Off-Topic :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Was it really the "Civil War" or was it the "War of Northern Agression"?
Posted by:
History Recorder
()
Date: July 08, 2020 06:16PM
Checkmate, Lincolnites! Examining the Lost Cause views that Abraham Lincoln was a tyrant, that nobody in the North cared about slavery or abolitionism, and that the warmongering Union invaded the South without provocation or just cause during the Civil War. Featuring some special guest appearances from your favorite kooky historical characters!
Checkmate, Linconites!: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lac-8tTuyhs
Checkmate, Linconites!: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lac-8tTuyhs
Re: Was it really the "Civil War" or was it the "War of Northern Agression"?
Posted by:
xXmalcolmXx
()
Date: July 08, 2020 06:21PM
I mean, it's true, but Malcolm X never said that. I can't find any reference to that quote which is over a week old
Re: Was it really the "Civil War" or was it the "War of Northern Agression"?
Posted by:
Malcolm XX
()
Date: July 08, 2020 06:25PM
If the war was about slavery, why did the South fire the first shot?
If the war was about slavery, why did slave states such KY, MD, MO, and DE side with the Union?
If the war was about slavery, why did slave states such KY, MD, MO, and DE side with the Union?
Re: Was it really the "Civil War" or was it the "War of Northern Agression"?
Posted by:
One thing you forget
()
Date: July 08, 2020 06:32PM
History Recorder Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Checkmate, Lincolnites! Examining the Lost Cause
> views that Abraham Lincoln was a tyrant, that
> nobody in the North cared about slavery or
> abolitionism, and that the warmongering Union
> invaded the South without provocation or just
> cause during the Civil War. Featuring some special
> guest appearances from your favorite kooky
> historical characters!
>
> Checkmate, Linconites!:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lac-8tTuyhs
It wasn't about slavery in the North until the South made it about. Slavery was loud and clear in their succession documents.
Here are a few excerpts, you really cannot read them and say the south wasn't fighting for slavery.
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states
Georgia: "A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party."
Mississipi:"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization."
South Carolina:"The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue."
Virgina:"The people of Virginia, in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in Convention on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, having declared that the powers granted under the said Constitution were derived from the people of the United States, and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression; and the Federal Government, having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States."
-------------------------------------------------------
> Checkmate, Lincolnites! Examining the Lost Cause
> views that Abraham Lincoln was a tyrant, that
> nobody in the North cared about slavery or
> abolitionism, and that the warmongering Union
> invaded the South without provocation or just
> cause during the Civil War. Featuring some special
> guest appearances from your favorite kooky
> historical characters!
>
> Checkmate, Linconites!:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lac-8tTuyhs
It wasn't about slavery in the North until the South made it about. Slavery was loud and clear in their succession documents.
Here are a few excerpts, you really cannot read them and say the south wasn't fighting for slavery.
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states
Georgia: "A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party."
Mississipi:"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization."
South Carolina:"The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue."
Virgina:"The people of Virginia, in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in Convention on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, having declared that the powers granted under the said Constitution were derived from the people of the United States, and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression; and the Federal Government, having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States."
Re: Was it really the "Civil War" or was it the "War of Northern Agression"?
Posted by:
Reading Comprehension
()
Date: July 08, 2020 06:39PM
One thing you forget Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It wasn't about slavery in the North until the
> South made it about. Slavery was loud and clear in
> their succession documents.
>
> Here are a few excerpts, you really cannot read
> them and say the south wasn't fighting for
> slavery.
> Virgina:"The people of Virginia, in their
> ratification of the Constitution of the United
> States of America, adopted by them in Convention
> on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of
> our Lord one thousand seven hundred and
> eighty-eight, having declared that the powers
> granted under the said Constitution were derived
> from the people of the United States, and might be
> resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to
> their injury and oppression; and the Federal
> Government, having perverted said powers, not only
> to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to
> the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding
> States."
Note that the reference is not to slavery per se, but rather a description of the group of states in the Confederacy as being "Southern Slaveholding States".
-------------------------------------------------------
> It wasn't about slavery in the North until the
> South made it about. Slavery was loud and clear in
> their succession documents.
>
> Here are a few excerpts, you really cannot read
> them and say the south wasn't fighting for
> slavery.
> Virgina:"The people of Virginia, in their
> ratification of the Constitution of the United
> States of America, adopted by them in Convention
> on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of
> our Lord one thousand seven hundred and
> eighty-eight, having declared that the powers
> granted under the said Constitution were derived
> from the people of the United States, and might be
> resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to
> their injury and oppression; and the Federal
> Government, having perverted said powers, not only
> to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to
> the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding
> States."
Note that the reference is not to slavery per se, but rather a description of the group of states in the Confederacy as being "Southern Slaveholding States".
Re: Was it really the "Civil War" or was it the "War of Northern Agression"?
Posted by:
Lincoln was a racist
()
Date: July 08, 2020 06:42PM
Your boy Lincoln was a racist. Eventually history may even come around to the fact that he failed by allowing the war to start in the first place.
Re: Was it really the "Civil War" or was it the "War of Northern Agression"?
Posted by:
Are you that stupid?
()
Date: July 08, 2020 06:44PM
Reading Comprehension Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One thing you forget Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It wasn't about slavery in the North until the
> > South made it about. Slavery was loud and clear
> in
> > their succession documents.
> >
> > Here are a few excerpts, you really cannot read
> > them and say the south wasn't fighting for
> > slavery.
>
> > Virgina:"The people of Virginia, in their
> > ratification of the Constitution of the United
> > States of America, adopted by them in
> Convention
> > on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of
> > our Lord one thousand seven hundred and
> > eighty-eight, having declared that the powers
> > granted under the said Constitution were
> derived
> > from the people of the United States, and might
> be
> > resumed whensoever the same should be perverted
> to
> > their injury and oppression; and the Federal
> > Government, having perverted said powers, not
> only
> > to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to
> > the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding
> > States."
>
> Note that the reference is not to slavery per se,
> but rather a description of the group of states in
> the Confederacy as being "Southern Slaveholding
> States".
The fact they referred to themselves as 'Southern Slaveholding States' and not just 'Southern States' shows exactly how important the evil institution of slavery was to them.
-------------------------------------------------------
> One thing you forget Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It wasn't about slavery in the North until the
> > South made it about. Slavery was loud and clear
> in
> > their succession documents.
> >
> > Here are a few excerpts, you really cannot read
> > them and say the south wasn't fighting for
> > slavery.
>
> > Virgina:"The people of Virginia, in their
> > ratification of the Constitution of the United
> > States of America, adopted by them in
> Convention
> > on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of
> > our Lord one thousand seven hundred and
> > eighty-eight, having declared that the powers
> > granted under the said Constitution were
> derived
> > from the people of the United States, and might
> be
> > resumed whensoever the same should be perverted
> to
> > their injury and oppression; and the Federal
> > Government, having perverted said powers, not
> only
> > to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to
> > the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding
> > States."
>
> Note that the reference is not to slavery per se,
> but rather a description of the group of states in
> the Confederacy as being "Southern Slaveholding
> States".
The fact they referred to themselves as 'Southern Slaveholding States' and not just 'Southern States' shows exactly how important the evil institution of slavery was to them.
Re: Was it really the "Civil War" or was it the "War of Northern Agression"?
Posted by:
ah, the ad hominem has started
()
Date: July 08, 2020 06:50PM
Are you that stupid? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Reading Comprehension Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > One thing you forget Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > It wasn't about slavery in the North until
> the
> > > South made it about. Slavery was loud and
> clear
> > in
> > > their succession documents.
> > >
> > > Here are a few excerpts, you really cannot
> read
> > > them and say the south wasn't fighting for
> > > slavery.
> >
> > > Virgina:"The people of Virginia, in their
> > > ratification of the Constitution of the
> United
> > > States of America, adopted by them in
> > Convention
> > > on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year
> of
> > > our Lord one thousand seven hundred and
> > > eighty-eight, having declared that the powers
> > > granted under the said Constitution were
> > derived
> > > from the people of the United States, and
> might
> > be
> > > resumed whensoever the same should be
> perverted
> > to
> > > their injury and oppression; and the Federal
> > > Government, having perverted said powers, not
> > only
> > > to the injury of the people of Virginia, but
> to
> > > the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding
> > > States."
> >
> > Note that the reference is not to slavery per
> se,
> > but rather a description of the group of states
> in
> > the Confederacy as being "Southern Slaveholding
> > States".
>
> The fact they referred to themselves as 'Southern
> Slaveholding States' and not just 'Southern
> States' shows exactly how important the evil
> institution of slavery was to them.
Wow it didn't take you long to give up and devolve to ad hominem argument. That is not why the phrase was chosen and I think you know it. There were Southern States and there were Slaveholding States. Delaware was a slave state. Now you can continue with the name-calling but I'm out. Bye.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Reading Comprehension Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > One thing you forget Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > It wasn't about slavery in the North until
> the
> > > South made it about. Slavery was loud and
> clear
> > in
> > > their succession documents.
> > >
> > > Here are a few excerpts, you really cannot
> read
> > > them and say the south wasn't fighting for
> > > slavery.
> >
> > > Virgina:"The people of Virginia, in their
> > > ratification of the Constitution of the
> United
> > > States of America, adopted by them in
> > Convention
> > > on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year
> of
> > > our Lord one thousand seven hundred and
> > > eighty-eight, having declared that the powers
> > > granted under the said Constitution were
> > derived
> > > from the people of the United States, and
> might
> > be
> > > resumed whensoever the same should be
> perverted
> > to
> > > their injury and oppression; and the Federal
> > > Government, having perverted said powers, not
> > only
> > > to the injury of the people of Virginia, but
> to
> > > the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding
> > > States."
> >
> > Note that the reference is not to slavery per
> se,
> > but rather a description of the group of states
> in
> > the Confederacy as being "Southern Slaveholding
> > States".
>
> The fact they referred to themselves as 'Southern
> Slaveholding States' and not just 'Southern
> States' shows exactly how important the evil
> institution of slavery was to them.
Wow it didn't take you long to give up and devolve to ad hominem argument. That is not why the phrase was chosen and I think you know it. There were Southern States and there were Slaveholding States. Delaware was a slave state. Now you can continue with the name-calling but I'm out. Bye.
Re: Was it really the "Civil War" or was it the "War of Northern Agression"?
Posted by:
Stephens, Vice-Pres of Dixie
()
Date: July 08, 2020 07:06PM
Re: Was it really the "Civil War" or was it the "War of Northern Agression"?
Posted by:
I said something right
()
Date: July 08, 2020 07:31PM
ah, the ad hominem has started Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Are you that stupid? Wrote:
> >
> > The fact they referred to themselves as
> 'Southern
> > Slaveholding States' and not just 'Southern
> > States' shows exactly how important the evil
> > institution of slavery was to them.
>
> Wow it didn't take you long to give up and devolve
> to ad hominem argument. That is not why the phrase
> was chosen and I think you know it. There were
> Southern States and there were Slaveholding
> States. Delaware was a slave state. Now you can
> continue with the name-calling but I'm out. Bye.
Of course, this person won't read this but a fallacy like this has to be called out.
This person claims they used 'Southern Slaveholding State' so it would be known they weren't referring to the Northern Slaveholding State of Delaware.
The problem with this is that "Southern States", doesn't refer to Delaware either. Why did they insert 'slaveholding' if they didn't need too?
The heinous institution of Slavery was a very important issue of succession. No handwaving or nonsense can change that.
One other thing, it is only an 'ad hominem', if the insult is used in lieu of an argument. Perhaps this person should bone up their rhetoric skills while boning up on History.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Are you that stupid? Wrote:
> >
> > The fact they referred to themselves as
> 'Southern
> > Slaveholding States' and not just 'Southern
> > States' shows exactly how important the evil
> > institution of slavery was to them.
>
> Wow it didn't take you long to give up and devolve
> to ad hominem argument. That is not why the phrase
> was chosen and I think you know it. There were
> Southern States and there were Slaveholding
> States. Delaware was a slave state. Now you can
> continue with the name-calling but I'm out. Bye.
Of course, this person won't read this but a fallacy like this has to be called out.
This person claims they used 'Southern Slaveholding State' so it would be known they weren't referring to the Northern Slaveholding State of Delaware.
The problem with this is that "Southern States", doesn't refer to Delaware either. Why did they insert 'slaveholding' if they didn't need too?
The heinous institution of Slavery was a very important issue of succession. No handwaving or nonsense can change that.
One other thing, it is only an 'ad hominem', if the insult is used in lieu of an argument. Perhaps this person should bone up their rhetoric skills while boning up on History.
Re: Was it really the "Civil War" or was it the "War of Northern Agression"?
Posted by:
Truth is truth
()
Date: July 08, 2020 07:51PM
The south lost
Got their asses kicked
The southern flag should be white because they are losers
Got their asses kicked
The southern flag should be white because they are losers
Re: Was it really the "Civil War" or was it the "War of Northern Agression"?
Posted by:
Uncle Ralph
()
Date: July 08, 2020 08:03PM
Democrats telling all who would listen turning niggers loose isn't a good idea is the only thing they got right in the last hundred fifty years. Baltimore, Chicago. Minneapolis and Detroit should be illustrative of the wisdom of their words.
Re: Was it really the "Civil War" or was it the "War of Northern Agression"?
Posted by:
Cranky
()
Date: July 08, 2020 09:15PM
The northern Democrats were ready to end the war, allow slavery to continue, and just move on. That would have happened if they had won the presidency. Fortunately, McClellan lost. The Dems have never been and are not now the friend of the black man.
The delegates at the 1864 Democratic National Convention adopted proposals by former Congressman Clement Vallandigham and Congressman Fernando Wood for a cease-fire and a negotiated settlement with the Confederacy to end the American Civil War.[1] However, the delegates also chose War Democrat George McClellan as their Presidential nominee.[1] In his fight for the Democratic nomination, McClellan beat out New York Governor Horatio Seymour (who would become the Democratic presidential nominee himself just four years later) and former Connecticut Governor Thomas Seymour--both of whom ran as peace candidates.[1] Once former Treasury Secretary James Guthrie withdrew from consideration, the Democratic vice presidential nomination went to Ohio Congressman George Pendleton.[1]
The delegates at the 1864 Democratic National Convention adopted proposals by former Congressman Clement Vallandigham and Congressman Fernando Wood for a cease-fire and a negotiated settlement with the Confederacy to end the American Civil War.[1] However, the delegates also chose War Democrat George McClellan as their Presidential nominee.[1] In his fight for the Democratic nomination, McClellan beat out New York Governor Horatio Seymour (who would become the Democratic presidential nominee himself just four years later) and former Connecticut Governor Thomas Seymour--both of whom ran as peace candidates.[1] Once former Treasury Secretary James Guthrie withdrew from consideration, the Democratic vice presidential nomination went to Ohio Congressman George Pendleton.[1]
Re: Was it really the "Civil War" or was it the "War of Northern Agression"?
Posted by:
Strom Thurmond
()
Date: July 08, 2020 09:41PM
Cranky Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The northern Democrats were ready to end the Civil
> war, allow slavery to continue, and just move on.
> That would have happened if they had won the
> presidency. Fortunately, McClellan lost. The Dems
> have never been and are not now the friend of the
> black man.
>
Except for the thing in the 1960s when the Democrats threw the racist southern Democrats under the bus to embrace civil rights. What did the racist southern Democrats do? They left the Democratic party. Some remained independent and some became Republicans.
So in fact, your 19th-century references are a bit outdated.
I can cut and paste too!
-------------------------------------------------------
> The northern Democrats were ready to end the Civil
> war, allow slavery to continue, and just move on.
> That would have happened if they had won the
> presidency. Fortunately, McClellan lost. The Dems
> have never been and are not now the friend of the
> black man.
>
Except for the thing in the 1960s when the Democrats threw the racist southern Democrats under the bus to embrace civil rights. What did the racist southern Democrats do? They left the Democratic party. Some remained independent and some became Republicans.
So in fact, your 19th-century references are a bit outdated.
I can cut and paste too!
Re: Was it really the "Civil War" or was it the "War of Northern Agression"?
Posted by:
'War of Southern Liberation'
()
Date: July 08, 2020 09:57PM
As 99 % of Southerners did NOT benefit from slavery, but rather suffered as a result of the practice, it was an act of mercy to replace their repressive government with one that was more merciful and enlightened.
Re: Was it really the "Civil War" or was it the "War of Northern Agression"?
Posted by:
Can anyone confirm this?
()
Date: July 08, 2020 10:06PM
Meade is pro-confederate and hates Lincoln. Does anyone know if his parents were Democrats before civil rights? He seems to have the same sensibilities as the former southern Democrats.
Re: Was it really the "Civil War" or was it the "War of Northern Agression"?
Posted by:
Of course there is more
()
Date: July 08, 2020 10:10PM
'War of Southern Liberation' Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As 99 % of Southerners did NOT benefit from
> slavery, but rather suffered as a result of the
> practice, it was an act of mercy to replace their
> repressive government with one that was more
> merciful and enlightened.
The draft that started in 1862 didn't hurt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_Army
-------------------------------------------------------
> As 99 % of Southerners did NOT benefit from
> slavery, but rather suffered as a result of the
> practice, it was an act of mercy to replace their
> repressive government with one that was more
> merciful and enlightened.
The draft that started in 1862 didn't hurt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_Army
Re: Was it really the "Civil War" or was it the "War of Northern Agression"?
Posted by:
why did they wait?
()
Date: July 08, 2020 10:31PM
If the south's fight was truly about 'defending state's rights' they would have started their war immediately after the Constitutional Convention in 1787.
Re: Was it really the "Civil War" or was it the "War of Northern Agression"?
Posted by:
General Meade
()
Date: July 08, 2020 10:42PM
...
Attachments:
Attachments:
Re: Was it really the "Civil War" or was it the "War of Northern Agression"?
Posted by:
om the real world
()
Date: July 09, 2020 12:27AM
why did they wait? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If the south's fight was truly about 'defending
> state's rights' they would have started their war
> immediately after the Constitutional Convention in
> 1787.
They didn't want to leave until they realized that Slavery was going to be abolished in the United States. They tacked on the 'State's rights' narrative when they really meant 'State's right to hold slaves'.
'
'
-------------------------------------------------------
> If the south's fight was truly about 'defending
> state's rights' they would have started their war
> immediately after the Constitutional Convention in
> 1787.
They didn't want to leave until they realized that Slavery was going to be abolished in the United States. They tacked on the 'State's rights' narrative when they really meant 'State's right to hold slaves'.
'
'