Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Slavery Was Not the Cause of War Between States; Gene Kizer Jr

You've proven time and again that you have no use for truth and likely wouldn't know it if it bit you in the ass.

The same applies IN SPADES to those nine million Free Southerners....



The generalizations I made re: relative populations most likely give the most credit to the Secession side of the issue.

Birdwatcher

Never. I've been a subject of an intrusive, overbearing, tyrannical govt. and it's paid, armed enforcers from the day I was born. Voting has had no effect on that whatsoever. They continue to steal more and more of my money and my liberty on a linear scale and I expect that will continue till the day I die.

Except blacks weren't free prior to the Northern invasion, weren't the reason for the Northern invasion, and then there's still that pesky issue of the Constitution and of law.

You lack any hint of intellectual honesty. I truly feel for the parents and the students subjected to your inconsistent agenda-driven HS.

In retrospect, most, if not all, of the African colonies of Belgium, France, Portugal, Spain, and the U.K. would have been better off today if there had been a lengthy, planned, transition from colony to independent country. But you've got to remember that, except for Portugal, those European countries were in the process of recovering from Civil War in Spain and WW2. They didn't have the resources to invest in their African colonies and it was easier just to let them go.

Even today, a lot of the aid that is provided to them is wasted because there still isn't a foundation of educated/skilled people to build and maintain an infrastructure to provide the services to the majority of the people. A consolidated continental rail system would be a good thing, but where is the money going to come from?

When analyzing anything if one is willing to absorb what is important and meaningful one can always live closer to reality than make believe.

I'd venture to cite that the most important objective lesson one can learn about the Civil war is to take a close look and ask......................................................Why is it, Christian Brother were fighting and killing one another? The nation was 98% Devout Christian yet less than 1% stood in opposition. Perhaps it was because True Christianity had deviated from the faith as is shown to be a cycle many times in the old testament.

The Civil War is penned down in Gods history book as a war in which Christians had deviated from the faith so far that they found it fitting to bare arms and kill there brother.


Mans book describes the civil war from an unrealistic perspective and considering many of the false Christians whom penned down much of it is riddled with both lies and half truths.

It would be amazing to acquire a Book on the Civil war that was penned from God himself and only then would this subject begin to warrant looking into.

Shod

This is the interpretation I most like, as expressed by the University Club of Springfield, MO ca. 1928, as seen last week on the Wilson's Creek Battlefield.

In honor of.... the hundreds of brave men, North and South, who, on this field, died for the right as God gave them to see the right.



Birdwatcher

But your "truth" is different from 4ager's "truth" and neither of you is likely to change the other's mind, so why bother trying? Sisyphus had his rock and you guys have the American Civil War. It may give your life meaning, but I'm not seeing the value and am equally sure that you have better things to do than argue about something that happened long ago and which you have no ability to change in any way.

History is an abiding interest of mine, do you have any idea how much I have learned on these threads during the last month?

I like to think some other folks have too.

Like I responded to a query on another thread. No one is SUPPOSED to think anything, but going back an examining events and sources before forming one's own opinion is never a bad thing

Birdwatcher

Perhaps.

But someone suggesting that your mother should have drowned you at birth seems like vile, uncalled for, behavior to me.

That's typical run of the mill stuff here on this board.

Actually, having been, the Brits allowed those people to vote themselves independent and neither is there any significant impulse on the Africans' part to vote themselves back in despite their suffering, at least where I was.



My position on the South has been clearly stated, if forced to choose, I would have fought for the Union.

In Tejas I have stated I would have probably sat it out, but really, even in 1835, the collective Indian population of Texas may have still narrowly edged the collective population of both Anglos and Tejanos.

And the 10 to 20 thousand independent Comanches alone had SURELY outnumbered the 7,000 Tejanos in Texas at the time of Mexican Independence in '21, even more so when Spain originally claimed the area.

So maybe we should start with the Indians; weren't it Southerners who were most responsible for the plainly unconstitutional Indian Removals of the 1830's and '40's ?



OK, what the collective North (referring constantly to "LIncoln" is incorrect, he had the support and willing participation of millions of others who wished to preserve the Union) was unconstitutional.

OTOH the consitutionality of secession was never put to a legal test either.

And ya, like all those Yankees who gave their lives to give us the United States we have today, I believe the specific end in this case justified the means.

YMMV,

Birdwatcher

That remark was made toward the government fascist djs, not Birdwatcher. Just to make sure that part of the record is straight.

Oh.

That was aimed at someone else, I actually forget all the stuff that was applied to me.....

Business as usual, I teach in High School after all...

Read the statements of the states that ratified the Constitution as their views on secession, in their own ratification documents. Read the words of Jefferson in his letters after being President and as President. Read the words of the Founders as to the reason for the 9th and 10th Amendment. The secession of the South was Constitutional and legal; invasion by the North was not. Hell, read the "Secession" thread; it's there.

All you have is "ends justify the means", which is the counter-opposite of freedom. By your "logic", any atrocity, any war, any subjugation of any people, any unconstitutional act is legitimate if in retrospect it can be justified by those that then rule and write the history books. Stalin would have loved your "logic", and Obama certainly does. Hell, he even likes your "math", as it fits right in with his illegal immigration strategy and having the UN govern us.

All I know is that I'm happy we got out from under those stupid Brits.

Unfortunately, as children deserve far better.

I doubt like hell you can teach anything or change the opinions of the majority here. Stupid, closed minded, prejudiced, sanctimonious, hypocrites just aren't capable.

Edited for truth.

Try this on for size...On March 21, 1861, new southern Confederate, Vice President Alexander Stephens, delivered the Cornerstone Speech. The speech explained the differences between the constitution of the Confederate Republic and that of the United States, and laid out the cause for the American Civil War, and a defense of slavery.

The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization.
This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact.

But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong.

They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition.