Conquer Club

Phatscotty wrote:

porkenbeans wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

pimpdave wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:The civil war and slavery: It was the democrat plantation owners of the south who wanted to keep slavery. It was the republicans headed by Lincoln(R) who pushed for the ending of slavery. This in itself contradicts your definitions.

Our founding fathers liberal huh? Yeah ok. You have to first acknowledge that today's definition of "liberal" is quite different from definitions of the past.

You are dumb.

I like how he avoids referencing how it is actually the political parties (i.e. Republicans, etc) whose definitions have changed, rather than it being the definition of "liberals" which has not changed much at all.

The North did go to war to end slavery. This notion is only found in grammar school text books. The plane fact is, they wanted their hands on the excessive taxes that they were trying to force on the tobacco and cotton trade. The south felt that they were being gouged by the political powers of the North. They decided to just go ahead and succeed from the Union. It was a war that mirrored in many ways, the Revolutionary war. Only the outcome was the other way around.

Saying that the North went to war to end slavery, is just an example of how the victors get to write the history books. The fact is, The Northerners were just as bigoted and racist, as the Southerners were. They both, for the most part, felt that Negroes were a lower life form than themselves, and equated them with animals. The Union military did not even let Negroes fight in the war. Their warped sense of honor, would not let them allow a Negro to kill a white man. It was only when they were getting their butts kicked, and were close to loosing the war, that they set aside their honor, and allowed Negroes to join the battle. It was a last ditch effort, ...and one that payed off.

was with you 100% first paragraph. Then you went on a hate rampage. The simple truth is,

The sons and grandsons of the first tea-parties of the revolution went on to end slavery in the nation their own fathers and grandfathers had founded.

You can fill in ANYTHING you want between that to explain this or that. The statements stands true

And who prey tell, were the Southerners grandparents ?

PS. Their was no hate at all in my words.

Also look up Slave traders of the 19th century. You might be surprised as to who they were, and where they called home, and what their political affiliations were. I will give you one hint, They were NOT Southern Democrats.

porkenbeans wrote:
The North did go to war to end slavery. This notion is only found in grammar school text books. The plane fact is, they wanted their hands on the excessive taxes that they were trying to force on the tobacco and cotton trade. The south felt that they were being gouged by the political powers of the North. They decided to just go ahead and succeed from the Union. It was a war that mirrored in many ways, the Revolutionary war. Only the outcome was the other way around.

Saying that the North went to war to end slavery, is just an example of how the victors get to write the history books. The fact is, The Northerners were just as bigoted and racist, as the Southerners were. They both, for the most part, felt that Negroes were a lower life form than themselves, and equated them with animals. The Union military did not even let Negroes fight in the war. Their warped sense of honor, would not let them allow a Negro to kill a white man. It was only when they were getting their butts kicked, and were close to loosing the war, that they set aside their honor, and allowed Negroes to join the battle. It was a last ditch effort, ...and one that payed off.

Firstly, 280,000 black people fought for the Union during the war, and they were allowed to join from the start. It was the south that planned to have their slaves go into battle at the end, not the North. And the South lost the war before they tried this last experiment.

Secondly, if the North was not going to end slavery, then why did they issue the emancipation proclamation during the war? If the North was not fighting to end slavery, why did they pass amendments to the constitution to abolish slavery BEFORE they let any state join back into the Union. (except, Tennessee)

Thirdly, if the North did not fight the war to end slavery, then why was the abolition of slavery the only thing that had to happen for a state to rejoin the Union under Lincoln, and Johnson, and in the Wade-Davis plan? If they fought the war to levy taxes on the South, then why in the world did all the plans for reconstruction have the first of the two requirements in each be the abolition of slavery (the second, a pledge to not take arms against the Union again called an "Ironclad Oath")?

Fourthly, if the North did not fight the war to end slavery, then why did the legislative branch override the veto's of the president on all civil rights bills for blacks after the war was over?

Fifthly, if the North did not fight the war to end slavery, then why did they give blacks the right to vote pretty much right after the war was over?

Sixthly, if the North did not fight the war to end slavery, then why did they instantly pass legislation that canceled out the South's new Black Codes that they were imposing to recreate slavery in all but name? Wouldn't they have let it go, since it is technically not slavery and it boosts the South's economy?

Seventhly, if the North did not fight the war to end slavery, then why was congress able to override the president's veto on extending the life of the Freedmen's Bureau (an organization that gave free food and land to blacks)?

Seriously... as soon as the war ended, the North was passing massive legislation to protect the rights of blacks, give them food, give them land (which was taken from whites). Then the North has near riots when the South starts passing Black Codes that allow the arresting of blacks who don't have jobs and forcing them to work for whites to pay the fine.

Oh, and guess what? I am currently taking AP US History, for the secondth time right now, in TEXAS. That is the only state in the West that loved their slaves enough to join the Confederacy before the fall of Fort Sumter. Honestly, if the South teaches that the North fought to end slavery, maybe they have a point?

Oh, and most importantly. Why was there so much bloodshed in the Southern states before the war between abolitionists and anti-abolitionists? I highly doubt that they wanted to tax cotton if they grew it themselves.

The Neon Peon wrote:Every element in our society was at once point caused by someone being liberal for their time period.

Let's face it, for a large portion of time, having a kingdom where women have no say in anything, and the church governs as much as the king would have been conservative. How could it have changed if there were no liberals to want social reform?

So we can just take every element of our society and say that a liberal did it at some point.

Replace "liberal" with "progressive" and you'd be right. There are progressives that are not liberal.

john9blue wrote:

The Neon Peon wrote:Every element in our society was at once point caused by someone being liberal for their time period.

Let's face it, for a large portion of time, having a kingdom where women have no say in anything, and the church governs as much as the king would have been conservative. How could it have changed if there were no liberals to want social reform?

So we can just take every element of our society and say that a liberal did it at some point.

Replace "liberal" with "progressive" and you'd be right. There are progressives that are not liberal.

I am aware. I was referring to the structure of society only, not the technology. Only very small groups have opposed technological advancement in history, however, society structure is not something that is "progress," it is simply change. Whether it is for the good or the bad is up to debate.

Massachussettes was STAUNCHLY against slavery a century before the civil war ever started. President John Adams and Benjamin Franklin made it

known within their lifetimes their position on the issue, Along with other states and statesmen that disagreed with the slavery.

Slavery was the way of the Old World,


Thank God the founding fathers created the new world

Woodruff wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:

Woodruff wrote:You say this as if it's a bad thing, but it isn't. In fact, as a Christian, you should wholeheartedly support political correctness. Yes, I am serious.

It is a bad thing. And please explain what one's faith has to do with anything?

Political correction is wholeheartedly about treating people with respect. Treating people with respect is not a bad thing, and I am very confused why a Christian would believe that it is. As to what your faith has to do with that, I will simply fall back to your standard answer and suggest that you read a bit of the Bible to understand it.

You clearly have a very warped view of what political correctness is if you believe it is a bad thing. What you seem to be ignoring is that ANYTHING CAN be a bad thing, when misused. And political correctness does occasionally get misused (though not nearly as commonly as most people seem to stupidly believe). But political correctness itself is a very good thing.

No, political correctness is about not hurting anyone's feelings and it CAN'T be achieved.


after 9/11 you aren't allowed to search middle eastern looking individuals because it might hurt their feelings....so we searched 80 year old grandma's and women with baby strollers. (in case you didn't know NONE of the hi-jackers were Caucasian, black (PC African -American), Latino or Asian )And NONE of them were women.


PC is an attempt to not offend anyone. SOMEONE will always be offended. I am an American, not a German American, French American, Euro-American and I find it OFFENSIVE that black people have to be called African-American instead of just American!

Political correctness is hurting this country far more than it will ever help it. Not to mention all the other crap that has stemmed from it. From infinity pre-1990's to the 1990's parents spanked their children. It's called discipline. Now at some point in the 1990's it became politically incorrect to spank your kids. So guess what the end result is? A generation of undisciplined, disrespectful kids.


But yeah, you keep thinking it has to do with "respect".

The Neon Peon wrote:

porkenbeans wrote:
The North did go to war to end slavery. This notion is only found in grammar school text books. The plane fact is, they wanted their hands on the excessive taxes that they were trying to force on the tobacco and cotton trade. The south felt that they were being gouged by the political powers of the North. They decided to just go ahead and succeed from the Union. It was a war that mirrored in many ways, the Revolutionary war. Only the outcome was the other way around.

Saying that the North went to war to end slavery, is just an example of how the victors get to write the history books. The fact is, The Northerners were just as bigoted and racist, as the Southerners were. They both, for the most part, felt that Negroes were a lower life form than themselves, and equated them with animals. The Union military did not even let Negroes fight in the war. Their warped sense of honor, would not let them allow a Negro to kill a white man. It was only when they were getting their butts kicked, and were close to loosing the war, that they set aside their honor, and allowed Negroes to join the battle. It was a last ditch effort, ...and one that payed off.

Firstly, 280,000 black people fought for the Union during the war, and they were allowed to join from the start. It was the south that planned to have their slaves go into battle at the end, not the North. And the South lost the war before they tried this last experiment.

Secondly, if the North was not going to end slavery, then why did they issue the emancipation proclamation during the war? If the North was not fighting to end slavery, why did they pass amendments to the constitution to abolish slavery BEFORE they let any state join back into the Union. (except, Tennessee)

Thirdly, if the North did not fight the war to end slavery, then why was the abolition of slavery the only thing that had to happen for a state to rejoin the Union under Lincoln, and Johnson, and in the Wade-Davis plan? If they fought the war to levy taxes on the South, then why in the world did all the plans for reconstruction have the first of the two requirements in each be the abolition of slavery (the second, a pledge to not take arms against the Union again called an "Ironclad Oath")?

Fourthly, if the North did not fight the war to end slavery, then why did the legislative branch override the veto's of the president on all civil rights bills for blacks after the war was over?

Fifthly, if the North did not fight the war to end slavery, then why did they give blacks the right to vote pretty much right after the war was over?

Sixthly, if the North did not fight the war to end slavery, then why did they instantly pass legislation that canceled out the South's new Black Codes that they were imposing to recreate slavery in all but name? Wouldn't they have let it go, since it is technically not slavery and it boosts the South's economy?

Seventhly, if the North did not fight the war to end slavery, then why was congress able to override the president's veto on extending the life of the Freedmen's Bureau (an organization that gave free food and land to blacks)?

Seriously... as soon as the war ended, the North was passing massive legislation to protect the rights of blacks, give them food, give them land (which was taken from whites). Then the North has near riots when the South starts passing Black Codes that allow the arresting of blacks who don't have jobs and forcing them to work for whites to pay the fine.

Oh, and guess what? I am currently taking AP US History, for the secondth time right now, in TEXAS. That is the only state in the West that loved their slaves enough to join the Confederacy before the fall of Fort Sumter. Honestly, if the South teaches that the North fought to end slavery, maybe they have a point?

Just about everything you said is wrong, and for the few facts that you almost have correct, you have twisted them to support your misguided views. The main reason that the North made all of those legislation's, is because they needed to thoroughly destroy the Southern economy. They sent their Carpetbaggers to grab up the majority of the wealth that remained. They could not let the South regain its political might. For gods' sake, they pretty much burned everything to the ground. And that was after the surrender.

Neon, Try to get your hands on literature that is not high school textbooks. Maybe even try to find some stuff that was written by Southerners. Then you would have a more wider breadth of knowledge to form your opinions with.

Pork, I am hearing what you are saying, you are just taking the negatives of war and politics and expounding them. You leave holes for filling tho. you telling me you have never seen the movie Glory or that if you have, you find it historically inaccurate?

Denzel was da bomb in Phantoms Yo

Glory was an amazing movie. Amazing.

Phatscotty wrote:Porky, you telling me you have never seen the movie Glory or that if you have, you find it historically inaccurate?

Denzel was da bomb in Phantoms Yo

Great movie. It brings tears every time I see it. Black units, (that were segregated by the way) were indeed formed early on, but they were only used in supporting roles, and most were not even issued firearms. They were used for all the grunt work, and were not treated any better than the slaves on the plantations were. I realize that it is hard to believe that everything you were taught in school is not the truth. But you must realize that all of it was written by the victors of the war. All you know of this subject, is only what they wanted you to believe. You must read between the lines. You must read and study literature from both sides to get a better understanding. Can you name just one book that was Authored by a citizen of the Confederacy. If you are getting all of your so called facts from one side, how on earth can you possibly say that you know all about it ?

porkenbeans wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Porky, you telling me you have never seen the movie Glory or that if you have, you find it historically inaccurate?

Denzel was da bomb in Phantoms Yo

Great movie. It brings tears every time I see it. Black units, (that were segregated by the way) were indeed formed early on, but they were only used in supporting roles, and most were not even issued firearms. They were used for all the grunt work, and were not treated any better than the slaves on the plantations were. I realize that it is hard to believe that everything you were taught in school is not the truth. But you must realize that all of it was written by the victors of the war. All you know of this subject, is only what they wanted you to believe. You must read between the lines. You must read and study literature from both sides to get a better understanding. Can you name just one book that was Authored by a citizen of the Confederacy. If you are getting all of your so called facts from one side, how on earth can you possibly say that you know all about it ?

I'm hearing the shit out of you, you just intensify the ugly aspects. I would almost make a secondary argument, in general, our history is what society needs it to be at the time......One thing to know history, another to understand it. I gained some perspectives in Quigley's "Tragedy and Hope"...are you familiar? A little dry, but you really do get insight on the dots and through the mechanisms of power make history.

porkenbeans wrote:

The Neon Peon wrote:

porkenbeans wrote:
The North did go to war to end slavery. This notion is only found in grammar school text books. The plane fact is, they wanted their hands on the excessive taxes that they were trying to force on the tobacco and cotton trade. The south felt that they were being gouged by the political powers of the North. They decided to just go ahead and succeed from the Union. It was a war that mirrored in many ways, the Revolutionary war. Only the outcome was the other way around.

Saying that the North went to war to end slavery, is just an example of how the victors get to write the history books. The fact is, The Northerners were just as bigoted and racist, as the Southerners were. They both, for the most part, felt that Negroes were a lower life form than themselves, and equated them with animals. The Union military did not even let Negroes fight in the war. Their warped sense of honor, would not let them allow a Negro to kill a white man. It was only when they were getting their butts kicked, and were close to loosing the war, that they set aside their honor, and allowed Negroes to join the battle. It was a last ditch effort, ...and one that payed off.

Firstly, 280,000 black people fought for the Union during the war, and they were allowed to join from the start. It was the south that planned to have their slaves go into battle at the end, not the North. And the South lost the war before they tried this last experiment.

Secondly, if the North was not going to end slavery, then why did they issue the emancipation proclamation during the war? If the North was not fighting to end slavery, why did they pass amendments to the constitution to abolish slavery BEFORE they let any state join back into the Union. (except, Tennessee)

Thirdly, if the North did not fight the war to end slavery, then why was the abolition of slavery the only thing that had to happen for a state to rejoin the Union under Lincoln, and Johnson, and in the Wade-Davis plan? If they fought the war to levy taxes on the South, then why in the world did all the plans for reconstruction have the first of the two requirements in each be the abolition of slavery (the second, a pledge to not take arms against the Union again called an "Ironclad Oath")?

Fourthly, if the North did not fight the war to end slavery, then why did the legislative branch override the veto's of the president on all civil rights bills for blacks after the war was over?

Fifthly, if the North did not fight the war to end slavery, then why did they give blacks the right to vote pretty much right after the war was over?

Sixthly, if the North did not fight the war to end slavery, then why did they instantly pass legislation that canceled out the South's new Black Codes that they were imposing to recreate slavery in all but name? Wouldn't they have let it go, since it is technically not slavery and it boosts the South's economy?

Seventhly, if the North did not fight the war to end slavery, then why was congress able to override the president's veto on extending the life of the Freedmen's Bureau (an organization that gave free food and land to blacks)?

Seriously... as soon as the war ended, the North was passing massive legislation to protect the rights of blacks, give them food, give them land (which was taken from whites). Then the North has near riots when the South starts passing Black Codes that allow the arresting of blacks who don't have jobs and forcing them to work for whites to pay the fine.

Oh, and guess what? I am currently taking AP US History, for the secondth time right now, in TEXAS. That is the only state in the West that loved their slaves enough to join the Confederacy before the fall of Fort Sumter. Honestly, if the South teaches that the North fought to end slavery, maybe they have a point?

Just about everything you said is wrong, and for the few facts that you almost have correct, you have twisted them to support your misguided views. The main reason that the North made all of those legislation's, is because they needed to thoroughly destroy the Southern economy. They sent their Carpetbaggers to grab up the majority of the wealth that remained. They could not let the South regain its political might. For gods' sake, they pretty much burned everything to the ground. And that was after the surrender.

Neon, Try to get your hands on literature that is not high school textbooks. Maybe even try to find some stuff that was written by Southerners. Then you would have a more wider breadth of knowledge to form your opinions with.

Oh, and what books exactly have you read on the matter? And how long ago did you read it?

Firstly, the Carpetbaggers were individuals that wanted to profit from the South while it was in disarray. No one "sent" them. Look it up.

Secondly, how is the North supposed to profit if it's goal is to destroy the South's economy? Didn't you just say their motive for the war was to earn money by taxing them?
[bigimg]http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/picard-facepalm.jpg[/bigimg]

Thirdly, exactly when did they burn things to the ground after the surrender?

And I already mentioned. I learned history in the SOUTH. and here in Texas, at least in the district I go to, all textbooks are written for Texas and by Southern authors. Don't tell me to research things from the South's point of view, if that is all I've been taught.

jay_a2j wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:

Woodruff wrote:You say this as if it's a bad thing, but it isn't. In fact, as a Christian, you should wholeheartedly support political correctness. Yes, I am serious.

It is a bad thing. And please explain what one's faith has to do with anything?

Political correction is wholeheartedly about treating people with respect. Treating people with respect is not a bad thing, and I am very confused why a Christian would believe that it is. As to what your faith has to do with that, I will simply fall back to your standard answer and suggest that you read a bit of the Bible to understand it.

You clearly have a very warped view of what political correctness is if you believe it is a bad thing. What you seem to be ignoring is that ANYTHING CAN be a bad thing, when misused. And political correctness does occasionally get misused (though not nearly as commonly as most people seem to stupidly believe). But political correctness itself is a very good thing.

No, political correctness is about not hurting anyone's feelings and it CAN'T be achieved.

Thank you for confirming for me that you have a very warped view of what political correctness is. How sad for you, particularly as a Christian.

jay_a2j wrote:after 9/11 you aren't allowed to search middle eastern looking individuals because it might hurt their feelings.

You don't have any idea what you're talking about. Do you understand the basic concept of racial profiling and why it IS ABSOLUTELY a very bad thing under ANY circumstance other than "in hot pursuit"?

jay_a2j wrote:so we searched 80 year old grandma's and women with baby strollers. (in case you didn't know NONE of the hi-jackers were Caucasian, black (PC African -American), Latino or Asian )And NONE of them were women.

Have there been Caucasian, black, Latino, Asian or female terrorists?

jay_a2j wrote:PC is an attempt to not offend anyone.

No it isn't. Offense can only be taken by the receiver. You cannot offend me unless I CHOOSE to be offended. I cannot offend you unless you CHOOSE to be offended. This is FACT. Now, I'm not saying there aren't times when it is absolutely appropriate to find offense in an action/statement/whatever...there are. But the fact remains that you cannot be offended unless you CHOOSE to be.

On the other hand, political correctness is about my own actions and showing people respect. I CAN control whether I show someone else respect or not. You CAN control whether you show someone else respect or not. This is FACT.

jay_a2j wrote:SOMEONE will always be offended.

This is absolutely NOT true and in fact, it is very far from the truth. It is bearing down on straight-up ignorance, in fact. Again, someone is offended only if they CHOOSE to be offended.

jay_a2j wrote:I am an American, not a German American, French American, Euro-American and I find it OFFENSIVE that black people have to be called African-American instead of just American!

This is a PERFECT example of my point. Thank you so much for supporting precisely what I am saying.

jay_a2j wrote:Political correctness is hurting this country far more than it will ever help it. Not to mention all the other crap that has stemmed from it. From infinity pre-1990's to the 1990's parents spanked their children. It's called discipline. Now at some point in the 1990's it became politically incorrect to spank your kids. So guess what the end result is? A generation of undisciplined, disrespectful kids.

Again, we unsurprisingly disagree. Spanking is irrelevent to discipline. Why anyone believes that any specific action is necessary to discipline simply shows ignorance again, as it assumes that all children are alike. In fact, spanking rarely gets the results that the spanker desires in a child. However, showing that child respect and discussing issues with the child results in a tremendous change in behavior, in my experience (both as a parent and as a teacher). The fact is that spanking has nothing at all to do with discipline.

jay_a2j wrote:But yeah, you keep thinking it has to do with "respect".

Yes, I will continue to stand firmly within the scope of reality. I'm sorry that you CHOOSE to stand outside of it. Again, how sad for you, as a Christian. (I guess my suggestion that you read a bit of the Bible was a bit too much for you, wasn't it...)

Phatscotty wrote:I'm hearing the shit out of you, you just intensify the ugly aspects.

Of course he does...that's what he does. This is the same individual who stated to me that my former sig (prior to Strife giving me the absolutely lovely quote that I now use) of "Don't ever think that a handful of committed people can't change the world. In fact, that's usually the thing that has." was simply a statement in support of Hitler and Nazism. Yes, he actually said that. I know...I couldn't believe it either.

The Neon Peon wrote:

porkenbeans wrote:

The Neon Peon wrote:

porkenbeans wrote:
The North did go to war to end slavery. This notion is only found in grammar school text books. The plane fact is, they wanted their hands on the excessive taxes that they were trying to force on the tobacco and cotton trade. The south felt that they were being gouged by the political powers of the North. They decided to just go ahead and succeed from the Union. It was a war that mirrored in many ways, the Revolutionary war. Only the outcome was the other way around.

Saying that the North went to war to end slavery, is just an example of how the victors get to write the history books. The fact is, The Northerners were just as bigoted and racist, as the Southerners were. They both, for the most part, felt that Negroes were a lower life form than themselves, and equated them with animals. The Union military did not even let Negroes fight in the war. Their warped sense of honor, would not let them allow a Negro to kill a white man. It was only when they were getting their butts kicked, and were close to loosing the war, that they set aside their honor, and allowed Negroes to join the battle. It was a last ditch effort, ...and one that payed off.

Firstly, 280,000 black people fought for the Union during the war, and they were allowed to join from the start. It was the south that planned to have their slaves go into battle at the end, not the North. And the South lost the war before they tried this last experiment.

Secondly, if the North was not going to end slavery, then why did they issue the emancipation proclamation during the war? If the North was not fighting to end slavery, why did they pass amendments to the constitution to abolish slavery BEFORE they let any state join back into the Union. (except, Tennessee)

Thirdly, if the North did not fight the war to end slavery, then why was the abolition of slavery the only thing that had to happen for a state to rejoin the Union under Lincoln, and Johnson, and in the Wade-Davis plan? If they fought the war to levy taxes on the South, then why in the world did all the plans for reconstruction have the first of the two requirements in each be the abolition of slavery (the second, a pledge to not take arms against the Union again called an "Ironclad Oath")?

Fourthly, if the North did not fight the war to end slavery, then why did the legislative branch override the veto's of the president on all civil rights bills for blacks after the war was over?

Fifthly, if the North did not fight the war to end slavery, then why did they give blacks the right to vote pretty much right after the war was over?

Sixthly, if the North did not fight the war to end slavery, then why did they instantly pass legislation that canceled out the South's new Black Codes that they were imposing to recreate slavery in all but name? Wouldn't they have let it go, since it is technically not slavery and it boosts the South's economy?

Seventhly, if the North did not fight the war to end slavery, then why was congress able to override the president's veto on extending the life of the Freedmen's Bureau (an organization that gave free food and land to blacks)?

Seriously... as soon as the war ended, the North was passing massive legislation to protect the rights of blacks, give them food, give them land (which was taken from whites). Then the North has near riots when the South starts passing Black Codes that allow the arresting of blacks who don't have jobs and forcing them to work for whites to pay the fine.

Oh, and guess what? I am currently taking AP US History, for the secondth time right now, in TEXAS. That is the only state in the West that loved their slaves enough to join the Confederacy before the fall of Fort Sumter. Honestly, if the South teaches that the North fought to end slavery, maybe they have a point?

Just about everything you said is wrong, and for the few facts that you almost have correct, you have twisted them to support your misguided views. The main reason that the North made all of those legislation's, is because they needed to thoroughly destroy the Southern economy. They sent their Carpetbaggers to grab up the majority of the wealth that remained. They could not let the South regain its political might. For gods' sake, they pretty much burned everything to the ground. And that was after the surrender.

Neon, Try to get your hands on literature that is not high school textbooks. Maybe even try to find some stuff that was written by Southerners. Then you would have a more wider breadth of knowledge to form your opinions with.

Oh, and what books exactly have you read on the matter? And how long ago did you read it?

Firstly, the Carpetbaggers were individuals that wanted to profit from the South while it was in disarray. No one "sent" them. Look it up.

Secondly, how is the North supposed to profit if it's goal is to destroy the South's economy? Didn't you just say their motive for the war was to earn money by taxing them?
[bigimg]http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/picard-facepalm.jpg[/bigimg]

Thirdly, exactly when did they burn things to the ground after the surrender?

And I already mentioned. I learned history in the SOUTH. and here in Texas, at least in the district I go to, all textbooks are written for Texas and by Southern authors. Don't tell me to research things from the South's point of view, if that is all I've been taught.

You really need to read more carefully. I said, The North was perfectly happy with the slave situation in the South. As a matter of fact the Slave traders were virtually all Northerners.

So long as the South coughed up the ever increasing taxes on their tobacco and cotton trade, the Northern politicians were as happy as pigs in slop. They did not go to war to end Slavery. They were profiting from this free labor too.

They only went to war when the South said enough is enough. They stopped paying the heavy taxes, and quit the "unfair" Union. The South's economy was well on it's way to becoming a powerhouse, that if left on its own, would soon dwarf the Northern Union. Especially if they got to keep all of those profits to themselves.

If you really think that the North went to war to end Slavery, and all of those Yankee soldiers fought and died to free people that they themselves(for the most part) considered "livestock", You do not have a very good understanding of the Civil War at all. It was not some white Knight riding in to free the oppressed. It was just another war that more or less was waged for the same reasons that most wars are waged. It usually comes down to "Money" and "Power". You need the first to achieve the second.

If all of this so called rage against Slavery was the cause for the war, then why was it only after the South refused to cut them in did they go to war ?

Yes, there was an awaking beginning in the USA. at the time, And there were a few politicians here and there that was starting to speak up against Slavery. But just like today, Money talks and bullshit walks. If the South just kept paying, the North would have debated the issue for decades, before anything positive came from it. It kinda reminds me a little, of the health care debate going on today. As long as the Insurance Company's keep stuffing the politicians pockets, we will never see the reform that is needed. Can you just imagine if the Insurance company's stopped paying off the politicians, We would have health care reform tomorrow. And I will bet you that the history books of tomorrow, would surely portray the courageous politicians, as gallant heroes that freed us from the evil Insurance companies.

Woodruff wrote:
Yes, I will continue to stand firmly within the scope of reality. I'm sorry that you CHOOSE to stand outside of it. Again, how sad for you, as a Christian. (I guess my suggestion that you read a bit of the Bible was a bit too much for you, wasn't it...)

Mr. Delusional:



Here are some images of political correctness, take notes:

























So as you can see, political correctness is about OFFENDING PEOPLE. Or rather the futile attempt to try NOT to.



Taken from Wiki:


Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct; both forms commonly abbreviated to PC) is a term denoting language, ideas, policies, and behavior seen as seeking to minimize social offense in gender, racial, cultural, sexual orientation, handicap, and age-related contexts. In current usage, the terms are almost exclusively pejorative, connoting “intolerant” and “intolerance” [1][2] whilst the usage politically incorrect, denotes an implicitly positive self-description. Examples include the conservative Politically Incorrect Guides published by the Regnery editorial house, [3] and the television talk show Politically Incorrect. Thus, “politically incorrect” denotes language, ideas, and behavior, unconstrained by orthodoxy and the fear of giving offense.

The Neon Peon wrote:Secondly, if the North was not going to end slavery, then why did they issue the emancipation proclamation during the war? If the North was not fighting to end slavery, why did they pass amendments to the constitution to abolish slavery BEFORE they let any state join back into the Union. (except, Tennessee)

The Emancipation Proclamation was merely proclaimed and nothing more.

jay_a2j wrote:

Woodruff wrote:
Yes, I will continue to stand firmly within the scope of reality. I'm sorry that you CHOOSE to stand outside of it. Again, how sad for you, as a Christian. (I guess my suggestion that you read a bit of the Bible was a bit too much for you, wasn't it...)

Here are some images of political correctness, take notes:

Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct; both forms commonly abbreviated to PC) is a term denoting language, ideas, policies, and behavior seen as seeking to minimize social offense in gender, racial, cultural, sexual orientation, handicap, and age-related contexts. In current usage, the terms are almost exclusively pejorative, connoting “intolerant” and “intolerance” [1][2] whilst the usage politically incorrect, denotes an implicitly positive self-description. Examples include the conservative Politically Incorrect Guides published by the Regnery editorial house, [3] and the television talk show Politically Incorrect. Thus, “politically incorrect” denotes language, ideas, and behavior, unconstrained by orthodoxy and the fear of giving offense.

Damn jay, you knocked it outta the park. Relying on jokes in comics and following up with a SHUH-ZAM of wikipedia...

"Damn liberals, and wah wah wah" --begruntled anti-liberal poster



Your hard work is much more appreciated, sir.

Thank you, Juan, for the thread.

Liberals are responsible for co-opting revolution in the 1930s and preventing America from becoming a truely free country.

jay_a2j wrote:

Woodruff wrote:
Yes, I will continue to stand firmly within the scope of reality. I'm sorry that you CHOOSE to stand outside of it. Again, how sad for you, as a Christian. (I guess my suggestion that you read a bit of the Bible was a bit too much for you, wasn't it...)

Mr. Delusional:
Here are some images of political correctness, take notes:

Once again, you are proudly displaying for everyone that you clearly have a very warped sense of what political correctness is. How sad for you, because it only causes you to be less Christ-like.

jay_a2j wrote:So as you can see, political correctness is about OFFENDING PEOPLE. Or rather the futile attempt to try NOT to.

No, it really isn't.

jay_a2j wrote:Taken from Wiki:

Do you have an actual source? I mean, any source where I can discuss the various gay lovers of President Clinton isn't a very good source (yes, that's been there within the last year).

Going above and beyond conservative facial hair styles.

Freedom of Speech, provided you are not lying.