators and Slaves: Masters, Traders, and Slaves in the Old South, indicates that 60–70% of interregional migrations were the result of the sale of slaves. In 1820 a child in the Upper South had a 30% chance to be sold south by 1860.[111]

Political division over slavery was temporarily resolved by the Compromise of 1850 which sought to divide new territories between slave and free states. However, the status of Kansas was left unresolved, producing bloody clashes between pro-slavery and anti-slavery settlers.[112] In 1860, the election of Abraham Lincoln as President on a program of limiting slavery led to the secession of Southern States and the outbreak of the US Civil War. Although Lincoln initially disclaimed any intention to interfere with slavery, the progress of the war produced the Emancipation Proclamation freeing slaves in Southern states still in revolt, and ultimately the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in December 1865, which ended legalized slavery in the United States.

You know.........computers can be used for a great deal more than displays of stupidity as you are doing right now.

They can also be used to look up things to discover facts.

Might wanna try wikipedia sometime.

 

[GHook93]

Nice Kalam quote a Black Supremacist Anti-America! NICE!

The north kept slaves as well.

Really? Then why did the slaves run from the south to the north?

I'll give you a hint........it's called freedom.

I'd call it false hope.

"Yes, I will pull off that liberal's halo that he spends such efforts cultivating! The North's liberals have been for so long pointing accusing fingers at the South and getting away with it that they have fits when they are exposed as the world's worst hypocrites....America's most dangerous and threatening black man is the one who has been kept sealed up by the Northerner in the black ghettoes - the Northern white power structure's system to keep talking democracy while keeping the black man out of sight somewhere, around the corner." - The Autobiography of Malcolm X, pp. 276-277​

Being black anywhere in the United States pretty much meant living as a pariah until the mid-20th century.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No, I don't think they were right. They kept slaves as well.

The British were taxing this country unjustly, and that is why the Revolution happened.

Try again.

The north kept slaves as well.

Here you go 'tard..........

Slavery in the United States
Main article: Slavery in the United States

Although the trans-Atlantic slave trade ended shortly after the American Revolution, slavery remained a central economic institution in the Southern states. All the Northern states passed emancipation acts between 1780 and 1804; most of these arranged for gradual emancipation.[108] In the South, however, slavery expanded with the westward movement of population. Historian Peter Kolchin wrote, "By breaking up existing families and forcing slaves to relocate far from everyone and everything they knew" this migration "replicated (if on a reduced level) many of [the] horrors" of the Atlantic slave trade.[109] Historian Ira Berlin called this forced migration the Second Middle Passage. Characterizing it as the "central event” in the life of a slave between the American Revolution and the Civil War, Berlin wrote that whether they were uprooted themselves or simply lived in fear that they or their families would be involuntarily moved, "the massive deportation traumatized black people, both slave and free."[110] By 1860, 500,000 slaves had grown to 4 million. As long as slavery expanded, it remained profitable and powerful and was unlikely to disappear. Antislavery forces, however, proposed to put it on the path to extinction by stopping further expansion. If it became unprofitable, few people would spend the large sums of cash needed to buy and keep slaves, and the system would fade away quietly as it had in most countries in world history.

The plantation system, based on tobacco growing in Virginia, North Carolina, and Kentucky, and rice in South Carolina, expanded into lush new cotton lands in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi—and needed more slaves. But slave importation became illegal in 1808. Although complete statistics are lacking, it is estimated that 1,000,000 slaves moved west from the Old South between 1790 and 1860. Most of the slaves were moved from Maryland, Virginia, and the Carolinas. Michael Tadman, in a 1989 book Speculators and Slaves: Masters, Traders, and Slaves in the Old South, indicates that 60–70% of interregional migrations were the result of the sale of slaves. In 1820 a child in the Upper South had a 30% chance to be sold south by 1860.[111]

Political division over slavery was temporarily resolved by the Compromise of 1850 which sought to divide new territories between slave and free states. However, the status of Kansas was left unresolved, producing bloody clashes between pro-slavery and anti-slavery settlers.[112] In 1860, the election of Abraham Lincoln as President on a program of limiting slavery led to the secession of Southern States and the outbreak of the US Civil War. Although Lincoln initially disclaimed any intention to interfere with slavery, the progress of the war produced the Emancipation Proclamation freeing slaves in Southern states still in revolt, and ultimately the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in December 1865, which ended legalized slavery in the United States.

You know.........computers can be used for a great deal more than displays of stupidity as you are doing right now.

They can also be used to look up things to discover facts.

Might wanna try wikipedia sometime.

There were five slave-states that remained with the Union. I wonder why Lincoln didn't free their slaves?

 

[Kalam]

Nice Kalam quote a Black Supremacist Anti-America! NICE!

Really? Then why did the slaves run from the south to the north?

I'll give you a hint........it's called freedom.

I'd call it false hope.

"Yes, I will pull off that liberal's halo that he spends such efforts cultivating! The North's liberals have been for so long pointing accusing fingers at the South and getting away with it that they have fits when they are exposed as the world's worst hypocrites....America's most dangerous and threatening black man is the one who has been kept sealed up by the Northerner in the black ghettoes - the Northern white power structure's system to keep talking democracy while keeping the black man out of sight somewhere, around the corner." - The Autobiography of Malcolm X, pp. 276-277​

Being black anywhere in the United States pretty much meant living as a pariah until the mid-20th century.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ng56xdIsDBQ]YouTube - Malcolm X talks about Islam and race[/ame]

"I'm not anti-American, and I didn't come here to condemn America - I want to make that very clear! I came here to tell the truth - and if the truth condemns America, then she stands condemned!"

 

[Dr Gregg]

Please find the post where I called Americans during WWII terrorists.

Right, deny it, like I'm going to go through tons of threads. YOu most certainly did

http://www.usmessageboard.com/educa...an-who-armed-atomic-bomb-dropped-on-japs.html

I believe that's the thread you're referencing, so now that I've done most of your work for you perhaps you can find the post where I called Americans terrorists?

Take your pic of your made up history and making shit up about the past, brings up your track record of making up your own history.

And the bolded part, its essentially calling them terrorists. Spin it and deny it all you want, comparing US in WWII to al qaeda is not calling them terrorists

I don't think the Japanese civilians brought Hiroshima on themselves. The government's policies certainly created the environment for Hiroshima. But I personally wish our government didn't choose to play the role of al-Qaeda in this analogy.

Along with the rest of your revisionist history tripe

So playing your part in the massacring of the Japanese people makes you a war hero? Sounds more like a war criminal to me.

Well I wouldn't have provoked the Japanese into attacking us in the first place, and his economic policies left much to be desired.

Grown ups don't generally refer to each other as "wingnuts" in civil conversation. If you can't see how vaporizing innocent civilians is aggressive, then I'm afraid we have little more to discuss. But you know, as well as I do, that had Germany or Japan dropped a nuke on us or anyone else they would have gone down in history as war-criminals.

If vaporizing innocent civilians isn't a war crime then nothing in the history of the world has been a war crime.

My point is that a mainland invasion of Japan was as unnecessary as dropping the bombs, but we just had to have an unconditional surrender regardless of the lives lost in the process.

After what we did should we still be allowed to have a military? Yes, well I'm sure glad the U.S. government bombed Japan so they could then steal from the American taxpayer to rebuild Japan. Excellent.

So it's better for us to radiate the citizens of Japan rather than have Japan "terrorize" people in the Pacific? I'm not so sure, but I don't personally make much distinction between two different forms of evil.