Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
His legacy will not be diminished, KK.
A legacy of racism, segregation, and arguing aginst deporting an entire race simply because the negroe was better off as slaves?
I don't care if you're referring to that.How could Lincoln make the South fire upon Federal ships in January 1861 Kevin?Lincoln forced them to start the war, because he wanted the war.
I'm obviously referring to the April Ft. Sumter incident, where Lincoln belligerently tried to resupply knowing full well the south would attack giving him the excuse he needed to go to war.
Because the South loved their slaves. Simple.Four million men, women and children in bondage - freed - is not fiction KK.
K.
And how many people had to die for that to allegedly happen? And I say allegedly because, again, I don't believe for a second the war was fought to free these people. Lincoln's own words make that clear. Did the war speed up the process by which they were freed? Yes, and that's certainly a good thing. But why were we the only nation that allegedly had to fight a war to accomplish this? Every other civilized country freed their slaves peacefully.
They would not give them up without a fight. Lazy Southerners needed someone to do their work for them and make them feel superior.
Lots of them still feel this way.
I don't care if you're referring to that.How could Lincoln make the South fire upon Federal ships in January 1861 Kevin?
I'm obviously referring to the April Ft. Sumter incident, where Lincoln belligerently tried to resupply knowing full well the south would attack giving him the excuse he needed to go to war.
I AM referring to the FIRST SHOTS FIRED. In January. Before Lincoln was even President.
Did you even know of this incident before I brought it up?
KevinKennedy believes in a false history.
When we were going through this late last summer here on the thread (give Kevin credit for persistence if not for error), I sent his arguments (not his name, though) to a friend who teaches history. He gladly used KK's arguments between Lincoln's hammer and the anvil of the Civil War. My friend said the students ate it up and wrote very nuanced, sophisticated papers about Lincoln and race and his growing evolution on that matter over the last ten years of his life.
I learned very little about the history of the civil war in school.KevinKennedy believes in a false history.
When we were going through this late last summer here on the thread (give Kevin credit for persistence if not for error), I sent his arguments (not his name, though) to a friend who teaches history. He gladly used KK's arguments between Lincoln's hammer and the anvil of the Civil War. My friend said the students ate it up and wrote very nuanced, sophisticated papers about Lincoln and race and his growing evolution on that matter over the last ten years of his life.
"Kennedy" is not my real last name, so it doesn't matter if you give my name out.
I'm not surprised that these students didn't accept my arguments regarding Lincoln, providing this story is true. I've found that most students, and people in general, will believe the version of history they learned in middle school no matter what evidence is provided against it.
I agree. Kevin, though frightfully wrong in his confederate-leaning views of the war, is for the most part, civil and respectful.KevinKennedy, I would never reveal anyone's identify (real or pseudonym) at all. Those who try to do that here are scumbags, pure and simple, folks who spew vile and bile.
You are one of the most pleasant individuals here if the most persistent in your error.
Your comments and questions always make me think, and through them, I have come to a greater, deeper, and more wonderful appreciation of Abraham Lincoln.
I thank you for your role in that.
You are misdefining issues as causes; they are two different things. Preserving the Union was the immediate issue of the war. Slavery was the primary cause of the war.
Ask paper view for copies of all of the documentation she has posted here and in other threads why the southerners of the time believed slavery to be the primary cause of the war. Good reading!
OOh. Have I mentioned yet how stoooooopid the title of this thread is?
The Great Emancipator. He Rests at Peace.
You are misdefining issues as causes; they are two different things. Preserving the Union was the immediate issue of the war. Slavery was the primary cause of the war.
Ask paper view for copies of all of the documentation she has posted here and in other threads why the southerners of the time believed slavery to be the primary cause of the war. Good reading!
I am not, she is the one using that language. I am asking her to explain why if, as she insists, that slavery is the primary cause of the war, did the North not free slaves in their states. Why did slave owners fight to free slaves? Why did people who opposed slavery fight to keep them?
Any historian will tell you that the issues, or causes, of the Civil War were complex. The North was so powerful politically that they could ignore the concerns of the minority of the south, and enact laws and policies without regard to the opinions of those affected by them. (Does this sound familiar to anyone?) This marginalization of the agrarian south by the industrial north was the actual cause of the civil war, regardless of what people then believed.
There was a just war to be fought, but we did not fight it. We fought our own war for our own reasons and what was just had nothing to do with it. That the enemy happened to be the same merely provided an opportunity for great propaganda.
You are misdefining issues as causes; they are two different things. Preserving the Union was the immediate issue of the war. Slavery was the primary cause of the war.
Ask paper view for copies of all of the documentation she has posted here and in other threads why the southerners of the time believed slavery to be the primary cause of the war. Good reading!
I am not, she is the one using that language. I am asking her to explain why if, as she insists, that slavery is the primary cause of the war, did the North not free slaves in their states. Why did slave owners fight to free slaves? Why did people who opposed slavery fight to keep them?
Any historian will tell you that the issues, or causes, of the Civil War were complex. The North was so powerful politically that they could ignore the concerns of the minority of the south, and enact laws and policies without regard to the opinions of those affected by them. (Does this sound familiar to anyone?) This marginalization of the agrarian south by the industrial north was the actual cause of the civil war, regardless of what people then believed.
Your answer is in your first paragraph.
Every secondary cause of the war was subsumed in slavery. That is why a small minority of the North had not freed its slaves by 1861, and I am pretty sure that other than Delaware, states like Maryland and Kentucky and Missouri and territories like the Indian nations or Utah territory had more in common with states' rights activists in the South.
In this case, the history has been competently written. The immediate issue was unionism, the primary cause was slavery, and the South was morally wrong. Check the motives of those who argue otherwise.
I am not, she is the one using that language. I am asking her to explain why if, as she insists, that slavery is the primary cause of the war, did the North not free slaves in their states. Why did slave owners fight to free slaves? Why did people who opposed slavery fight to keep them?
Any historian will tell you that the issues, or causes, of the Civil War were complex. The North was so powerful politically that they could ignore the concerns of the minority of the south, and enact laws and policies without regard to the opinions of those affected by them. (Does this sound familiar to anyone?) This marginalization of the agrarian south by the industrial north was the actual cause of the civil war, regardless of what people then believed.
Your answer is in your first paragraph.
Every secondary cause of the war was subsumed in slavery. That is why a small minority of the North had not freed its slaves by 1861, and I am pretty sure that other than Delaware, states like Maryland and Kentucky and Missouri and territories like the Indian nations or Utah territory had more in common with states' rights activists in the South.
This from a guy who believes the Constitution says something it does not, despite the fact that the Supreme Court has said his interpretation is wrong. Forgive me if I prefer to ask for clarification from someone who can at least get facts straight, and does not feel a need to distort them.
When you talk about "The North" in regards to a slavery presence, you refer generally to the border states. Where I'm from, "The North" is the Northeastern US. We abolished slavery long before the Civil War, most states in the 18th Century.You are misdefining issues as causes; they are two different things. Preserving the Union was the immediate issue of the war. Slavery was the primary cause of the war.
Ask paper view for copies of all of the documentation she has posted here and in other threads why the southerners of the time believed slavery to be the primary cause of the war. Good reading!
I am not, she is the one using that language. I am asking her to explain why if, as she insists, that slavery is the primary cause of the war, did the North not free slaves in their states. Why did slave owners fight to free slaves? Why did people who opposed slavery fight to keep them?
Any historian will tell you that the issues, or causes, of the Civil War were complex. The North was so powerful politically that they could ignore the concerns of the minority of the south, and enact laws and policies without regard to the opinions of those affected by them. (Does this sound familiar to anyone?) This marginalization of the agrarian south by the industrial north was the actual cause of the civil war, regardless of what people then believed.
