21 Sep 2014, 4:58 pm
21 Sep 2014, 5:06 pm
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor, Raptor... (shakes head derisively).
And how many black people do you think preferred slavery? As bad as things were, at least not every black American in the south was forced into prison labor. And there were many blacks who were able to buy and own their own farmland; a thing that would have been impossible during slave days. On top of that, the gains of civil rights legislation - though unjustifiably late on arrival - would never have been possible without Lincoln's achievement. So yes, Lincoln's accomplishment was worth it.
And how many black people do you think preferred slavery? As bad as things were, at least not every black American in the south was forced into prison labor. And there were many blacks who were able to buy and own their own farmland; a thing that would have been impossible during slave days. On top of that, the gains of civil rights legislation - though unjustifiably late on arrival - would never have been possible without Lincoln's achievement. So yes, Lincoln's accomplishment was worth it.
If you go back a few post of mine and read what I wrote you'll see what I was talking about. The end of slavery was only a partial success. You can't make me feel all naughty and remorseful by twisting my words around so that I come of as racist.
That's what you're doing.
Kraichgauer wrote:
True, the forces of reaction had tried to undo Lincoln's accomplishment, but that doesn't nullify what Lincoln had done.
Did I say Lincoln's freeing of the slave was nullified? No, unless you can show me where I said otherwise.
Quote:
It just means the fight for equality has yet to be one.
I think it's about as close to being "one" as it can be.
Quote:
And no, I'm not trying to make you sound like a racist, I'm just saying you're wrong.
You're wrong, too.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,678
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
21 Sep 2014, 5:28 pm
Raptor wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor, Raptor... (shakes head derisively).
And how many black people do you think preferred slavery? As bad as things were, at least not every black American in the south was forced into prison labor. And there were many blacks who were able to buy and own their own farmland; a thing that would have been impossible during slave days. On top of that, the gains of civil rights legislation - though unjustifiably late on arrival - would never have been possible without Lincoln's achievement. So yes, Lincoln's accomplishment was worth it.
And how many black people do you think preferred slavery? As bad as things were, at least not every black American in the south was forced into prison labor. And there were many blacks who were able to buy and own their own farmland; a thing that would have been impossible during slave days. On top of that, the gains of civil rights legislation - though unjustifiably late on arrival - would never have been possible without Lincoln's achievement. So yes, Lincoln's accomplishment was worth it.
If you go back a few post of mine and read what I wrote you'll see what I was talking about. The end of slavery was only a partial success. You can't make me feel all naughty and remorseful by twisting my words around so that I come of as racist.
That's what you're doing.
Kraichgauer wrote:
True, the forces of reaction had tried to undo Lincoln's accomplishment, but that doesn't nullify what Lincoln had done.
Did I say Lincoln's freeing of the slave was nullified? No, unless you can show me where I said otherwise.
Quote:
It just means the fight for equality has yet to be one.
I think it's about as close to being "one" as it can be.
Quote:
And no, I'm not trying to make you sound like a racist, I'm just saying you're wrong.
You're wrong, too.
Okay, you got me on "one," instead of won
.
And in regard to me being wrong, too - I think not.
21 Sep 2014, 5:32 pm
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,678
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
21 Sep 2014, 5:38 pm
21 Sep 2014, 6:00 pm
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,678
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
21 Sep 2014, 6:14 pm
21 Sep 2014, 6:39 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
You're giving too much credit to Lee and Davis, because they had devised that policy.
It may come as a surprise but if I have any relatives that fought in the Civil War it would have been on the Union side. I don't give a s**t about Davis one way or the other but I've always had a respect for some of his generals, Lee and Jackson to name a few.
Quote:
And even if Union guards were more inhumane in their treatment of Confederate prisoners, it doesn't excuse the cruelty practiced by the Confederate guards at Andersonville and other POW camps.
I'm going off memory but some Andersonville guards made a sport out of luring prisoners close enough to the stockade wall to justify shooting them. In the northern camps is was in the form of physical torture (floggings, the pillory, etc. done to prisoners by union guards on top of intentionally starving or at least severely malnourishing them. Quote:
And believe it or not, I agree - there was no reason why the Union shouldn't have tried to rescue their troops held in Andersonville, as there were escapees from the camp, looking like concentration camp survivors of the 20th century, who had reached Sherman's army.
Ooooh, that had to sting!
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,678
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
21 Sep 2014, 6:59 pm
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
You're giving too much credit to Lee and Davis, because they had devised that policy.
It may come as a surprise but if I have any relatives that fought in the Civil War it would have been on the Union side. I don't give a s**t about Davis one way or the other but I've always had a respect for some of his generals, Lee and Jackson to name a few.
Quote:
And even if Union guards were more inhumane in their treatment of Confederate prisoners, it doesn't excuse the cruelty practiced by the Confederate guards at Andersonville and other POW camps.
I'm going off memory but some Andersonville guards made a sport out of luring prisoners close enough to the stockade wall to justify shooting them. In the northern camps is was in the form of physical torture (floggings, the pillory, etc. done to prisoners by union guards on top of intentionally starving or at least severely malnourishing them. Quote:
And believe it or not, I agree - there was no reason why the Union shouldn't have tried to rescue their troops held in Andersonville, as there were escapees from the camp, looking like concentration camp survivors of the 20th century, who had reached Sherman's army.
Ooooh, that had to sting!
Nope, no sting here. As I said, history should be a record of what had actually happened, and not revisionism based on political ideology or romantic attachments to heritage.
Though I am the first to agree that a change of historical view can be supported by the truth. Case in point: the radical Republicans were formerly seen as despicable persons for their treatment of the defeated south, but also for their enfranchisement of black Americans following slavery. Today, these same radicals are seen as ahead of their time in regard to extending civil rights to blacks, doubtlessly due to the fact that we've grown in our sensibilities regarding democracy and fairness.
21 Sep 2014, 7:20 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
You're giving too much credit to Lee and Davis, because they had devised that policy.
It may come as a surprise but if I have any relatives that fought in the Civil War it would have been on the Union side. I don't give a s**t about Davis one way or the other but I've always had a respect for some of his generals, Lee and Jackson to name a few.
Quote:
And even if Union guards were more inhumane in their treatment of Confederate prisoners, it doesn't excuse the cruelty practiced by the Confederate guards at Andersonville and other POW camps.
I'm going off memory but some Andersonville guards made a sport out of luring prisoners close enough to the stockade wall to justify shooting them. In the northern camps is was in the form of physical torture (floggings, the pillory, etc. done to prisoners by union guards on top of intentionally starving or at least severely malnourishing them. Quote:
And believe it or not, I agree - there was no reason why the Union shouldn't have tried to rescue their troops held in Andersonville, as there were escapees from the camp, looking like concentration camp survivors of the 20th century, who had reached Sherman's army.
Ooooh, that had to sting!
Nope, no sting here. As I said, history should be a record of what had actually happened, and not revisionism based on political ideology or romantic attachments to heritage.
Though I am the first to agree that a change of historical view can be supported by the truth. Case in point: the radical Republicans were formerly seen as despicable persons for their treatment of the defeated south, but also for their enfranchisement of black Americans following slavery. Today, these same radicals are seen as ahead of their time in regard to extending civil rights to blacks, doubtlessly due to the fact that we've grown in our sensibilities regarding democracy and fairness.
And the emancipation of the slaves was incidental to the greater objective of re-uniting the country. There was no great wonderful northern abolitionist crusade like you seem to want to believe, according to past exchanges.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,678
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
21 Sep 2014, 7:30 pm
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
You're giving too much credit to Lee and Davis, because they had devised that policy.
It may come as a surprise but if I have any relatives that fought in the Civil War it would have been on the Union side. I don't give a s**t about Davis one way or the other but I've always had a respect for some of his generals, Lee and Jackson to name a few.
Quote:
And even if Union guards were more inhumane in their treatment of Confederate prisoners, it doesn't excuse the cruelty practiced by the Confederate guards at Andersonville and other POW camps.
I'm going off memory but some Andersonville guards made a sport out of luring prisoners close enough to the stockade wall to justify shooting them. In the northern camps is was in the form of physical torture (floggings, the pillory, etc. done to prisoners by union guards on top of intentionally starving or at least severely malnourishing them. Quote:
And believe it or not, I agree - there was no reason why the Union shouldn't have tried to rescue their troops held in Andersonville, as there were escapees from the camp, looking like concentration camp survivors of the 20th century, who had reached Sherman's army.
Ooooh, that had to sting!
Nope, no sting here. As I said, history should be a record of what had actually happened, and not revisionism based on political ideology or romantic attachments to heritage.
Though I am the first to agree that a change of historical view can be supported by the truth. Case in point: the radical Republicans were formerly seen as despicable persons for their treatment of the defeated south, but also for their enfranchisement of black Americans following slavery. Today, these same radicals are seen as ahead of their time in regard to extending civil rights to blacks, doubtlessly due to the fact that we've grown in our sensibilities regarding democracy and fairness.
And the emancipation of the slaves was incidental to the greater objective of re-uniting the country. There was no great wonderful northern abolitionist crusade like you seem to want to believe, according to past exchanges.
I think you're misremembering my posts; rather I've stated that regardless of the motivation behind emancipation, it was still what made the Union cause just in the end. I have absolutely no problem admitting that emancipation was not a popular cause in the north, and was hardly the original motive for the north to fight the Confederacy, until Lincoln had gradually moved public opinion in favor of abolition toward the end of the war. Though it is undeniable that abolitionists, the free Soilers, and the radical Republicans certainly had seen the fight against slavery as a great and moral crusade.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,678
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
21 Sep 2014, 7:36 pm
OliveOilMom
Veteran
Joined: 11 Nov 2011
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 11,447
Location: About 50 miles past the middle of nowhere
21 Sep 2014, 7:39 pm
If we secede from the Union do I get to wear a hoop skirt to the BBQ? Cause yeah, my vote may be based on that.
"War, war, war....."
_________________
I'm giving it another shot. We will see.
My forum is still there and everyone is welcome to come join as well. There is a private women only subforum there if anyone is interested. Also, there is no CAPTCHA.
The link to the forum is http://www.rightplanet.proboards.com
21 Sep 2014, 9:32 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
You're giving too much credit to Lee and Davis, because they had devised that policy.
It may come as a surprise but if I have any relatives that fought in the Civil War it would have been on the Union side. I don't give a s**t about Davis one way or the other but I've always had a respect for some of his generals, Lee and Jackson to name a few.
Quote:
And even if Union guards were more inhumane in their treatment of Confederate prisoners, it doesn't excuse the cruelty practiced by the Confederate guards at Andersonville and other POW camps.
I'm going off memory but some Andersonville guards made a sport out of luring prisoners close enough to the stockade wall to justify shooting them. In the northern camps is was in the form of physical torture (floggings, the pillory, etc. done to prisoners by union guards on top of intentionally starving or at least severely malnourishing them. Quote:
And believe it or not, I agree - there was no reason why the Union shouldn't have tried to rescue their troops held in Andersonville, as there were escapees from the camp, looking like concentration camp survivors of the 20th century, who had reached Sherman's army.
Ooooh, that had to sting!
Nope, no sting here. As I said, history should be a record of what had actually happened, and not revisionism based on political ideology or romantic attachments to heritage.
Though I am the first to agree that a change of historical view can be supported by the truth. Case in point: the radical Republicans were formerly seen as despicable persons for their treatment of the defeated south, but also for their enfranchisement of black Americans following slavery. Today, these same radicals are seen as ahead of their time in regard to extending civil rights to blacks, doubtlessly due to the fact that we've grown in our sensibilities regarding democracy and fairness.
And the emancipation of the slaves was incidental to the greater objective of re-uniting the country. There was no great wonderful northern abolitionist crusade like you seem to want to believe, according to past exchanges.
I think you're misremembering my posts; rather I've stated that regardless of the motivation behind emancipation, it was still what made the Union cause just in the end. I have absolutely no problem admitting that emancipation was not a popular cause in the north, and was hardly the original motive for the north to fight the Confederacy, until Lincoln had gradually moved public opinion in favor of abolition toward the end of the war. Though it is undeniable that abolitionists, the free Soilers, and the radical Republicans certainly had seen the fight against slavery as a great and moral crusade.
We've been over this more than once in past treads going back a few years. Re-unification of the states was enough of a noble reason on its own. Aside from dyed in the wool abolitionists. I can't see that many people in the north getting their drawers in knots over slavery enough to go to war over it. We're talking about the middle of the 19th century here.
21 Sep 2014, 9:34 pm
OliveOilMom wrote:
If we secede from the Union do I get to wear a hoop skirt to the BBQ? Cause yeah, my vote may be based on that.
"War, war, war....."
"War, war, war....."
Havent seen you around here in a while.
Good to have you back again.
OliveOilMom
Veteran
Joined: 11 Nov 2011
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 11,447
Location: About 50 miles past the middle of nowhere
22 Sep 2014, 11:31 am
Raptor wrote:
OliveOilMom wrote:
If we secede from the Union do I get to wear a hoop skirt to the BBQ? Cause yeah, my vote may be based on that.
"War, war, war....."
"War, war, war....."
Havent seen you around here in a while.
Good to have you back again.
Thanks, I've been busy with real life so I haven't had a chance to chill online in a while.
Still though, I want to know about that dress. The white one with the green trim that Scarlet wore to the BBQ at Twelve Oaks the day that war was declared. I'd vote for it just to wear that dress.
_________________
I'm giving it another shot. We will see.
My forum is still there and everyone is welcome to come join as well. There is a private women only subforum there if anyone is interested. Also, there is no CAPTCHA.
The link to the forum is http://www.rightplanet.proboards.com
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Americans, Is This Really? |
01 Feb 2025, 10:44 am |
| Most Americans Approve of Trump Transition |
29 Dec 2024, 6:00 am |
