www.ditl.org

McAvoy wrote:North=Good, South=Bad

That's still a good summary of your civil war. Lee's personal views don't change the fact that he was fighting to defend slavery.

I do agree with the basic premise.

But there is a bit more than the North fighting the South to free slaves.

McAvoy wrote:

Deepcrush wrote:You should check yourself on this one, and I mean a lot. Lee was a major advocate of equal rights and anti-slavery. So much so that its one of the reasons he took the position in Westpoint. To get away from many in the south who wanted him lynched for speaking such.

It is nice to find someone that has a better understanding of the Civil War other than the usual North=Good, South=Bad or vice versa.

Deep comes from a long line of confused folks - his ancestors came from Southern states and fought for the Union.

Hey, I was just making a point and used the first Confederate general who came to mind. Sue me.

Tsukiyumi wrote: .... Sue me.

How much have you got?

Captain Seafort wrote:

McAvoy wrote:North=Good, South=Bad

That's still a good summary of your civil war. Lee's personal views don't change the fact that he was fighting to defend slavery.

He wasn't fighting to defend slavery, he was part of a southern movement to end it. He fought for the south for a couple of reasons and none of them was to "Spread evil across the land" as so many northerners spit about.

A) the Union had already planned on invading them, B) many in the south fought because of the pending invasion, C) his home state was the first targeted for invasion.

Mikey wrote:

McAvoy wrote:

Deepcrush wrote:You should check yourself on this one, and I mean a lot. Lee was a major advocate of equal rights and anti-slavery. So much so that its one of the reasons he took the position in Westpoint. To get away from many in the south who wanted him lynched for speaking such.

It is nice to find someone that has a better understanding of the Civil War other than the usual North=Good, South=Bad or vice versa.

Deep comes from a long line of confused folks - his ancestors came from Southern states and fought for the Union.

We weren't confused, it was just a simple issue for us. They betrayed the Union, so they died for it.

Sonic Glitch wrote:

Tsukiyumi wrote: .... Sue me.

How much have you got?

About seven fitty.

Tsukiyumi wrote:About seven fitty bullets just waiting for you to show up so you can become a human target dummy.

That's better.

Surprisingly, that's not too far from the actual count.

Deepcrush wrote:He wasn't fighting to defend slavery, he was part of a southern movement to end it. He fought for the south for a couple of reasons and none of them was to "Spread evil across the land" as so many northerners spit about.

I'm not talking about his personal motivation, I'm talking about the result. He fought for the CSA, ergo he fought to retain slavery in those states and to expand it westward. The same goes for those German officers who were anti-Nazi during WW2 - whatever their personal motivation, it doesn't change the fact that they were fighting to defend the genocide the Nazis were responsible for.

Captain Seafort wrote:I'm not talking about his personal motivation, I'm talking about the result. He fought for the CSA, ergo he fought to retain slavery in those states and to expand it westward. The same goes for those German officers who were anti-Nazi during WW2 - whatever their personal motivation, it doesn't change the fact that they were fighting to defend the genocide the Nazis were responsible for.

Wrong, only half the southern states refused to give up slavery to the whim of the northern government. And, even in a number of those states, it was being phased out. Tennessee, Maryland, Virginia, Florida and I think Arkansas IIRC were all at the table until the north invaded.

Comparing the CSA to the NAZI party just shows an ignorance of history. The first having people within its government actively working to change the problem. The second having people actively hiding the problem.

Deepcrush wrote:Wrong, only half the southern states refused to give up slavery to the whim of the northern government. And, even in a number of those states, it was being phased out. Tennessee, Maryland, Virginia, Florida and I think Arkansas IIRC were all at the table until the north invaded.

Why do you consider this relevant? The continuation of slavery and the inferiority of blacks was written into the CSA constitution. The personal opinions of individual southerners, the specific reasons given by states for seceding and what those individuals or states felt or were doing about slavery are irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that they fought for the CSA - a country that defined itself by slavery and black inferiority.

Comparing the CSA to the NAZI party just shows an ignorance of history. The first having people within its government actively working to change the problem. The second having people actively hiding the problem.

And? The CSA had the inferiority of certain groups of people written into law. Nazi Germany had the inferiority of certain groups of people written into law. No fucking difference.

The CSA enslaved members of said inferior groups en mass. Nazi Germany enslaved and exterminated members of said inferior groups en mass. Better behaviour by the CSA, but not something to brag about.

Whether or not some individuals disagreed with this is not relevant to the fact of it.

Captain Seafort wrote:Why do you consider this relevant? The continuation of slavery and the inferiority of blacks was written into the CSA constitution. The personal opinions of individual southerners, the specific reasons given by states for seceding and what those individuals or states felt or were doing about slavery are irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that they fought for the CSA - a country that defined itself by slavery and black inferiority.

Again wrong. The war didn't start over slavery and there were just as many in the south that opposed it as there were that supported it. To say that they fought for a place that had slavery is to say that every Englishman who has ever served is nothing but trash themselves. We should spit on every English soldiers grave... after all, they fought for England which continued the use of slave labor long after the American Civil War. Is that how England should be judged for every war its fought in? As a slaving nation? No, of course not. Many who fought for England have done so because they didn't want to allow other nations to invade them.

You should think before speaking. Most of those who fought for the CSA didn't own slaves. Many were from regiments that were from free states. They didn't just fight because they wanted slaves, they chose to fight because someone marched an army into their cities.

Captain Seafort wrote:And? The CSA had the inferiority of certain groups of people written into law. Nazi Germany had the inferiority of certain groups of people written into law. No f***ing difference.

Same thing for england, so I guess next time I'm in England I should take to pissing on your graves. Though again with the Nazi line, guess you couldn't really find anything useful to fit you bs...

The CSA had no laws against any race, the CSA didn't exist to make those laws. Laws were formed by the states, not by the CSA as a whole. You should really go read a history book sometime.

The CSA enslaved members of said inferior groups en mass. Nazi Germany enslaved and exterminated members of said inferior groups en mass. Better behaviour by the CSA, but not something to brag about.

Yet again, wrong... the Nazi party existed for mass murder and conquest. The CSA existed because someone decided they would use troops to make policy rather then law. So the Southern States fought back.

Whether or not some individuals disagreed with this is not relevant to the fact of it.

A limey's opinion of a cracker issue isn't fact, its a bias from a second rate country that has done far worse and still thinks it matters. Its YOUR opinion against a topic to which you've shown zero understanding of and that is the fact of it. Since many of those states were passing laws to end slavery, it is a very important fact which if ignored means that you might as well just not get involved in the topic to begin with.

Deepcrush wrote:many of those states were passing laws to end slavery,

CSA Constitution, Article I, Sec 9, Pt 4 wrote:No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

CSA Constitution, Article IV, Sec 2, Pt 1 wrote:The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.

CSA Constitution, Article IV, Sec 3, Pt 3 wrote:]The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.

Conclusion: you're full of shit.

Deepcrush wrote:The CSA had no laws against any race, the CSA didn't exist to make those laws. Laws were formed by the states, not by the CSA as a whole. You should really go read a history book sometime.

You're right - re-reading they use the term "slave" rather than any racial definition.