The Fairfax County History Commission produced this Civil War video with the help of Fairfax County's Channel 16 in the late 1990's with the goal of telling Fairfax County's Civil War story. Mission accomplished! During the early years of the Civil War, Fairfax County found itself at a crossroads between both the Union and Confederate armies because of its strategic location. Today, because of this geographical centrality, most of the region's most famous Civil War sites are within easy driving distance from the heart of Fairfax County. Together, they collectively tell the story of America's journey through one of the most trying times in it's relatively young history.

Civil War my ass. It's called the War of Northern Aggression.
Damned Yankees can't get nothin right.

JSM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Civil War my ass. It's called the War of Northern
> Aggression.
> Damned Yankees can't get nothin right.


Not sure if joking.

CF Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JSM Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Civil War my ass. It's called the War of
> Northern
> > Aggression.
> > Damned Yankees can't get nothin right.
>
>
> Not sure if joking.

Not joking at all.

Not bad, but an obvious copycat of the Ken Burns series. And naturally,it has the usual Union propaganda and neglects the most important aspects of the War. I give it a C.

Jefferson Davis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not bad, but an obvious copycat of the Ken Burns
> series. And naturally,it has the usual Union
> propaganda and neglects the most important aspects
> of the War. I give it a C.


Very few people actually understand what the civil war was actually about. Sadly even schools dumb it down to just be about slavery for the most part

not many know Wrote:
> Very few people actually understand what the civil
> war was actually about. Sadly even schools dumb
> it down to just be about slavery for the most part

Its not really dumbing down as much as fitting a political correctness. Many historical facts are changed if it doesnt fit the liberal agenda.

king of nothing Wrote:

> Its not really dumbing down as much as fitting a
> political correctness. Many historical facts are
> changed if it doesnt fit the liberal agenda.


Very true, its probably more of that then dumbing down. Just like when we talk about slaves no one wants to mention that "Native Americans" or Indians had slaves too and some tribes had that long after the civil war or that it was other Africans selling the slaves into slavery in the first place. But I guess were all supposed to think the civil war was about slavery

And no one wants to acknowledge that Africans sold, at a very large profit, other Africans into slavery. Or that the Northern states were mostly responsible for the slave trade.

Jeff Davis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And no one wants to acknowledge that Africans
> sold, at a very large profit, other Africans into
> slavery. Or that the Northern states were mostly
> responsible for the slave trade.


Its not pc to admit that without their own people doing it slavery could have never happened. Its easier to just blame southern whites entirely then say they started a war over it

not many know Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Its not pc to admit that without their own people
> doing it slavery could have never happened. Its
> easier to just blame southern whites entirely then
> say they started a war over it

Too bad the northern colonies outlawed slavery, even before the outbreak of the Revolutionary War. Another ignorant white in denial.

Jeff Davis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And no one wants to acknowledge that Africans
> sold, at a very large profit, other Africans into
> slavery. Or that the Northern states were mostly
> responsible for the slave trade.

If you listen to current history lessons they will tell you to believe a handful of white guys with black powder muskets marched right into Africa and captured thousands of blacks without any help whatsoever from the natives. Also left out is the fact free blacks also held other blacks as slaves.

Idiots Wrote:

> Too bad the northern colonies outlawed slavery,
> even before the outbreak of the Revolutionary War.
> Another ignorant white in denial.


The only ignorance is on your part. Just because they outlawed it doesnt mean they didnt have it, and theres evidence it continued long after the outlaw date. The point was they were also responsible for it and other countries used it as well. The spanish and portuguese were also very responsible for bringing slaves to what is now known as the US. Trying to pretend that slavery wasnt in the north for some moral reason is also a fallacy. It had to do with the type of work that was there. They didnt need the large manpower the south did on the farms. Obviously in todays society salvery is morally reprehensible but it wasnt back then and all the blame has been put on white southerners which couldnt be further from the truth. Theres nothing wrong with being historically accurate. Keep trying to rewrite what actually happened though.

Too bad these ignorant pc unionists don't realize that huge financial northern empires were built on the slave trade. In fact Brown University was founded by a slave trading family (the Browns of Rhode Island).And at the time of the Revolution ,slavery was perfectly legal in 12 of 13 colonies, and slave trading was legal in all 13. Ignorant pc pukes.

Jeff Davis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Too bad these ignorant pc unionists don't realize
> that huge financial northern empires were built on
> the slave trade. In fact Brown University was
> founded by a slave trading family (the Browns of
> Rhode Island).And at the time of the Revolution
> ,slavery was perfectly legal in 12 of 13 colonies,
> and slave trading was legal in all 13. Ignorant pc
> pukes.


I guess they think that only women and children were taking care of the houses ect during the revolutionary war too. It really is a disservice to not be historically accurate

They are off in a PC fantasy land.

Must be nice to be able to rewrite history

The slave states are not culpable here. Instituional slavery is definitely something that's totally acceptable morally, therefore the southern states are blameless.

They call it the Civil War up north and the War Between the States in the south. As they say in the south "there was nothing civil about it".



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/10/2011 10:14PM by BigK.

herpa derp Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The slave states are not culpable here.
> Instituional slavery is definitely something
> that's totally acceptable morally, therefore the
> southern states are blameless.

Isnt history more fun when we just change it and ignore facts to suit a personal agenda?

I guess everyone else is blameless

BigK Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They call it the Civil War up north and the War
> Between the States in the south. As they say in
> the south "there was nothing civil about it".

Damn Northerners, comin down here trying to unchain my niggers. How unrefined, uncivil, and un-Christian of them. They're chattel, not people.

Typical Southerner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BigK Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > They call it the Civil War up north and the War
> > Between the States in the south. As they say
> in
> > the south "there was nothing civil about it".
>
> Damn Northerners, comin down here trying to
> unchain my niggers. How unrefined, uncivil, and
> un-Christian of them. They're chattel, not people.

Im not sure how hard it is to explain but if you think the civil war was about that you should really go read some history books

not many know Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Isnt history more fun when we just change it and
> ignore facts to suit a personal agenda?
>
> I guess everyone else is blameless

No I think you're just a dumb shit. Slavery, no matter what way you spin it, was the root cause of the war. The south seceeded for the fact that they disliked the result of the elections (typical childish conservatives) because the general feeling was that Lincoln would threaten the south's economy (he did).

But do please tell me what you think is the 'truth'.

herpa derpa doo Wrote:

> No I think you're just a dumb shit. Slavery, no
> matter what way you spin it, was the root cause of
> the war. The south seceeded for the fact that they
> disliked the result of the elections (typical
> childish conservatives) because the general
> feeling was that Lincoln would threaten the
> south's economy (he did).
>
> But do please tell me what you think is the
> 'truth'.


Slavery wasnt the root cause of the war. It was A cause not THE cause. The economic differences between the north and south was a large factor. States rights vs federal rights was the predominate issue, slavery just so happens to be an easy example of that. If you were so smart you would know at the time the states were viewed as more of an alliance than a country as a whole like we do now. States came first then country back then. The north and south were just simply on very different paths (really still are to some extent) and the south didnt want the north trying to dictate what they had to do. Seven states had already seceded by the time Lincon was elected. But that doesnt fit in your picture so you want to ignore that too.

Its funny how Im supposed to be the dumb one when the most intelligent thing you can think of is calling me a dumb shit.

I just adore the fact that Northerners were the overwhelming majority of slave traders, happily bought the products of slave labor (tobacco, sugar, coffee, and of course, cotton)openly said they did not give two shits about the slaves, elected a white-supremacist President(Lincoln), then rewrite history as if they were the beacon of liberty. No sale buckwheat, the war was fought over the right of secession, slavery had nothing to do with it.

Regardless, once it was apparent Lincoln was ahead that's when S. Carolina seceeded. It's funny how you accuse me of rewriting histroy, when you seem to be unable to comprehend (or choose to ignore) the root cause was in fact, slavery. It doesn't take an idiot (perhaps even a dumb shit) to realize that the "state's rights" that many refer to is the right to own slaves. Root cause, period. If there was no slavery, there would've been no secession, no war, and no occupation. How much more clear does it have to be? You can call me a revisionist all day long, but trivial (yes, trivial) things like 18th century blacks owning slaves (tens maybe hundreds), does not magically make the widespread praticing of slavery (hundreds of thousands) in the 19th acceptable. Which therefore makes any attempt to discontinue this pratice completely legitimate.

And I only call you a dumb shit because you truly are acting like one. Stop using state's right's, economic freedom, right to self-determination, etc., as a euphemism for the right to own people. Its very transparent and you're fooling no one.

Nope. The Southern States had seceded and formed their own independent country and slavery was legal in the Confederate States of America just as it was in the United States of Merica (Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, and Delaware). The war was fought because the USA lawlessly invaded the CSA.

Jeff Davis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I just adore the fact that Northerners were the
> overwhelming majority of slave traders, happily
> bought the products of slave labor (tobacco,
> sugar, coffee, and of course, cotton)openly said
> they did not give two shits about the slaves,
> elected a white-supremacist President(Lincoln),
> then rewrite history as if they were the beacon of
> liberty. No sale buckwheat, the war was fought
> over the right of secession, slavery had nothing
> to do with it.

Are you suggesting northern states should've placed an embargo on southern goods?

I think I see the problem here. What you say is being a revisionist, I say is reading comprehension. Everything was related to the economic value of slave owning. Very simple concept. Stop ignoring it and then accusing others of doing the same.

Slavery had absolutely nothing to do with the war. The Southern States seceded just as their forefathers had seceded from Great Britain. Maybe you should read the Declaration of Independce. Ya know, the part that says, about government "it is the right of the people to alter or ABOLISH it"

herpa dep Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Regardless, once it was apparent Lincoln was ahead
> that's when S. Carolina seceeded. It's funny how
> you accuse me of rewriting histroy, when you seem
> to be unable to comprehend (or choose to ignore)
> the root cause was in fact, slavery. It doesn't
> take an idiot (perhaps even a dumb shit) to
> realize that the "state's rights" that many refer
> to is the right to own slaves. Root cause, period.
> If there was no slavery, there would've been no
> secession, no war, and no occupation. How much
> more clear does it have to be? You can call me a
> revisionist all day long, but trivial (yes,
> trivial) things like 18th century blacks owning
> slaves (tens maybe hundreds), does not magically
> make the widespread praticing of slavery (hundreds
> of thousands) in the 19th acceptable. Which
> therefore makes any attempt to discontinue this
> pratice completely legitimate.
>
> And I only call you a dumb shit because you truly
> are acting like one. Stop using state's right's,
> economic freedom, right to self-determination,
> etc., as a euphemism for the right to own people.
> Its very transparent and you're fooling no one.


All youve done here is prove that you dont know what your talking about. Had slavery not been around the war still would have happened as the federal government would have tried to impose other restrictions on the south that would have brought up the EXACT same issues. Slavery was just one of the issues that had to do with states rights. Its the one that gets the most attention but was not the only one.

There were more then tens of blacks who owned blacks. Almost all free blacks did where they could. Slavery in the north also went on long after it was outlawed. Theres evidence that it was happening in Jersey until the 1860s. The point wasnt that people should be able to have slaves. The point is that southern whites get ALL the blame for slavery when it was happening in the north, by other blacks, blacks were selling blacks, the spanish and portugues brought many of the slaves over, indians owned them, there were slaves in south america/cuba/canada too. EVERYONE was responsible for it happening, trying to just blame it on southern whites is just simply not true.

Also trying to pretend that the civil war was about the north taking the moral high ground is a fallacy. The north and south were growing apart more and more as states viewed themselves as their own nations almost who took priority over the federal government. The war was going to happen with or without slavery, slavery probably just sped up the process. It was a contributing cause to the war not THE cause of the war like your trying to make it out to be. The civil war was a necessary evil to unite the country though. Without it our government would look radically different today as the federal government was weak at the time and had to find a way to strengthen itself so that people put that first and the state second

Here's another video you Civil War buffs might find interesting...

Mosby's Combat Operation in Fairfax County, Virginia
An Independent Film

One and a half years into the American Civil War, Captain John Singleton Mosby was given a small group of rangers from his former commander, General JEB Stuart to conduct independent partisan operations into Northern Virginia. These rangers would eventually become the 43rd Battalion, Virginia Cavalry and would grow from nine to around 2,000 men.

Mosby's mission was to attack and harass as many Union outposts, camps, and supply points he could find operating in Northern Virginia. By successfully raiding behind enemy lines Mosby would keep large numbers of Union soldiers guarding the city of Washington, thus denying federal forces in the field from fighting against General Robert E. Lee and the Confederate army. Mosby is considered by military historians as the most successful leader of such partisan guerilla activities.

"Mosby's Confederacy" consisted of four counties in Northern Virginia situated to the west of Washington, with the closest to the Union Capital being Fairfax County. Six local historians take you to forty-two locations in Fairfax County where "Mosby's Rangers" conducted combat operations and describe in vivid detail what happened at each. Through on-site video, hundreds of historical photos, and an accompanying map, this documentary presents a unique visual history of the Civil War.

"An effective and detailed presentation!" Hugh Keen and Horace Mewborn, co-authors of 43rd Battalion, Virginia Cavalry, Mosby's Command.
Mosby's Combat Operations in Fairfax County, Virginia was produced by HMS Productions, Inc. consisting of Don Hakenson, Charles V. Mauro and Steve Sherman. The narrators are Eric Buckland, Tom Evans, Don Hakenson, Charles V. Mauro, Stevan Meserve and Mayo Stuntz. Directed by Charles V. Mauro. Soundtrack composed by David Rubenstein. Post production, at BLM Productions in Fairfax County, Virginia, by Bert Morgan.

For further information visit hmshistory.com, or contact Chuck Mauro at cmauro10@aol.com or Don Hakenson at Dhakenson@cox.net

and I've added this to help in your discussion. It's a "History of the American Civil War 1861 - 1865 Map"

As the US economy circles the toilet bowl, get ready for Civil War II.

It will make Civil War I look like a stroll in the park.