Va. Gov. FORCED to say slavery was cause of the Civil War

Originally posted by Schizoptimistics
The way I see it,

If we can't have confederacy month, then we shouldn't have black history month. Dr King believed in a world of equality, not a world where you constantly have to worry about the naacp having an issue with things not going their way.

The NAACP has nothing to do with Black History month. This is one of the most absolutely ignorant statements I've seen on ATS...and that's saying something.

Judging from some of the comments here, I am thinking this has less to do with an accurate accounting of history or Southern pride but simple racism.

Bringing up the old bugaboo, Hitler. Despite his public works and the creation of the Volkswagon, we don't see Germany celebrating Hitler's birthday. Actually, Germany does a damn good job of facing up to that part of it's past by educating its children to the concentration camps, bussing kids to visit the camps and quickly putting a lid on rabble rousers and racist implicators like Glenn Beck, Michael savage, etc. America has not done this. Those who want to celebrate the confederacy might first support the teaching of what slavery was like, then the contradictions such as the fugitive slave law that allowed slave bounty hunters to go to non-slave states to kidnap african-americans both legally free as well as escaped slaves. The core element of the Confederacy was the forced bondage of humans...which, unfortunately for apologists of history, can never be separated from the "legacy" of the South.

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by Schizoptimistics
The way I see it,

If we can't have confederacy month, then we shouldn't have black history month. Dr King believed in a world of equality, not a world where you constantly have to worry about the naacp having an issue with things not going their way.

The NAACP has nothing to do with Black History month. This is one of the most absolutely ignorant statements I've seen on ATS...and that's saying something.

Judging from some of the comments here, I am thinking this has less to do with an accurate accounting of history or Southern pride but simple racism.

I know. I actually made 2 seperate points, whereas you mixed them into one and went on the offensive. Maybe you should read a little slower. Here I'll break it down for you.

1.If we can't have confederacy month, then we shouldn't have black history month.

and here's the next one

2.Dr King believed in a world of equality, not a world where you constantly have to worry about the naacp having an issue with things not going their way.

And I might be a lot of things, but racist is not one of them. I'd appreciate you not taking any more passive aggressive stabs whenever you don't understand something or read it wrong.

reply to post by DoomsdayRex


Mr Rex, I'd first like to start this by saying I always appreciate your posts. Sometimes funny, more often than not thought provoking.

I think he had a point though. But I also think that all of these "History Months" should be done away with.

I will say that I have no problem with celebrating and learning history. But to single each out in a month is kind of silly to me.

I feel this way because I went through 12 years of learning about black people just in Feb. The rest of the year, they seemed to have very little importance. If they came up, it got glossed over because "we already/will go over this during black history month". I did not learn about great black leaders/innovators/ people in the context of history. Just that they were black and good so there.

I'd also like to state that I am not in this debate for racial reason, but if we have a month for one, it's only fair to have a month for all. Yea, I'm a native Texan and have a "dog in the race", but I will not let that cloud my opinion.

Originally posted by havanaja
Actually, Germany does a damn good job of facing up to that part of it's past by educating its children to the concentration camps, bussing kids to visit the camps and quickly putting a lid on rabble rousers and racist implicators like Glenn Beck, Michael savage, etc. America has not done this.

While I don't agree with your comments on Glenn Beck (Michael Savage, however...), you are spot on about everything else. Those claiming to be proud of Southern history and wanting a proper accounting of it seem very eager to ignore a very significant part of it. Part of being proud of your heritage, culture and history is acknowledging all of it, the good and the ill, not pretending those ills never existed.

Originally posted by OrphenFire

Originally posted by iamsupermanv2
I'll look for the video of this but did any one else catch Roland Martin during the 2 o'clock hour of "Rick's List" state that the people on the Confederate side were terrorists?

That made me angry. I'll be clear here: not a fan of slavery! but I think the South exercised their rights as Americans.

Did they seriously say that the Confederates were terrorists??

Next thing we know they will be saying that the Revolutionaries in Colonial America were terrorists...

At least since 07/20/2001 the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has been doing EXECTLY that. FEMA has been training policemen and firefigters that our nations Founding Fathers were "the original TERRORISTS".

See YouTube video entitled, "Founding Fathers Were Terrorists"

www.youtube.com...

Excerpts of the commentary associated with this video are as follows:

The United States Government, through FEMA, is teaching Law Enforcement personnel and Firefighters that America's Founding Fathers were Terrorists and that modern-day Bible believing Christians and Patriots are the "real" enemy!

This Video is from an Oklahoma meeting where a FEMA representative is brainwashing his audience of local police and firefighters into believing that the founding fathers were "terrorists", and demonizing Christians and patriots.

What is it that those in charge of FEMA fear about Godly Christian patriots that would make them go so far as to lie about America's Founding Fathers?

Constitutional scholar and Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story said, "One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms, and by substituting a regular army in the stead of a resort to the Militia. The friends of a free Government cannot be too watchful, to overcome the dangerous tendency of the public mind to sacrifice to mere private convenience this powerful check upon the designs of ambitious men."

Another true American patriot, George Mason, said, "Why should we not provide against the danger of having our militia, our real and natural strength, destroyed? The general government ought, at the same time, to have some such power. But we need not give them power to abolish our militia.... They may effect the destruction of the militia, by rendering the service odious to the people themselves, by harassing them from one end of the continent to the other, and by keeping them under martial law."

Founding Father Thomas Jefferson said, "Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks."

This is why the global dictatorial elitists in charge of FEMA are afraid of freedom loving Godly Christian patriots who defend the U.S. Constitution. The global elitists behind FEMA's policies know that in order to subdue America they must first brainwash the general public by demonizing those who adhere to the U.S. Constitution. If these global tyrants can convince a significant number of Americans to disarm their fellow citizens they can then move in "by substituting a regular army in the stead of a resort to the Militia" and bring the people of our once free nation "under martial law" to implement their New World Order dictatorship!

AMERICA's CHRISTIAN HERITAGE
wordofgod.0catch.com...

QUOTES ON LIBERTY & THE 2nd AMENDMENT
wordofgod.0catch.com...

reply to post by Bobbox1980


That was exactly what we learned in college, that Fort Sumter started the war.

Lincoln had no intention of going to war. He did not want war. Even after it started he kept pushing negotiations. He even offered the CSA a constitutional amendment that would have prevented slavery from ever being abolished in the South. Even after issuing the Emancipation Proclamation, the CSA was given a year before it would take effect and Lincoln said if the CSA would come back into the Union, the proclamation would be null and void.

The war had many factors.

People who fought in it fought for different reasons.

General Lee and General Grant were not fighting for slavery.

On the other hand, Radical Republicans in the North, which were different than the moderate Republicans lead by Lincoln, were staunch abolitionists.

At the end of all it, had the war been about slavery, Lincoln would have never offered a constitutional amendment protecting slavery to the South. He would have not offered to nullify the Emancipation Proclamation.

The ultimate cause of the war was paranoia, suspicion, and stubborness.

The CSA should not have seceded when they did. Lincoln had no intention of outlawing slavery in the South. He only wanted it forbidden in the territories and the new western states.

The Southern states should have stayed and fought in the houses of Congress.

Even when the war ended though, Lincoln called for reconciliation. He wanted the south reunited as quickly as possible. He had no desire for military occupation.

A week after the war ended Lincoln was assassinated and soon after, the Radical Republicans took over Congress. The result was a five year military occupation of the South and reconciliation died.


[edit on 8/4/10 by MikeboydUS]

Originally posted by Schizoptimistics
I know. I actually made 2 seperate points, whereas you mixed them into one and went on the offensive...

I think you are equivocating.

Being in the same paragraph, with nothing but a period separating them, they appear to be related thoughts. In fact, there is no other way to read them as anything other than related thoughts. Given their wording, they appear to be related thoughts.

Can you tell us why there shouldn't be one if there cannot be the other?

This whole situation reminds the of that old Simpson's episode:

www.sling.com...

I guess it's just more comfotable to believe that the US was involved in at least one war that was not about economics or resources. Of course, it would be nearly impossible to have a war by telling potential recruits they are risking life and limb to make some wealthy people wealthier. You have to convince them that they are fighting for something actually worth dying for, like freedom or liberty or God or something.

Originally posted by iamsupermanv2
I will say that I have no problem with celebrating and learning history. But to single each out in a month is kind of silly to me.

I feel this way because I went through 12 years of learning about black people just in Feb. The rest of the year, they seemed to have very little importance...

I agree with you here. Instead of one month, it should be integrated into the rest of the cirriculum and in context.

Originally posted by iamsupermanv2
I'd also like to state that I am not in this debate for racial reason...

Which is why I was very careful to say "some" comments, not all comments.

Um, because I believe everything should be equal. And I mean everything. Anything that can have 2 sides, should be equal all the way around.

And, I seperated those for you, that should be enough. If you still don't understand and want to keep goading me about it, that's your problem.

reply to post by DoomsdayRex


Indeed you did say some. I will make sure to be more careful reading.

I'll admit I glossed over that word. Apologies.

Originally posted by Schizoptimistics
Um, because I believe everything should be equal. And I mean everything. Anything that can have 2 sides, should be equal all the way around.

How is Black History Month equal to Confederate History Month? What two sides do they represent?

Originally posted by iamsupermanv2
Indeed you did say some. I will make sure to be more careful reading.

I'll admit I glossed over that word. Apologies.

Thank you, but no apology is necessary. It happens to the best of us.

Originally posted by Schizoptimistics
If the Civil War was fought over slavery - Guess what!? It's over! Gone! Move along please.

So we should just pretend that slavery either didn't exist, or wasn't such a big deal?

For that matter, why have Confederate History Month at all? And why do I see all these "rebel" flags?

To the Southern states: The Civil War is over! Gone! You lost. Move along please.

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by Schizoptimistics
Um, because I believe everything should be equal. And I mean everything. Anything that can have 2 sides, should be equal all the way around.

How is Black History Month equal to Confederate History Month? What two sides do they represent?

Shhh! You're not supposed to point out inconvenient things like that.

Originally posted by mothershipzeta

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by Schizoptimistics
Um, because I believe everything should be equal. And I mean everything. Anything that can have 2 sides, should be equal all the way around.

How is Black History Month equal to Confederate History Month? What two sides do they represent?

Shhh! You're not supposed to point out inconvenient things like that.

That would be kind of silly considering there were thousands of black slave owners. ( Mostly in Louisiana, around New Orleans)

I guess they could have black confederate history month?

I should of also mentioned the thousands and thousands of african americans who served in the Confederate militaries.

edit to add



[edit on 8/4/10 by MikeboydUS]

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
reply to post by Bobbox1980

 

At the end of all it, had the war been about slavery, Lincoln would have never offered a constitutional amendment protecting slavery to the South. He would have not offered to nullify the Emancipation Proclamation.

The ultimate cause of the war was paranoia, suspicion, and stubborness.

The CSA should not have seceded when they did. Lincoln had no intention of outlawing slavery in the South. He only wanted it forbidden in the territories and the new western states.

The Southern states should have stayed and fought in the houses of Congress.

So the Civil War wasn't about slavery...except for the fact that the primary reason the seceding states wanted out because they thought Lincoln was going to outlaw slavery.

Got it.

OMG really?

I won't entertain your apparent need to argue anymore.

The only point I was trying to make, is that if you're human, you should be equal. Everybody should be entitled to the same things, NO SPECIAL TREATMENT.

That's it, that's my point.

reply to post by mothershipzeta


Yep, it was their paranoia. They could not be reasoned with for much of the war. They withdrew out of paranoia, then launched an attack on Fort Sumter months later.

Lincoln, still didn't want to fight. The Union didn't respond to Fort Sumter until weeks later after failed peace talks.

[edit on 8/4/10 by MikeboydUS]