Skip to comments.
U.S. Corrects 'Southern Bias' at Civil War Sites
Reuters via Lycos.com ^
| 12/22/2002
| Alan Elsner
Posted on 12/22/2002 7:56:45 AM PST by GeneD
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 561-579 next last
To: GOPcapitalist
The ordinances were the official acts of secession.There was no secession. There was attempted secession.
Walt
To: Keith
The Civil War was fought by most Union soldiers to preserve the Union. Some had abolitionist sympathies, but weren't thinking of them as they fought and died. They felt they were fighting to preserve the country their ancestors had fought and died for in the War of Independence. Most Southern soldiers felt they were fighting because the Union would not let them have their "divorce."
I read this post to me after I wrote my Post 98.
It seems we are on the same wavelength.
To: Missouri
I think what is missing in this disscusion is why the average Confederate soldier fought so hard. He had no plantation, no slaves, and was poor. Poor whites were fighting for white supremacy.
Walt
To: WhiskeyPapa
There was no secession. There was attempted secession. Call it whatever you like. It won't change the fact that it happened, or that your false god spent 4 years of bloody conquest trying to counteract its effects.
To: WhiskeyPapa
Whether or not Southern politicians decided on seccession because of slavery, tarriffs or what end of a soft boiled egg should be opened, the botttom line was that young men had to go out and settle the matter on the battlefield.....PolybiusNo it didn't.....WhiskeyPapa
Ummmmm.....Walt.....My point is that fifty-something year old politicians picked a fight and then hundreds of thousands of teenaged boys and twenty-something year old men ended up having to settle the matter on the battlefield.
What do you mean, "No, it didn't"?
To: GeneD
The U.S. National Park Service has embarked on an effort to change its interpretive materials at major Civil War battlefieldsHistory is a lie.
To: DensaMensa
History is a lie.History is the LATEST lie.
To: Polybius
"It seems we are on the same wavelength."
right you are...a feather in MY cap!
;)
108
posted on
12/22/2002 3:13:36 PM PST
by
Keith
To: GOPcapitalist
"your false god spent 4 years of bloody conquest trying to counteract its effects."
what the heck are you referring to?
109
posted on
12/22/2002 3:14:34 PM PST
by
Keith
To: Keith
what the heck are you referring to? Walt's false god, Abraham Lincoln. It has been my experience that Walt, aka WhiskeyPapa, is incapable to admit or recognize any error or flaw on the part of Lincoln and often treats him as a secular deity rather than an historical figure. Therefore it is my contention that Lincoln is his false god.
To: GOPcapitalist
Oops. The wording didn't come out right on that one. incapable=unable
To: GeneD
... But in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground.
The brave men, living and dead who struggled here have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. ...
Gettysburg Address, A. Lincoln (1863)
112
posted on
12/22/2002 3:28:28 PM PST
by
reg45
To: GOPcapitalist
he's no god...just the greatest president we ever had.
that's enough for this history teacher.
thanks for the explanation.
113
posted on
12/22/2002 3:29:09 PM PST
by
Keith
To: GeneD
Does this shit ever end? And it's our tax dollars that pay for this and pay the salaries of these leftists that trash and twist United States history.
114
posted on
12/22/2002 3:32:28 PM PST
by
dennisw
To: GeneD
I happen to think that arguments that the war was not about slavery are ludicrous. Without slavery the war would not have happened - period.
This however, is ridiculous.
It's about making happy a bunch of liberal college professors eager to deconstruct the Civil War.
Mentioning slavery is fine. But we have always emphasized the soldier's tale at Civil War battlefield memorials out of respect for the sacrifices made - by both sides.
To: GeneD
The U.S. National Park Service has embarked on an effort to change its interpretive materials at major Civil War battlefields to get rid of a Southern bias and emphasize the horrors of slavery.If I had my way a whole lot of leftist Federal poobahs would be fired and turned out onto the street to beg for their supper
116
posted on
12/22/2002 3:36:47 PM PST
by
dennisw
To: The Iguana
Mentioning slavery is fine.A mention is fine, but the Civil War was not about slavery. Any such relationship both then and now today is mostly an afterthought, and a simplified easy-to-understand northern after the fact justification.
To: WhiskeyPapa
I'll have to get my books out. I recall some memoirs of Lincoln where he talked about being very shaken up by the bloodshed at Gettysburg, and going back to the slaves at the White House because he knew they knew how to pray. He became a Christian praying with those slaves.
Of course, maybe the book was wrong.
118
posted on
12/22/2002 3:48:59 PM PST
by
gitmo
To: Keith
The war also established that the rule of law can be overridden by a president who controls the military.
119
posted on
12/22/2002 3:54:46 PM PST
by
gitmo
To: FirstFlaBn
On the National Park Service: this article conveniently forgot to mention the names of the three "historians" on its advisory panel...Thanks for filling in the blanks on who these characters were. Lefty types, naturally.
Not that there was ever any doubt...
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 561-579 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson