And how many ISIS soldiers are fighting for religion while we fight against terrorism, not religion. It's all political. Those soldiers in the south didn't die to maintain slavery. They died so Lincoln could keep the union together. The south was fighting for states rights.

The states stated what they were fighting for in their articles of secession.

Posted by moy23 on 11/12/2017 1:09:00 AM (view original):
And how many ISIS soldiers are fighting for religion while we fight against terrorism, not religion. It's all political. Those soldiers in the south didn't die to maintain slavery. They died so Lincoln could keep the union together. The south was fighting for states rights.

Yeah the states right to own people. This isn’t difficult.

Posted by bad_luck on 11/12/2017 1:31:00 AM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 11/12/2017 1:09:00 AM (view original):
And how many ISIS soldiers are fighting for religion while we fight against terrorism, not religion. It's all political. Those soldiers in the south didn't die to maintain slavery. They died so Lincoln could keep the union together. The south was fighting for states rights.

Yeah the states right to own people. This isn’t difficult.

Man, seriously isn't difficult. Willfully ignorant.

Posted by The Taint on 11/12/2017 1:35:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/12/2017 1:31:00 AM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 11/12/2017 1:09:00 AM (view original):
And how many ISIS soldiers are fighting for religion while we fight against terrorism, not religion. It's all political. Those soldiers in the south didn't die to maintain slavery. They died so Lincoln could keep the union together. The south was fighting for states rights.

Yeah the states right to own people. This isn’t difficult.

Man, seriously isn't difficult. Willfully ignorant.

First, man do you guys ever sleep? Second, it's biased history a. If you think the civil war was only about slavery and b. If you think slavery played a minor role in the start of the war. I reread the documents. I admit that I hadn't read them since HS. Slavery did have more of an impact than I was giving it credit, but it was still only about 50/50 with the other issues. 50/50 meaning slavery up about half the issues and all other concerns combined made up about half the issues.

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/11/2017 11:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/11/2017 10:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/11/2017 10:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/11/2017 10:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/11/2017 8:32:00 PM (view original):
I'll send you some civil war history books as a Christmas present.

Sure. I’m pretty sure even those books will include the section where Lee was a confederate general.

Most certainly and I'm not advocating for the guy. He was a major part of the loss of thousands upon thousands of American lives. I have no issue with his statues being removed. If you don't like it, don't lose the war. There are just a lot of fallacies being spread about him that need to be addressed.

You’re arguing he’s misunderstood. I’m saying it doesn’t matter. His personal feelings about slavery became irrelevant when he chose to lead a side fighting to preserve slavery.

The war had little to do with slavery. This is a case of "winners write the history books" which I'm okay with to an extent. It's a privilege of winning. The north wasn't even necessarily fighting to end slavery. This was just an awesome by-product.

The war was fought for slavery. It's really indisputable. You can check out the US Army's head historians explanation here:

https://youtu.be/pcy7qV-BGF4

it's inconvenient but it's reality.

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/12/2017 7:05:00 AM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 11/12/2017 1:35:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/12/2017 1:31:00 AM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 11/12/2017 1:09:00 AM (view original):
And how many ISIS soldiers are fighting for religion while we fight against terrorism, not religion. It's all political. Those soldiers in the south didn't die to maintain slavery. They died so Lincoln could keep the union together. The south was fighting for states rights.

Yeah the states right to own people. This isn’t difficult.

Man, seriously isn't difficult. Willfully ignorant.

First, man do you guys ever sleep? Second, it's biased history a. If you think the civil war was only about slavery and b. If you think slavery played a minor role in the start of the war. I reread the documents. I admit that I hadn't read them since HS. Slavery did have more of an impact than I was giving it credit, but it was still only about 50/50 with the other issues. 50/50 meaning slavery up about half the issues and all other concerns combined made up about half the issues.

All the other issues came back to slavery. For a LONG time in my youth I read a lot about the Civil War. I too believed the States Rights argument. But it was all a whitewash. It's shameful but it's true. The South - even those who didn't own slaves - wanted to preserve it at all costs.

You are blocking the happiness and creativity of everyone sjpoker.

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/11/2017 10:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 11/11/2017 10:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/11/2017 9:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 11/11/2017 9:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/11/2017 8:07:00 PM (view original):
Just a side note, R. E. Lee opposed slavery. They forget to teach that in history classes.

Yet he fought on a side that supported it.

Yes, but his character was very well respected by both sides. He was thought of as a great man by the union as well. He didn't fight for slavery. He fought for Virginia. Twisted history bothers me. A large percentage of the confederacy was NOT fighting for slavery.

James Madison: opposed slavery. Kept his slaves.
Thomas Jefferson: opposed slavery. Kept his slaves.
George Washington: opposed slavery. Kept his slaves.

Robert E Lee: opposed slavery. Kept his slaves. Also a traitor to the United States of America.

Any questions, look it up.

Robert E Lee freed his slaves 10 years prior to the war. Look it up. Everything else on your list is true. 5 out 6 isn't bad I guess.

Lee was born to what had been an old and wealthy Virginia family, but its wealth had been squandered by the time he came of age. His wife, though, was the adoptive descendant of George Washington and the heiress to a massive plantation network.
In his will, Lee's father-in-law had asked that the family's slaves be emancipated after he died when "expedient and proper."
Lee, acting as executor of the wealthy man's will after he died, eventually complied, but not until after the slaves were kept in bondage long enough to right the financial ship of the plantation, which had fallen on hard times.

Lee kept his slaves. He got rid of them before the war but he certainly didn't emancipated them right away. He was a slave owner.

You are blocking the author of this post, DougOut.

it's almost like DougOut is part of the conversation... But isnt.

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/12/2017 7:05:00 AM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 11/12/2017 1:35:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/12/2017 1:31:00 AM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 11/12/2017 1:09:00 AM (view original):
And how many ISIS soldiers are fighting for religion while we fight against terrorism, not religion. It's all political. Those soldiers in the south didn't die to maintain slavery. They died so Lincoln could keep the union together. The south was fighting for states rights.

Yeah the states right to own people. This isn’t difficult.

Man, seriously isn't difficult. Willfully ignorant.

First, man do you guys ever sleep? Second, it's biased history a. If you think the civil war was only about slavery and b. If you think slavery played a minor role in the start of the war. I reread the documents. I admit that I hadn't read them since HS. Slavery did have more of an impact than I was giving it credit, but it was still only about 50/50 with the other issues. 50/50 meaning slavery up about half the issues and all other concerns combined made up about half the issues.

Maybe read them again. It’s not 50/50. It’s skavery, slavery, slavery, slavery, states rights to own slaves, but not northern states rights to not return slaves, more slavery, slavery, slavery, no tariffs designed to weaken slavery, slavery.

That’s it. All the economic and trade stuff is directly related to slavery.

I didn't misread it. I am conceding that I underestimated slavery's impact and that it is large majority, but my 50/50 assessment is correct.

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/12/2017 10:20:00 AM (view original):
I didn't misread it. I am conceding that I underestimated slavery's impact and that it is large majority, but my 50/50 assessment is correct.

What are the other issues, in your opinion?

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/12/2017 10:20:00 AM (view original):
I didn't misread it. I am conceding that I underestimated slavery's impact and that it is large majority, but my 50/50 assessment is correct.

It is not. All the other issues you will bring up are ancillary to slavery.
states rights (to retain slaveryslavery)
economic imbalance with the North (slavery needed to maintain failing southern industries)
etc etc.

it was all slavery.

Posted by sjpoker on 11/12/2017 10:43:00 AM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/12/2017 10:20:00 AM (view original):
I didn't misread it. I am conceding that I underestimated slavery's impact and that it is large majority, but my 50/50 assessment is correct.

It is not. All the other issues you will bring up are ancillary to slavery.
states rights (to retain slaveryslavery)
economic imbalance with the North (slavery needed to maintain failing southern industries)
etc etc.

it was all slavery.

You are blocking Donna Braziles book signing and common sense sjpoker.