Nick News says the Alamo was all about slavery

[novus collectus]

There were black slave owners in the South at the time of the war, what was there position?

Sorry, I misread your quote above. The black slave owners were for the preservation of slavery. But of course after the war started they were at risk of becoming slaves again themselves by laws that Davis proposed (and I think, got passed).

 

[Fred Hansen]

I would love to be there when you laugh at them to their face too.

Big fun would be had by all I'm sure.


A little side note... 20+ years ago I'm standing in what passes for a country bar in Neuvo Yersey - I think it was in the town of Brick - and this dude comes in dressed like the spittin' image of one of my Navy buddies from Del Rio Texas... the whole get up, the giant belt buckle, the giganto hat with the snake skin band around it, even the pointy toed boots. I say something like "Where do you hail from Tex?" He says Rhooode Island!

I just about died laughing. The guy wanted to kick my ass too, but I was so enfeebled with laughter he eventually started laughing too. Good times. LMAO

 

[joab]

The slaves his wife inherited were freed by Missouri law before the end of the war. But this does not change the fact that the South wanted to fight to preserve slavery.

Missouri slaves were freed Jan 1865 the war ended April 1865
the slaves his wife inherited were the same ones she owned during the war and brought with her when she visited her husband at his head quarters during his campaign to end slavery

I assume you meant to say the "North" instead of the "South"?

No, I meant Black slave owners in the SOUTH, South Carolina in particular

States rights was not the impetus of the war but the legal mechanism for the cause to keep slaves. and preservation of slavery was the main focus from the beginning.

You keep preaching this even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the majority of the Northern war machine did not give half a damn about the black man.

Wrong.Although the constitution did not ban the importation of slaves, slave importation was outlawed about 25 years earlier. The importation of slaves was an illegal activity ever since even though it occurred in New Orleans and Texas until the beginning of the war

So then my comment was correct

But it did help end the war and although it did not directly free a single slave on January 1 1863 when it took effect (it was proposed by Lincoln over a year earlier and issued around September 1862), it did eventually free slaves in a somewhat indirect way during the war.

But if the war was fought to end slavery why did the Northern states not lead by example. Why did Abe not free all slaves

This is getting real boring

If you want to believe that Lincoln, a devout and out spoken white supremest went to war, with the backing of northern states that routinely denied blacks entry much less equal standing to protect the black man or that poor southerners went to war to preserve a system, that was generally regarded as dying and archaic due to the advent of new technology that would make slaves more costly than useful and was a luxury less than %25 of the population indulged in, More power to you

But then in your mind only those text books published in New York and Pennsylvania ( go ahead and look in the school house textbooks) are more pertinent than the actual words spoken by participants on both sides of the war. But I'm the revisionist

 

[novus collectus]

Big fun would be had by all I'm sure.

I brought this up on Mdshooter.com and it is apparent that you and ahenry may prove me wrong on this. Apparently there are a few Marylanders that feel the same way as you guys about whether or not Marylanders can call themselves Southerners. I guess the people I grew up with either have moved, or what I call a Southerner is different than what Virginians are (my standard of comparison). One guy I spoke to that moved here from Georgia pointed this out to me. Oh well, it wouldn't be the first time I misperceived.

Missouri slaves were freed Jan 1865 the war ended April 1865

You got me on that one Joab, but I guess both of us were wrong because that was before the ammendment was passed.

You keep preaching this even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the majority of the Northern war machine did not give half a damn about the black man.

DUDE!! read the whole thread and you will see that not only did I not defend the North's position on racism, bigotry, and hypocrisy, but I even called Lincoln a racist bigot (by today's standards). All I am saying is that Southerners are conviently forgetting that the war was fought for the preservation of slavery and that it was the main, biggest problem and it was not even the "straw that broke the camel's back" but was the main purpose from the South's perspective.

But then in your mind only those text books published in New York and Pennsylvania ( go ahead and look in the school house textbooks) are more pertinent than the actual words spoken by participants on both sides of the war. But I'm the revisionist

You have used expressions and facts commonly found on neo-confederate revisionist websites. I have used more than a few quotes found in Southern newspapers. I HAVE been using the words actually spoken in the South. It is not made up or twisted if you look up in your local archives for actual newspapers from the 8 months leading up to the war and in the beginning. One book that I cited before in this thread was written by a Southerner that thought the exact same way you and ahenry did until he looked at actual historical documents for himself. the "Apostles of Disunion: Southern Seccession Commisioners and the Causes of the Civil War" by Charles Dew, published in CHARLOTSVILLE VA, BY UNIVERSITY PRESS OF VIRGINIA.

 

[joab]

All I am saying is that Southerners are conviently forgetting that the war was fought for the preservation of slavery and that it was the main, biggest problem and it was not even the "straw that broke the camel's back" but was the main purpose from the South's perspective.

All I'm saying is that the rsearch I have done over the years convinces me that you are mistaken

You have used expressions and facts commonly found on neo-confederate revisionist websites.

Of course they are, they are not on the federal goverment's approved list of unbiased books that call Lincoln "Honest Abe" and "The Great Emancipator" so they must be revisionary.

I place much more empasis on the letters of soldiers and books written at the time. And on conversations with people who actually lived in the time period shortly after the war , who had actually contact with people who live through the war

But like I said this has gotten way too boring. Believe what you want. I also used to think like that until I had to research and write a term paper on the subject.

 

[novus collectus]

I place much more empasis on the letters of soldiers and books written at the time. And on conversations with people who actually lived in the time period shortly after the war , who had actually contact with people who live through the war

One thing I know I have learned in college is the expression "vetted sources". Your websites may easily be based on lies. The government cannot control (unless someone believes in all conspiracy theories) what the archives hold. When you did this research, did you look at what the ruling class was saying to these people? The newspapers, have you read more than one?

How about the book I mentioned? is Virginia a liberal, Northern state that likes to color history?

And yes Colombus was a genocidal murderer, yes Jefferson was a hypocrite, yes Washington grew weed and owned slaves, yes Alexander the Great was bisexual, yes Japan killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people in Nanking alone and yes many people who looked at these people as idols when growing up refuse to recognise the truth about them. This is my point.

I was in the Air and Space museum in D.C. looking at the WWII exhibit when I met an Asian man. I asked him his opinion of the Rape of Nanking to see the Asian take on it since he said he was raised there. Apparently he was one of those people from a former Japanese "colony" that thought of himself as Japanese and raised in a Japanese sympathetic society. He made the claim that there were fewer than 30,000 people killed and they were aggressors and not innocents. Now, just like I am saying here, look at the newspapers from the time. They actually bragged about some of the atrocities in their press and thought it noble to kill hundreds of thousands. (a Nazi witness present was even appaled by the attrocities) That is the type of revisionism I am talking about. Because the revisions happened before you were born and has not been challenged, you will continue to believe something that can be easily disproven if you just read the newspapers , official correspondence and copies of speeches.

 

[joab]

Your websites may easily be based on lies.

Of course they are

many people who looked at these people as idols when growing up refuse to recognize the truth about them. This is my point.

Goes both ways

All I am saying is that Southerners are conviently forgetting that the war was fought for the preservation of slavery and that it was the main, biggest problem and it was not even the "straw that broke the camel's back" but was the main purpose from the South's perspective.

All I'm saying is that federalist are conviently placing slavery as the main issue because that makes it a noble war

just read the newspapers , official correspondence and copies of speeches.

Gee wish I had thought of that
You make the claim that I rely on pro confederate sources for my info while totally failing to see the obvious pro federalist leanings of your sources.

Interesting that the source you asked me to track down points out that the INS, on their citizenship test, acknowledges that either slavery or states rights would be a correct answer to the simplistic question "What was the cause of the Civil War". But your author alone knows better

We ain't gonna settle this here and I'm really tired of going round and round on a hi-jacked thread so I'm done.

I'm gonna go read "The Southern History of The War" written by a southern politician back in 1863. (I'll black out all references to tariffs , state right, and equal representation) to see if there is indeed a reason that they were called confederates and not slavers

Bye

 

[novus collectus]

You make the claim that I rely on pro confederate sources for my info while totally failing to see the obvious pro federalist leanings of your sources.

If you took the time to read beyond what you want to see, you would have seen that I wasl talking about the newspapers of the time preceding the C. War and in the beginning of it in the South's own words to their own people. I am not relying on biased sources and I have only mentioned ones that have been put up to proper peer review as well as the newspapers that used the words of the South at the time they were said.

many people who looked at these people as idols when growing up refuse to recognize the truth about them. This is my point.

Unlike you, I am willing to take the good with the bad and I am not defending the North and I am just trying to correct a wrong revisionist version. If I was speaking to another Northerner, I would point out that the North fought the war to keep their agricultural base for their developing industrial economy as well as the part about preserving the Union. With me truth is truth or at the very least I would like to strive to it. You have tried to defend your position not with vettable facts, but with attacks on the North that you were most likely trying to get me riled with.

Interesting that the source you asked me to track down points out that the INS, on their citizenship test, acknowledges that either slavery or states rights would be a correct answer to the simplistic question "What was the cause of the Civil War". But your author alone knows better

Too bad you didn't read beyond the first paragraph . If you read more of the "Apostles of Disunion" you would find out that it is like that on the test for PC reasons more than practical ones. Aparently, some of the Southern senators were able to get that part revised.

We ain't gonna settle this here and I'm really tired of going round and round on a hi-jacked thread so I'm done.

The topic was revisionism of history. Like what you are a victim of apparently. (and to be honest, we all have been about something in history sometimes)

I'm gonna go read "The Southern History of The War" written by a southern politician back in 1863. (I'll black out all references to tariffs , state right, and equal representation) to see if there is indeed a reason that they were called confederates and not slavers

What, more propaganda to support revisionism? Stalin Soviets would have loved to have easily fooled subjects like you in Russia.

Bye

And good riddance.

 

[joab]

What, more propaganda to support revisionism?

I thought you told me to read the wordsof the ruling class at the time, sorry I guess you meant only the ones that support your side.

 

[novus collectus]

Get real Joab. You read one book that was written during the war. If you want to know what caused the war, wouldn't make sense to read something from the time that lead up to the war and was during the beginning? Even we used propaganda during WWII. In the period right before the war the call for the preservation of slavery was the focus and meanwhile tarrifs were actually reduced years earlier. The part about equal representation goes back to slavery as well because of the constant fight to expand slavery to the territories so that they could get more votes to keep the institution of slavery.

If Lincoln and other anti-slavery Republicans were not elected during the four years preceding the war, the so called "state's rights" issue would have been handled in the Supreme court and there would have been no war at all. If the South did not expend a huge part of their resources on slavery that was needed for agriculture, they woud not have had an overwhelming need to fight to keep the institution of slavery.

Read the newspapers from the time and the entire record of speeches instead of "chosen" excerpts and then come back and tell me I am wrong. If not then I will look at you and others as people who are afraid to learn the truth because it may prove them wrong. If you had argued without trying to attack the North and instead tried to prove me wrong (with legitimate sources), then you may have had a chance of convincing me to recheck my self and maybe even write a book about how I had let myself be fooled. But as it is, you are just like that man from Asia who chose to ignore the overwhelming truth about his hero worship and continue to believe what he wants without question. Just like I am making the claim about you, he also chose to read just what supported his view out of fear that he would have to rethink his whole idealogy or perspective.

 

[ahenry]

Novus,

I think we have a failure to communicate here.

The original and technical Mason-Dixon line as surveyed by Mason and Dixon was a “line” between Maryland and Pennsylvania establishing their borders, making your statement about Maryland being south of the Mason-Dixon line correct.

The more idiomatic and modern meaning is a “line” separating the Northern states and the Southern states during the War Between the States, making my comment correct. If you want me to say, “I was wrong” so be it. I meant the term as a division line between the Confederate states and the U.S. states. Sorry for the confusion over terminology.

 

[novus collectus]

ahenry,
If you look at post #84 of this thread you will see that you have somewhat convinced me of your viewpoint on Marylanders not being Southerners already. The few Southerners we had must have fled Maryland when we got the Northerner influx in the past few decades (I am saying this without sarcasm and with sincerity). My view of what a Southerner is probably pales in comparison to what a Georgian (or other parts of the deep South) would call a Southerner anyway.

Someone on another thread, that I tried to corroborate my claim on, made a good point in your favor. There were 22,000 Marylanders that fought for the South, but there were more than twice that many that fought for the North.

 

[kjm]

OK- I'm back in.
Maybe I should change my moniker to Mr. History.

Welcome Joab. Good to have you in the fight.

Now- Novus:
While your assertion about Maryland may be incorrect or correct, it is a pretty well-defined fact that while Maryland was a part of the Union, they did have VERY strong southern sympathies and so Gen. Longstreet correctly thought that the Army should abandon Gettysburg and move to Maryland where they could capture Washington, find friends in Maryland and win the war. We'll never know because Lee didn't believe in retreat in the face of the enemy.

Let's put a rest to this Maryland mess since Maryland was only Union under duress, not choice. Still- they ain't Southern. I never had a good fried chicken in Maryland nor have I ever had good pork-ribs. They don't fry chicken, they eat crabs and such.

Now- there was lots of hypocricy on both sides of the line, but the Union seems to take the prize. The personal habits and property of the generals on either side don't really matter. The war is over and the victors proclaimed it to be about slavery so we must abide forever amen.

At least Texas got Juneteenth out of it which propelled Big Red and BBQ into its rightful place in the pantheon of Texas culture.

The Alamo still had nothing to do with slavery.

 

[novus collectus]

The Alamo still had nothing to do with slavery.

Agreed.