Confederate leader’s name on U.S. 1 still rankles some
http://www.insidenova.com/news/arlington/confederate-leader-s-name-on-u-s-still-rankles-some/article_61eb59c6-7b41-11e3-b259-001a4bcf887a.html


Jefferson Davis may well be the Confederacy’s combination of Rodney Dangerfield and kudzu – a leader who gets no respect, yet you just can’t seem to get rid of him.

Arlington resident Robert Parry is trying to accomplish the latter, asking county officials to seek removal of the name of Davis, the lone president of the Confederate States of America, from roadways in Arlington.

“I, and I’m sure other Arlingtonians, find it offensive that this vestige of slavery and segregation lives on in the 21st century,” Parry said in a letter to county officials. “This honor to Jefferson Davis is especially offensive in South Arlington, where we are proud of the diversity of our community.”

An aide to County Board Chairman Jay Fisette responded, and suggested that removing Davis’s name could be more than a little complicated:
•“Jefferson Davis Highway” (Route 1) received its name by General Assembly fiat in 1922, and it would require legislative approval to remove it.
•The portion of Route 110 from Route 1 to Interstate 66 also is named in honor of Davis, and while it would not require an act of the General Assembly to remove it, the county government would have to petition the Commonwealth Transportation Board to do so – and, if approved, the county government would have to shoulder the expense of new signage.

“Staff is not in a position to recommend next steps, resolution, time frames or action on this matter,” the county response noted.

County Board members in 2011 did take action to rename a portion of Old Jefferson Davis Highway in Crystal City as “Long Bridge Drive,” an action that did not require state approval.

During discussion of that change, County Board member Chris Zimmerman took a swipe at the use of Davis’s name on roadways. “There are aspects of our history I’m not particularly interested in celebrating,” Zimmerman said.

But county officials have shown little inclination to use up political capital in an effort to remove Davis’s name from the more substantive roads, and likely would find little enthusiasm among the county’s legislative delegation if they tried.

“It would take a tremendous effort to achieve a symbolic goal,” said Del. Bob Brink (D-48th).

U.S. Route 1, which runs from Maine to Florida, is designated “Jefferson Davis Highway” for much of its length in Virginia, although portions of the road also are known as Richmond Highway and by other names. Additional states – mostly but not exclusively in the South – have roadways named to honor Davis.

Davis was a former U.S. senator from Mississippi and U.S. secretary of war when he was tapped to lead the Confederacy in 1861. His reputation, hampered by tales of micro-managing and bureaucratic bungling, was eclipsed after the war by the likes of Robert E. Lee and other generals, although by the time of Davis’s death 125 years ago, there was a resurgence of respect for him among Southerners. Davis is buried at Hollywood Cemetery in Richmond.

Lee’s memory is memorialized in Lee Highway (U.S. Route 29) through Arlington and other areas of Virginia, as well as on Washington-Lee High School. Last year, a parent asked School Board members to consider removing the name Lee from the school due to his rebellion against the U.S. government, and received the government equivalent of a “don’t call us, we’ll call you” response.

When discussions like this have come up in the past, Arlington NAACP president Elmer Lowe Sr. has said he’s not particularly concerned about roads, schools and other government infrastructure named after Confederate leaders and slaveholders.

“Why change it?” Lowe said in 2010 about a previous call to remove Davis’s name from Route 1. “Nobody has complained about it. It has been here for so long.”

But Parry said that if Arlington officials can’t convince Richmond leaders to go along with dumping the name of Davis, a little civil disobedience might be in order.

“Frankly, if the state authorities drag their heels, I believe we would be well within our local rights to remove the name on our own,” he said.


The Virginia General Assembly in the 1920s named U.S. Route 1 across the commonwealth to honor Jefferson Davis, the lone president of the Confederacy. To remove the name, legislative action would be needed. (Library of Congress photo)
Attachments:

This PC crap is going too far. Our history in VA is our history and nothing can change this. No one would ever advocate going back to the days of the Confederacy, slave owners and so on but please quit trying to erase the history of the south. Keep in mind that there were slave owners in the north as well as the south. There were slave owners in Arlington as well. It can often be an ugly past but it is our past nonetheless.

Maybe they should change the name. You wouldn't want a highway named after Adolph Hitler would you? Use some goddamn common sense for god's sake!

First some fucker from New York wants to bring gay marriage to VA, and now this! If you don't like the name of the highway then don't drive on it. Piss off FUCKERS!

Why praise bad people? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe they should change the name. You wouldn't
> want a highway named after Adolph Hitler would
> you? Use some goddamn common sense for god's sake!

Yet there's MLK Boulevard and BWI is now named after some spook?

How was Jefferson Davis a bad person?

I'm sure Liberal/Progessives will push to rename it after Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, Tupac Shakur, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Barack Obama?

The Other Side Of The Coin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How was Jefferson Davis a bad person?

He was president of the Confederacy, who supported slavery.

I understand that Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee are part of our history. I also wish people understood, however, how much of a slap in the face it is to descendents of slaves to have the state celebrate them as heroes. Afterall, they WERE traitors to the country.

Moreover, do you think for a minute that Jews would be made to tolerate celebrating Adolph Hitler with roads named after them? Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis are the equivalent of Hitler to the descendants of slaves.

I suppose some don't care about that, though...

Ben the happy nigger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He was president of the Confederacy, who supported slavery.

He was president of a breakaway federation seeking to defend and retain states' rights against Federal domination. Slavery was a side issue which has been seized for the purpose of the negroes continuing role playing the victims.

Just get it over with, take the white guy's name down and name it after some nigger like King or Malcolm X, or Michelle Obama.......it's over, white folks, the country's doomed.....just let it go.

Yes... But... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I understand that Jefferson Davis and Robert E.
> Lee are part of our history. I also wish people
> understood, however, how much of a slap in the
> face it is to descendents of slaves to have the
> state celebrate them as heroes. Afterall, they
> WERE traitors to the country.
>
> Moreover, do you think for a minute that Jews
> would be made to tolerate celebrating Adolph
> Hitler with roads named after them? Robert E. Lee
> and Jefferson Davis are the equivalent of Hitler
> to the descendants of slaves.
>
> I suppose some don't care about that, though...

Yes, they were traitors and both should have been beheaded in the square. Approximately 850,000 people died because the South was so fucking worried about how to run their plantations without slaves.

http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/faq/

The Liberal Conservative Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This PC crap is going too far. Our history in VA
> is our history and nothing can change this. No one
> would ever advocate going back to the days of the
> Confederacy, slave owners and so on but please
> quit trying to erase the history of the south.
> Keep in mind that there were slave owners in the
> north as well as the south. There were slave
> owners in Arlington as well. It can often be an
> ugly past but it is our past nonetheless.

Let's not forget that the Arlington House, is the Robert E. Lee Memorial, which is run by the National Park Service. Arlington County was named in honor of Lee. Arlington was previously Alexandria County.

Arlington might be the "Berkeley of the East Coast" or the "Portland of the East Coast" but the vast majority still respect the region's local history. An online poll revealed that an overwhelming majority of Arlington residents did not want to change the name of its oldest high school Washington-Lee, which is almost a century old. There are a number of outspoken residents who despise Lee, Jackson et al., and would like to eradicate any public references to them. But they are in the minority.

Yes... But... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I understand that Jefferson Davis and Robert E.
> Lee are part of our history. I also wish people
> understood, however, how much of a slap in the
> face it is to descendents of slaves to have the
> state celebrate them as heroes. Afterall, they
> WERE traitors to the country.
>
> Moreover, do you think for a minute that Jews
> would be made to tolerate celebrating Adolph
> Hitler with roads named after them? Robert E. Lee
> and Jefferson Davis are the equivalent of Hitler
> to the descendants of slaves.
>
> I suppose some don't care about that, though...

They were traitors the same way that the British could view Washington as a traitor.

If so-called "descendants of slaves" view it that way, it simply proves their ignorance and how they've bought into the whole victim mentality perpetuated by their self-appointed leaders - Jackson, Sharpton, et al.

If it offends you, move North.

The Other Side Of The Coin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ben the happy nigger Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > He was president of the Confederacy, who
> supported slavery.
>
> He was president of a breakaway federation seeking
> to defend and retain states' rights against
> Federal domination. Slavery was a side issue
> which has been seized for the purpose of the
> negroes continuing role playing the victims.

You're an idiot, if you're going to say "Economics" was their biggest issue, then your right, but slavery was a HUGE part of those economic issues. The South didn't want to free the slaves and end up with no one to do their manual labor.

Change the Name! Change! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, they were traitors and both should have been
> beheaded in the square. Approximately 850,000
> people died because the South was so fucking
> worried about how to run their plantations without
> slaves.

And how many of these former slaves, now allowed to run about with no one to control or civilize them, have in total killed far more than that? Mostly they're killing each other, which is no great loss, but the economic cost to the nation of allowing them their "freedom" while they are completely dependent on the government is staggering.

Had the Confederacy been allowed to secede, the two nations could have peacefully coexisted and the world would be a better place.

The Other Side Of The Coin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And how many of these former slaves, now allowed
> to run about with no one to control or civilize
> them, have in total killed far more than that?
> Mostly they're killing each other, which is no
> great loss, but the economic cost to the nation of
> allowing them their "freedom" while they are
> completely dependent on the government is
> staggering.
>
> Had the Confederacy been allowed to secede, the
> two nations could have peacefully coexisted and
> the world would be a better place.

The irony is the great, great, great children of these slaves now plague the white man all along this poorly named highway.

How many nigs have ever heard of Jefferson Davis? One in a thousand? One in a million?

...... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The South didn't want to free the
> slaves and end up with no one to do their manual
> labor.

But the North insisted on upsetting the economic apple cart. What would have been lost in allowing the South to continue as it was and contribute to the nation's success as a whole?

Are blacks better off being dependent on the government while contributing nothing to the nation in exchange for their keep, or better being well-kept and dependent on owners while adding to the nation's productivity?

I suspect its the negroes that are upset.

Let's call it Martin Luther King Jy Highway and it can be a 75 mile long ghetto.

While Senator, Jefferson Davis was instrumental in establishing the Soldier's Home in DC for down and out veterans in 1851.

@Another thing libs don't know

While head of state in Germany, Hitler built great roads and had great programs for the arts.

So what?

I'm sure Jefferson Davis loves his children, too.

But in the end, when the chips were down, he decided to throw his lot in with those who took up arms against his country (our country) and defend the institution of slavery, a blight on mankind and a blight on our history.

Yes... But... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But in the end, when the chips were down, he
> decided to throw his lot in with those who took up
> arms against his country (our country) and defend
> the institution of slavery, a blight on mankind
> and a blight on our history.

And as cited earlier, Washington and the other founding fathers of the Colonies turned against their monarch and took up arms against their countrymen - yet we celebrate them as heroes. That Davis and others did the same 100 years later, they are traitors?

Slavery was part of the economic model that powered this nation through the beginnings of the Industrial Age, a point driven home by the fact that all of those same founding fathers were slave owners themselves. Slavery has been the norm through 99% of civilization and exists today in many parts of the world. Tribal Africa is the cradle of slavery with warring tribes and clans hold one another as slaves. It's a normal state of being for the black man to be either a slave or a slave holder. The advantage of whites being in charge is that the slaves were better treated and attempts were made at educating and civilizing them. Once freed, the blacks have in large part reverted to their natural state, the results of which can be seen in the inner cities today. Savagery, violence, drug use, sloth, loathing of any attempts at education, unfettered breeding and breakdown of any family structure - all while being totally dependent on the Federal government for life's basic necessities.

Tell me more of this blight of which *you* speak?

Well, the fucking winners sure are trying to re-write history...

For the final time...the Late Unpleasantness was a dispute over state's rights and not slavery. Since the fighting ended, the U.S. government has spent a great deal of time, money and effort trying to convince its citizens AFTER the fact that fighting slavery was the North's great call to glory.

The bottom line is...state's wanted to decide for themselves. And they did, in their own way. But, when the Federal Government disapproved, they chose to take up arms and invade their own people.

THAT? That is what happened. And stop trying to tell people differently.

@The Other Side Of The Coin

I don't hold Washington and Jefferson harmless for the abomination of slavery either. Indeed, I don't hold anyone who participated in it harmless, including those in Africa on the sending end. They were all horrific people and don't deserve to be celebrated.

What is the blight of which I wrote?

How about being a participant in kidnapping people from their homeland and forcing them, in chains, to make a voyage under inhumane conditions to another continent, only to then be forced to work for the rest of their lives in servitude?

How about breeding human beings like cattle in order to produce offspring that you then rip from them and sell to the highest bidder or put to work?

How about raping human women, using them as your sex toys and private play things?

How about treating YOUR offspring who were the products of your rape as slaves, selling them off or making them work in servitude?

How about selling human beings like property on auction blocks?

How about denying human beings an education and forbidding them from learning to read or write?

If you don't think these things (and many, many more) constitute a blight on history and humanity, then there is no hope for you.

The big lie theory is alive and well. The Civil War was all about SLAVERY as it was the cause of secession. The right to own slaves was the right with which the Southern states were concerned. The election of a Yankee President opposed to the EXPANSION of slavery was all it took to push the South of the cliff because of their own paranoia over the protection of their "peculiar institution" You can start here...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths-about-why-the-south-seceded/2011/01/03/ABHr6jD_story.html

That stretch the four miles north of Belvior is so third world that they should rename it Martin Luther King Jr Dr

Yes... But... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @The Other Side Of The Coin
>
> I don't hold Washington and Jefferson harmless for
> the abomination of slavery either. Indeed, I
> don't hold anyone who participated in it harmless,
> including those in Africa on the sending end.
> They were all horrific people and don't deserve to
> be celebrated.
>
> What is the blight of which I wrote?
>
> How about being a participant in kidnapping people
> from their homeland and forcing them, in chains,
> to make a voyage under inhumane conditions to
> another continent, only to then be forced to work
> for the rest of their lives in servitude?
>
> How about breeding human beings like cattle in
> order to produce offspring that you then rip from
> them and sell to the highest bidder or put to
> work?
>
> How about raping human women, using them as your
> sex toys and private play things?
>
> How about treating YOUR offspring who were the
> products of your rape as slaves, selling them off
> or making them work in servitude?
>
> How about selling human beings like property on
> auction blocks?
>
> How about denying human beings an education and
> forbidding them from learning to read or write?
>
> If you don't think these things (and many, many
> more) constitute a blight on history and humanity,
> then there is no hope for you.

The slaves brought from Africa were not kidnapped. They were purchased from other Africans, tribes which had defeated them in battle and sold the survivors from the losing side. They were merely buying a product, transporting it in the most economical way possible to another market, and trying to sell at a reasonable profit.

The other situations you cite were just business-as-usual for those times, as it has been for much of mankind's history. The African Slave Trade did not invent such practices, as they had been going on for five thousand years prior. The Greeks had slaves, the Egyptians, the Romans, though the Dark Ages and the Age of Enlightenment, and it continues in other countries today.

So tell me how blacks have taken advantage of this new freedom and prospered in the last 150 years, rising above the conditions they once endured to become successful members of society today?

The savagery is still there, and the chains are just different.

> I don't hold Washington and Jefferson harmless for the abomination of slavery either. Indeed, I don't hold anyone who participated in it harmless, including those in Africa on the sending end. They were all horrific people and don't deserve to be celebrated.

Perhaps the first President of the US could be Obama then?

People need to get over it. White-washing history is the quickest way to repeat it.

Have you been to U.S.1? You might want to hold a seance and ask Jeff how he feels about it.

Rename it to Trayvon Martin Memorial Highway or Dennis Rodman-Kim Jong Un Friendship Trail.

And once they change Jefferson Davis Highway, they can start to work on Robert E. Lee High School in Fairfax County. What a great history lesson for students - if you don't like the history, change it.

^

Or maybe if you don't think we should celebrate the lives of those who perpetrated and presided over genocidal atrocities, we should not do so.

But then, given that Hitler was part of Germany's history, I guess you would have no problem naming elementary schools and roads after him...

The moron needs to get a life. No one cares what the road or school is named. Its history and they just go about their daily life. If hes really offended by that theres no reason to worry about it, he will be offended by everything and constantly find new things to be offended by.

Hitler ordered the extermination of a religion. Remember that slavery was part of the history of the United States from 1776 (or perhaps 1789 when the Constitution was adopted, which did not outlaw slavery)until 1865. Certainly there were atrocities, but there was no institutionalized extermination. That would defeat the entire purpose of having slaves. Lee and Davis were Confederate leaders for only 4 years. They were not in any way responsible for the institution of slavery. Using your logic, we should not name anything after Washington or Jefferson, either.

Yes... But... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ^
>
> Or maybe if you don't think we should celebrate
> the lives of those who perpetrated and presided
> over genocidal atrocities, we should not do so.
>
> But then, given that Hitler was part of Germany's
> history, I guess you would have no problem naming
> elementary schools and roads after him...

Well they'll probably name a bunch of shit after Obozo when he's gone. What's the difference?

how much longer will our history be ripped from us,is this just like the carpet baggers from up north,now the same people are korean mafia,viet nam, who that are left, mosbys rangers are recruiting no game here. write back, meeting places are beink aranged

how much longer will our history be ripped from us,is this just like the carpet baggers from up north,now the same people are korean mafia,viet nam, who that are left, mosbys rangers are recruiting no game here. write back, meeting places are beink aranged

Bring it up for a vote. Change the name. Time for a rebirth of a better Virginia.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bring it up for a vote. Change the name. Time for
> a rebirth of a better Virginia.

I don't care what Rt. 1 is called but it sure won't make for a better Virginia, much less that neighborhood.

east of the 405 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Liberal Conservative Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > This PC crap is going too far. Our history in
> VA
> > is our history and nothing can change this. No
> one
> > would ever advocate going back to the days of
> the
> > Confederacy, slave owners and so on but please
> > quit trying to erase the history of the south.
> > Keep in mind that there were slave owners in
> the
> > north as well as the south. There were slave
> > owners in Arlington as well. It can often be an
> > ugly past but it is our past nonetheless.
>
> Let's not forget that the Arlington House, is the
> Robert E. Lee Memorial, which is run by the
> National Park Service. Arlington County was named
> in honor of Lee. Arlington was previously
> Alexandria County.
>
> Arlington might be the "Berkeley of the East
> Coast" or the "Portland of the East Coast" but the
> vast majority still respect the region's local
> history. An online poll revealed that an
> overwhelming majority of Arlington residents did
> not want to change the name of its oldest high
> school Washington-Lee, which is almost a century
> old. There are a number of outspoken residents who
> despise Lee, Jackson et al., and would like to
> eradicate any public references to them. But they
> are in the minority.

Well said.

You might reenforce the real message of what's going on in Arlington from this statement near the end of the article:

"Parry said that if Arlington officials can’t convince Richmond leaders to go along with dumping the name of Davis, a little civil disobedience might be in order."

Add that to the fat that Arlington was recently dubbed the most "gay" friendly place in the country and know that these people are dead serious about what they're planning to do.

It's obvious that they don't intend to follow the established rules; instead they'll resort to civil disobedience to get what they want.

Would that be civil disobedience like what's going on throughout the streets in Iraq or via executive laws bypassing the system signed by Obama?

all great politicians are remembered for what they said.Pres. Jeff Davis;If you like your nigger ,you can keep your nigger.

In college, I had the opportunity to interview Bela Kiraly. He was the Hungarian general who in 1956 commanded all 'freedom fighters' in Budapest against the Soviets. Fascinating story, but in the end, it obviously didn't work out in his favor. He was able to get out of the country and came here. When I talked with him, he was a professor in New York.

Because of his prominence and experience, people in DC wanted to talk with Kiraly. So he came here first. Outside of debriefings, he had someone showing him around the common sights. During that, he saw Robert E. Lee's house in Arlington. He knew enough American history to know Lee was in charge of the ANV, and was amazed the house of this 'rebel' had been maintained. I remember him saying, "That's the moment I understood what a great country this is." I'd guess it wouldn't have been maintained in Hungary.

Now, most of us know the real story behind that house and the establishment of Arlington Cemetery, and it isn't quite to honor an opposing general. But that's the way it appeared to this one prominent foreigner. And the bottom line is the house is still standing, relatively well maintained, and known for its last private owner. That's a level of toleration and pure celebration of the past - good and bad - that has always been a bit unique about us.

Also, the argument that you make concerning the Northern states wanting to count slaves as 1/3 a white man is completely erroneous. You are referring to the Three-Fifths Compromise reached during the Philadelphia Convention of 1787. In fact the Northern states did not want to count slaves at all. 3/5ths was a compromise with the Southern states as the compromise was to count slaves as “three-fifths” of a person for REPRESENTATION purposes. The Southern states had no intention of giving slaves the right to vote and this certainly wasn't an argument over the intrinsic moral value of a slave. The lesser that slaves were counted the lesser the representative power of Southern states in Congress. This lesser counting had everything to do with diminshing the Southern states' legislative power. The North intended to use it's legislative power to outlaw slavery through constitutional means

let's rename it dred scott drive by.the name fits perfectly all things considered.

"It is simply impossible that the Southern states would have seceded and gone to war over a tariff."

Right! Who ever heard of someone taking up arms in order to break away from the mother county over a little thing like taxes?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Give me Liberty...! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "It is simply impossible that the Southern states
> would have seceded and gone to war over a
> tariff."
>
> Right! Who ever heard of someone taking up arms in
> order to break away from the mother county over a
> little thing like taxes?
>
> Sorry, couldn't resist.

Yes, the overriding issue was that of economics, the economics of slavery. The Morrill Tarrif debate of 1860-61 was an irritant to the cotton producing states but it was minutaie when compared to the sectional divide that had been brewing for many decades over slavery. It is simply impossible that the Southern states would have seceded and gone to war over a tarrif. What did the leaders of the secession movement themselves say about the tariff? They said almost nothing. Four of the secession conventions of the seceding states published Declarations of Causes, explaining in detail their reasons for secession. Although the word "slave" in some form appears 82 times in these documents, there is not a single reference to "tariff".

Alabama Congressman William Lowndes Yancey, toured the North in the Fall of 1860 and made speeches explaining the Southern view on secession. In those speeches he actually mentioned the tariff, but downplayed it as an issue that could lead to secession. As I mentioned previously, the Southern states were enraged by the election of Abraham Lincoln in November 1860. The quote to which you refer is Lincoln's letter to Horace Greely in August 1862, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that." Understand however that just one month later, Lincoln would issue the Emancipation Proclamation (allowing slaves in states conquered by the Union Army to be set free) and soon the war and Lincoln's politics would shift towards full emancipation however this quote makes my point. It illustrates the degree to which slavery (and it's protection) influenced Southerners to go to the extreme of secession. Lincoln's political view on slavery had involved opposition to the expansion of slavery. A Republican President advocating a political position that was even remotely hostile to slavery (in this case it's expansion) was enough to set of the powder keg. Bottom line, the fact that Lincoln and most Union officers and enlisted men were not setting out in 1861 on a mission to free the slaves (they would be in time) does absolutely nothing to diminish the central role of slavery and Southern paranoia over those hostile to it, in causing the Civil War.

let's rename nat turner underground freeway

retarded white trash thinking they know history defending themselves to limp wristed pussies.
Attachments:

95% of confederate soldiers never even owned a slave. Politically slavery was the issue. If you lived in the south and knew the Federal army was coming you would grab your rifle also. Do you think the average Yankee soldier gave a flying fuck about slavery? They Yankees were trying to peserve the Union. I know my comments aren't politically correct but it is the truth. Suck on that "white guilters!"

jonnyreb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 95% of confederate soldiers never even owned a
> slave. Politically slavery was the issue. If you
> lived in the south and knew the Federal army was
> coming you would grab your rifle also. Do you
> think the average Yankee soldier gave a flying
> fuck about slavery? They Yankees were trying to
> peserve the Union. I know my comments aren't
> politically correct but it is the truth. Suck on
> that "white guilters!"

Sigh, not again. The Civil War was in fact all about slavery. If you were taught otherwise 25 years ago then your instruction falls into the category that most historians would identify as historical revisionism. There was one and only one "states right" with which the Southern states were concerned, that is the right to own slaves. In fact, the immediate cause of secession was the election of Abraham Lincoln, a moderate on slavery who was opposed to the expansion of slavery as the United States expanded west. The election of a Yankee with some moderate abolitionist views was enough to throw the Southern states into a frenzy. South Carolina, the first state to secede had benefited tremendously from the inter-continental slave trade and was a driving force for slavery infused Southern nationalism. The first 7 states to secede included deep South states such as Alabama and Mississippi. These states were most dependent on slave labor for the harvesting of the cotton crop. I give you a direct quote from Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens; "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 [...] The general opinion of the men of that day [Revolutionary Period] was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution [slavery] would be evanescent and pass away [...] 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 normal condition." Slavery was the paramount issue that caused both the war and any sense of southern nationalism. This was realized by Union soldiers stationed in Virginia as early as 1861. Read their diaries, letters, and regimental newsletters. The prevailing sentiment was the slavery must be crushed in order to crush secession. They believed that if slavery was not eradicated then the sectional divide would continue. They understood that even if the war was won by the North, without the death of slavery they would be back fighting the same war within a decade. Further reading see: http://www.amazon.com/What-This-Cruel-War-Over/dp/0307277321/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1389563298&sr=1-1&keywords=what+this+cruel+war+was+over

While the 5th New York Cavalry was encamped in the vicinity of Chantilly (about where Fx. County Parkway and Rugby Road intersect) in 1863, Sergeant James F. “Big Yankee” Ames, deserted from the 5th New York and joined the 43rd Virginia Cavalry Battalion commanded by Col. John S. Mosby. Ames said that he had deserted the Union cause because after Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, “the war had become a war for the Negro instead of a war to save the Union.”

That is a fact from the time, not some made-up "fact" by those that want to revise history.

That is a long-standing debate. How much did slavery cause the Civil War. The problem is the debate is rarely conducted in a vacuum, and more modern agendas tend to creep into the discussion. My take is slavery was more a cause than some want to acknowledge and less a cause than others want to acknowledge. There were a lot of different opinions about who had authority to do what from the time the Constitution was written, and because of the Bill of Rights, most of those differences were about federal and state authorities rather than government versus individual rights. The individual rights were more clearly articulated. Despite the 10th Amendment, there was more wiggle room when discussing federal versus state authorities, particularly once the notion of interstate commerce came up. More than anything else, the Civil War was about states' rights. What authorities did the states retain? And among the more prominent poster issue for the question was whether the states had the authority to authorize slavery. There were other things going on, but to not acknowledge the centrality of slavery to the conflict is not correct, either, in my view.

The Other Side Of The Coin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...... Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The South didn't want to free the
> > slaves and end up with no one to do their
> manual
> > labor.
>
> But the North insisted on upsetting the economic
> apple cart. What would have been lost in allowing
> the South to continue as it was and contribute to
> the nation's success as a whole?
>
> Are blacks better off being dependent on the
> government while contributing nothing to the
> nation in exchange for their keep, or better being
> well-kept and dependent on owners while adding to
> the nation's productivity?


What's not to like?

Free housing
Free healthcare
Free food allowance
Free clothing
Free travel

I wish i could own a slave (any color will do) i have got a ton of stuff that needs too get done around here!

east of the 405 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> An online poll revealed that an
> overwhelming majority of Arlington residents did
> not want to change the name of its oldest high
> school Washington-Lee, which is almost a century
> old.

They should change it so that instead of honoring Robert E. Lee, it honors Bruce Lee. That way they could still call it Washington-Lee and not worry about being racist.

I'M A FIVE-STAR MAN!!

Captain Blazer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The big lie theory is alive and well. The Civil
> War was all about SLAVERY as it was the cause of
> secession. The right to own slaves was the right
> with which the Southern states were concerned.
> The election of a Yankee President opposed to the
> EXPANSION of slavery was all it took to push the
> South of the cliff because of their own paranoia
> over the protection of their "peculiar
> institution" You can start here...
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths-a
> bout-why-the-south-seceded/2011/01/03/ABHr6jD_stor
> y.html

James Loewen is a liberal and a historical revisionist, something which should be considered in evaluating anything he writes. I've read his Lies My Teacher Told Me and other of his works. He can be interesting and thought provoking. He can be good at reminding us of facts conveniently forgotten because they don't fit the desired narrative. However he is far from unbiased. Like other historical revisionists he isn't merely satisfied with destroying the old dogma; He is intent on creating a new dogma.

A Fact (What a Concept) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> While the 5th New York Cavalry was encamped in the
> vicinity of Chantilly (about where Fx. County
> Parkway and Rugby Road intersect) in 1863,
> Sergeant James F. “Big Yankee” Ames, deserted
> from the 5th New York and joined the 43rd Virginia
> Cavalry Battalion commanded by Col. John S. Mosby.
> Ames said that he had deserted the Union cause
> because after Lincoln’s Emancipation
> Proclamation, “the war had become a war for the
> Negro instead of a war to save the Union.”
>
> That is a fact from the time, not some made-up
> "fact" by those that want to revise history.

So what? This is the isolated case of one renegade Union soldier out of the 1,900,000 who served honorably, over 300,000 of whom would be killed fighting for the Union and yes in many cases fighting for the destruction of slavery.

I agree with the OP.

We should also remove the names from those monuments in D.C. that are named after slave owners.

You know, Washington.... Jefferson...

It seems that every professional historian who has written about the cause of the Civil War and secession is a "revisionist" to someone. James Loewen is in good company with most mainstream Civil War historians including Professor Chandra Manning. He simply follows the evidence where it leads. It's not a coincidence that the Visitor's Center at the Manassas battlefield features a prominent exhibit on slavery on the right wall as you enter. Sometimes the most obvious answer is also the correct one. For a war that "wasn't about slavery", politicians and soldiers sure spoke and wrote a lot about it before, during, and after the war.

I am continually amazed at the "reformative" history that seems to be prevalent in our society today. The minute I hear someone begin their argument regarding anything to do with the civil war with "slavery," I tune them out entirely. History certainly is taught differently now than a mere 25 years ago. Back then we learned that the disagreement in congress over the way people were counted for representation in congress was what pushed the southern states to the edge. Let us not forget that it was the ever so "esteemed and good hearted" representatives from the northern states (as people would have you believe now) who declared that a black man was only worth 1/3 of a white man and it was the south that was completely rankled by that. Despite what you read now, the war was about many things, the least of which was actual slavery, especially since it was a dying in the south. Yes, better to forget anything to do with the southern states and war between the states. Let's remember the north because they were models of respectability and decency when they were in the southern states and after they won and were "reconstructed." Oh yes, what fabulous stories exist from that wonderful and glorious and untarnished time in our history!

yep, Political Correctness raises it's ugly head. this is so sad, as another poster mentioned "reformative history"..this is totally nuts!

completely and utterly wrong, you cant change the past you can only learn from it. People need to be less focused on the past and more making the future better. In this case, the renaming of the road does little except make one person feel better and make everyone else foot the bill.

as john wayne once said " Life's hard, it's even harder when your stupid"

Virtually everything written by blankety-blank-blank above is provably wrong. The South wanted to continue to use slave labor, and attempted to create its own country when the rest of the United States -- and WORLD -- viewed slavery as evil. There is nothing "reformative" about this. "the least of which was actual slavery" -- hilarious. False. Uninformed. Ignorant.

Typical Yankee Libs! Carpetbaggers or Scallywags is what they are! Come down to my Old Virginia and try to change or disgrace the history of this great state. Go back home! Let me tell you that I'm no fan of gay marriage or gay parades! Not a fan of abortion either but y'all have that. There's only so much the Southern people can take before they fight back. You don't want us to fight back because unlike libs we don't slap fight we use lead.

Even if it was Bedford Forest Highway that would be just as honorable a name as Jefferson Davis highway. Don't let the Yankee school system lie to you. Do your own research on Forest and you will see how many lies were told about him and that he is a man to be looked up too not down at.

You'd really start shooting over a road's name? Interesting.

Another thing is I can guess from your post that you're pro-life, but you're willing to let that abortions happen so long as no Yankee starts messing with your road names. There seems to be a bit of logical contradiction on several fronts in that stance.

@Confederated,

aware of General Bedford Forrest's history and personally i would have absolutely no problem with is name on anything. A fantastic general with little education who was remarkably successful. a lot of what is taught about him is not particularly true, but i could see how his name on something in this day and age would be inflammatory to some folks

I have to keep my mouth shut every time i see 2 men kissing....you can close your eyes to a street name. and VA not parts of VA but the VIRGINIA is the SOUTH!

Captain Blazer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It seems that every professional historian who has
> written about the cause of the Civil War and
> secession is a "revisionist" to someone. James
> Loewen is in good company with most mainstream
> Civil War historians including Professor Chandra
> Manning. He simply follows the evidence where it
> leads. It's not a coincidence that the Visitor's
> Center at the Manassas battlefield features a
> prominent exhibit on slavery on the right wall as
> you enter. Sometimes the most obvious answer is
> also the correct one. For a war that "wasn't
> about slavery", politicians and soldiers sure
> spoke and wrote a lot about it before, during, and
> after the war.

It really wasnt about slavery in itself, it was about states rights vs federal rights to tell states what they can and cannot do. Slavery was the issue that that battle ended up being fought through.

Had the war not happened slavery would have been gone in the next couple decades anyway with the industrialization of the country and inventions of mechanical farming equipment it would have been cheaper to switch to those.

The rewriting of history is pretending the north was fighting solely to free the slaves or they somehow thought they were equals. Blacks were absolutely discriminated against in the north, allowing them to fight was a pratical decision to increase the size of the army and steal away potential bodies from the south.

The point that the revisionists miss is that it wasnt something that could have only happened over slavery. Any issue could have taken slaverys place if the federal government was trying to tell the south what they could and could not do resulting in the war. Remember at the time people viewed themselves as more of a citizen of their state than of the nation. For instance Robert E Lee was asked to command the Union Army but declined because he could not turn his back on Virginia where he lived and felt the strongest allegiance too.

The point being saying it was a war to free the slaves is missing the entire point of what the war was really about and the federal government felt it was so important to not allow the states to do what they wanted establishing their superiority over them.

Sane Person Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Virtually everything written by
> blankety-blank-blank above is provably wrong. The
> South wanted to continue to use slave labor, and
> attempted to create its own country when the rest
> of the United States -- and WORLD -- viewed
> slavery as evil. There is nothing "reformative"
> about this. "the least of which was actual
> slavery" -- hilarious. False. Uninformed.
> Ignorant.

Exactly.

Sane Person Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Virtually everything written by
> blankety-blank-blank above is provably wrong. The
> South wanted to continue to use slave labor, and
> attempted to create its own country when the rest
> of the United States -- and WORLD -- viewed
> slavery as evil. There is nothing "reformative"
> about this. "the least of which was actual
> slavery" -- hilarious. False. Uninformed.
> Ignorant.

Exactly.

U.S. 1 in Fairfax County is named Richmond Highway. Why not rename it to Richmond Highway in rest of Northern Virginia and keep it Jeff Davis Highway in Stafford County and south.

The root of the issue was, if we allow the Federal government to tell us we can't own slaves despite the fact that as a state we disagree then we would open ourselves up to all kinds of Federal involvement and enforcement in our daily lives. And since the Federals won the war, that's where we are today. Washington doesn't hesitate to involve itself in state's affairs when they need to just leave people the fuck alone. If someone chooses not to wear a seatbelt and dies...that's on them. That's their choice. They know the risks. It shouldn't be against the law. And yes, I do wear one and I did so BEFORE and WITHOUT Federal involvement and laws. Why? Because I'm intelligent enough to know my chances of survival improve in a crash if I wear one. Hell, my '68 Shelby came with only lap belts. I went out the day after I bought it and had 5 point harnesses installed in the front seats.

If, however...the Federal government had merely allowed the Confederacy to properly exist then, everyone gets what they want. Hell, you open up proper trade between the 2 countries and even the two governments get what they want. Nope...you had to come down here and tell us how to live at the point of a gun, didn't you?

Why do kids have to go to school on Friday, which is a state holiday in Virginia? It is Lee-Jackson Day and it used to be combined with MLK Day until 2000 when it was moved to Friday. State government workers are off Friday, so why is there school? Is it only for those who work for the state of Virginia, and not the county?

The Civil War was not fought over slavery.

Four Union States kept slaves during the entire war just like before, including after the Emancipation Proclamation:
-Maryland
-Delaware
-Kentucky
-Missouri

Tell those slaves that the war was about slavery while they watch their brothers and sisters being whipped by their Union masters!

But don't believe me, just ask President Lincoln over 1 year after the beginning of the war:
Lincoln responded in his Letter To Horace Greeley from August 22, 1862, in terms of the limits imposed by his duty as president to save the Union:

If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. . . . I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.

Why remane it? Who's complaining about it besides a few liberal white sissies and a few activist niggers?
Most niggers don't even know who Jefferson Davis was?

Why praise bad people? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe they should change the name. You wouldn't
> want a highway named after Adolph Hitler would
> you? Use some goddamn common sense for god's sake!

How would you remane this route? What about the hundreds of historical markers that line this route and its branches which spell the facts of HISTORY? You sir, seem to be narrow minded at best and a chipped shouldered mind set that examplifies a self uneducated agenda.

55dd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why remane it? Who's complaining about it besides
> a few liberal white sissies and a few activist
> niggers?
> Most niggers don't even know who Jefferson Davis
> was?


This is yet another ridiculous stance by liberal progressives to change this country for the worse. Jefferson Davis is part of our history. The road should not be renamed because one person doesn't like it. Enough of this vocal minority.

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rename it to Trayvon Martin Memorial Highway or
> Dennis Rodman-Kim Jong Un Friendship Trail.

Biggie Smalls

Not about slavery Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Civil War was not fought over slavery.
>
> Four Union States kept slaves during the entire
> war just like before, including after the
> Emancipation Proclamation:
> -Maryland
> -Delaware
> -Kentucky
> -Missouri
>
> Tell those slaves that the war was about slavery
> while they watch their brothers and sisters being
> whipped by their Union masters!
>
> But don't believe me, just ask President Lincoln
> over 1 year after the beginning of the war:
> Lincoln responded in his Letter To Horace Greeley
> from August 22, 1862, in terms of the limits
> imposed by his duty as president to save the
> Union:
>
> If there be those who would not save the Union,
> unless they could at the same time save slavery, I
> do not agree with them. If there be those who
> would not save the Union unless they could at the
> same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with
> them. My paramount object in this struggle is to
> save the Union, and is not either to save or to
> destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without
> freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could
> save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it;
> and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving
> others alone I would also do that. What I do about
> slavery, and the colored race, I do because I
> believe it helps to save the Union; and what I
> forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it
> would help to save the Union. . . . I have here
> stated my purpose according to my view of official
> duty; and I intend no modification of my
> oft-expressed personal wish that all men
> everywhere could be free.


maybe its because I'm a history nut, or a virginian, or maybe its because my roots spread to the beginning of this nation that i feel this way..... but i feel like mr.Parry's comment "I, and I’m sure other Arlingtonians, find it offensive that this vestige of slavery and segregation lives on in the 21st century,” “This honor to Jefferson Davis is especially offensive in South Arlington, where we are proud of the diversity of our community.” may as well be one of the most ignorant statements i have ever heard.... not only was the civil war more than a fight about slavery but politics, rights, and peoples homes..... but on top of that to forget a mans name because of a side he chose and an opinion he held that you find offensive would be like locking one man away because he chose something you didn't agree with... you can't forget one side of american history and immortalize another.... 600 plus thousand lives were lost ...in an act of bravery to uphold what these people believed so dearly in.... instead of trying to forget or erase the civil war americans need to take a lesson from it... we complain about our government and how we dont like it but never act....in 1861 nearly every male in every house hold of his country stood up, poor,or rich,black or white and fought for what they believed was right....today we just sit on our hands and p**s away our rights, each and every man that fought for this country no matter what side those chose

Liberal Logic 35 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Captain Blazer Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It seems that every professional historian who
> has
> > written about the cause of the Civil War and
> > secession is a "revisionist" to someone. James
> > Loewen is in good company with most mainstream
> > Civil War historians including Professor
> Chandra
> > Manning. He simply follows the evidence where
> it
> > leads. It's not a coincidence that the
> Visitor's
> > Center at the Manassas battlefield features a
> > prominent exhibit on slavery on the right wall
> as
> > you enter. Sometimes the most obvious answer
> is
> > also the correct one. For a war that "wasn't
> > about slavery", politicians and soldiers sure
> > spoke and wrote a lot about it before, during,
> and
> > after the war.
>
> It really wasnt about slavery in itself, it was
> about states rights vs federal rights to tell
> states what they can and cannot do. Slavery was
> the issue that that battle ended up being fought
> through.
>
> Had the war not happened slavery would have been
> gone in the next couple decades anyway with the
> industrialization of the country and inventions of
> mechanical farming equipment it would have been
> cheaper to switch to those.
>
> The rewriting of history is pretending the north
> was fighting solely to free the slaves or they
> somehow thought they were equals. Blacks were
> absolutely discriminated against in the north,
> allowing them to fight was a pratical decision to
> increase the size of the army and steal away
> potential bodies from the south.
>
> The point that the revisionists miss is that it
> wasnt something that could have only happened over
> slavery. Any issue could have taken slaverys
> place if the federal government was trying to tell
> the south what they could and could not do
> resulting in the war. Remember at the time people
> viewed themselves as more of a citizen of their
> state than of the nation. For instance Robert E
> Lee was asked to command the Union Army but
> declined because he could not turn his back on
> Virginia where he lived and felt the strongest
> allegiance too.
>
> The point being saying it was a war to free the
> slaves is missing the entire point of what the war
> was really about and the federal government felt
> it was so important to not allow the states to do
> what they wanted establishing their superiority
> over them.


It is you sir who are rewriting history.

Slavery would have collapsed within a few decades? Not with its planned expansion. And slavery involved more than just economics. It involved the racist order of Southern society. In 1861 the worst white man could own the best black man. This fact was not lost on the poorest whites in the South who could at least consider themselves superior to slaves while aspiring to own some. Regardless of if and when slavery would have ended on its own it was not the North that picked this fight and it was not the Northern states that seceded. It was secession on slavery’s behalf that resulted in the Civil War and ultimately the end of slavery.

The Civil War was about slavery as a root cause. The FederalGovernment did not tell the Southern states what to do. The American people simply elected a President exposed to the expansion of slavery.

Yes blacks were discriminated against to some extent in the North but they were not ENSLAVED in the North. They fled to the North. Please consider what enslavement involves.

Show me one shred of evidence that anything other than slavery could or did drive the country in 1861 to Civil War. I have already presented more than enough evidence otherwise on this page.

Yes Robert E. Lee was a loyal Virginian. He was also a slave holder committed to the institution of slavery. (Don’t take my word for it look it up.)

No one is claiming that the North went to war in 1861 specifically to free the slaves. Nor is anyone claiming that some northerners did not harbor some racist attitudes. However as the war progressed both Lincoln and the Union army realized the moral and practical necessity of prosecuting a war that with the Emancipation Proclamation became a war to end slavery.

Please understand, the North's war aims in 1861 does not diminish the role of slavery in secession.

Not about slavery Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Civil War was not fought over slavery.
>
> Four Union States kept slaves during the entire
> war just like before, including after the
> Emancipation Proclamation:
> -Maryland
> -Delaware
> -Kentucky
> -Missouri
>
> Tell those slaves that the war was about slavery
> while they watch their brothers and sisters being
> whipped by their Union masters!
>
> But don't believe me, just ask President Lincoln
> over 1 year after the beginning of the war:
> Lincoln responded in his Letter To Horace Greeley
> from August 22, 1862, in terms of the limits
> imposed by his duty as president to save the
> Union:
>
> If there be those who would not save the Union,
> unless they could at the same time save slavery, I
> do not agree with them. If there be those who
> would not save the Union unless they could at the
> same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with
> them. My paramount object in this struggle is to
> save the Union, and is not either to save or to
> destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without
> freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could
> save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it;
> and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving
> others alone I would also do that. What I do about
> slavery, and the colored race, I do because I
> believe it helps to save the Union; and what I
> forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it
> would help to save the Union. . . . I have here
> stated my purpose according to my view of official
> duty; and I intend no modification of my
> oft-expressed personal wish that all men
> everywhere could be free.

Yes four border states that had to be appeased for strategic reasons to keep them in the Union or the Union would lose the war before it began. These were also four border states that would emancipate their slaves within a matter of years under Lincoln's leadership and the inertia of the Union war effort.

Your quote reflects the burden of Lincoln's official role as President of the United States. Did you consider the end of the quote? "I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free." Lincoln was a moderate abolitionist who would become a committed abolitionist. His moral sense would win out a month later with his issuing of the Emancipation Proclamation that would transform the war into a war to end slavery and to preserve the Union.


Why don't you also quote Lincoln's second inaugural address from March 4, 1865? "Fondly do we hope—fervently do we pray—that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-men’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn by the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said “the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether.”

http://www.wtop.com/120/3542206/Law-requiring-Confederate-street-names-questioned

Evidently, there's an Alexandria law that REQUIRES north-south running roads to be named for Confederate generals.

If people wanna' fight the law...fine. That's your right as an American. But, until the law is changed. Let those filthy Reb names fly high! Because that is the law.

Just like Obummercare, sheeple!

Let's rename it Amiri Baraka Highway in honor of that nigger loudmouth racist who just died.
That should make the liberals happy.

Oh well, get over it. If we changed the name of everyhting people object to because the person did something in the past that's not politcally correct now, we'd have to change the names of almost everything.

George Washington owned slaves. Let's change the name of Washington D.C. to Obama D.C.

Captain Blazer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> It is you sir who are rewriting history.

Says the guy who said blacks were discriminated against "to some extent" in the north. I dont even know where to begin with this absolute garbage you wrote.

> Slavery would have collapsed within a few decades?
> Not with its planned expansion. And slavery
> involved more than just economics. It involved
> the racist order of Southern society. In 1861
> the worst white man could own the best black man.
> This fact was not lost on the poorest whites in
> the South who could at least consider themselves
> superior to slaves while aspiring to own some.
> Regardless of if and when slavery would have ended
> on its own it was not the North that picked this
> fight and it was not the Northern states that
> seceded. It was secession on slavery’s behalf
> that resulted in the Civil War and ultimately the
> end of slavery.

Yes slavery would have died with the development of mechanized farming. Slavery was cheap labor, so are machines. Machines are cheaper than housing and feeding people. Its days were numbered regardless of the war.

I like how you think its nothing but a black and white issue but leave out the fact that free blacks owned slaves in the south.

> The Civil War was about slavery as a root cause.
> The FederalGovernment did not tell the Southern
> states what to do. The American people simply
> elected a President exposed to the expansion of
> slavery.

Yea it was so much about slavery slave states were in the union.

The fact that youre aware that Lincoln only opposed its expansion shows that you know youre being disingenuous about the issues. The opposition of expansion is the federal government telling a state what they can and cannot do. The southern states couldnt care less that the northern ones were slave states nor were they trying to make them one. They did however care that a state wasnt allowed to make a decision for itself.

> Yes blacks were discriminated against to some
> extent in the North but they were not ENSLAVED in
> the North. They fled to the North. Please
> consider what enslavement involves.

To some extent, sorry but its hard to believe youre doing anything other then trying to rewrite history in some politically correct way if you think they only faced "some" discrimination. Northern states had no more respect for them than southern states, northern states just didnt have a need for cheap agricultural labor which is how it began in the first place.

> Show me one shred of evidence that anything other
> than slavery could or did drive the country in
> 1861 to Civil War. I have already presented more
> than enough evidence otherwise on this page.

You havent really prevented anything in all honesty. Youve just made some generalized rants trying to bash the south while ignoring the same discrimination from the north. I guess you think using the black union soldiers as basically human shields or sending them into places where casualties were expected to be the heaviest was only some discrimination as well.

Had the federal government tried to dictate terms to the south in terms of crops or likely even an income tax war would have occurred at some point. There was a great divide between the north and the south at the moment and like what has happened to every nation in history, sooner or later something breaks the camels back and an issue turns into a war for much deeper reasons.

Unless of course youre really going to argue we broke away from the British only because of taxes.

> Yes Robert E. Lee was a loyal Virginian. He was
> also a slave holder committed to the institution
> of slavery. (Don’t take my word for it look it
> up.)

Which again is just you telling half truths. He seriously considered the norths offer and was honored to have been asked. In the end he chose his state over his country like everyone else at the time did.

> No one is claiming that the North went to war in
> 1861 specifically to free the slaves. Nor is
> anyone claiming that some northerners did not
> harbor some racist attitudes. However as the war
> progressed both Lincoln and the Union army
> realized the moral and practical necessity of
> prosecuting a war that with the Emancipation
> Proclamation became a war to end slavery.

I cant get over how you keep saying some northerners with some racist attitudes. There were a few that didnt, everyone else absolutely did which you keep trying to down play exposing your attempt to write the narrative you want.

The freeing of the slaves wasnt a moral one, it was a practical one. Lincoln banned his generals from freeing slaves and replaced one for not following the orders being handed down from his government. Its unclear whether or not he even agreed with the action, but it was the same problem that caused the war in that the general wasnt following orders from the central government of the Union.

His concern was saving the union nothing more. His own letters show that he would leave slavery if he thought it would save the union just as he would get rid of it if he needed to to save the union. In the end getting rid of it was much more practical and helped the war cause so he ended slavery.

It was never a war to end slavery, it was always a war to save the union nothing more. Freeing the slaves gave the north more bodies and the south less while also depriving them of labor they can use to make money to fund the war effort.

> Please understand, the North's war aims in 1861
> does not diminish the role of slavery in
> secession.

The role of slavery was nothing more than conduit of larger deeper issues.

Ever since the north won federal rights have continued to erode states rights with a stronger central government which was what the war was really about.

A war about slavery would have meant the Unions goals from day one were to end slavery nothing more.

Liberal Logic 004 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Captain Blazer Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > It is you sir who are rewriting history.
>
> Says the guy who said blacks were discriminated
> against "to some extent" in the north. I dont
> even know where to begin with this absolute
> garbage you wrote.
>
> > Slavery would have collapsed within a few
> decades?
> > Not with its planned expansion. And slavery
> > involved more than just economics. It involved
> > the racist order of Southern society. In 1861
> > the worst white man could own the best black
> man.
> > This fact was not lost on the poorest whites in
> > the South who could at least consider
> themselves
> > superior to slaves while aspiring to own some.
>
> > Regardless of if and when slavery would have
> ended
> > on its own it was not the North that picked
> this
> > fight and it was not the Northern states that
> > seceded. It was secession on slavery’s
> behalf
> > that resulted in the Civil War and ultimately
> the
> > end of slavery.
>
> Yes slavery would have died with the development
> of mechanized farming. Slavery was cheap labor,
> so are machines. Machines are cheaper than
> housing and feeding people. Its days were
> numbered regardless of the war.
>
> I like how you think its nothing but a black and
> white issue but leave out the fact that free
> blacks owned slaves in the south.
>
> > The Civil War was about slavery as a root cause.
>
> > The FederalGovernment did not tell the Southern
> > states what to do. The American people simply
> > elected a President exposed to the expansion of
> > slavery.
>
> Yea it was so much about slavery slave states were
> in the union.
>
> The fact that youre aware that Lincoln only
> opposed its expansion shows that you know youre
> being disingenuous about the issues. The
> opposition of expansion is the federal government
> telling a state what they can and cannot do. The
> southern states couldnt care less that the
> northern ones were slave states nor were they
> trying to make them one. They did however care
> that a state wasnt allowed to make a decision for
> itself.
>
> > Yes blacks were discriminated against to some
> > extent in the North but they were not ENSLAVED
> in
> > the North. They fled to the North. Please
> > consider what enslavement involves.
>
> To some extent, sorry but its hard to believe
> youre doing anything other then trying to rewrite
> history in some politically correct way if you
> think they only faced "some" discrimination.
> Northern states had no more respect for them than
> southern states, northern states just didnt have a
> need for cheap agricultural labor which is how it
> began in the first place.
>
> > Show me one shred of evidence that anything
> other
> > than slavery could or did drive the country in
> > 1861 to Civil War. I have already presented
> more
> > than enough evidence otherwise on this page.
>
> You havent really prevented anything in all
> honesty. Youve just made some generalized rants
> trying to bash the south while ignoring the same
> discrimination from the north. I guess you think
> using the black union soldiers as basically human
> shields or sending them into places where
> casualties were expected to be the heaviest was
> only some discrimination as well.
>
> Had the federal government tried to dictate terms
> to the south in terms of crops or likely even an
> income tax war would have occurred at some point.
> There was a great divide between the north and the
> south at the moment and like what has happened to
> every nation in history, sooner or later something
> breaks the camels back and an issue turns into a
> war for much deeper reasons.
>
> Unless of course youre really going to argue we
> broke away from the British only because of taxes.
>
>
> > Yes Robert E. Lee was a loyal Virginian. He
> was
> > also a slave holder committed to the
> institution
> > of slavery. (Don’t take my word for it look
> it
> > up.)
>
> Which again is just you telling half truths. He
> seriously considered the norths offer and was
> honored to have been asked. In the end he chose
> his state over his country like everyone else at
> the time did.
>
> > No one is claiming that the North went to war
> in
> > 1861 specifically to free the slaves. Nor is
> > anyone claiming that some northerners did not
> > harbor some racist attitudes. However as the
> war
> > progressed both Lincoln and the Union army
> > realized the moral and practical necessity of
> > prosecuting a war that with the Emancipation
> > Proclamation became a war to end slavery.
>
> I cant get over how you keep saying some
> northerners with some racist attitudes. There
> were a few that didnt, everyone else absolutely
> did which you keep trying to down play exposing
> your attempt to write the narrative you want.
>
> The freeing of the slaves wasnt a moral one, it
> was a practical one. Lincoln banned his generals
> from freeing slaves and replaced one for not
> following the orders being handed down from his
> government. Its unclear whether or not he even
> agreed with the action, but it was the same
> problem that caused the war in that the general
> wasnt following orders from the central government
> of the Union.
>
> His concern was saving the union nothing more.
> His own letters show that he would leave slavery
> if he thought it would save the union just as he
> would get rid of it if he needed to to save the
> union. In the end getting rid of it was much more
> practical and helped the war cause so he ended
> slavery.
>
> It was never a war to end slavery, it was always a
> war to save the union nothing more. Freeing the
> slaves gave the north more bodies and the south
> less while also depriving them of labor they can
> use to make money to fund the war effort.
>
> > Please understand, the North's war aims in 1861
> > does not diminish the role of slavery in
> > secession.
>
> The role of slavery was nothing more than conduit
> of larger deeper issues.
>
> Ever since the north won federal rights have
> continued to erode states rights with a stronger
> central government which was what the war was
> really about.
>
> A war about slavery would have meant the Unions
> goals from day one were to end slavery nothing
> more.


> Says the guy who said blacks were discriminated
> against "to some extent" in the north. I dont
> even know where to begin with this absolute
> garbage you wrote.


Have you read any historians other than the minority that subscribe to your southern apologist point of view? I am attempting to be civil with you and I ask that you give me the same courtesy.

> Yes slavery would have died with the development
> of mechanized farming. Slavery was cheap labor,
> so are machines. Machines are cheaper than
> housing and feeding people. Its days were
> numbered regardless of the war.

No one really knows how long slavery would have lasted had the South one the war of if they had not seceded in the first place. Historians better informed than you or I continue to debate this. However consider that abolishing slavery in the Confederate States would have required a constitutional amendment removing the very cause for which they seceded. Given the racial order of southern society the institution of slavery served a larger purpose than economic production. In fact many in the South by late 1864, early 1865 realized that they would lose the war and that emancipation was a foregone conclusion. Many were afraid of racial retribution. However the postbellum retribution was in fact that of the Ku Klux Klan on innocent freedmen and women. You cannot point simply to the rise of machines and argue that this would have ended slavery as slavery was not a purely economic issue. Slaves cannot also be utilized for other tasks than harvesting crops.

> I like how you think its nothing but a black and
> white issue but leave out the fact that free
> blacks owned slaves in the south.

Yes a small minority of free blacks (2% to be specific) owned slaves in the South. Most of these slaves had been emancipated through manumission (restricted between 1800 and 1830 as free blacks were seen as potential ring leaders of slave rebellions). Most of these black slave owners participated in a practice known as benevolent slavery in which you bought relatives and friends for the purpose of protecting them from the rapes, mutilations, beatings, and murders that were part and parcel of the slave experience in the South. It was Africans who were brought over in bondage for the purpose of slave labor. The fact that a small group of blacks owned slaves does not negate the fact that slavery was overwhelmingly a white on black phenomenon nor does it refute the conclusion of most mainstream historians that secession was caused by the Southern states anger, fear, and defensiveness that directly followed the election of Abraham Lincoln.

> Yea it was so much about slavery slave states were
> in the union.

Yes out of 15 slave states there were 4 slave states on the border between North and South that were slave states that did not secede. This demonstrates only that 1) while slavery (or to be more specific southern paranoia over the threat to slavery) was the cause of secession, emancipation was not the war aim of the Lincoln Administration in 1861 and 2) these states had to be appeased for strategic reasons to keep them in the Union or the Union would lose the war before it began. Two of these border states (Maryland and Missouri) would emancipate their slaves during the Civil War. Slavery in Kentucky and Delaware was ended in 1865 by the Thirteenth Amendment. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation and later Union military victories set the stage for the Thirteenth Amendment and the emancipation of all slaves.

> The fact that youre aware that Lincoln only
> opposed its expansion shows that you know youre
> being disingenuous about the issues. The
> opposition of expansion is the federal government
> telling a state what they can and cannot do. The
> southern states couldnt care less that the
> northern ones were slave states nor were they
> trying to make them one. They did however care
> that a state wasnt allowed to make a decision for
> itself.

No I am not being disingenuous about the issues. Lincoln ran for President advocating the non-expansion of slavery. Abolitionists in the North had as much right to oppose the expansion of slavery and advocate for this politically as the Southern dominated Congress had to impose draconian pro-slavery laws such as The Fugitive Slave Act. Popular sovereignty for the status of new states was attempted in Kansas and what we got was the horror of “bleeding Kansas.” Why should pro-slavery southerners have any more right to dictate the legality of slavery in a new state than anti-slavery northerners? The Southern states cared enough about the opinions of Northern voters to attempt to invalidate a Presidential election through secession.

> To some extent, sorry but its hard to believe
> youre doing anything other then trying to rewrite
> history in some politically correct way if you
> think they only faced "some" discrimination.
> Northern states had no more respect for them than
> southern states, northern states just didnt have a
> need for cheap agricultural labor which is how it
> began in the first place.

I concede that American society in both the North and the South was awash in racial prejudice in the mid 19th century and I am aware of racist atrocities such as the New York draft riots. My point is that you cannot compare the experience of a free black man in the North such as Frederick Douglas to that of a slave in the South. It is disingenuous to argue otherwise. There is a reason why the underground railroad took slaves North and not South. There were areas in the North, specifically the Northeast and communities with large numbers of German immigrants where blacks were integrated into society and were very well treated. Just one of many examples; the owner of the PA farm where the battle of Gettysburg was fought was a freed slave. Some Union soldiers, mainly German immigrants and many North-easterners began the war as abolitionists. However as many other Union soldiers met black people for the first time in their lives they too became abolitionists.

> You havent really prevented anything in all
> honesty. Youve just made some generalized rants
> trying to bash the south while ignoring the same
> discrimination from the north. I guess you think
> using the black union soldiers as basically human
> shields or sending them into places where
> casualties were expected to be the heaviest was
> only some discrimination as well.

The “rants” that I have presented as you call them have been quite specific. I have ceded that there was discrimination and racism in the North but other than the 4 non-seceding border states (whose status I have already addressed) there was not SLAVERY in the North at the time of Civil War. This is a crucial distinction. What on earth is your evidence for your argument that black soldiers were used by the North as human shields. On the contrary, because of the prejudice that I have acknowledged they were not used in combat as extensively as they might have been or should have been. While they were not “human shields” they did run the very real risk of being re-enslaved or summarily executed if taken by Confederate soldiers as prisoners of war. Execution was the fate of those black Union soldiers who were tortured and massacred by the Virginians under Lieutenant Colonel Pogue at the Battle of the Crater in 1864. You can also add the Fort Pillow Massacre to the list.

> Had the federal government tried to dictate terms
> to the south in terms of crops or likely even an
> income tax war would have occurred at some point.
> There was a great divide between the north and the
> south at the moment and like what has happened to
> every nation in history, sooner or later something
> breaks the camels back and an issue turns into a
> war for much deeper reasons.
>
> Unless of course youre really going to argue we
> broke away from the British only because of taxes.

I don't really care why we rebelled against the British as it has no relevance as to why the CSA seceded.

The Federal Government did not try to dictate terms to the South. What terms do you believe they tried to dictate? The American people elected a moderately abolitionist President and the Southern states in their over exuberant defense of slavery (and their slavery induced Southern nationalism) voted to secede. Yes there was a great divide between North and South OVER SLAVERY, not over crops or an income tax or chewing tobacco for that matter.

> Which again is just you telling half truths. He
> seriously considered the norths offer and was
> honored to have been asked. In the end he chose
> his state over his country like everyone else at
> the time did.

No, this is not a half truth. It is all completely true and verifiable via mainstream historians North and South. Yes, Lee was offered the command of the Union Army and he chose to fight for the Confederacy, he chose his state of Virginia. That was his right. How does that make anything that I wrote about him a half truth? Are you arguing that because Lee was offered the command of the Union Army that this makes him not a Virginian or a slave owner?

> I cant get over how you keep saying some
> northerners with some racist attitudes. There
> were a few that didnt, everyone else absolutely
> did which you keep trying to down play exposing
> your attempt to write the narrative you want.

I have already addressed this in an earlier post.

> The freeing of the slaves wasnt a moral one, it
> was a practical one. Lincoln banned his generals
> from freeing slaves and replaced one for not
> following the orders being handed down from his
> government. Its unclear whether or not he even
> agreed with the action, but it was the same
> problem that caused the war in that the general
> wasnt following orders from the central government
> of the Union.

It was a moral one AND a practical one. See the last sentence of Lincoln's August 1862 letter to Horace Greeley, his Second Inaugural Address, and his tireless work on behalf of the Thirteenth Amendment. Lincoln banned his generals from freeing slaves early in the war out of political and strategic necessity (and your statement cedes that there were Yankee abolitionist Generals) so as not lose the border states to the Confederacy. I am afraid I don't understand your last point concerning a General not following orders from the central government being the same problem that caused the Civil War.

> His concern was saving the union nothing more.
> His own letters show that he would leave slavery
> if he thought it would save the union just as he
> would get rid of it if he needed to to save the
> union. In the end getting rid of it was much more
> practical and helped the war cause so he ended
> slavery.

You severely misunderstand or misrepresent Lincoln and his views on slavery. Again I give you the last sentence of Lincoln's August 1862 letter to Horace Greeley, his Second Inaugural Address, his work on behalf of the Thirteenth Amendment. If you don't understand Lincoln's deeply held and well documented views on slavery, well there is not much more I can say to help you.

> It was never a war to end slavery, it was always a
> war to save the union nothing more. Freeing the
> slaves gave the north more bodies and the south
> less while also depriving them of labor they can
> use to make money to fund the war effort.

What began as a war to free the Union became also a war for emancipation with the Emancipation Proclamation of September 1862. The process of transforming serving Union soldiers into abolitionists (most of whom harbored some racists views) had already begun prior to September 1862. Yes Emancipation also gave the North more soldiers and deprived the South of slaves. I would expect nothing less. You may find it interesting to learn that in 1863 Confederate General Patrick Cleburne argued for arming some slaves and offering them a path to emancipation in exchange for military service. He was attacked and denigrated by Confederate military and political leaders in the most extreme terms for even proposing such an idea. While the North armed their freed men, the South's racism prohibited even the consideration of this until the Union Army was at the gates of Richmond in April 1865. Yes I know that the Proclamation did not free slaves in the border states. It did transform the war and it did free slaves in those Confederate states that would soon be conquered by the Union army.

> The role of slavery was nothing more than conduit
> of larger deeper issues.
>
> Ever since the north won federal rights have
> continued to erode states rights with a stronger
> central government which was what the war was
> really about.

The only larger deeper issue was that of Confederate nationalism which was directly linked to slavery. If you want to make the argument that federal rights have continued to erode states rights then go right ahead. I really don't care and it doesn't matter to the question of secession. I am arguing about secession and the South's fight to defend slavery.

> A war about slavery would have meant the Unions
> goals from day one were to end slavery nothing
> more.

Really? Prove it. This is absolute non-sense. War aims can change as do war circumstances. The Southern states voted to secede due to paranoia over the North's opposition to slavery as demonstrated by the election of Abraham Lincoln. The fact that the North initially went to war to restore the Union doesn't matter a hill of beans in relation to why the Southern states seceded.

Why praise bad people? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe they should change the name. You wouldn't
> want a highway named after Adolph Hitler would
> you?


Throwing in the towel on the Redskins thing, eh?

Meant to write in earlier post,slaves CAN also be utilized for other tasks than harvesting crops.

Captain Blazer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Have you read any historians other than the
> minority that subscribe to your southern apologist
> point of view? I am attempting to be civil with
> you and I ask that you give me the same courtesy.

Its not an apologist point of view, I couldnt care less whether or not they were racists it doesnt have any impact on me, I only care about history being portrayed accurately. The facts support that it wasnt a war about slavery regardless of how we keep attempting to twist it into some great battle of morality.

> No one really knows how long slavery would have
> lasted had the South one the war of if they had
> not seceded in the first place. Historians better
> informed than you or I continue to debate this.
> However consider that abolishing slavery in the
> Confederate States would have required a
> constitutional amendment removing the very cause
> for which they seceded. Given the racial order of
> southern society the institution of slavery served
> a larger purpose than economic production. In
> fact many in the South by late 1864, early 1865
> realized that they would lose the war and that
> emancipation was a foregone conclusion. Many were
> afraid of racial retribution. However the
> postbellum retribution was in fact that of the Ku
> Klux Klan on innocent freedmen and women. You
> cannot point simply to the rise of machines and
> argue that this would have ended slavery as
> slavery was not a purely economic issue. Slaves
> cannot also be utilized for other tasks than
> harvesting crops.

In terms of the actual date it would have ended yes thats debatable, in terms of whether or not it would have ended on its own there really is no debate. Machines were fast on their way with the industrial revolution taking place. Machines can work faster and longer than any man hence so many jobs have been lost to them and continue to be lost to them.

Slavery would have been replaced by the cheaper faster machines that you dont have to try and control. Slavery started as a way for cheap labor and would have ended when that source was replaced. Despite what you want us to believe not everyone in the south owned slaves, they were largely concentrated on plantations because they were used for farming.


> Yes a small minority of free blacks (2% to be
> specific) owned slaves in the South. Most of
> these slaves had been emancipated through
> manumission (restricted between 1800 and 1830 as
> free blacks were seen as potential ring leaders of
> slave rebellions). Most of these black slave
> owners participated in a practice known as
> benevolent slavery in which you bought relatives
> and friends for the purpose of protecting them
> from the rapes, mutilations, beatings, and murders
> that were part and parcel of the slave experience
> in the South. It was Africans who were brought
> over in bondage for the purpose of slave labor.
> The fact that a small group of blacks owned slaves
> does not negate the fact that slavery was
> overwhelmingly a white on black phenomenon nor
> does it refute the conclusion of most mainstream
> historians that secession was caused by the
> Southern states anger, fear, and defensiveness
> that directly followed the election of Abraham
> Lincoln.

Thats not the only reason they were bought and you seem to know enough to know that despite what picture youre trying to paint. You also left out that blacks in africa were the ones putting them up for sale which allowed it to start in the first place. Instead of killing rival tribes they used them to profit economically which again points to slavery itself being an economic issue.

The type of discrimination which took place in the north as well was not why slavery started or continued. Without the economic reason for them the south would have been just as happy to banish them from white society and have them out of their lives as the northern whites were. The only difference between the south and the north was Agriculture which required massive amounts of cheap labor hence the slaves. Even the types of crops played a role in it as some crops were more labor intensive than others such as cotton.


> Yes out of 15 slave states there were 4 slave
> states on the border between North and South that
> were slave states that did not secede. This
> demonstrates only that 1) while slavery (or to be
> more specific southern paranoia over the threat to
> slavery) was the cause of secession, emancipation
> was not the war aim of the Lincoln Administration
> in 1861 and 2) these states had to be appeased for
> strategic reasons to keep them in the Union or the
> Union would lose the war before it began. Two of
> these border states (Maryland and Missouri) would
> emancipate their slaves during the Civil War.
> Slavery in Kentucky and Delaware was ended in 1865
> by the Thirteenth Amendment. Lincoln's
> Emancipation Proclamation and later Union military
> victories set the stage for the Thirteenth
> Amendment and the emancipation of all slaves.

Except you seem to miss the point that slaps everyone in the face. The fact that slave states were in the union shows it wasnt a war about slavery. If it was they wouldnt have been allowed or would have been told they had to free them. Those states were fine with a stronger central government or felt more loyal to it while the southern states wanted no part of one.



> No I am not being disingenuous about the issues.
> Lincoln ran for President advocating the
> non-expansion of slavery. Abolitionists in the
> North had as much right to oppose the expansion of
> slavery and advocate for this politically as the
> Southern dominated Congress had to impose
> draconian pro-slavery laws such as The Fugitive
> Slave Act. Popular sovereignty for the status of
> new states was attempted in Kansas and what we got
> was the horror of “bleeding Kansas.” Why
> should pro-slavery southerners have any more right
> to dictate the legality of slavery in a new state
> than anti-slavery northerners? The Southern
> states cared enough about the opinions of Northern
> voters to attempt to invalidate a Presidential
> election through secession.

In parts of the country he made anti-slavery speaches, in other parts he said it should be left alone. He didnt run on ending slavery, thats just flat out false.

Numorous letters written by Lincoln himself show that his ONLY concern was preserving the union. He personally wrote he would keep it if he thought it would save the union just as he would get rid of it if he thought it would save the union. In the end it had to be abolished to save the union in order to prevent that fight in the future and he made the decision to do it for a variety of reasons none of which included anti-slavery campaign promises.


> I concede that American society in both the North
> and the South was awash in racial prejudice in the
> mid 19th century and I am aware of racist
> atrocities such as the New York draft riots. My
> point is that you cannot compare the experience of
> a free black man in the North such as Frederick
> Douglas to that of a slave in the South. It is
> disingenuous to argue otherwise. There is a
> reason why the underground railroad took slaves
> North and not South. There were areas in the
> North, specifically the Northeast and communities
> with large numbers of German immigrants where
> blacks were integrated into society and were very
> well treated. Just one of many examples; the
> owner of the PA farm where the battle of
> Gettysburg was fought was a freed slave. Some
> Union soldiers, mainly German immigrants and many
> North-easterners began the war as abolitionists.
> However as many other Union soldiers met black
> people for the first time in their lives they too
> became abolitionists.

The discrimination between free blacks in the north and south was equal the difference came if they were slaves or not.

The slabes had to be taken north because in the south they would be returned to their owner, not because the north was some utopia for them. It was as simple as they had to get out of the reach of laws to return runaway slaves to their owners.

There were free blacks in the south that relocation was unnecessary for, and lets not kid ourselves that somehow blacks were treated well in the north.


> The “rants” that I have presented as you call
> them have been quite specific. I have ceded that
> there was discrimination and racism in the North
> but other than the 4 non-seceding border states
> (whose status I have already addressed) there was
> not SLAVERY in the North at the time of Civil War.
> This is a crucial distinction. What on earth is
> your evidence for your argument that black
> soldiers were used by the North as human shields.
> On the contrary, because of the prejudice that I
> have acknowledged they were not used in combat as
> extensively as they might have been or should have
> been. While they were not “human shields”
> they did run the very real risk of being
> re-enslaved or summarily executed if taken by
> Confederate soldiers as prisoners of war.
> Execution was the fate of those black Union
> soldiers who were tortured and massacred by the
> Virginians under Lieutenant Colonel Pogue at the
> Battle of the Crater in 1864. You can also add
> the Fort Pillow Massacre to the list.

They have been quite specific which is exactly my point. Youre cherry picking things to make generalizations. When you make generalizations you have to use overall examples. Itd be like saying there are no muslim terrorists because you have a couple friends who arent terrorists. In that specific case youre right, but the overall evidence tells a different story.

Just like how youre trying to use specific examples to make the war about ending slavery but ignoring Lincolns own words, removing a general for freeing slaves, not having that as a goal at the start of the war, and having slave states fighting for the union.

And yes the black union soldiers were in many ways human shields, they were always on the front lines of a formation and sent to the battles or areas that were deemed the hardest to capture or win. They would have been killed by the southern soldiers instead of captured, but that doesnt mean they werent used in a way where their survival was less likely to begin with.



> I don't really care why we rebelled against the
> British as it has no relevance as to why the CSA
> seceded.

It actually has a lot of relevance as the reasons were very similar. A government that decided it had the ultimate control instead of the colonies just as a stronger federal government was taking power away from the states for the civil war.

> The Federal Government did not try to dictate
> terms to the South. What terms do you believe
> they tried to dictate? The American people
> elected a moderately abolitionist President and
> the Southern states in their over exuberant
> defense of slavery (and their slavery induced
> Southern nationalism) voted to secede. Yes there
> was a great divide between North and South OVER
> SLAVERY, not over crops or an income tax or
> chewing tobacco for that matter.

Lincoln was known to have been an advocate for a stronger union government, they saw the writing on the wall of what his terms meant. He was also elected solely from the north which was the straw that broke the camels back of the south feeling like they had no say in anything. They didnt just all of a sudden decide to leave the union, it had been building for a while and that was just the final act that pushed them over the edge.


> No, this is not a half truth. It is all
> completely true and verifiable via mainstream
> historians North and South. Yes, Lee was offered
> the command of the Union Army and he chose to
> fight for the Confederacy, he chose his state of
> Virginia. That was his right. How does that make
> anything that I wrote about him a half truth? Are
> you arguing that because Lee was offered the
> command of the Union Army that this makes him not
> a Virginian or a slave owner?

No youre rewritting of history in your first post about how he wanted to protect slavery was your half truth. He chose his state which at the time was a persons country. The union was basically just an alliance of states at the time until the war changed it. Had he lived in Maryland he would have chosen the Union. Youre trying to draw links to slavery as motivation that arent there.


> I have already addressed this in an earlier post.

Yes you did but it doesnt change the fact you came out of the gate trying to present the north as some color blind society.

> It was a moral one AND a practical one. See the
> last sentence of Lincoln's August 1862 letter to
> Horace Greeley, his Second Inaugural Address, and
> his tireless work on behalf of the Thirteenth
> Amendment. Lincoln banned his generals from
> freeing slaves early in the war out of political
> and strategic necessity (and your statement cedes
> that there were Yankee abolitionist Generals) so
> as not lose the border states to the Confederacy.
> I am afraid I don't understand your last point
> concerning a General not following orders from the
> central government being the same problem that
> caused the Civil War.

It was a practical one first and foremost that wouldnt have been made had it not been practical. Practicality and morality ended up lining up in this instance but moral decisions are made on the basis of morals nothing else. Morals dont change because it isnt practice. My point was he was concerned about saving the union nothing more, saving the union was the driving factor in decisions.

My point about the general was he wasnt removed for freeing the salves, initially he was told to change his order. Once he refused he was removed for not following orders. Lincoln wanted to be the one calling the shots and he was going to do anything necessary to make that happen hence he suspended habeas corpus. Things like that were what the south didnt like about him and feared he would do. Their fears ended up being vindicated by his own actions during the war. You were either going to fall in line with orders from his government or he would find someone who would. It wasnt about right and wrong.


> You severely misunderstand or misrepresent Lincoln
> and his views on slavery. Again I give you the
> last sentence of Lincoln's August 1862 letter to
> Horace Greeley, his Second Inaugural Address, his
> work on behalf of the Thirteenth Amendment. If
> you don't understand Lincoln's deeply held and
> well documented views on slavery, well there is
> not much more I can say to help you.

Theres nothing to misunderstand, they were his own words and are perfectly clear. Saying that he doesnt know what his mindset was or that you somehow have to refute his own words is rewriting history.

His concern was saving the union period.


> What began as a war to free the Union became also
> a war for emancipation with the Emancipation
> Proclamation of September 1862. The process of
> transforming serving Union soldiers into
> abolitionists (most of whom harbored some racists
> views) had already begun prior to September 1862.
> Yes Emancipation also gave the North more soldiers
> and deprived the South of slaves. I would expect
> nothing less. You may find it interesting to
> learn that in 1863 Confederate General Patrick
> Cleburne argued for arming some slaves and
> offering them a path to emancipation in exchange
> for military service. He was attacked and
> denigrated by Confederate military and political
> leaders in the most extreme terms for even
> proposing such an idea. While the North armed
> their freed men, the South's racism prohibited
> even the consideration of this until the Union
> Army was at the gates of Richmond in April 1865.
> Yes I know that the Proclamation did not free
> slaves in the border states. It did transform the
> war and it did free slaves in those Confederate
> states that would soon be conquered by the Union
> army.

Your own words right there show the war isnt about slavery rather its just about gaining control of the south again. Ending slavery in the south helped achieve that goal. Ive addressed this in several posts now and will again at the end but youre ignoring an abundence of evidence and trying to write the narrative you want. History and the facts show a different story even if believing it was about freeing slaves is more heart warming. That was the result not the root cause.


> The only larger deeper issue was that of
> Confederate nationalism which was directly linked
> to slavery. If you want to make the argument that
> federal rights have continued to erode states
> rights then go right ahead. I really don't care
> and it doesn't matter to the question of
> secession. I am arguing about secession and the
> South's fight to defend slavery.

Again which is the result of the cause. It had been building up for decades and Lincolns election was the tipping point while slavery ended up being the issue that personified the causes. As more time passes and history is rewritten more slavery plays a bigger role in the teaching of every generation.

> Really? Prove it. This is absolute non-sense.
> War aims can change as do war circumstances. The
> Southern states voted to secede due to paranoia
> over the North's opposition to slavery as
> demonstrated by the election of Abraham Lincoln.
> The fact that the North initially went to war to
> restore the Union doesn't matter a hill of beans
> in relation to why the Southern states seceded.

Its been proven over and over again and even by your own words. The war didnt start to free slaves, lincoln would have accepted whatever saved the union, salve states fought for the north, the freeing of the slaves didnt even apply to slave states ect.

You cant say a war is about something then ignore that wasnt the goal of the war, it was overlooked countless times, generals were replaced for freeing slaves too early, and it didnt even end slavery as a whole.

Congratulations. You have succeeded in refuting exactly none of my arguments. I'm not going to get into a he said he said over just how well or poorly blacks were treated in the North. But I will remind you they were not enslaved in the North. You have not changed my mind and I clearly will not change yours. We'll let the readers judge. Good night.

Comparing Davis to Hitler is stupid. Comparing the Confederacy to Nazi Germany is stupid. The War of Northern Aggression was over 150 years ago. It's time to move on folks.

Let's rename it Bacon's Highway for Nathaniel Bacon who led a revolt in Va in 1676! That way it can be a Virginian, opposed to what was considered unfair treatment by the government of the time, and it could be construed to reflect the pork of the federal government!

Had nothing to do with slavery but Daniel Snyder could support it since it was over conflicts with the Indians!

A leader who gets no respect, yet you just can’t seem to get rid of him.....
Thats how you start this article? Those few words show that you should not be the one writing this. He has mass amounts of respect.....He has roads named after him in VA, NC, SC, GA, AL, LA, TX, NM, CA, and WA. SMH.

I piss on highways named after white racists like these dudes, in case you southerner forgot, Johnny came marching home but with a sore behind and full of lead, confederates not only lost but these krackers quit, Yankess was going to that butt so these poor dudes, "QUIT". southerners were too dumb to read maps, were as dumb as the slaves they wouldn't allow to read, so i lol when Krackers get emotional at something so stupid, the south is rising again but with asians, blacks, hispanics and the white race dwindles because the "some" white men just can't produce and the white women like blacks, even white married women online searching for this


OBAMA YOU LOSERS, we breeding krackers out of power!

Liberal Logic 004 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Captain Blazer Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Have you read any historians other than the
> > minority that subscribe to your southern
> apologist
> > point of view? I am attempting to be civil
> with
> > you and I ask that you give me the same
> courtesy.
>
> Its not an apologist point of view, I couldnt care
> less whether or not they were racists it doesnt
> have any impact on me, I only care about history
> being portrayed accurately. The facts support
> that it wasnt a war about slavery regardless of
> how we keep attempting to twist it into some great
> battle of morality.
>
> > No one really knows how long slavery would have
> > lasted had the South one the war of if they had
> > not seceded in the first place. Historians
> better
> > informed than you or I continue to debate this.
>
> > However consider that abolishing slavery in the
> > Confederate States would have required a
> > constitutional amendment removing the very
> cause
> > for which they seceded. Given the racial order
> of
> > southern society the institution of slavery
> served
> > a larger purpose than economic production. In
> > fact many in the South by late 1864, early 1865
> > realized that they would lose the war and that
> > emancipation was a foregone conclusion. Many
> were
> > afraid of racial retribution. However the
> > postbellum retribution was in fact that of the
> Ku
> > Klux Klan on innocent freedmen and women. You
> > cannot point simply to the rise of machines and
> > argue that this would have ended slavery as
> > slavery was not a purely economic issue.
> Slaves
> > cannot also be utilized for other tasks than
> > harvesting crops.
>
> In terms of the actual date it would have ended
> yes thats debatable, in terms of whether or not it
> would have ended on its own there really is no
> debate. Machines were fast on their way with the
> industrial revolution taking place. Machines can
> work faster and longer than any man hence so many
> jobs have been lost to them and continue to be
> lost to them.
>
> Slavery would have been replaced by the cheaper
> faster machines that you dont have to try and
> control. Slavery started as a way for cheap labor
> and would have ended when that source was
> replaced. Despite what you want us to believe not
> everyone in the south owned slaves, they were
> largely concentrated on plantations because they
> were used for farming.
>
>
> > Yes a small minority of free blacks (2% to be
> > specific) owned slaves in the South. Most of
> > these slaves had been emancipated through
> > manumission (restricted between 1800 and 1830
> as
> > free blacks were seen as potential ring leaders
> of
> > slave rebellions). Most of these black slave
> > owners participated in a practice known as
> > benevolent slavery in which you bought
> relatives
> > and friends for the purpose of protecting them
> > from the rapes, mutilations, beatings, and
> murders
> > that were part and parcel of the slave
> experience
> > in the South. It was Africans who were brought
> > over in bondage for the purpose of slave labor.
>
> > The fact that a small group of blacks owned
> slaves
> > does not negate the fact that slavery was
> > overwhelmingly a white on black phenomenon nor
> > does it refute the conclusion of most
> mainstream
> > historians that secession was caused by the
> > Southern states anger, fear, and defensiveness
> > that directly followed the election of Abraham
> > Lincoln.
>
> Thats not the only reason they were bought and you
> seem to know enough to know that despite what
> picture youre trying to paint. You also left out
> that blacks in africa were the ones putting them
> up for sale which allowed it to start in the first
> place. Instead of killing rival tribes they used
> them to profit economically which again points to
> slavery itself being an economic issue.
>
> The type of discrimination which took place in the
> north as well was not why slavery started or
> continued. Without the economic reason for them
> the south would have been just as happy to banish
> them from white society and have them out of their
> lives as the northern whites were. The only
> difference between the south and the north was
> Agriculture which required massive amounts of
> cheap labor hence the slaves. Even the types of
> crops played a role in it as some crops were more
> labor intensive than others such as cotton.
>
>
> > Yes out of 15 slave states there were 4 slave
> > states on the border between North and South
> that
> > were slave states that did not secede. This
> > demonstrates only that 1) while slavery (or to
> be
> > more specific southern paranoia over the threat
> to
> > slavery) was the cause of secession,
> emancipation
> > was not the war aim of the Lincoln
> Administration
> > in 1861 and 2) these states had to be appeased
> for
> > strategic reasons to keep them in the Union or
> the
> > Union would lose the war before it began. Two
> of
> > these border states (Maryland and Missouri)
> would
> > emancipate their slaves during the Civil War.
> > Slavery in Kentucky and Delaware was ended in
> 1865
> > by the Thirteenth Amendment. Lincoln's
> > Emancipation Proclamation and later Union
> military
> > victories set the stage for the Thirteenth
> > Amendment and the emancipation of all slaves.
>
> Except you seem to miss the point that slaps
> everyone in the face. The fact that slave states
> were in the union shows it wasnt a war about
> slavery. If it was they wouldnt have been allowed
> or would have been told they had to free them.
> Those states were fine with a stronger central
> government or felt more loyal to it while the
> southern states wanted no part of one.
>
>
>
> > No I am not being disingenuous about the issues.
>
> > Lincoln ran for President advocating the
> > non-expansion of slavery. Abolitionists in the
> > North had as much right to oppose the expansion
> of
> > slavery and advocate for this politically as
> the
> > Southern dominated Congress had to impose
> > draconian pro-slavery laws such as The Fugitive
> > Slave Act. Popular sovereignty for the status
> of
> > new states was attempted in Kansas and what we
> got
> > was the horror of “bleeding Kansas.” Why
> > should pro-slavery southerners have any more
> right
> > to dictate the legality of slavery in a new
> state
> > than anti-slavery northerners? The Southern
> > states cared enough about the opinions of
> Northern
> > voters to attempt to invalidate a Presidential
> > election through secession.
>
> In parts of the country he made anti-slavery
> speaches, in other parts he said it should be left
> alone. He didnt run on ending slavery, thats just
> flat out false.
>
> Numorous letters written by Lincoln himself show
> that his ONLY concern was preserving the union.
> He personally wrote he would keep it if he thought
> it would save the union just as he would get rid
> of it if he thought it would save the union. In
> the end it had to be abolished to save the union
> in order to prevent that fight in the future and
> he made the decision to do it for a variety of
> reasons none of which included anti-slavery
> campaign promises.
>
>
> > I concede that American society in both the
> North
> > and the South was awash in racial prejudice in
> the
> > mid 19th century and I am aware of racist
> > atrocities such as the New York draft riots.
> My
> > point is that you cannot compare the experience
> of
> > a free black man in the North such as Frederick
> > Douglas to that of a slave in the South. It is
> > disingenuous to argue otherwise. There is a
> > reason why the underground railroad took slaves
> > North and not South. There were areas in the
> > North, specifically the Northeast and
> communities
> > with large numbers of German immigrants where
> > blacks were integrated into society and were
> very
> > well treated. Just one of many examples; the
> > owner of the PA farm where the battle of
> > Gettysburg was fought was a freed slave. Some
> > Union soldiers, mainly German immigrants and
> many
> > North-easterners began the war as abolitionists.
>
> > However as many other Union soldiers met black
> > people for the first time in their lives they
> too
> > became abolitionists.
>
> The discrimination between free blacks in the
> north and south was equal the difference came if
> they were slaves or not.
>
> The slabes had to be taken north because in the
> south they would be returned to their owner, not
> because the north was some utopia for them. It
> was as simple as they had to get out of the reach
> of laws to return runaway slaves to their owners.
>
>
> There were free blacks in the south that
> relocation was unnecessary for, and lets not kid
> ourselves that somehow blacks were treated well in
> the north.
>
>
> > The “rants” that I have presented as you
> call
> > them have been quite specific. I have ceded
> that
> > there was discrimination and racism in the
> North
> > but other than the 4 non-seceding border states
> > (whose status I have already addressed) there
> was
> > not SLAVERY in the North at the time of Civil
> War.
> > This is a crucial distinction. What on earth
> is
> > your evidence for your argument that black
> > soldiers were used by the North as human
> shields.
> > On the contrary, because of the prejudice that
> I
> > have acknowledged they were not used in combat
> as
> > extensively as they might have been or should
> have
> > been. While they were not “human shields”
> > they did run the very real risk of being
> > re-enslaved or summarily executed if taken by
> > Confederate soldiers as prisoners of war.
> > Execution was the fate of those black Union
> > soldiers who were tortured and massacred by the
> > Virginians under Lieutenant Colonel Pogue at
> the
> > Battle of the Crater in 1864. You can also add
> > the Fort Pillow Massacre to the list.
>
> They have been quite specific which is exactly my
> point. Youre cherry picking things to make
> generalizations. When you make generalizations
> you have to use overall examples. Itd be like
> saying there are no muslim terrorists because you
> have a couple friends who arent terrorists. In
> that specific case youre right, but the overall
> evidence tells a different story.
>
> Just like how youre trying to use specific
> examples to make the war about ending slavery but
> ignoring Lincolns own words, removing a general
> for freeing slaves, not having that as a goal at
> the start of the war, and having slave states
> fighting for the union.
>
> And yes the black union soldiers were in many ways
> human shields, they were always on the front lines
> of a formation and sent to the battles or areas
> that were deemed the hardest to capture or win.
> They would have been killed by the southern
> soldiers instead of captured, but that doesnt mean
> they werent used in a way where their survival was
> less likely to begin with.
>
>
>
> > I don't really care why we rebelled against the
> > British as it has no relevance as to why the
> CSA
> > seceded.
>
> It actually has a lot of relevance as the reasons
> were very similar. A government that decided it
> had the ultimate control instead of the colonies
> just as a stronger federal government was taking
> power away from the states for the civil war.
>
> > The Federal Government did not try to dictate
> > terms to the South. What terms do you believe
> > they tried to dictate? The American people
> > elected a moderately abolitionist President and
> > the Southern states in their over exuberant
> > defense of slavery (and their slavery induced
> > Southern nationalism) voted to secede. Yes
> there
> > was a great divide between North and South OVER
> > SLAVERY, not over crops or an income tax or
> > chewing tobacco for that matter.
>
> Lincoln was known to have been an advocate for a
> stronger union government, they saw the writing on
> the wall of what his terms meant. He was also
> elected solely from the north which was the straw
> that broke the camels back of the south feeling
> like they had no say in anything. They didnt just
> all of a sudden decide to leave the union, it had
> been building for a while and that was just the
> final act that pushed them over the edge.
>
>
> > No, this is not a half truth. It is all
> > completely true and verifiable via mainstream
> > historians North and South. Yes, Lee was
> offered
> > the command of the Union Army and he chose to
> > fight for the Confederacy, he chose his state
> of
> > Virginia. That was his right. How does that
> make
> > anything that I wrote about him a half truth?
> Are
> > you arguing that because Lee was offered the
> > command of the Union Army that this makes him
> not
> > a Virginian or a slave owner?
>
> No youre rewritting of history in your first post
> about how he wanted to protect slavery was your
> half truth. He chose his state which at the time
> was a persons country. The union was basically
> just an alliance of states at the time until the
> war changed it. Had he lived in Maryland he would
> have chosen the Union. Youre trying to draw links
> to slavery as motivation that arent there.
>
>
> > I have already addressed this in an earlier
> post.
>
> Yes you did but it doesnt change the fact you came
> out of the gate trying to present the north as
> some color blind society.
>
> > It was a moral one AND a practical one. See
> the
> > last sentence of Lincoln's August 1862 letter
> to
> > Horace Greeley, his Second Inaugural Address,
> and
> > his tireless work on behalf of the Thirteenth
> > Amendment. Lincoln banned his generals from
> > freeing slaves early in the war out of
> political
> > and strategic necessity (and your statement
> cedes
> > that there were Yankee abolitionist Generals)
> so
> > as not lose the border states to the
> Confederacy.
> > I am afraid I don't understand your last point
> > concerning a General not following orders from
> the
> > central government being the same problem that
> > caused the Civil War.
>
> It was a practical one first and foremost that
> wouldnt have been made had it not been practical.
> Practicality and morality ended up lining up in
> this instance but moral decisions are made on the
> basis of morals nothing else. Morals dont change
> because it isnt practice. My point was he was
> concerned about saving the union nothing more,
> saving the union was the driving factor in
> decisions.
>
> My point about the general was he wasnt removed
> for freeing the salves, initially he was told to
> change his order. Once he refused he was removed
> for not following orders. Lincoln wanted to be
> the one calling the shots and he was going to do
> anything necessary to make that happen hence he
> suspended habeas corpus. Things like that were
> what the south didnt like about him and feared he
> would do. Their fears ended up being vindicated
> by his own actions during the war. You were
> either going to fall in line with orders from his
> government or he would find someone who would. It
> wasnt about right and wrong.
>
>
> > You severely misunderstand or misrepresent
> Lincoln
> > and his views on slavery. Again I give you the
> > last sentence of Lincoln's August 1862 letter
> to
> > Horace Greeley, his Second Inaugural Address,
> his
> > work on behalf of the Thirteenth Amendment. If
> > you don't understand Lincoln's deeply held and
> > well documented views on slavery, well there is
> > not much more I can say to help you.
>
> Theres nothing to misunderstand, they were his own
> words and are perfectly clear. Saying that he
> doesnt know what his mindset was or that you
> somehow have to refute his own words is rewriting
> history.
>
> His concern was saving the union period.
>
>
> > What began as a war to free the Union became
> also
> > a war for emancipation with the Emancipation
> > Proclamation of September 1862. The process of
> > transforming serving Union soldiers into
> > abolitionists (most of whom harbored some
> racists
> > views) had already begun prior to September
> 1862.
> > Yes Emancipation also gave the North more
> soldiers
> > and deprived the South of slaves. I would
> expect
> > nothing less. You may find it interesting to
> > learn that in 1863 Confederate General Patrick
> > Cleburne argued for arming some slaves and
> > offering them a path to emancipation in
> exchange
> > for military service. He was attacked and
> > denigrated by Confederate military and
> political
> > leaders in the most extreme terms for even
> > proposing such an idea. While the North armed
> > their freed men, the South's racism prohibited
> > even the consideration of this until the Union
> > Army was at the gates of Richmond in April 1865.
>
> > Yes I know that the Proclamation did not free
> > slaves in the border states. It did transform
> the
> > war and it did free slaves in those Confederate
> > states that would soon be conquered by the
> Union
> > army.
>
> Your own words right there show the war isnt about
> slavery rather its just about gaining control of
> the south again. Ending slavery in the south
> helped achieve that goal. Ive addressed this in
> several posts now and will again at the end but
> youre ignoring an abundence of evidence and trying
> to write the narrative you want. History and the
> facts show a different story even if believing it
> was about freeing slaves is more heart warming.
> That was the result not the root cause.
>
>
> > The only larger deeper issue was that of
> > Confederate nationalism which was directly
> linked
> > to slavery. If you want to make the argument
> that
> > federal rights have continued to erode states
> > rights then go right ahead. I really don't
> care
> > and it doesn't matter to the question of
> > secession. I am arguing about secession and
> the
> > South's fight to defend slavery.
>
> Again which is the result of the cause. It had
> been building up for decades and Lincolns election
> was the tipping point while slavery ended up being
> the issue that personified the causes. As more
> time passes and history is rewritten more slavery
> plays a bigger role in the teaching of every
> generation.
>
> > Really? Prove it. This is absolute non-sense.
>
> > War aims can change as do war circumstances.
> The
> > Southern states voted to secede due to paranoia
> > over the North's opposition to slavery as
> > demonstrated by the election of Abraham Lincoln.
>
> > The fact that the North initially went to war
> to
> > restore the Union doesn't matter a hill of
> beans
> > in relation to why the Southern states seceded.
>
> Its been proven over and over again and even by
> your own words. The war didnt start to free
> slaves, lincoln would have accepted whatever saved
> the union, salve states fought for the north, the
> freeing of the slaves didnt even apply to slave
> states ect.
>
> You cant say a war is about something then ignore
> that wasnt the goal of the war, it was overlooked

> countless times, generals were replaced for
> freeing slaves too early, and it didnt even end
> slavery as a whole.


You must not be aware FU people have the attention span of a gnat and will never read a post this long.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/15/2014 10:35AM by Stabitha.

This is honestly the stupidest thing I've ever heard. As a native Virginian for over 30 years, I'm not now nor have I ever been offended with Jefferson Davis Highway...and I lived on it for a good chunk of my life. It's called history. And as an American I'm sure you know that parts of our history are kinda shady...This is just a ploy for you to "stir the pot" and create an issure where there is none.

Oh really??
http://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths-about-why-the-south-seceded/2011/01/03/ABHr6jD_story.html

Will Mosby Woods be next?

Here's a similiar topic...


Law Requiring Confederate Street Names Questioned
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2014/01/14/us/ap-us-confederate-streets.html?ref=robertelee&_r=0

McLEAN, Va. — Alexandria, a Northern Virginia city steeped in Civil War history, is considering repeal of an old law requiring certain new streets to be named for Confederate generals.

City Councilman Justin Wilson introduced legislation for Tuesday night's council meeting to do away with a 1963 law requiring that any new "streets running in a generally north-south direction shall, insofar as possible, bear the names of confederate military leaders."

Wilson's bill also would eliminate a requirement that new east-west streets be named for persons or places prominent in American history.

Wilson said he wants to remove a series of anachronistic laws, and his proposal also would repeal a ban on "lewd cohabitation" and laws regulating a bygone fad of "rebound tumbling," a form of trampolining.

As a practical matter, there is little likelihood that the city will be naming new streets any time soon. The city, inside Washington's Capital Beltway and separated from the nation's capital by the Potomac River, is essentially built out. In fact, the street grid of the city's Old Town section dates to Colonial times.

Wilson said that symbolically, he believes it's a good thing to strip from the code a provision that in some ways glorifies the Confederacy. But he made clear he is not proposing that the city change existing street names, some of which honor Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee, Confederate President Jefferson Davis and Supreme Court Justice Roger Taney, whose Dred Scott decision denied citizenship and constitutional protections to blacks before the Civil War.

"I think we struggle in the city with our history," Wilson said.

Alexandria was occupied by Union troops for most of the Civil War and, like the rest of Virginia, has a history of slavery and segregation. It is now a liberal bastion in Virginia — Barack Obama won 71 percent of the vote in 2012.

On historic Duke Street in Old Town, the building that was once home to the nation's largest domestic slave trading company is now home to the Northern Virginia Urban League, which operates the Freedom House Museum there to tell the story of the slave trade.

Cynthia Dinkins, president and CEO of the Northern Virginia Urban League, said she personally supports any legislation that keeps the city from unduly honoring the Confederacy. Still, while she is wary of glorifying the Confederacy, she said care must be taken remember unpleasant parts of American history.

"Some of my challenge in dealing with Freedom House is that people don't want to remember" that part of our history, she said.

Wilson said he has not heard of any opposition to his bill so far.

Officers with the Sons of Confederate Veterans, which has occasionally protested when it sees efforts to scrub recognition of Confederate leaders from the public square, did not return emails and phone calls seeking comment Tuesday.

A public hearing on Wilson's legislation is scheduled for Jan. 25.

Screaming liberal here.

My answer:

Uh, No! Don't be stupid.