[Gray_Rider]

Originally Posted by clancy

This statement perfectly illustrates your mindset. Either you are totally ignorant of African history, a hardoce racist, or both.

Yes, this is why Africa was known as "the white man's graveyard". Africa in the 1800's was no pleasure cruise. It isn't today either BTW. (See "Blackhawk Down", or is that just more Southern bigotry and lies?) Slavery was rampant and many slaves purchased by the Northern slave traders were slaves in their own country first BEFORE they were sold to the Northern slavers.

The slave traders didn't go there and steal blacks, they PURCHASED them with rum, firearms, gold, silver, and trinkets from their own kings and rulers. The poor wretches were taken in chains from the interior by their own people and lead over many miles of jungle to the coast. Fail to keep up? You get cut loose for the jungle denizens to feast upon. Don't fetch a buyer? Same fate or murdered on the spot. Read and refute the books Clancy and stop with the insults.

Slavery runs rampant in Africa today, and please show me a more savage group than the Hutu's murdering the Tutsi's till rivers ran thick with the slaughtered men women and children. Women with their arms hacked off and children chopped to pieces. Read about the Congo sometime and Rorke's Drift. Those people weren't Sunday school attendees then and they aren't now. The people living there in the 17-1800s weren't known as anyone's "sweet and kindly group". If you were shipwrecked on the African coast, you stood a good chance of being eaten, murdered, or taken into slavery yourself, as many missionaries and shipwreck survivor stories will attest to. It wasn't called "Darkest Africa" for no reason.

Your statement shows the ignorance sir.

Gray_Rider

[Gray_Rider]

Originally Posted by clancy

True, the New England States did threaten to secede. And it was a Southern born, slave holding President who threatened to send in THE FEDERAL ARMY to prevent them from doing so. OF course, you would not mention that because it won't help your argument

The states still clearly understood their right to secede as set down by the founding fathers. Misuse of Federal power is still misuse of Federal power, and no one even came close to doing what Lincoln and his cronies did with the Constitution, and by their own admission. (See "The Unpopular Mr. Lincoln".)

My argument doesn't need any help. Lincoln still did what he did and our Constitutional Republic was still destroyed.

Dance and sing Clancy, dance and sing!

Gray_Rider

[Gray_Rider]

Originally Posted by clancy

I am still waiting, Gray Rider, for you to point out where it says in the OR that slavery is going to be eliminated.

Here is a quote from Nathan Bedford Forrest, regarding his service in the Civil War, "if I hadn't thought we were fighting to keep our ******s, I wouldn't have gone to war".

Here is a quote from Dear Sister, a compilation of letters written by a private in Co. D, 3rd Alabama Infantry, "I wish these yankees would leave us alone and let us keep our ******s. They just don't understand that slavery is God's will."

Here is a quote written in a by Capt. Joshua Miles, 2nd Virginia Infantry, about free blacks captured in Pennsylvania, " Some of these ******s are crying they were born free men. ******s are meant to be slaves, and the whip shut them up pretty quick, let me tell you. Once we get them back to Richmond we will sell them."

If the South had such a progressive attitude towards slavery and blacks, how is it tha General Patrick Cleburne's career was almost ruined when he advocated the freeing of slaves and putting them into the army?

Considering the slaves' net worth exceeded the total manufacturing holdings and national product of the North, to say nothing about the massive need and use of human labor to provide what the South/North/England/ etc needed IE cotton and tobacco, I can understand why slave holding was fought for and slavery upheld in the South.

The North lost tens of thousands of soldiers to desertion when Lincoln fielded his proclamation. Ever hear of the NY draft riots? There was a major uproar in the sainted North when it was found Lincoln wanted to free them unilaterally.

Bigotry and anti slave/black feelings weren't just a Southern 'problem'. Lincoln's proclamation was given to keep England and France out of the war and to hopefully cause a slave uprising across the South.

Gray_Rider

[Gray_Rider]

Originally Posted by clancy

What was it that "you" warned "me" about in 1861? What was it that "you" left the Union over that came to pass in such horrific proportions? Are you now claiming you were an adult in 1861?

Clancy,

No, I was not an adult in 1861. I just report word for word what adults white, black, free and slave, master, man, soldier and general, rich and poor, North and South said who WERE adults in 1861 and lived through that time said about what they saw and lived to tall about.

Please look up Bill Yop ("10 cent Bill") or John Jasper as an example. Check out Mary Chestnut's diary. Read the words of Lincoln concerning blacks and slaves and slavery.

Having studied the Civil War extensively, and written my Master's Thesis on the orgins of the war, I cannot recall a single line from any of the books, memoirs, diaries and newspaper accounts I used in my research that warned anyone about the current crime rate or the current racial issues in this country. Could you post a credible source. Take notice I said credible. Freeman, Robertson, or any of the memoirs of Confederate politicians, clergy, newspaper editors or militry officers please, not your pseudo-intellectual revisionists.

Read and refute the "pseudo-intellectual revisionists" and get back to me. If the North knew what was about to be done to this nation as a whole, with the unilateral freeing of a people who had no real concept of freedom and its true price, (to say nothing of the price paid in our freedoms), the South would have been left to go in peace as we asked to.

The carpetbaggers and "reconstruction" set the stage for what happened over the coming decades between white and black Americans, slave and free. It has cost the country trillions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives. Freed slaves were promised "40 acres and a mule" to be provided for by ruined Southerners. It didn't happen, and it won't ever happen, just like it didn't happen in Stalin's Russia, but sadly the lie is still being waited on for fulfillment.

See Robert E. Lee's statement to then Texas Governor Stockdale pages 42/43 "The South was Right". Lee could see the writing on the wall five years after the war, and I don't think he was talking about freed blacks or 150 years of racial trouble.

Hint: He stated he would have rather died leading his men than have surrendered amongst other things...."Had I foreseen...."

Gray_Rider

[clancy]

Originally Posted by Gray_Rider

Yes, this is why Africa was known as "the white man's graveyard". Africa in the 1800's was no pleasure cruise. It isn't today either BTW. (See "Blackhawk Down", or is that just more Southern bigotry and lies?) Slavery was rampant and many slaves purchased by the Northern slave traders were slaves in their own country first BEFORE they were sold to the Northern slavers.

The slave traders didn't go there and steal blacks, they PURCHASED them with rum, firearms, gold, silver, and trinkets from their own kings and rulers. The poor wretches were taken in chains from the interior by their own people and lead over many miles of jungle to the coast. Fail to keep up? You get cut loose for the jungle denizens to feast upon. Don't fetch a buyer? Same fate or murdered on the spot. Read and refute the books Clancy and stop with the insults.

Slavery runs rampant in Africa today, and please show me a more savage group than the Hutu's murdering the Tutsi's till rivers ran thick with the slaughtered men women and children. Women with their arms hacked off and children chopped to pieces. Read about the Congo sometime and Rorke's Drift. Those people weren't Sunday school attendees then and they aren't now. The people living there in the 17-1800s weren't known as anyone's "sweet and kindly group". If you were shipwrecked on the African coast, you stood a good chance of being eaten, murdered, or taken into slavery yourself, as many missionaries and shipwreck survivor stories will attest to. It wasn't called "Darkest Africa" for no reason.

Your statement shows the ignorance sir.

Gray_Rider

Africa was known as the white man's graveyard because of malaria and other tropical diseases. As far as reading about the Congo and Rorke's Drift, King Leopld's Ghost and Like Wolves On The Fold are both great books, well researched and well written, unlike your pseudo-historians who wish life was still Antebellum. As far as the atrocities in Rwanda, that just illustrates that no ethnic group holds a patent on cruelty. Asians have butchered Asians and Europeans have butchered Europeans for eons yet you don't seem to think they are racially inferior.

It was called Darkest Africa because no Eoropean, beginning with Roman efforts to find the headwaters of the Nile, were able to go incountry and survive the heat and diseases. It wasn't until Stanley made his epic journey from the west coast to the east coast of Africa. along the Congo in the 1880's( ajourney frought with cruelty on Stanley's part, I must add) that the interior of Africa really began to be mapped.

How ignorant is that?

[clancy]

Originally Posted by Gray_Rider

Read and refute the "pseudo-intellectual revisionists" and get back to me. If the North knew what was about to be done to this nation as a whole, with the unilateral freeing of a people who had no real concept of freedom and its true price, (to say nothing of the price paid in our freedoms), the South would have been left to go in peace as we asked to.

The carpetbaggers and "reconstruction" set the stage for what happened over the coming decades between white and black Americans, slave and free. It has cost the country trillions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives. Freed slaves were promised "40 acres and a mule" to be provided for by ruined Southerners. It didn't happen, and it won't ever happen, just like it didn't happen in Stalin's Russia, but sadly the lie is still being waited on for fulfillment.

See Robert E. Lee's statement to then Texas Governor Stockdale pages 42/43 "The South was Right". Lee could see the writing on the wall five years after the war, and I don't think he was talking about freed blacks or 150 years of racial trouble.

Hint: He stated he would have rather died leading his men than have surrendered amongst other things...."Had I foreseen...."

Gray_Rider

As a man who placed personal honor above all things, RE Lee would have rather died a warriors death than surrender, because in his mind that is what a leader does. Of course, knowing full well the war was lost by mid to late 1864, he had no problem sending 10,000s of thousands of men to their deaths to stoke that sense of honor. How honorable is that?

[clancy]

Originally Posted by Gray_Rider

Considering the slaves' net worth exceeded the total manufacturing holdings and national product of the North, to say nothing about the massive need and use of human labor to provide what the South/North/England/ etc needed IE cotton and tobacco, I can understand why slave holding was fought for and slavery upheld in the South.

The North lost tens of thousands of soldiers to desertion when Lincoln fielded his proclamation. Ever hear of the NY draft riots? There was a major uproar in the sainted North when it was found Lincoln wanted to free them unilaterally.

Bigotry and anti slave/black feelings weren't just a Southern 'problem'. Lincoln's proclamation was given to keep England and France out of the war and to hopefully cause a slave uprising across the South.

Gray_Rider

if the South's cotton was so important to England's industry, it didn't take long for it to be replaced with Egyptian cotton, which was found to be a superior product.

The North as well as the South was plagued by desertion from day 1 of the war. You are making it sound as if the Emancipation Proclamation was a leading cause. It wasn't. Any honest student of the Civil War acknowledges that racism was rampant in the North as well as the South. But the war was not fought to free the , it was to prevent secession. Can you show me just where it is in the Constitution that states that individual states are allowed to secede? The Articles of Confederation implicitly states they are not allowed to do so, and that predates the Constitution.

You keep rehashing the same, easily refuted arguments put forth by a bunch of quacks. Can you come up with something original?

[Gray_Rider]

Yes. Read and refute the books. I'm tired if pointing out fact after fact and having it whitewashed as "revisionist history". The constitutionality of secession is well documented and explained therein. "The South was Right". Pelican Press. Donald and Ronald Kennedy. Chapter 8 Secession: Answering the critics. Chapter 9 State's Rights and Constitutional Liberty. Chapter 10 New Unreconstructed Southerners.

Also the other books I have listed numerous and sundry times. "War For What?" "Lincoln Unmasked". "The Real Lincoln". "The Unpopular Mr. Lincoln". The latter uses extensive coverage of newspapers of the day in the NORTH (before they were shut down or threatened into silence by Federal troops sent by Lincoln)

You and others fail to make ANY reference to the destruction of our Constitutional Republic and the destruction and trashing of the Constitution by the Lincoln administration.

Your side "won" and we as a country as a whole must suffer the consequences, and have since war's end. Especially the South.

And as to Lee's statement about his regretting his surrender at Appomattox, read the book, and get the whole story. He saw the damage being done from the beginning and with a word could have given the go for a war that could have lasted decades. Grant and others feared that above everything, and worked diligently and fairly (again against the federal government) to treat the defeated South with dignity.


Till then, dance and sing. Our founders are weeping in heaven, and Stalin and Hitler laugh in Hell.

Yours in the Cause, and we DID, North and South "warn you in 1862".

Gray_Rider

[clancy]

Dude, you sound like a one note song. I have read several of the books on your list, and anyone with any knowledge of American history and the history of the Civil War can easily pick them apart.

Your constant reference to "we warned you in'62" makes me wonder if you are so wrapped up in the Lost Cause mythology that you cannot separate fact from fiction and the past from the present. Neither you nor I were there, nor do we know anyone who was there during the Civil War, but we do have the benefit of 10's of thousands of memoirs, diaries, newspaper accounts, and well researched books. First on the list of great author's would be Freeman, Catton, Sears, Davis, Rhea, Robertson and McPherson who all wrote great histories of the conflict, the events leading up to the war, individual battles and the various leaders on both sides. Yet it seems as if you choose to base your argument on poor reasearch, lax interpretation, and piss poor scholarshp. I too was raised on the myth of the Antebellom South, and fell for it hook, line and sinker. It wasn't until I wrote my Master's Thesis on The Origins of the American Civil War and found my core beliefs on the war and it's beginnings the diametric opposite of the truth.

Did Lincoln bend and sometimes bend and even break the Constitution during the war? Yes, he did. Can you name a President who did not, to a lesser or greater extent do the same? I doubt it.

Could Lee have prolonged the war? For a year or , but that is about it. The Army of Northern Virginia was literally melting away, through battle casualties, disease, and what almost no Confederate revisionist likes to admit, mass desertions. The South was never a unified entity, and 10's of thousands of Southern men fought for the Union, another fact that Confederate revisionists like to ignore. Did Northern born men fight for the South. OF course, but primarily those who had moved to the South before the war. Can you name any regiments raised in a Northern state that was raised to fight for the Confederacy? There were dozens rasied on the South that fought to preserve the Union.

I will no longer debate the subject with you, as it is clearly futile. Wrap yourself in your Flag of St. Andrew, yearn for the days when you had the right to own another man, and wallow in the Myth of the Lost Cause.

[Gray_Rider]

If you have read said books please disprove the facts therein. I have no fight with your education or studies. Just don't overlook the facts I have plainly set forth and provided ample proof of.

I don't "yearn for the days" when I could "own another man" and have never stated any such thing. Neither do the authors of said books BTW. As always when faced with facts, it's RACIST!!! BIGOT!!! HATER!! Where do you get that? My posts are many here. Point out the one where I have said anything in this vein, please.

I have only stated that slavery worked when nothing else did. The slaves held in North America were treated better than any slaves on record. They were bought from their own people through the use of Islamic slave traders, and transferred to this country by Northern slave merchants. The Confederacy didn't own any slave ships and the "cross of St. Andrew" didn't fly over any of said ships. Talk about things that are left out of the history of that time!!

As always with you, (and most others who disagree with me) it is totally about slavery and laaa tee daaa about the loss of Constitutional rights. Slavery could have been ended peacefully and the trillions of dollars wasted since the 1860's could have been used to put men of this country on Mars by now. Hundreds of thousands of lives could have been spared. The Federal government wouldn't be dictating what kind of bathroom tissue we use. We wouldn't be sitting on billions of barrels of our own oil while we kiss terrorists' feet and send our boys to die for it. But, as I stated above...who cares? Dance and sing! Let them hills ring! You "won". What are you upset about?

P.S.

P.M.A.T.H! I'm just tired of having the South remembered and punished 150 years later for a pack of lies. Nothing more. Nothing less. You would think I was defending Nazi Germany. (Oh yes, we were "worse than the Nazis". WHOOOOP! we WERE NAZIS to hear the Lincoln cult tell it. I keep forgetting...) And I am accused of being revisionist!!??

Gray_Rider

[clancy]

Originally Posted by Gray_Rider

where they lived in naked savgery and unimaginable hardship and squalior.

Gray_Rider

I think that line pretty much sums up your mindset. You constantly talk about how great things were back then,
As far as the war being totally about slavery, noone with any real knowledge of the origins of the Civil War can intelligently argue that the South seceded for any other reason than the preservation of slavery, a point I have mentioned several times and you seem unable to admit. The war was fought to preserve the Union, not free the slaves. Lincoln said he had no intention in interfering with slavery, where it already existed. But that wasn't good enough for the rich plantation class that controlled the South.

The bemoaning the loss of constitutional rights seems to be onesided where you are concerned. Jeff Davis bent and broke the constitution of the Confederate States of America, too, but as that doesn't support your argument you choose to ignore that.

As far as slavery being such a benign institution that would have eventually died out, then why was it guarenteed in the Confederate constitution that slavery woould last in perpetuity? Why did slaves escape from their owners every chance they could. Why did Southern slaveowners live in constant fear of slave insurrection?

I agree hundreds of thousands of lives could have been spared, but you make that sound as if the guilt for those men's deaths lies solely at the feet of Abraham Lincoln. "Rich man's war, poor man's fight" was a phrase used by soldiers of both sides, because if one owned enough slaves, you didn't have to go to war, a right pushed through the Confederate Congress much to the displeasure fo the poorer residents of the South. You also seem to think Davis and Lee are guiltfree for sending young men to their deaths, knowing full well the war was lost. I guess their Southern sense of honor absolves them of any guilt.

So, now you are arguing the the Confederacy's loss has now led to Fedral regulations dictating the kind of toilet paper you are using? You are saying that had the South been allowed to secede peacefully we would have put a man on Mars? Aren't you reaching just a bit? As for arguing that if the South had won, or at least been allowed ot secede we would be drilling for oil in our own country and be free from foreign oil imports, well, again, wow. I admire your imagination

I cannot recall any argument here stated by me or anyone else comparing the Confederate States of America with Nazi Germany. As far as the South still being punished, I see your point. No one from the South has been allowed to run for President since the Civil War, let alone hold that office, no Southern resident holds national office, no industry has been allowed to be built, the South is still a smoking ruin. The residents are in a state of starvation and live in squalor. The fields remain untilled and lie fallow. Atlanta, Charleston and Richmond are still waiting to be rebuilt. The boot of Abraham Lincoln still rests firmly on the neck of all those who live south of the Mason-Dixon Line.

You do have an entertaining flair for the dramatic, though.

[RichardB]

" I'm just tired of having the South remembered and punished 150 years later"'

Punished? Get Real!

Our South has been the beneficiary of billions of yankee taxpayer's dollars and Yankee private capital investment since FDRs new deal even though a 100 years after the end of the Civil War black people were denied by southern state and local governments the right to vote. When I was in the Army I was often too ashamed by the public antics of southern politicians and police to very loudly admit my southern background to soldiers from the north. Things changed since I became an adult; but we should never forget the garbage we inherited.

[Gray_Rider]

[QUOTE=clancy;19322488]I think that line pretty much sums up your mindset. You constantly talk about how great things were back then,
As far as the war being totally about slavery, noone with any real knowledge of the origins of the Civil War can intelligently argue that the South seceded for any other reason than the preservation of slavery, a point I have mentioned several times and you seem unable to admit. The war was fought to preserve the Union, not free the slaves. Lincoln said he had no intention in interfering with slavery, where it already existed. But that wasn't good enough for the rich plantation class that controlled the South.

The bemoaning the loss of constitutional rights seems to be onesided where you are concerned. Jeff Davis bent and broke the constitution of the Confederate States of America, too, but as that doesn't support your argument you choose to ignore that.

As far as slavery being such a benign institution that would have eventually died out, then why was it guarenteed in the Confederate constitution that slavery woould last in perpetuity? Why did slaves escape from their owners every chance they could. Why did Southern slaveowners live in constant fear of slave insurrection?

I agree hundreds of thousands of lives could have been spared, but you make that sound as if the guilt for those men's deaths lies solely at the feet of Abraham Lincoln. "Rich man's war, poor man's fight" was a phrase used by soldiers of both sides, because if one owned enough slaves, you didn't have to go to war, a right pushed through the Confederate Congress much to the displeasure fo the poorer residents of the South. You also seem to think Davis and Lee are guiltfree for sending young men to their deaths, knowing full well the war was lost. I guess their Southern sense of honor absolves them of any guilt.

So, now you are arguing the the Confederacy's loss has now led to Fedral regulations dictating the kind of toilet paper you are using? You are saying that had the South been allowed to secede peacefully we would have put a man on Mars? Aren't you reaching just a bit? As for arguing that if the South had won, or at least been allowed ot secede we would be drilling for oil in our own country and be free from foreign oil imports, well, again, wow. I admire your imagination


Lincoln had a reputation of speaking out of both sides of his mouth concerning the slavery issue, and his proclamation was ample proof. Even though you think the plantation owners quaked in their boots over slave uprisings, they STILL didn't happen even during the darkest hours of the war. Hundreds of homesteads and plantations were left defenseless and in the hands of the slaves as the young men were away at war. Lincoln's proclamation was a war program that he hoped would cause a massive uprising in the defenseless Southern homeland. Didn't happen, though it did keep England and France out of the war by changing the focus of the war in 1862.

Lincoln invaded the South. We asked to leave peacefully and we did. Firing on the virtually unmanned and understocked shell of a Union fort not withstanding. We pleaded for peace and Lincoln would have none of it and called for 75,000 man to "put down the rebellion". Lincoln WAS sending a re-supply ship. The attack on Ft. Sumpter, a potential knife at our throats, was used as an excuse for said invasion. Check your extensive records and see who was the aggressor in about the first six battles. We were the ones attacked, not you. Our people, towns, cities. Not yours. We were supposed to hole up in our cellars and await the Yankee invader? We were the ones invaded, and Lincoln gave the order, so yes the loss of hundreds of thousands is on Lincoln's hands.

The net worth of the slaves exceeded the sum total of all the Union factories and industry and was the sole means that our lifeblood, cotton and tobacco were raised so when Lincoln was elected of course there was fear and war prep going on. No one could foresee the extent of the industrial revolution so of course slavery was defended to the death. It was how things got done in the agriculturial world at that time. What were we supposed to do? Sit and starve and live in manure and twig huts? We begged for a peaceful settlement, but we got the bayonet. The blood of nearly a million Americans are on Lincoln's hands squarely.

Gray_Rider

[Gray_Rider]

As far as federal regulations for and their heavy hand and taxation on every man woman and child in America, it started with Lincoln and his followers. Trillions have been spent on social welfare alone that probably wouldn't have been needed if the South was allowed to leave and form our own country. Slavery was ending regardless of who thought it wasn't or was going to in 1861. It died out everywhere (except Hati and here) including Brazil twenty years after it was forced to end here. When an army comes marching up your street, burning your home and shooting your people, please tell me you will just sit and let it happen. I'm not offering an apology for defending our homes and hearths. We didn't do any "invading" till our backs were against the wall, and troops were being unloaded from Germany, Ireland, England, et al and sent against Americans.

Lincoln could have ended slavery peacefully. It was in his grasp to do so. He didn't.

He and his minions invaded US. Against the clear dictates of the Constitution. Nothing the South did comes close to that, and you should understand that.

Lincoln savaged the Constitution. The same Constitution whose tatters we live under today. The one our forefathers sacrificed everything for including their freedom and their lives. Sorry that fact sticks in your craw. The states have almost no control of the federal government due to the loss of state's rights. Take a look at the envrio-mess we have to live under as an example. We are STILL sitting on billions of barrels of our own oil while we sacrifice our blood for Arab oil. Nah! Kindly Uncle Sugar is our friend! Till your dare cross his path that is. I read once that there are over twenty taxes on a loaf of bread! As I have stated before, our founders weep in heaven.

Gray_Rider

[clancy]

You certainly don't let fact get in the way of your opinions. IF nothing else, you are consistent.

Even a cursory look at the historical record shows just how wrong you are regarding slave insurrections in this country, beginning in Colonial times. There were slave revolts in Virginia in 1663, 2 in the colony of New York in 1712 and 1741,, in New Orleans in 1811, denmark Vessey in South carolina in 1811 and the most famous one after the revolution, the one led by Nat Turner. For you to say that the slave owners of the South didn't fear slave insurrections shows an incredible lack of knowledge. After the Nat Turner Rebellion the southern states made laws restricting the movements and assembly of both slaves and free blacks.

So, what was Fort Sumter, a virtually unmanned understocked shell of a fort, or a knife at the throat of the Confederate States of America? One sounds remarkably dssimilar from the other.

Noone could see the extent of the Industrial Revolution? What, did that start in 1860? The ID decades before the Civil War. The rich southern plantation owners wanted no part of it and did all they could to keep it out of the South. They wanted nothing to do with anything that might effect their aristocratic way of life.

Twist it any way you want, the South fired the first shots, everything that happened after that was in answer to the naked aggression against a "virtually unmanned" Federal fort.

Could you perhaps explain, why, after Lincoln made it plain that he ahd no intention of interfering with slavery where it already existed, did the South feel the need to secede to preserve slavery?

As far as Lincoln talking out of both sides of his mouth, he was a politician. Can you name one who didn't? And do you really feel Lee and Davis have no responsibility for sending men to their deaths knowing full well the war was lost?

[Gray_Rider]

First, I didn't say they didn't fear slave insurrections. Second, I never said they didn't happen. I did say that Lincoln's proclamation was a war measure to keep France and England out of the war and to start a MAJOR slave revolt in the South where most all the able bodied men were off fighting the invader. Hundreds of households farms and your hated plantations were in the hands of slaves who could have slaughtered their whitefolks and joined the Yankee invader. Didn't happen. Most slaves stayed with their families and many died protecting their owners properties and their owners very lives. Offical records are replete with Union reports of slaves being rounded up to serve in the Union army as slave labor and as soldiers. If the slaves revolted, even in the slightest, the Confederacy wouldn't have lasted six months. Slave revolts in other parts of this hemisphere were common and very bloody. Slaves were often beloved members of the family and served generations of the same family. It wasn't all whips and chains or the moment the southern men were off to war the slaughter would have began.
The books I have offered have documented proof of this, to say nothing of the overwhelming burden of proof of history, and other facts whether you wish to accept it or not.

More on Ft. Sumpter soon, but you will probably reject that too.

Gray_Rider

[clancy]

if this is the best you can do, I am through debating with you.

[Gray_Rider]

The best I can do?? As I foresaw. Facts don't faze you. Please prove any of my statements wrong. No one has yet. Check the reference sections in the books I have offered. Please point out the falsehood. Its has been many months since I first offered my rebuttals. No one has proven them wrong. Still waiting.

P.S. Fort Sumpter information still coming.

Yours in the Cause,

Gray_Rider

[clancy]

[QUOTE=Gray_Rider;19351650.

Even though you think the plantation owners quaked in their boots over slave uprisings, they STILL didn't happen even during the darkest hours of the war.

No one could foresee the extent of the industrial revolution so of course slavery was defended to the death.

Gray_Rider[/QUOTE]

These 2 statements alone illustrate your inablity to grasp facts. You keep saying read your books. I have read about half on your list. The research and documentation is sophormoric. The premise behind your argument Lincoln could have ended slavery peaceably is laughable. Lincoln stated repeatedly he had no intention of interfering with slavery. WHERE IT ALREADY EXISTED. That wasn't good enough for the rich plantation owners, who were far more interested in preserving their aristocracy. Another point you seem either unwilling or unable to grasp is that the best opportunity that the South had was getting Stephen Douglas elected President, but after Lecompton they kicked him to the curb and put Breckinridge in to run as a 3rd candidtate, knowing full well that he would pull enough votes from Douglas to insure Douglas would lose, (remember Ross Perot?).

You seem to think that the reason the slaves didn't revolt during the Civil War was because they were so happy being slaves. They didn't have to revolt. They were too busy escaping to the Federal armies. How do you explain that all the Confederate states except South Carolina sent dozens of regiments to fight for the union?

Can you explain why it as made punishable with imprisonment for a newspaper editor to print any anti-slavery tract in the South? How about the mass hangings in Texas of those who were anti'slavery? if the south was such a tolerant society why was it one literally lived under the very real threat of violent death if they dared to speak publicly about the evils of slavery?

And it is Fort Sumter, not Sumpter. You can't even get spelling straight. let alone facts.

[Gray_Rider]

Originally Posted by clancy

These 2 statements alone illustrate your inablity to grasp facts. You keep saying read your books. I have read about half on your list. The research and documentation is sophormoric. The premise behind your argument Lincoln could have ended slavery peaceably is laughable. Lincoln stated repeatedly he had no intention of interfering with slavery. WHERE IT ALREADY EXISTED. That wasn't good enough for the rich plantation owners, who were far more interested in preserving their aristocracy. Another point you seem either unwilling or unable to grasp is that the best opportunity that the South had was getting Stephen Douglas elected President, but after Lecompton they kicked him to the curb and put Breckinridge in to run as a 3rd candidtate, knowing full well that he would pull enough votes from Douglas to insure Douglas would lose, (remember Ross Perot?).

You seem to think that the reason the slaves didn't revolt during the Civil War was because they were so happy being slaves. They didn't have to revolt. They were too busy escaping to the Federal armies. How do you explain that all the Confederate states except South Carolina sent dozens of regiments to fight for the union?

Can you explain why it as made punishable with imprisonment for a newspaper editor to print any anti-slavery tract in the South? How about the mass hangings in Texas of those who were anti'slavery? if the south was such a tolerant society why was it one literally lived under the very real threat of violent death if they dared to speak publicly about the evils of slavery?

And it is Fort Sumter, not Sumpter. You can't even get spelling straight. let alone facts.

Please give me examples of sophomoric* writing in the books I have listed. The massive slave revolts and mass desertions from families and plantations didn't happen Clancy. For whatever reason, it didn't happen or the Southern Army would have came apart overnight. Just accept the facts and point out the flaws in the books. Check out the notes of the books listed before you talk about "sophormoric" writing. There are hundreds of well documented direct quotes of northern newspapers, slaves, generals, common soldiers, widows, orphans, etc. But I suppose they were busy thinking up whoopers that noted scholars would be falling for one hundred and fifty years after the fact.

The North had millions of dollars in 1860's money (backed by gold) that could have been used for remuneration and education of the slaves. There was oceans of it to waste on a punitive, and punishing war. The South could have kept their slaves (as promised by Lincoln) if they laid aside their weapons and rejoined the Union.

P.S.

Inability is misspelled too.

*(corrected spelling)

Oh and noone should be spelled no one. (Older post)

More on Fort Sumter soon. Thanks for the correction.

Yours in the Cause,

Gray_Rider

[clancy]

[QUOTE=Gray_Rider;19377601. The massive slave revolts and mass desertions from families and plantations didn't happen Clancy.
Gray_Rider[/QUOTE]

Are you serious? There were no slave revolts, in both the north and south during the history of slavery in this country? There were no mass desertions from the plantations during the war?

Your emotional transference, when you constantly use "we" when talking about the war makes one think you actually stood side by side with Marse Robert and Bedford Forrest. But I will tell you what. You win. There were no slave revolts Denmark Vesey, nat Turner and the German Coast Revolt were lies propagated by the northern press. No slaves escaped to the federal lines during the war. The 10's of thousands that were reported in the news at the time were again, lies. Even the Southern newspapers lied about it. I have a copy of the Richmond Dispatch, dated March 23, 1862, talking about slaves escaping to the federal lines. It must have been owned by a northener. Every Southern man stood in solidarity in the attempt to keep the slaves in bondage. The slaves themselves were perfectly content to belong to someone else. The South was a virtual Garden of Eden for everyone there, and both slaves and slave masters were content with their lot. The North was an evil, sick society that wanted nothing more than to force it's sickness on the happy residents of the South. Your history books are well written, fact based tomes of knowledge. I wish I had met you 40 years ago. Think of the time and money I would not have wasted in studying the war. You could have told me everything I needed to know in 5 minutes.

Thank you.

[Dragoon44]

Lincoln invaded the South. We asked to leave peacefully and we did. Firing on the virtually unmanned and understocked shell of a Union fort not withstanding.

Like most of your rants this is a bald faced lie. The South DID NOT secede peacefully. Nor was peace their intention. Davis inauguration speech in Feb 1861 promised that those that opposed the confederacy would soon smell southern gunpoweder and feel southern steel. Those are not the words of someone seeking peace ( and keep in mind this is a month before Lincoln ever took office.)

Southern states seized U.S. property by force of arms ( many did so before they even seceded). seizing forts, arsenals, post offices, customs houses, and the U.S. mint in New Orleans etc. those are blatant acts of war by anyone's standards.

Lincolns blockade of Southern ports was brought on my Davis's proclamation offering letters of Marquee to private ship owners so they could attack United States ships.

Anyone claiming that the Southern states seceded peacefully is either a liar or woefully ignorant of history.

[Gray_Rider]

Originally Posted by clancy

Are you serious? There were no slave revolts, in both the north and south during the history of slavery in this country? There were no mass desertions from the plantations during the war?


Special Note: From Gray_Rider.

Typo. My answer is included in your quote. Not retyping this.


My answer to this part of your post:

Clancy. Please stop putting words in my mouth and then providing the answers to your own questions. Tell me where the massive slave revolts happened. During the war. Not the Nat Turner uprising that fizzled out almost from inception etc. Where were the massive desertions to Union lines? I have made my point dozens of times. The massive revolts against nearly helpless southern homelands DIDN'T HAPPEN! If the slaves (who outnumbered the whites) in the South had revolted, there war would have been over in weeks. Whether you accept it or not, MOST slaves stayed with their families before, during and after the war. I have provided you the books (with the access to the authors' notes etc.) that state plainly how slaves were impressed into the Union war effort. How they were mistreated and sometimes forced into servitude. Sometimes left to starve or return to their owners. Not every last slave that ever drew breath, just the majority of them. Please just do the impossible and accept the facts that there no major uprisings, and the Northern invaders weren't fixated on freeing the slaves carte blanche. I can never understand how you liberals keep changing the subject to fit your arguments. Just show me the massive slave induced rebellions. Even when Sherman was destroying everything in sight it STILL DIDN'T HAPPEN!

***END of rebuttal to first part of your post. Pardon the typo in the middle of your quote.**

But I will tell you what. You win. There were no slave revolts Denmark Vesey, nat Turner and the German Coast Revolt were lies propagated by the northern press. No slaves escaped to the federal lines during the war. The 10's of thousands that were reported in the news at the time were again, lies. Even the Southern newspapers lied about it. I have a copy of the Richmond Dispatch, dated March 23, 1862, talking about slaves escaping to the federal lines. Your history books are well written, fact based tomes of knowledge. I wish I had met you 40 years ago. Think of the time and money I would not have wasted in studying the war. You could have told me everything I needed to know in 5 minutes.

Thank you.

You are welcome Clancy. But I never once said there were no uprisings. Never. ONCE! NEVER ONE TIME did I say each and every slave was content and happy. I have stated the same truth over and over again with proof from the people who were there, in their own words. Slavery WORKED when nothing else did, and there were NO massive war winning uprisings. Slaves did defend their masters. Not each and every last one, but most did or left peacefully when their homes and lands were destroyed. Just accept the facts as I have presented them, or prove them wrong.
With you libs its all or nothing. Everyone was out or all in. I'm saying the uprisings that Honest Abe hoped for never came to pass.

Its been months, and dozens of posts back and forth, but no one has disproved it, and no one will.

Yours in the Cause,

Gray_Rider

[Gray_Rider]

Originally Posted by Dragoon44

Like most of your rants this is a bald faced lie. The South DID NOT secede peacefully. Nor was peace their intention. Davis inauguration speech in Feb 1861 promised that those that opposed the confederacy would soon smell southern gunpoweder and feel southern steel. Those are not the words of someone seeking peace ( and keep in mind this is a month before Lincoln ever took office.)

Southern states seized U.S. property by force of arms (many did so before they even seceded). seizing forts, arsenals, post offices, customs houses, and the U.S. mint in New Orleans etc. those are blatant acts of war by anyone's standards.

Lincolns blockade of Southern ports was brought on my Davis's proclamation offering letters of Marquee to private ship owners so they could attack United States ships.

Anyone claiming that the Southern states seceded peacefully is either a liar or woefully ignorant of history.

We asked for peace. Lincoln ignored our every peace entreaty. He himself threatened ANY state who refused federal taxation with federal attack in HIS inaugration speech. We asked to go in peace. Fort Sumter was on the verge of replenishment. The federal navy was being called home. Rose Greenhowe reported a massive buildup of Federal forces in and around Washington before the firing on said fort. We had no standing army. All but no navy. No war preparedness. Period. Few arms. Little ability to fight a prolonged war, or any war. Yeah, Dragoon. We were an armed camp ready to strike at the very heart of "federal freedom" at every mountain pass and cow path. Oh, and sorry, but heavy taxes paid by Southern states paid for the cast off and 2nd rate weapons found in Southern arsenals. 6# field pieces, flintlock muskets, pikes, swords, etc.
Wow! Can I tell a whopper or what!

Sorry we just didn't wet our drawers and let you wash over us like a wave. Union forces invaded us. The first six or seven battles are full bore Union attacks on our towns. Our citizens. Our soldiers. We fought back.

Please point out the rest of my "lies". Lincoln made NO provisions for a peaceable solution and you know it.
Who wanted peace again? We made every effort to avoid separation but Lincoln and his cronies would have none of it. It was "Pay up, submit, or we're coming for you!" Sorry we didn't pee our britches and plead for "mercy" from dog face. We may have lost but we didn't back down from an all out invasion, a rape of the Constitution by a sitting president using dictatorial powers, or laying of waste to Union states in our counter measures.

Yours in the Cause,

Gray_Rider

[clancy]

[QUOTE=Gray_Rider;19351650
Even though you think the plantation owners quaked in their boots over slave uprisings, they STILL didn't happen even during the darkest hours of the war..


Gray_Rider[/QUOTE]

Ok, if you never said that there were no slave uprisings, how do you explain this statement?