What an idiot! Virginia Governor Notes 'Major Omission' on Slavery in Dixie Month Dec

#76
#76
Was Slavery bad? Yes
Was Slavery in this country limited to Blacks? No
Was the war fought to free the slaves?partially

The slavery issue was the "feel good" reason the North needed to fight against the South. If Lincoln would have said "we are going to fight the South, because we want to control the export of cotton and other materials by the southern states", then it would have been less popular and harder to convince people to fight for that cause. Throw in the plight of the Slaves, make it seem that you are doing it for their benefit, and you have the moral edge.

Regardless, the North had not much issue with Slavery, up to 1856. Indentured Servants(white slaves) were brought into this country for 200 years before the Civil War, by rich Northern Aristocrats. There continued to be Southern sympathy in the North during the war, because some knew the sole purpose behind the war was not to free the Slaves.

All in all, both sides fought for what they believed was an honorable cause.
Were they misled? Probably by both sides

But no one should diminish the sacrifices made on both sides.
 
Last edited:
#77
#77
CountVolcula said:
Was Slavery bad? Yes
Was Slavery in this country limited to Blacks? No
Was the war fought to free the slaves?partially

The slavery issue was the "feel good" reason the North needed to fight against the South. If Lincoln would have said "we are going to fight the South, because we want to control the export of cotton and other materials by the southern states", then it would have been less popular and harder to convince people to fight for that cause. Throw in the plight of the Slaves, make it seem that you are doing it for their benefit, and you have the moral edge.

Regardless, the North had not much issue with Slavery, up to 1856. Indentured Servants(white slaves) were brought into this country for 200 years before the Civil War, by rich Northern Aristocrats. There continued to be Southern sympathy in the North during the war, because some knew the sole purpose behind the war was not to free the Slaves.

All in all, both sides fought for what they believed was an honorable cause.
Were they misled? Probably by both sides

But no one should diminish the sacrifices made on both sides.
Click to expand...

Nice post. As I wrote, the Emancipation Proclamation was not signed until the war had gone on for 2 years. World opinion was on the side of the Confederacy. The Emancipation Proclamation was the last ace in the whole to turn world support to the union AND TO MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE BRITISH TO OFFICIALLY SUPPORT THE CONFEDERACY.

Of course silly facts like this are of no consequence to some (Vols520)
 
Last edited:
#78
#78
Vols520 said:
people like me who realize the concept o risk reward?

Yeah he has gotten a lot of positive pub from this, he clearly made the right choice.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

No, people like you that will not take a stand on a an issue regardless of the consequences.

If most Americans thought like you there would be no America today.

I bet you think George Washington was a traitor also.
The British crown sure did.

You never responded to my question, if the colonist has lost the American revolution would they have been on the "wrong side of history"?
Or what if the Axis won WWII? Who would have been "the wrong side" then?

I will answer for you: Yes, the rebel colonist would be the wrong side as would the Allies.
Those that win wars get to write the history books and determine who is "on the wrong side".
 
Last edited:
#79
#79
I can agree that the rebel colonists would be the bad guys - but I have a hard time accepting that we would view the Allies as the evil perpetrators of WWII considering the material Hitler would give us to work with. Of course, I could be wrong on that....history is an odd bug.
 
#80
#80
Vols520 said:
And I seriously doubt that the current parliament would issue a proclamation 'praising' the american rebels of the revolution.



The main point is that there was little to gain politically so why even do it.
Click to expand...


No, the main point is that the state of Virginia wants to honor the tens of thousands of Virginians that fought the noble cause of defending their homes from an invading army.

Gain politically? Some people do what is right, even if it is not popular politically. From what I have read it is actually quite popular in Virginia, it is only those in the West and north East that are whining about this.
 
Last edited:
#82
#82
TennTradition said:
I can agree that the rebel colonists would be the bad guys - but I have a hard time accepting that we would view the Allies as the evil perpetrators of WWII considering the material Hitler would give us to work with. Of course, I could be wrong on that....history is an odd bug.
Click to expand...

The point I was making is that the winners of the wars get to determine who were the good guys and bad guys.

If the Axis had won, they could have covered up the atrocities they were doing, the holocaust would not be in the history books so they could view themselves as "the good guys".
 
#84
#84
There are about 4 people that make valid points, then the rest of it is left vs. right bull****. Have fun with that guys, call me when you actually further the discourse.
 
#85
#85
CountVolcula said:
All in all, both sides fought for what they believed was an honorable cause.
Were they misled? Probably by both sides
Click to expand...
I could definitely agree with that. I don't doubt that the vast majority of southern soldiers were fighting for their homeland. That being said, I don't really believe that all the German soldiers were Anti-Jewish and hell bent on world domination. They were fighting for their country as well. Please note, I'm NOT trying to argue, in any way, that the southerners are like Nazi's, or that the Confederacy was like Hitler's Germany. I'm simply saying that even if the motives of the individual soldiers were pure, it doesn't mean that the Confederacy was a good thing.

I obviously don't remember events of the 1860's, but I'd bet that both sides teach the Civil War in a way that makes their side look better. I don't believe that all northerners were trying to get rid of a great injustice. I'd bet that there were plenty of abolitionists, and that people who weren't necessarily abolitionists may have joined in because they thought it may help them economically. On the flip side, I don't believe that the reason for secession was simply that the government was trying to take over the states' freedom. I'm sure some northerners used slavery as a way to benefit themselves economically. Conversely, I'm sure plenty of southerners used states rights as a way to protect their free labor.

The way I see it is that the South was for slavery and the North, whether or not their motives were really about freedom, was against it. The South committed treason by seceding and firing upon Union soldiers. The Union won the war, preserved the country, and in the process, ended slavery. I have a very hard time seeing that as anything but a good thing.

With all that being said, I have no problem recognizing confederate soldiers as people who were defending their country.
 
#86
#86
gasguy98 said:
Nice post. As I wrote, the Emancipation Proclamation was not signed until the war had gone on for 2 years. World opinion was on the side of the Confederacy. The Emancipation Proclamation was the last ace in the whole to turn world support to the union AND TO MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE BRITISH TO OFFICIALLY SUPPORT THE CONFEDERACY.

Of course silly facts like this are of no consequence to some (Vols520)
Click to expand...
That may have had more to do with wanting the United States weaker than actually believing the Confederacy was right.
 
#87
#87
The funny thing is it is only southerners for the most part that can't seem to let go of the Civil War hell I'd bet 95%of all reenactors come from the ex confederate states.Face it the south got their ass kicked in the end and rightfully so.You'd think there would be some shame on how the south was back then and pretty much for the next 105-110 years later but no just some nostalgia it's no wonder we are the most joked about people in the country.
 
#88
#88
DAVOL said:
The funny thing is it is only southerners for the most part that can't seem to let go of the Civil War hell I'd bet 95%of all reenactors come from the ex confederate states.Face it the south got their ass kicked in the end and rightfully so.You'd think there would be some shame on how the south was back then and pretty much for the next 105-110 years later but no just some nostalgia it's no wonder we are the most joked about people in the country.
Click to expand...

Crawl back in your hole Yank!
 
#89
#89
DAVOL said:
The funny thing is it is only southerners for the most part that can't seem to let go of the Civil War hell I'd bet 95%of all reenactors come from the ex confederate states.Face it the south got their ass kicked in the end and rightfully so.You'd think there would be some shame on how the south was back then and pretty much for the next 105-110 years later but no just some nostalgia it's no wonder we are the most joked about people in the country.
Click to expand...

At least Vols520 has an opinion based on something other than hate. You are just an anti southern bigot.
 
#90
#90
tvolsfan said:
That may have had more to do with wanting the United States weaker than actually believing the Confederacy was right.
Click to expand...

I have thought of this angle too, but the US was not that strong in 1861.

However, you are right that The British and French were obviously about their immediate and sole interest in this event.

This doesn't change the fact that the EP was a desperation move. The South was winning the war and the Western world was, for the most part, OK with it.
 
Last edited:
#91
#91
emainvol said:
There are about 4 people that make valid points, then the rest of it is left vs. right bull****. Have fun with that guys, call me when you actually further the discourse.
Click to expand...

Who has valid points? Just curious
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#92
#92
tvolsfan said:
I could definitely agree with that. I don't doubt that the vast majority of southern soldiers were fighting for their homeland. That being said, I don't really believe that all the German soldiers were Anti-Jewish and hell bent on world domination. They were fighting for their country as well. Please note, I'm NOT trying to argue, in any way, that the southerners are like Nazi's, or that the Confederacy was like Hitler's Germany. I'm simply saying that even if the motives of the individual soldiers were pure, it doesn't mean that the Confederacy was a good thing.

I obviously don't remember events of the 1860's, but I'd bet that both sides teach the Civil War in a way that makes their side look better. I don't believe that all northerners were trying to get rid of a great injustice. I'd bet that there were plenty of abolitionists, and that people who weren't necessarily abolitionists may have joined in because they thought it may help them economically. On the flip side, I don't believe that the reason for secession was simply that the government was trying to take over the states' freedom. I'm sure some northerners used slavery as a way to benefit themselves economically. Conversely, I'm sure plenty of southerners used states rights as a way to protect their free labor.

The way I see it is that the South was for slavery and the North, whether or not their motives were really about freedom, was against it. The South committed treason by seceding and firing upon Union soldiers. The Union won the war, preserved the country, and in the process, ended slavery. I have a very hard time seeing that as anything but a good thing.

With all that being said, I have no problem recognizing confederate soldiers as people who were defending their country.
Click to expand...

A reasonable post. Vols520 could learn a thing or two from you.
 
#93
#93
well I am not really whining, just dumb move to not have mentioned slavery.

gasguy98 said:
[/B]

No, the main point is that the state of Virginia wants to honor the tens of thousands of Virginians that fought the noble cause of defending their homes from an invading army.

Gain politically? Some people do what is right, even if it is not popular politically. From what I have read it is actually quite popular in Virginia, it is only those in the West and north East that are whining about this.
Click to expand...
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#95
#95
DAVOL said:
The funny thing is it is only southerners for the most part that can't seem to let go of the Civil War hell I'd bet 95%of all reenactors come from the ex confederate states.Face it the south got their ass kicked in the end and rightfully so.You'd think there would be some shame on how the south was back then and pretty much for the next 105-110 years later but no just some nostalgia it's no wonder we are the most joked about people in the country.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say the South got their ass kicked. The North had more resources in material and manpower. Give me a Southern soldier and general any day over a Northern one.
 
#96
#96
gasguy98 said:
Nice post. As I wrote, the Emancipation Proclamation was not signed until the war had gone on for 2 years. World opinion was on the side of the Confederacy. The Emancipation Proclamation was the last ace in the whole to turn world support to the union AND TO MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE BRITISH TO OFFICIALLY SUPPORT THE CONFEDERACY.

Of course silly facts like this are of no consequence to some (Vols520)
Click to expand...

I don't believe in facts, only stereotypes and innuendo.

On a side note, I have been using mobile so I keepy posts too short to really write an entire argument. My main point is it was dumb for a politician to make this move, especially with the current political environment.

I am sure a lot o confederate soldiers didn't care about slavery, but the fact is reality and perception are completely seperate things. 99% of the country associate the war w abolition. Sure there were other reasons, but to mos they pale in comparison.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#97
#97
Vols520 said:
Haha, I am glad you feel like you have a great grasp of my character.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I know nothing of your character. One can't grasp one's character from post on a sports forum.
Your post are void of reasonable perspectives. You only see this event thought the perspective of political advantage (or lack thereof). Those of us that are Southerners hold this point of American history is high esteem.

I have conceeded that a bunch of rich slave owners wanted to protect their economic interest. You are unwilling to conceed that poor Southerners that literally could not afford shoes were fighting in defense of their homes.
 
#98
#98
I never stated poor southerners weren't good soldiers who were fighting for causes other than slavery. They probabaly had some great reasons.

But it's still fact that they fought or the side that was for slavery. I am sure Boston and new York elitewere just as racis as the southern elite, but they were trying to abolish slavery and that is why they are remembered favorably.

This isn't a thread on debating the war, it's a thread on a politician making an bad move.

gasguy98 said:
I know nothing of your character. One can't grasp one's character from post on a sports forum.
Your post are void of reasonable perspectives. You only see this event thought the perspective of political advantage (or lack thereof). Those of us that are Southerners hold this point of American history is high esteem.

I have conceeded that a bunch of rich slave owners wanted to protect their economic interest. You are unwilling to conceed that poor Southerners that literally could not afford shoes were fighting in defense of their homes.
Click to expand...
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#99
#99
Vols520 said:
I don't believe in facts, only stereotypes and innuendo.

On a side note, I have been using mobile so I keepy posts too short to really write an entire argument. My main point is it was dumb for a politician to make this move, especially with the current political environment.

I am sure a lot o confederate soldiers didn't care about slavery, but the fact is reality and perception are completely seperate things. 99% of the country associate the war w abolition. Sure there were other reasons, but to mos they pale in comparison.Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Because the Feds won the war. They got to write the history books. If you have spent any time studying the event in depth you would learn that the history books we are given in 6th grade only touch on 2% of the causes of the conflict.
To put a modern twist on the conflict, say there was a war between the red states and blue states today. Say the some in theblue states defended abortion (I am sure you will agree that this is a significant moral issue today) and [some [/I] the red states wanted it abolished. Say that the red states were very successful economically (Texas) and the blue states (California) were facing bankruptcy.
If the red and blue states fought and the red states won, would not the great moral issue of the day be cited as a cause? Even if most people in the blue states wern't vested in the moral cause one way or another?
 
#100
#100
I never said it's right or wrong, but facts are facts.

You clearly have studied the civil war i have always been mire intrigued w the revolution.

And I grew up in California so I think it's safe to say different perspectives.

I have visited several civil war battlefields so I have a pretty goo base of knowldge on the war.

gasguy98 said:
Because the Feds won the war. They got to write the history books. If you have spent any time studying the event in depth you would learn that the history books we are given in 6th grade only touch on 2% of the causes of the conflict.
To put a modern twist on the conflict, say there was a war between the red states and blue states today. Say the some in theblue states defended abortion (I am sure you will agree that this is a significant moral issue today) and [some [/I] the red states wanted it abolished. Say that the red states were very successful economically (Texas) and the blue states (California) were facing bankruptcy.
If the red and blue states fought and the red states won, would not the great moral issue of the day be cited as a cause? Even if most people in the blue states wern't vested in the moral cause one way or another?
Click to expand...
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top