Andy9o8 0 #126 January 23, 2013 QuoteQuoteOops, I meant "neo-Confederate". Sorry for the typo. That's a meaningless distinction. The Confederate states have long been destroyed and nothing in his writings makes me think he wants it back. Um, I didn't invent the term, and I am hardly the first the use it as DiLorenzo's descriptor. Google the search ("thomas dilorenzo" + "neo-confederate") and you'll get over 2,700 hits. Read them at your leisure. Here you go: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=%22thomas+dilorenzo%22+%22neo-confederate%22&gbv=2&oq=%22thomas+dilorenzo%22+%22neo-confederate%22&gs_l=heirloom-hp.3..0i30.1711.14377.0.14719.36.36.0.0.0.0.324.2970.28j6j0j2.36.0...0.0...1c.1.g_iFWwYYhaw Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #127 January 23, 2013 Quote Interestingly enough, one of my cousins is in the final stages of writing a book on NH's regiments in the Civil War, based on contemporary journals and letters. I heard him talk on it for awhile, and one letter that stood out was from a soldier who said that he was fighting for the Union, not slavery -- that if it were about slavery, he wouldn't be fighting. However, this is one data point. Because it's 160 years ago, we see it as being definitive. But I have a feeling that it was more complex at the time, just as issues that seem clear now are generally only clear in retrospect. Lincoln appears to have honestly felt that preserving the Union was important (based on careful research -- I watched both "Lincoln" and "The Abolitionists" ), slavery less so, in the beginning. He did make all kinds of outreaches like the ones suggested -- to have slaves go back to Africa, promising the South that they could keep slavery until 1900, in order to preserve the union. The facts are what they are -- we fought an internal war, people had a whole lot of reasons for joining in the fighting (probably including "yeeha"), and the North won. We're arguing about people's reasons for it, and what those facts "mean," given 150+ years of subsequent development. Me, now, with my 20th-century generated opinions, I'd probably say "let them go." But put me, or anyone else, into that context, and it might be different. Most people's opinions are driven by where and when they are, and who they're around. It takes a zealot to really step out with radical opinions. And it takes an energetic, smart and eloquent zealot to bring others with them. And just as one can find a "scientist" to support any scientific or pseudo-scientific theory, one can find an historian who fits in with one's worldview. Wendy P. If you research it more the majority sentiment toward blacks and slavery in the North was not for abolition. I just find it historically interesting. I don't buy the mainstream historian version of Lincoln being the savior of the blacks. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #128 January 23, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteOops, I meant "neo-Confederate". Sorry for the typo. That's a meaningless distinction. The Confederate states have long been destroyed and nothing in his writings makes me think he wants it back. Um, I didn't invent the term, and I am hardly the first the use it as DiLorenzo's descriptor. Google the search ("thomas dilorenzo" + "neo-confederate") and you'll get over 2,700 hits. Read them at your leisure. Here you go: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=%22thomas+dilorenzo%22+%22neo-confederate%22&gbv=2&oq=%22thomas+dilorenzo%22+%22neo-confederate%22&gs_l=heirloom-hp.3..0i30.1711.14377.0.14719.36.36.0.0.0.0.324.2970.28j6j0j2.36.0...0.0...1c.1.g_iFWwYYhaw What I was trying to say was "So What". It doesn't mean anything. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #129 January 23, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteOops, I meant "neo-Confederate". Sorry for the typo. That's a meaningless distinction. The Confederate states have long been destroyed and nothing in his writings makes me think he wants it back. Um, I didn't invent the term, and I am hardly the first the use it as DiLorenzo's descriptor. Google the search ("thomas dilorenzo" + "neo-confederate") and you'll get over 2,700 hits. Read them at your leisure. Here you go: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=%22thomas+dilorenzo%22+%22neo-confederate%22&gbv=2&oq=%22thomas+dilorenzo%22+%22neo-confederate%22&gs_l=heirloom-hp.3..0i30.1711.14377.0.14719.36.36.0.0.0.0.324.2970.28j6j0j2.36.0...0.0...1c.1.g_iFWwYYhaw What I was trying to say was "So What". It doesn't mean anything. Of course it does: it reflects his bias as an extreme partisan on the issue, and not at all an objective analyst. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #130 January 23, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteOops, I meant "neo-Confederate". Sorry for the typo. That's a meaningless distinction. The Confederate states have long been destroyed and nothing in his writings makes me think he wants it back. Um, I didn't invent the term, and I am hardly the first the use it as DiLorenzo's descriptor. Google the search ("thomas dilorenzo" + "neo-confederate") and you'll get over 2,700 hits. Read them at your leisure. Here you go: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=%22thomas+dilorenzo%22+%22neo-confederate%22&gbv=2&oq=%22thomas+dilorenzo%22+%22neo-confederate%22&gs_l=heirloom-hp.3..0i30.1711.14377.0.14719.36.36.0.0.0.0.324.2970.28j6j0j2.36.0...0.0...1c.1.g_iFWwYYhaw What I was trying to say was "So What". It doesn't mean anything. Of course it does: it reflects his bias as an extreme partisan on the issue, and not at all an objective analyst. Read his books and check his sources. He does a great job in citing his sources so it's not very hard. His books regarding Lincoln are not that biased. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skypuppy 1 #131 January 23, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteUp to the Civil war it was commonly believed that the United States was a voluntary union of states. States joined the union on their own accord and believed they could leave the union when ever they wished. Then Lincoln enforced a non voluntary union. I think the Supreme Court was wrong and is often wrong. Just look at the ruling on Obamacare. Either way I don't see how the Civil war could possibly be justified in any way shape or form. It was not worth the loss of lives just to keep the union together. Lincoln was by far the worst president ever. Naming Lincoln as our 'worst President' shows only that you haven't researched the history and doings of all the OTHER Presidents. If you are judging Lincoln strictly because he was minding the store when the Civil War began, well...that conflict was building up for at least a decade beforehand. Lincoln did the right thing by trying to hold the Union together, and our country as it exists today is a direct result of that effort. Not only did the war free the slaves, ending a nearly 250-year ugly history of kidnapping, slave trading, and abuse, but it finally brought us together as a nation. It began the process of civil rights, and enabled us better security because we were still one country from coast to coast. Your comment contains so many profound ramifications that it is difficult to address. Some good things happened later as a result of the War Between The States (preferred Southern name for it) but the war itself was a terrible thing, of course. It still affects us today I think, especially politically. I wouldn't worry about any repeal or severe restrictions on the Second Amendment. That would be worse than when the Feds passed Prohibition. There are between 250 million and up to a BILLION privately-held weapons in America, and that doesn't count anything with the military or in sporting goods stores. What people are saying is that because there are tens of thousands of gun deaths in the US, year in, year out, that sensible rules need to be in place. I'm in favor of banning hi-cap magazines, military-style assault weapons, sure. But I'm MORE in favor of making people who want to own a gun pass a few checks first. And be trained in their use. Like cars, guns can kill if you don't know how to (drive) use them. You seem to assume that the war was the only way to abolish slavery. I don't think this is true. Lincoln was more then just "minding the store" regarding the Civil War. Keeping the Union together at the cost of 600,000 casualties on both sides was not worth it. Would things be better with out that? I don't know, but there would be a lot fewer dead people. I don't think it really contributed that much to Civil Rights. Blacks weren't treated very well before the Civil War or after in both the North and the South. New estimates seem to be citing a figure of 750,000 soldiers killed during the civil war, and a quick search put the civilian deaths at somewhere around 200-250 thousand. So in my estimation, Lincoln was pretty much the man responsible for about a million american deaths. I think one major reason he gets an easy pass from history is that he was assassinated. If he'd lived through and been defeated in politics and died of old age, he wouldn't be seen as a martyr.If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #132 January 23, 2013 I was being very conservative with the body count. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 340 #133 January 23, 2013 Just curious if you [and beowulf too] see any wars as worth fighting? Are there any values that are worth defending, or should countries just capitulate whenever challenged? Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skypuppy 1 #134 January 23, 2013 QuoteJust curious if you [and beowulf too] see any wars as worth fighting? Are there any values that are worth defending, or should countries just capitulate whenever challenged? Don As I stated before, slavery was on the way out already, and the spur for the southern states seceding was the north's pushing through laws that took away states' rights, AFTER the southern states had stated, unequivocably, that pushing through this legislation would result in them seceding from the union. Even after that point, although Lincoln and his ilk had pushed it that far, they could have backed off and allowed the states to secede and try to negotiate them to come back. They didn't do that. As far as other wars, many of them were indeed justified. The war between the states however was a war between countrymen, a particularly bloody war, and really the first 'modern' war with newer technologies and huge numbers of casualties. As the people holding power, the union had many options other than forcing a war. Missouri and some other states may have declared officially Union because of local politics, but many if not most of the people in those slave-owning states were still confederates. And it was Lincoln and his cronies that ideologically pushed things to point of a war that killed a million and left the south in a perilous state economically for possibly half a century after the war was ended.If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #135 January 23, 2013 QuoteJust curious if you [and beowulf too] see any wars as worth fighting? Are there any values that are worth defending, or should countries just capitulate whenever challenged? Don There are wars worth fighting for, but that isn't the issue here. I am saying that the Civil War was fought by the North Not primarily for the abolishment of slavery. I seriously doubt that many of the northern states cared at all about slavery or blacks. The northern blacks were often treated much worse then southern blacks because they were often seen as competing with whites for jobs. The issue is trying to understand history and I think the common historical view of the Civil War has a lot of flaws and doesn't fit the facts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BillyMongilly 0 #136 January 18, 2016 GeorgiaDonJust curious if you [and beowulf too] see any wars as worth fighting? Are there any values that are worth defending, or should countries just capitulate whenever challenged? Don Hello. Two wars I can think of worth fighting for: If a country or party is trying to invade, overpower and take over America and secondly if the U.S. Government starts going door to door confiscating weapons from sane Americans for the purpose of a total ban.How high are we going? Oh about 9000. Oh Mr. Pilot! How high are we going? Oh about 12000! That's the ticket! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
