On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 07:37:26 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 4/17/16 10:18 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 21:50:58 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 4/17/16 9:27 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 21:09:54 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 20:24:44 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/17/2016 8:05 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
Boating All Out wrote:
In article NM-dnX_5k60vS47KnZ2dnUU7-
, says...


The Civil War wasn't about slavery and it didn't end slavery. Read up
on it including Lincoln's positions on the subject.


Ridiculous.


Revisionism.


Both simplistic and erroneous comments. Slavery was an issue, but not
the only or primary issue. Economics, state's rights (including the
right to own slaves) and territorial expansion were the main issues
which led to succession. At one point Lincoln was willing to accept
slavery in some places if it would end the war.

Revisionism in our history books, for sure.

The strange thing is if the US had treated the south the same way in
1860 as we treated the Cubans in 1960 the progressives in 1916 might
be telling us the southern slaves may not have "freedom" but they
have, free health care, free education, a guaranteed job and a living
wage. (in that economy). There is very little income inequality, they
are all poor ... a liberal paradise.


The strange thing is your bizarre wannabe pseudo revisionism

I am only saying we know how bad the war was, would any other scenario
have been worse?

It is interesting that you are suddenly the war monger. Would you have
dodged that draft too? I know you actually signing up would be
ridiculous.


I suppose if you righties repeat that bull**** often enough, you believe
it, eh? Tell me, if I registered for the draft at 18 and after I got my
B.A. degree, kept the draft board informed of my address, please explain
how I was a "draft dodger." This is just more of your revisionist
nonsense. The overwhelming majority of men my age were not drafted.

The South, by the way, initiated the armed aggression that started the
civil war.


You dodged the question. Would you have signed up to save the union?
We know you how you sat Vietnam out.

You also dodged the other question, what would have been worse than
fighting the civil war?
If the union army and navy was not in Charleston harbor blockading the
port, they would not have been fired on.
I know, if you had your way we would be setting up road blocks on I-95
and all other major roads, at the NC border.
Would you sacrifice 7 million people so transvestites can pee in the
ladies room?


Would I have signed up to save the Union? I have no idea. I will say,
however, that your attempts to rewrite history are amusing albeit
nonsensical.

Nobody is trying to rewrite history, I am only pointing out that the
civil war was a huge mistake, much like Vietnam and Iraq.
You say it was worth it to stop slavery but the fact is, we lived with
slavery for over 200 years and if we could have had a less destructive
solution, it would have been worth a few more years of transition.
Slavery was going to fall from it's own weight, war or not.
All the war did was create a national divide that has not really
healed and it certainly did not assure the integration of the former
slaves into society. It only made it harder.

On 4/18/16 10:56 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 07:37:26 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 4/17/16 10:18 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 21:50:58 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 4/17/16 9:27 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 21:09:54 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 20:24:44 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 4/17/2016 8:05 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
Boating All Out wrote:
In article NM-dnX_5k60vS47KnZ2dnUU7-
, says...


The Civil War wasn't about slavery and it didn't end slavery. Read up
on it including Lincoln's positions on the subject.


Ridiculous.


Revisionism.


Both simplistic and erroneous comments. Slavery was an issue, but not
the only or primary issue. Economics, state's rights (including the
right to own slaves) and territorial expansion were the main issues
which led to succession. At one point Lincoln was willing to accept
slavery in some places if it would end the war.

Revisionism in our history books, for sure.

The strange thing is if the US had treated the south the same way in
1860 as we treated the Cubans in 1960 the progressives in 1916 might
be telling us the southern slaves may not have "freedom" but they
have, free health care, free education, a guaranteed job and a living
wage. (in that economy). There is very little income inequality, they
are all poor ... a liberal paradise.


The strange thing is your bizarre wannabe pseudo revisionism

I am only saying we know how bad the war was, would any other scenario
have been worse?

It is interesting that you are suddenly the war monger. Would you have
dodged that draft too? I know you actually signing up would be
ridiculous.


I suppose if you righties repeat that bull**** often enough, you believe
it, eh? Tell me, if I registered for the draft at 18 and after I got my
B.A. degree, kept the draft board informed of my address, please explain
how I was a "draft dodger." This is just more of your revisionist
nonsense. The overwhelming majority of men my age were not drafted.

The South, by the way, initiated the armed aggression that started the
civil war.


You dodged the question. Would you have signed up to save the union?
We know you how you sat Vietnam out.

You also dodged the other question, what would have been worse than
fighting the civil war?
If the union army and navy was not in Charleston harbor blockading the
port, they would not have been fired on.
I know, if you had your way we would be setting up road blocks on I-95
and all other major roads, at the NC border.
Would you sacrifice 7 million people so transvestites can pee in the
ladies room?


Would I have signed up to save the Union? I have no idea. I will say,
however, that your attempts to rewrite history are amusing albeit
nonsensical.

Nobody is trying to rewrite history, I am only pointing out that the
civil war was a huge mistake, much like Vietnam and Iraq.
You say it was worth it to stop slavery but the fact is, we lived with
slavery for over 200 years and if we could have had a less destructive
solution, it would have been worth a few more years of transition.
Slavery was going to fall from it's own weight, war or not.
All the war did was create a national divide that has not really
healed and it certainly did not assure the integration of the former
slaves into society. It only made it harder.


Fine. I don't think the civil war was a mistake. I agree that Vietnam
and Iraq II were mistakes. The reasons for the civil war far outweigh
any rationales for Vietnam or Iraq II.

On 4/18/2016 11:10 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 4/18/16 10:56 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 07:37:26 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 4/17/16 10:18 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 21:50:58 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 4/17/16 9:27 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 21:09:54 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 20:24:44 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"

wrote:

On 4/17/2016 8:05 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
Boating All Out wrote:
In article NM-dnX_5k60vS47KnZ2dnUU7-
, says...


The Civil War wasn't about slavery and it didn't end
slavery. Read up
on it including Lincoln's positions on the subject.


Ridiculous.


Revisionism.


Both simplistic and erroneous comments. Slavery was an issue,
but not
the only or primary issue. Economics, state's rights
(including the
right to own slaves) and territorial expansion were the main
issues
which led to succession. At one point Lincoln was willing to
accept
slavery in some places if it would end the war.

Revisionism in our history books, for sure.

The strange thing is if the US had treated the south the same
way in
1860 as we treated the Cubans in 1960 the progressives in 1916
might
be telling us the southern slaves may not have "freedom" but they
have, free health care, free education, a guaranteed job and a
living
wage. (in that economy). There is very little income inequality,
they
are all poor ... a liberal paradise.


The strange thing is your bizarre wannabe pseudo revisionism

I am only saying we know how bad the war was, would any other
scenario
have been worse?

It is interesting that you are suddenly the war monger. Would you
have
dodged that draft too? I know you actually signing up would be
ridiculous.


I suppose if you righties repeat that bull**** often enough, you
believe
it, eh? Tell me, if I registered for the draft at 18 and after I
got my
B.A. degree, kept the draft board informed of my address, please
explain
how I was a "draft dodger." This is just more of your revisionist
nonsense. The overwhelming majority of men my age were not drafted.

The South, by the way, initiated the armed aggression that started the
civil war.


You dodged the question. Would you have signed up to save the union?
We know you how you sat Vietnam out.

You also dodged the other question, what would have been worse than
fighting the civil war?
If the union army and navy was not in Charleston harbor blockading the
port, they would not have been fired on.
I know, if you had your way we would be setting up road blocks on I-95
and all other major roads, at the NC border.
Would you sacrifice 7 million people so transvestites can pee in the
ladies room?


Would I have signed up to save the Union? I have no idea. I will say,
however, that your attempts to rewrite history are amusing albeit
nonsensical.

Nobody is trying to rewrite history, I am only pointing out that the
civil war was a huge mistake, much like Vietnam and Iraq.
You say it was worth it to stop slavery but the fact is, we lived with
slavery for over 200 years and if we could have had a less destructive
solution, it would have been worth a few more years of transition.
Slavery was going to fall from it's own weight, war or not.
All the war did was create a national divide that has not really
healed and it certainly did not assure the integration of the former
slaves into society. It only made it harder.


Fine. I don't think the civil war was a mistake. I agree that Vietnam
and Iraq II were mistakes. The reasons for the civil war far outweigh
any rationales for Vietnam or Iraq II.



According to you and BOA, there was only *one* reason for the Civil War
.... slavery.

On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 11:10:42 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 4/18/16 10:56 AM, wrote:

Nobody is trying to rewrite history, I am only pointing out that the
civil war was a huge mistake, much like Vietnam and Iraq.
You say it was worth it to stop slavery but the fact is, we lived with
slavery for over 200 years and if we could have had a less destructive
solution, it would have been worth a few more years of transition.
Slavery was going to fall from it's own weight, war or not.
All the war did was create a national divide that has not really
healed and it certainly did not assure the integration of the former
slaves into society. It only made it harder.


Fine. I don't think the civil war was a mistake. I agree that Vietnam
and Iraq II were mistakes. The reasons for the civil war far outweigh
any rationales for Vietnam or Iraq II.


The real reason for the civil war was to preserve the union and
prevent 13 states from leaving. You say we should have let them go at
every opportunity here and act like you would let them go if they
wanted to today.

Your statements are contradictory

On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 11:23:10 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:



According to you and BOA, there was only *one* reason for the Civil War
... slavery.


Lincoln didn't say that at all, in fact if he tried to raise an army
over slavery it would have been a very short war.

On 4/18/16 12:34 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 11:10:42 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 4/18/16 10:56 AM, wrote:

Nobody is trying to rewrite history, I am only pointing out that the
civil war was a huge mistake, much like Vietnam and Iraq.
You say it was worth it to stop slavery but the fact is, we lived with
slavery for over 200 years and if we could have had a less destructive
solution, it would have been worth a few more years of transition.
Slavery was going to fall from it's own weight, war or not.
All the war did was create a national divide that has not really
healed and it certainly did not assure the integration of the former
slaves into society. It only made it harder.


Fine. I don't think the civil war was a mistake. I agree that Vietnam
and Iraq II were mistakes. The reasons for the civil war far outweigh
any rationales for Vietnam or Iraq II.


The real reason for the civil war was to preserve the union and
prevent 13 states from leaving. You say we should have let them go at
every opportunity here and act like you would let them go if they
wanted to today.

Your statements are contradictory


I'm not sure how I would have felt about the confederate states back
then. Today, I wouldn't mind Texas falling back into Mexico's hands, and
the Carolinas, Mississippi, and Alabama forming The Nation of Hate. I do
have a soft spot in my heart for Louisiana, Hilton Head Island, and SE
Florida.

On 4/18/2016 12:36 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 11:23:10 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:



According to you and BOA, there was only *one* reason for the Civil War
... slavery.


Lincoln didn't say that at all, in fact if he tried to raise an army
over slavery it would have been a very short war.


As someone (maybe it was you) previously stated ... the Civil War was
fought primarily to preserve the nation by preventing the 11 states of
the Confederacy from seceding.

Lincoln even considered allowing slavery to
continue in some states if it would end the war. There were many
reasons for the Civil War including concern of an overly intrusive
Federal government. The newly hatched Republicans were anti-slavery
and Lincoln felt compelled to push the agenda but he was also conflicted
about many of the issues. In the Lincoln/Douglas debates he
acknowledged that although the Constitution declared that all men are
created equal, he argued that blacks were not entitled to have the same
rights as whites across the board. He also promoted colonization
(shipping all blacks out of the country) as a means of resolving the
slave issue.

On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 16:10:33 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 4/18/2016 12:36 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 11:23:10 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:



According to you and BOA, there was only *one* reason for the Civil War
... slavery.


Lincoln didn't say that at all, in fact if he tried to raise an army
over slavery it would have been a very short war.


As someone (maybe it was you) previously stated ... the Civil War was
fought primarily to preserve the nation by preventing the 11 states of
the Confederacy from seceding.

Lincoln even considered allowing slavery to
continue in some states if it would end the war. There were many
reasons for the Civil War including concern of an overly intrusive
Federal government. The newly hatched Republicans were anti-slavery
and Lincoln felt compelled to push the agenda but he was also conflicted
about many of the issues. In the Lincoln/Douglas debates he
acknowledged that although the Constitution declared that all men are
created equal, he argued that blacks were not entitled to have the same
rights as whites across the board. He also promoted colonization
(shipping all blacks out of the country) as a means of resolving the
slave issue.

To me, it's just nice that all you folks are wishing me a 'Happy Birthday'!
--

Ban liars, tax cheats, juvenile name-callers, and narcissists...not guns!

On Monday, April 18, 2016 at 3:10:41 PM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
He also promoted colonization
(shipping all blacks out of the country) as a means of resolving the
slave issue.


Liberia

In article FPKdnckyYI1-ZonKnZ2dnUU7-
, says...


According to you and BOA, there was only *one* reason for the Civil War
... slavery.

I'm still waiting for your history text
recomendations that say otherwise.
I have no idea why you think the Civil War would have
occurred but for slavery. It makes no sense.
Maybe in searching for text to support your view, you
will be enlightened.
At least you haven't suggested that blacks were
better off being enslaved, as did Greg.