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

[DAVOL]

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?

hey how many of your poor non slave owning southern soldiers signed the delaration for seccession? That's what I thought.So yeah it was about slavery.
A beautiful shot of Richmond don't ya think.

 

[gasguy98]

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.


Posted via VolNation Mobile

Threads, like good conversations, always divert from original subjects. It is more fun to write about the war than a politicians motives. I like to think he is doing the business of the people of Virginia, regardless of what those in California think.
You are showing your total lack of understanding of the conflict by writing that "but they were trying to abolish slavery". The abolishonist movement, while strong, was still a fringe movement. Stronger than todays anti abortion movement (maybe) but still fringe.

Another little fact I am sure you are unaware of:
After the EP there were mass lynchings and riots in NYC and Boston. The original intent of the call to arms in the north was to "Supress the rebellion" never to "free slaves". Much like the original call to arms in Iraq was to "take away the threat of weapons of mass destruction" only to become "to free the Iraqi's from opression" when the original intent proved ineffective in keeping support amid defeat on the battlefield.

 

[gasguy98]

hey how many of your poor non slave owning southern soldiers signed the delaration for seccession? That's what I thought.So yeah it was about slavery.
A beautiful shot of Richmond don't ya think.

I have no idea what you are writing about. You are not entertaining or thought provoking in this discussion in the least.

 

[Vols520]

Was slavery abolished after the civil war?

And Lincoln was a advocate for abolition for a long time.

Threads, like good conversations, always divert from original subjects. It is more fun to write about the war than a politicians motives. I like to think he is doing the business of the people of Virginia, regardless of what those in California think.
You are showing your total lack of understanding of the conflict by writing that "but they were trying to abolish slavery". The abolishonist movement, while strong, was still a fringe movement. Stronger than todays anti abortion movement (maybe) but still fringe.

Another little fact I am sure you are unaware of:
After the EP there were mass lynchings and riots in NYC and Boston. The original intent of the call to arms in the north was to "Supress the rebellion" never to "free slaves". Much like the original call to arms in Iraq was to "take away the threat of weapons of mass destruction" only to become "to free the Iraqi's from opression" when the original intent proved ineffective in keeping support amid defeat on the battlefield.

Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[DAVOL]

I have no idea what you are writing about. You are not entertaining or thought provoking in this discussion in the least.

You know what is sad about people like you.You're the same person who in one breath still wants to fight the Civil War in your head even though your great great great grandfather probably was not born yet then you tell blacks they should get over jim crow and segregation even thogh alot of them lived through it.People like you would have been screaming states rights/southern pride during the civil rights movement and you know it's true.

 

[gasguy98]

Was slavery abolished after the civil war?

And Lincoln was a advocate for abolition for a long time.


Posted via VolNation Mobile

My friend, you again write before you really know what you are writing about.
Lincoln WAS opposed to the EXPANSION OF SLAVERY in the western frontier states but was very clear that he had no interest in FREEING SLAVES IN THE SOUTH.

If, as you suggest, he was "an advocate for abolition" why did he wait so long to issue the EP? Why did it only apply to states in rebellion?

By the way, did you know that after the war RE Lee owned no slaves and US Grant owned several?

 

[gasguy98]

You know what is sad about people like you.You're the same person who in one breath still wants to fight the Civil War in your head even though your great great great grandfather probably was not born yet then you tell blacks they should get over jim crow and segregation even thogh alot of them lived through it.People like you would have been screaming states rights/southern pride during the civil rights movement and you know it's true.

As I wrote, you are not offering anything to this conversation. Vols520 at least has an opinion, you are just a nasty bigot, prejudiced against an entire region of the country.

 

[DAVOL]

As I wrote, you are not offering anything to this conversation. Vols520 at least has an opinion, you are just a nasty bigot, prejudiced against an entire region of the country.

Well considering I have a bit of Cherokee in my blood I can more than likely trace my southern heritage back further than most on the volnation board.It's not the region I dislike it's the ignorance of alot of the people in so said region that irks me.

 

[gasguy98]

Well considering I have a bit of Cherokee in my blood I can more than likely trace my southern heritage back further than most on the volnation board.It's not the region I dislike it's the ignorance of alot of the people in so said region that irks me.

Your post betray you.

Cherokee? What does that have to do with anything?
I find it so typical and amusing that someone with post like yours suddenly brings up race.

 

[emainvol]

Who has valid points? Just curious
Posted via VolNation Mobile

There's no need for me to call anyone out individually, that will just further delude the argument, it's pretty much the same crew that it has been for a long time.

 

[DAVOL]

Your post betray you.

Cherokee? What does that have to do with anything?
I find it so typical and amusing that someone with post like yours suddenly brings up race.

Well to help you out with some history even though you think you're an expert the Cherokee were here a long time before any Europens knew the NA continent existed.

 

[Vols520]

lee yes. Grant no. But I know he was a drunk ass so doesn't suprise me.

My friend, you again write before you really know what you are writing about.
Lincoln WAS opposed to the EXPANSION OF SLAVERY in the western frontier states but was very clear that he had no interest in FREEING SLAVES IN THE SOUTH.

If, as you suggest, he was "an advocate for abolition" why did he wait so long to issue the EP? Why did it only apply to states in rebellion?

By the way, did you know that after the war RE Lee owned no slaves and US Grant owned several?

Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[IPorange]

Well considering I have a bit of Cherokee in my blood I can more than likely trace my southern heritage back further than most on the volnation board.It's not the region I dislike it's the ignorance of alot of the people in so said region that irks me.

I can trace my family tree back to a wizard in Scotland. Doesn't mean I wear a pointy hat or can cast spells...

 

[Vols520]

I can trace my family tree back to a wizard in Scotland. Doesn't mean I wear a pointy hat or can cast spells...

But you definitely should
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[dickens821]

I can trace my family tree back to a wizard in Scotland. Doesn't mean I wear a pointy hat or can cast spells...

:birgits_giggle::birgits_giggle:

Not to mention every SouthernerI know claims to have a little Cherokee in them

 

[Daddy Gee]

Not to mention every SouthernerI know claims to have a little Cherokee in them

lulz.. yep

 

[gasguy98]

Well to help you out with some history even though you think you're an expert the Cherokee were here a long time before any Europens knew the NA continent existed.

Really?
Indians were here before colonist from Europe?

I had no idea...
You MUST be a professor of history at the University of Alabama.

So please, enlightened one, tell me what that has to do with this discussion?

 

[Headed For Home]

hey how many of your poor non slave owning southern soldiers signed the delaration for seccession? That's what I thought.So yeah it was about slavery.
A beautiful shot of Richmond don't ya think.

You obviously know nothing of being Southern.

 

[CountVolcula]

You obviously know nothing of being Southern.

Yea he does!! We all wear coveralls, straw hats, barefoot, have sex with our sisters, say yuins all the time, have only two teeth, and we all act like the characters off of Hee-Haw.

 

[BeecherVol]

I can trace my family tree back to a wizard in Scotland. Doesn't mean I wear a pointy hat or can cast spells...

He didn't wear a white bed sheet, and a cone hat, did he?

 

[gasguy98]

The New Intolerance
by Patrick J. Buchanan

Friday - April 9, 2010

"This was a recognition of American terrorists."
That is CNN's Roland Martin's summary judgment of the 258,000 men and boys who fell fighting for the Confederacy in a war that cost as many American lives as World Wars I and II, Korea, Vietnam and Iraq combined.
Martin reflects the hysteria that seized Obamaville on hearing that Gov. Bob McDonnell had declared Confederate History Month in the Old Dominion. Virginia leads the nation in Civil War battlefields.
So loud was the howling that in 24 hours McDonnell had backpedaled and issued an apology that he had not mentioned slavery.
Unfortunately, the governor missed a teaching moment--at the outset of the 150th anniversary of America's bloodiest war.
Slavery was indeed evil, but it existed in the Americas a century before the oldest of our founding fathers was even born. Five of our first seven presidents were slaveholders.
But Virginia did not secede in defense of slavery. Indeed, when Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated, March 4, 1861, Virginia was still in the Union. Only South Carolina, Georgia and the five Gulf states had seceded and created the Confederate States of America.
At the firing on Fort Sumter, April 12-13, 1865, the first shots of the Civil War, Virginia was still inside the Union. Indeed, there were more slave states in the Union than in the Confederacy. But, on April 15, Lincoln issued a call for 75,000 volunteers from the state militias to march south and crush the new Confederacy.
Two days later, April 17, Virginia seceded rather than provide soldiers or militia to participate in a war on their brethren. North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas followed Virginia out over the same issue. They would not be a party to a war on their kinfolk.
Slavery was not the cause of this war. Secession was--that and Lincoln's determination to drown the nation in blood if necessary to make the Union whole again.Nor did Lincoln ever deny it.
In his first inaugural, Lincoln sought to appease the states that had seceded by endorsing a constitutional amendment to make slavery permanent in the 15 states where it then existed. He even offered to help the Southern states run down fugitive slaves.
In 1862, Lincoln wrote Horace Greeley that if he could restore the Union without freeing one slave he would do it. The Emancipation Proclamation of Jan. 1, 1863, freed only those slaves Lincoln had no power to free--those still under Confederate rule. As for slaves in the Union states of Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri, they remained the property of their owners.
As for "terrorists," no army fought more honorably than Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia. Few deny that.
The great terrorist in that war was William Tecumseh Sherman, who violated all the known rules of war by looting, burning and pillaging on his infamous March to the Sea from Atlanta to Savannah. Sherman would later be given command of the war against the Plains Indians and advocate extermination of the Sioux.
"The only good Indian is a dead Indian" is attributed both to Sherman and Gen. Phil Sheridan, who burned the Shenandoah and carried out Sherman's ruthless policy against the Indians. Both have statues and circles named for them in Washington, D.C.
If Martin thinks Sherman a hero, he might study what happened to the slave women of Columbia, S.C., when "Uncle Billy's" boys in blue arrived to burn the city.
What of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, at whose request McDonnell issued his proclamation? What racist deeds have they perpetrated of late?
They tend the graves of Confederate dead and place flags on Memorial Day. They contributed to the restoration of the home of Jefferson Davis, damaged by Hurricane Katrina. They publish the Confederate Veteran, a magazine that relates stories of the ancestors they love to remember. They join environmentalists in fighting to preserve Civil War battlefields. They do re-enactments of Civil War battles with men and boys whose ancestors fought for the Union. And they defend the monuments to their ancestors and the flag under which they fought.
Why are they vilified?
Because they are Southern white Christian men--none of whom defends slavery, but all of whom are defiantly proud of the South, its ancient faith and their forefathers who fell in the Lost Cause.
Undeniably, the Civil War ended in the abolition of slavery and restoration of the Union. But the Southern states believed they had the same right to rid themselves of a government to which they no longer felt allegiance as did Washington, Jefferson and Madison, all slave-owners, who could no longer give loyalty to the king of England.
Consider closely this latest skirmish in a culture war that may yet make an end to any idea of nationhood, and you will see whence the real hate is coming. It is not from Gov. McDonnell or the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

 

[tvolsfan]

The New Intolerance
by Patrick J. Buchanan

Friday - April 9, 2010

"This was a recognition of American terrorists."
That is CNN's Roland Martin's summary judgment of the 258,000 men and boys who fell fighting for the Confederacy in a war that cost as many American lives as World Wars I and II, Korea, Vietnam and Iraq combined.
Martin reflects the hysteria that seized Obamaville on hearing that Gov. Bob McDonnell had declared Confederate History Month in the Old Dominion. Virginia leads the nation in Civil War battlefields.
So loud was the howling that in 24 hours McDonnell had backpedaled and issued an apology that he had not mentioned slavery.
Unfortunately, the governor missed a teaching moment--at the outset of the 150th anniversary of America's bloodiest war.
Slavery was indeed evil, but it existed in the Americas a century before the oldest of our founding fathers was even born. Five of our first seven presidents were slaveholders.
But Virginia did not secede in defense of slavery. Indeed, when Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated, March 4, 1861, Virginia was still in the Union. Only South Carolina, Georgia and the five Gulf states had seceded and created the Confederate States of America.
At the firing on Fort Sumter, April 12-13, 1865, the first shots of the Civil War, Virginia was still inside the Union. Indeed, there were more slave states in the Union than in the Confederacy. But, on April 15, Lincoln issued a call for 75,000 volunteers from the state militias to march south and crush the new Confederacy.
Two days later, April 17, Virginia seceded rather than provide soldiers or militia to participate in a war on their brethren. North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas followed Virginia out over the same issue. They would not be a party to a war on their kinfolk.
Slavery was not the cause of this war. Secession was--that and Lincoln's determination to drown the nation in blood if necessary to make the Union whole again.Nor did Lincoln ever deny it.
In his first inaugural, Lincoln sought to appease the states that had seceded by endorsing a constitutional amendment to make slavery permanent in the 15 states where it then existed. He even offered to help the Southern states run down fugitive slaves.
In 1862, Lincoln wrote Horace Greeley that if he could restore the Union without freeing one slave he would do it. The Emancipation Proclamation of Jan. 1, 1863, freed only those slaves Lincoln had no power to free--those still under Confederate rule. As for slaves in the Union states of Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri, they remained the property of their owners.
As for "terrorists," no army fought more honorably than Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia. Few deny that.
The great terrorist in that war was William Tecumseh Sherman, who violated all the known rules of war by looting, burning and pillaging on his infamous March to the Sea from Atlanta to Savannah. Sherman would later be given command of the war against the Plains Indians and advocate extermination of the Sioux.
"The only good Indian is a dead Indian" is attributed both to Sherman and Gen. Phil Sheridan, who burned the Shenandoah and carried out Sherman's ruthless policy against the Indians. Both have statues and circles named for them in Washington, D.C.
If Martin thinks Sherman a hero, he might study what happened to the slave women of Columbia, S.C., when "Uncle Billy's" boys in blue arrived to burn the city.
What of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, at whose request McDonnell issued his proclamation? What racist deeds have they perpetrated of late?
They tend the graves of Confederate dead and place flags on Memorial Day. They contributed to the restoration of the home of Jefferson Davis, damaged by Hurricane Katrina. They publish the Confederate Veteran, a magazine that relates stories of the ancestors they love to remember. They join environmentalists in fighting to preserve Civil War battlefields. They do re-enactments of Civil War battles with men and boys whose ancestors fought for the Union. And they defend the monuments to their ancestors and the flag under which they fought.
Why are they vilified?
Because they are Southern white Christian men--none of whom defends slavery, but all of whom are defiantly proud of the South, its ancient faith and their forefathers who fell in the Lost Cause.
Undeniably, the Civil War ended in the abolition of slavery and restoration of the Union. But the Southern states believed they had the same right to rid themselves of a government to which they no longer felt allegiance as did Washington, Jefferson and Madison, all slave-owners, who could no longer give loyalty to the king of England.
Consider closely this latest skirmish in a culture war that may yet make an end to any idea of nationhood, and you will see whence the real hate is coming. It is not from Gov. McDonnell or the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

A few things about the bold.

I don't think anyone really denies the war was fought because of secession. It's just that people argue the cause of secession was slavery.

 

[gasguy98]

A few things about the bold.

I don't think anyone really denies the war was fought because of secession. It's just that people argue the cause of secession was slavery.

Only 7 sates seceeded due to Lincoln's victory (by the way, Lincoln was not even on the ballot in many southern states including Tennessee, where he got not a single vote). Those states one could make an argument that they seceeded due to the Republican policy on slavery (which only was to not let it expand into the west).
The states of Virginia and Tennessee (and many others) Seceeded AFTER Lincoln called on 75000 troops from other Southern states to crush the rebellion.
Perhaps those that seceeded after the call to arms may not have had Lincoln handled the situation with more tact. Perhaps the call for 75000 was way premature and it caused the conflict on the great scale it was.

The entire South was not in unity over secession but obviously felt a kindred loyalty to one another. They had to take a side and they sided with their cultural brothers.

As I wrote in an earlier post, abortion is sorta like the slavery issue of today. Do you honestly think men would volunteer to die for abortion? While a few nut jobs might several hundred thousand would not.

Regardless of the behind the scenes reason for the war the point I have tried to make over and over is that the actual troops on the ground, on both sides, were not fighting over slavery one way or another. The Yanks were fighting to crush a rebellion and the Rebs were fighting to defend their homes from tyranny.

Of course in a conflict of this nature there are so many complex issues that simply claiming one reason is insufficient.
Was slavery A reason for this horrible conflict? Yes. Was is the only or even the most significant issue: Definately not.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

I don't know or care what everyone said. It's a war, so obviously people will have different opinions. All I know that is that the North won and slavery is gone. I'll consider that a good thing.

Is that too simplistic of a view? Maybe. But I'm not buying the "It was all about states rights and protecting our freedom!" argument, either.

Of course it was about states rights................

It was an issue raised ever since the 1810's...........

What was the issue..... slavery and its expansion!

 

[gasguy98]

Of course it was about states rights................

It was an issue raised ever since the 1810's...........

What was the issue..... slavery and its expansion!

...and its expansion is accurate.
To a degree.
Have you read any of the facts I posted?
LINCOLN HAD NO INTENSION OF FREEING ANY SLAVES!
ONLY STOP THE INSTITUTION FROM EXPANDING INTO THE WEST.

Why can't people understand this?
If Lincoln was not going to actually free any slaves how can the war be said to be "over slavery"?

It is the same tactic used in politics today. When the feds only increase funding to a particular program (medicare) by 3% and the projection was to increase it by 5% to maintain the status quo, the opposing party will scream "the (other party) has cut Medicare!!"

Yes, Lincoln freed the slaves...as a desperation move to cause social upheavel in the South (they were losing the war on the battlefield) and to make the war about a moral issue.