The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War

The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War by H. W. Crocker III

http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Guide-Civil-Guides/dp/1596985496/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1257969370&sr=1-1#noop


I'm reading this book right now.

Luckily, I had a high school history teacher who dispelled quite a few myths about the Civil War, so this book is a good source of the 'truth' as opposed to a lot of the misconceptions people have nowadays.

Examples:


* The Emancipation Proclamation did not free a single slave. Lincoln declared the slaves free in the SOUTH, where he had no authority during the war. It was an attempt, among other things, to get the slaves in the South to sympathize with the North and fight against the Confederacy. It didn't work; in fact it led to riots in the North where workers suddenly feared a rush of freed slaves would come and take their jobs.

(Please don't reply with a defense of slavery. Slavery is evil and one human being should not own another).

* The South's rebellion, in their eyes, was a war of independence not unlike the American Revolution.

* Slavery was just one issue in the Civil War. States rights was the overwhelming reason why the Southern States wanted to secede from the Union.

It's a great book, and it makes you think about a lot of what's going on in politics right now.

Some of you dang Yankees should read it. :D

Some of the most interesting reading I've done on the subject was written from a marketing or propaganda effectiveness viewpoint. The north was being prepared for this for YEARS before tensions even reached the newspapers. The industrialists were desperate to have the south designated as their "colonies" to produce raw materials at low prices. As the south started to follow their lead and develop their own manufacturing base, plans were enacted to bring this to a halt. Those plans proved to be wildly successful with results that exceeded the principals expectations. The south would remain economically crippled for very nearly a century following.

Lowell

The Southern war for Christian Independence...
The Northern war of Agression.

It's (A) union of states, not (THE) union of states.

...Especially from a Texas standpoint.

Well, if we are being politically incorrect, and Im sure many neo-confederates are gonna chime in, lemme just throw this out there...


There were two sides to the American Civil war....

Those above the Mason Dixon line.....

And the loosers..........

Why is it that the loosing side always spends decades (or even centuries in this case) bitching about it and trying to present 'their side'??

Water under the bridge my friends....let it go!

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Hunting is pretty good also.

My Great Great Grandfather, Captain Andrew Charles Spanogle told his family that his motivation to invade the South was to save the white race. He didn't want a coffee collared race of mulattoes being bred that would overrun the white race.
He must have seen Mandingo.
Everyone knows states rats was the reason.

Well, if we are being politically incorrect, and Im sure many neo-confederates are gonna chime in, lemme just throw this out there...


There were two sides to the American Civil war....

Those above the Mason Dixon line.....

And the loosers..........

Why is it that the loosing side always spends decades (or even centuries in this case) bitching about it and trying to present 'their side'??

Water under the bridge my friends....let it go!


The South didn't Lose the war. They just wore themselves out kicking Yankee Asses. ;)

asking why someone did or didnt do something is defense of slavery? what a joke!!!! did you even read my post before it was deleted? i guess the truth hurts!!!!

The South didn't Lose the war. They just wore themselves out kicking Yankee Asses. ;)

No, they surrendered.........

Sorry man, I hate to be a dick but.......This debate continues 140+ plus years after the events unfolded. Every time around the politics keep trying to sway the listener to 'agree' or 'justify' the Southern view. I dont care if the war was fought over slaves or states rights or friggen cotton candy. My point is, its over, the issues were decided upon by the victors..........now let it go. Nobody sits around and discusses the Assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, do they? That little event had FAR more historic impact than the US Civil war.

The original quote said something to the effect that Southerners felt the war was akin to the American Revolutionary war. Well, ANY waring faction feels like it is throwing off the shackles of an oppressive govt. You can even justify Muslim terrorist bombings with that rhetoric.

My question is WHY? Why is history being retold from yet another 'pro looser' point of view. You can take opinions and feed them any way you like (Saying Norther Generals hated abolitionists.....oooooh, I hate those Norther Generals now for sure! They arent heros anymore. Booo, booo.....) But the fact remains that the Northern States won the war.

PIG books are great. Everyone on this site needs to read the PIG to the Constitution by Kevin Gutzman.

No, they surrendered.........

Sorry man, I hate to be a dick but.......
Yeah, never stopped ya before! LOL

But the fact remains that the Northern States won the war.
They surely did.
I was proud of that fact until I lived in the South during my Marine Corps tour. ;)

I would consider, however, the Eastern philosophy that the struggle goes on, even if it takes 1000 years.

Just a thought. :)

The North won, we lost. Not much else really matters at this point.

The North won, we lost. Not much else really matters at this point.
Lysander, Id like to buy you a beer. I wish more people shared your honest assessment of the situation.

Doc......bite me. 8-P

Doc......bite me. 8-P:tongue_sm

The south may have lost, but I hate the revisionist history that it is all about slavery in the evil south, and the benevolent north, which included slave owning states, was the "white knight" that freed the negroes. Tennessee abolished slavery before New Jersey, Kentucky and several other "northern" states. The whole states' rights issue was just covered up, as well as the difference between the agricultural south and the industrial north. The end result was the end of the republic, and the tyranny of the federal government. Lincoln was no hero, and our decline can be traced to this war.

My Dad, a devout southerner married my Mom, a devout yankee. I can still remember the arguments when I was little.............

Dad....The souths gonna rise again.
Mom...And the north will just kick their asses............again.

They loved each other very much, funny the one thing they could fight about happened a 150 years ago.

Kind of comical thinking back on it now.

Lysander, Id like to buy you a beer. I wish more people shared your honest assessment of the situation.

Doc......bite me. 8-P


LOL

I'm a damned proud Southerner, still have one of my great, great, great grandfathers' rifles, liberated yankee bayonet included. That said, any discussions about the war at this point are academic.

The only reason's to revisit the history of the Civil War is to A) Undermine the propaganda used today to justify government handouts and promote racism and B) to make sure that 'We the people' don't make the same mistake twice when states, hopefully, start asserting their sovereignty.

The North won, we lost. Not much else really matters at this point.


It matters to me to get the history right, warts and all.

i'm a Yank by birth and rumor is my ancestors fought for the Union

i'd like to think thats just a rumor but...

i'd side with the South, why not?

The south may have lost, but I hate the revisionist history that it is all about slavery in the evil south, and the benevolent north, which included slave owning states, was the "white knight" that freed the negroes. Tennessee abolished slavery before New Jersey, Kentucky and several other "northern" states. The whole states' rights issue was just covered up, as well as the difference between the agricultural south and the industrial north. The end result was the end of the republic, and the tyranny of the federal government. Lincoln was no hero, and our decline can be traced to this war.


Nathan Bedford Forest, who is credited with being an early leader of the KKK, freed his slaves. What is seldom told about Forest is that he tried to disband the KKK when he found out it was being used as a vehicle for violence against blacks.

Willaim Tecumseh Sherman was a slave owner who despised Abolitionists.

Read the book.

The only reason's to revisit the history of the Civil War is to A) Undermine the propaganda used today to justify government handouts and promote racism and B) to make sure that 'We the people' don't make the same mistake twice when states, hopefully, start asserting their sovereignty.



By Jove, this boy's catchin' on REAL GOOD. :D

It matters to me to get the history right, warts and all.

All this book does is perpetuate opinion and non related facts to put a negative spin on the 'Northern Aggressors'. Many of the statements Ive seen quoted here and on Amazon are purely circumspect, with little or no empirical backing.

Its not a retelling of the war. Its a propaganda spin by some die hard Southerners who still want to fight a war 140 years after its over. They figure that if they portray the 'North' as a bunch of racist incompetent morons, that people will be more sympathetic towards the South and their attempts at a sovereign nation.

My Great Great Grandpappy served with the 100th Indiana, in the state library is a document that all the members of the 100th signed, seems they were done making the south "HOWL" as they disected Georgia, but going back North through the Carolinas, some Johhny Reb called the Regiment "Lincolns Dogs"....that pissed them off, the document claims the reason for their fighting the south was because the south suceeded from the Union. They stated they were not fighting against slavery, just the successionists................and they were definatly not "Lincolns Dogs". They did love ol Billy Sherman though.

Tunnel hill, Misionary ridge, resacca, dallas, peach tree creak, kenasaw, atlanta, savanah, the carolinas....................what a Southern tour 64-65 it must have been.

I was born in Texas, raised here by my parents, and remain by choice. I despise the manner in which history is taught with the PC spin and political agenda. The facts are what should be a priority...Not the way a faction would have liked it to be.

I am still amazed by the fact that it took the North as long as it did to accomplish the subjugation of South, and it is plain to see just how well the North's idea of strong Fed Gov't. has prospered in fleecing us of our money, etc.

Two wrongs did not make a right and all no amount of BS talk will change a thing. This nation my not be everything for everyone, but if something better can be found......Then I guess I'll put my head between my legs and kiss my own ass while whistling Dixie.

Why are so many trying to get here if not for the best opportunity of a good life?

Wars over. North won. Majority of both sides would fight against where we are now.

Lose the North/South debate. It's a century and a half old and 14 or so states ago. The issue today is that a strong cetral government (needed in this world in my opinion) has determined that it is no longer answerable to its citizens. Was the Civil War the first big step in this direction? Possibly so. I don't believe the wrong side won, though at times I have stated so. In reality a strong central gov't is necessary in this day and age. With out it the USA would be a collection of Third world "states" loosely banded to gether.

But that strong central gov't needs to be answerable to the people. It is a fine line to walk and we have fallen off it.

Past time to remind DC where their power REALLY comes from...

Nobody is trying to 're-fight' the Civil War. I just want to correct the PC bullcrap we've been sold.

Nobody is trying to 're-fight' the Civil War. I just want to correct the PC bullcrap we've been sold.


Thats just my point man! This new book IS PC bullshit! Its trying to put a negative spin on the Northern side by making Northerners look like mean, freedom hating mongols and that the South was really just misunderstood. THAT is a load of PC bullshit If Ive ever heard it. The South seceded for many reason, most of them revolving around States Rights and trade (and yes, slavery is DIRECTLY related to those two issues.) The South lost its cause, and here we are today with a 50 state Republic.

The book should be called "We are still looking for reasons to justify a war that we lost 140 years ago......."

Thats just my point man! This new book IS PC bullshit! Its trying to put a negative spin on the Northern side by making Northerners look like mean, freedom hating mongols and that the South was really just misunderstood. THAT is a load of PC bullshit If Ive ever heard it.


That is called "setting the record straight..."

My Great Great Grandpappy served with the 100th Indiana, in the state library is a document that all the members of the 100th signed, seems they were done making the south "HOWL" as they disected Georgia, but going back North through the Carolinas, some Johhny Reb called the Regiment "Lincolns Dogs"....that pissed them off, the document claims the reason for their fighting the south was because the south suceeded from the Union. They stated they were not fighting against slavery, just the successionists................and they were definatly not "Lincolns Dogs". They did love ol Billy Sherman though.

Tunnel hill, Misionary ridge, resacca, dallas, peach tree creak, kenasaw, atlanta, savanah, the carolinas....................what a Southern tour 64-65 it must have been.

You don't have to wonder because one wrote his of his experience from Shiloh to Atlanta. He got wounded at peach tree creek and sent to Montgomery for healing. He is funny as hell too sometimes. Best first hand civil war book I ever read.

http://www.amazon.com/Co-Aytch-Confederate-Memoir-Civil/dp/0743255410/ref=pd_cp_b_1

Honestly Zane, what you posted isn't much of an eye opening revelation. Most of it is rather obvious to any literate person. The only people it should surprise are the victims of public education and the willfully ignorant.

Well, if we are being politically incorrect, and Im sure many neo-confederates are gonna chime in, lemme just throw this out there...


There were two sides to the American Civil war....

Those above the Mason Dixon line.....

And the loosers..........

Why is it that the loosing side always spends decades (or even centuries in this case) bitching about it and trying to present 'their side'??

Water under the bridge my friends....let it go!

It ain't over yet!

My grandson ain't been born yet, but he ain't surrendered yet, either.

You yankee bastids came down here freed these slaves but forgot to take
them with you.

Hell yeah I hold a grudge. lol.

Reparations for whitey!!!

Nathan Bedford Forest, who is credited with being an early leader of the KKK, freed his slaves. What is seldom told about Forest is that he tried to disband the KKK when he found out it was being used as a vehicle for violence against blacks.

Close, I live a half mile from the road Gen. Forest took down the mountain to fight, and his history is rich up here. Originally, the KKK became anti-Catholic when Forest divorced himself from it. Anti-black occurred long after he attempted to disband it and and had washed his hands of it entirely. Blacks and slavery weren't much of an issue in this part of Tennessee, as there were no rice paddies or cotton fields in the mountains. Mostly small farms, although there were several communities of wealthy plantation owners who spent the malaria filled summers up on the bluffs, and the University of the South was on the southern end of this plateau. The anti-black campaign resulted from the northern migration of blacks to places like Indiana, where I am from, and at one time the governor of Indiana was a staunch klansman, and they controlled the statehouse.
The white sheets and hoods were to portray the ghosts of the confederate calvary killed in action, not to hide the identities of men engaging in behavior they didn't wish to be associated with.

The Klan, born in the South,, became an empire in even the North by 1925.
Why?

That is called "setting the record straight..."

Ya know, at first I thought this was going to be an intelligent debate about factual nuances. I feel you are no different than any other Confederate flag waving "Jonny Reb" who just wants to start a fight over some usless shit that no one cares about any more, because yer pappy and yer grand pappy and his grand pappy says so.....Grabs me a shotgun Cletus, the South will rise again.....Rise against what, Cletus? The government of 140 years ago????

I understand if you wanted to reveal some unknown atrocities committed by the North during the war, but making broad accusations about Generals and opinionated statements about people who have been dead for 100 years is just pathetic. Its kind of sad.

Set the record straight? The record is straight. The South Lost, the North won, slavery is abolished, Federal Government supersedes State law......game over.

I feel you are no different than any other Confederate flag waving "Jonny Reb" who just wants to start a fight over some usless shit that no one cares about any more, because yer pappy and yer grand pappy and his grand pappy says so.....Grabs me a shotgun Cletus, the South will rise again.....Rise against what, Cletus? The government of 140 years ago????


Wellllll, actually that sort of thing starts plenty of new wars. Old wounds and hatreds die hard.
Latest examples would be the Kurds, the Shiites and Sunnis, Yugoslavia.

Plenty of examples. :cool_smal


:tongue_sm

Speaking of Forrest, I found out something interesting the other night. One of my ancestors on my mom's side of the family fought with the Tennessee 10th Cavalry in West Tennessee under the command of Forrest. In fact, when I was a little kid, I used to play with his sword that I found in the attic at my aunt's house (no; I don't have it and don't know who she gave it to, but I'd love to have it back) before I knew the story of it all.

As far as the issue of the South fighting the war still, all I can say is that yes, we suffered military defeat and occupation. And frankly, we still do, to a point. What we are seeing today is that the rest of the union is also suffering under the pinnacle of what Lincoln's masters set into motion, and the whole argument that the Northern victory "preserved the union" ignores the fact that it also sacrificed the core of the Republic to do so. To those who think it doesn't matter anymore, then why bother resisting Obama and his fellow travellers and their goals of "transforming America" in their vision of it today? It is, at its core, the same fight that the Confederacy struggled and tried to resist then, and for most of the same reasons. And it is STILL a noble cause.

yeah.. this dead horse is beat.

Ya know, at first I thought this was going to be an intelligent debate about factual nuances. I feel you are no different than any other Confederate flag waving "Jonny Reb" who just wants to start a fight over some usless shit that no one cares about any more, because yer pappy and yer grand pappy and his grand pappy says so.....Grabs me a shotgun Cletus, the South will rise again.....Rise against what, Cletus? The government of 140 years ago????

I understand if you wanted to reveal some unknown atrocities committed by the North during the war, but making broad accusations about Generals and opinionated statements about people who have been dead for 100 years is just pathetic. Its kind of sad.

Set the record straight? The record is straight. The South Lost, the North won, slavery is abolished, Federal Government supersedes State law......game over.

There were enough atrocities committed by both sides. Neither side was entirely right, nor entirely wrong. The reasons for the war are only important to the South because the North has not been labeled as dumbass hillbillies and ignorant country boys whose sisters and cousins weren't safe from them. Nor have they been labeled the big racist as have the South. I dare say if the roles were reversed, the truth about why the war was fought would be important to the North.
The only reason it's important is that history repeats itself if not kept factual so you might be able to see it coming in time to avert it.
I certainly hope it's not "Game Over"! The loser and winner is a historical fact. I don't know anyone that argues that. The problem I have is with your last statement. It's true, no denying, but it's wrong.
The Fed does supersede State. This is why we are not a strong republic as we have been forced to accept the Feds rules over what is best for the states. I've always wondered why you could be charged with state and Federal crimes that overlap, when one trumps the other. Why have a state constitution if the Fed trumps it? A Republic with individual rights and a minimum Federal government is what this fight will be about.

To me, the whole point of this thread is that I am sick and tired of the Confederacy being painted out to be the Third Reich, and the Confederate battle flag being made out to be the equal of the Nazi swastika.

Yeah, the war is over and the South lost, but it is a rich part of our American Heritage, and I for one am about to get a gut full of the liberal lies about what really happened.

There is a day of reckoning yet to dawn.

To me, the whole point of this thread is that I am sick and tired of the Confederacy being painted out to be the Third Reich, and the Confederate battle flag being made out to be the equal of the Nazi swastika.

Yeah, the war is over and the South lost, but it is a rich part of our American Heritage, and I for one am about to get a gut full of the liberal lies about what really happened.

There is a day of reckoning yet to dawn.
I dont know where you were raised, but Im from upstate NY. I was taught that the Civil was was fought because the southern states wanted to be able to choose on their own terms what they can, and cannot do. Slavery was a huge part of that issue, but was also a largely accepted practice at that time. The South withdrew from the Union, Lincoln called 'bullshit' and fought to keep the Republic intact. The south lost, all the blacks moved to Detroit, and here we are. Nobody I know thinks the Confederate flag is a symbol of hatred or slavery, but like the Swastika, is now flown by ignorant assholes who just want to piss people off.

Saying the civil was was all about slavery is like saying WWII was all about the Nazi slaughter and rape of Europe.....not exactly the full story, but a huge contributor.....

(Sorry, I made the Detroit thing up......)

I dont know where you were raised, but Im from upstate NY. I was taught that the Civil was was fought because the southern states wanted to be able to choose on their own terms what they can, and cannot do. Slavery was a huge part of that issue, but was also a largely accepted practice at that time. The South withdrew from the Union, Lincoln called 'bullshit' and fought to keep the Republic intact. The south lost, all the blacks moved to Detroit, and here we are. Nobody I know thinks the Confederate flag is a symbol of hatred or slavery, but like the Swastika, is now flown by ignorant assholes who just want to piss people off.

Saying the civil was was all about slavery is like saying WWII was all about the Nazi slaughter and rape of Europe.....not exactly the full story, but a huge contributor.....

(Sorry, I made the Detroit thing up......)


Slavery had very little to do with it as most of the Southern states had already passed legislation of a slavery phase out. It was pushed by Lincoln and made to look like that, however, so being from NY and not having access to all the documents and info, you made a very logical and intelligent decision. Basically just like very intelligent teenagers do on life choices. Very intelligent, just not enough facts or the outcome would be different.

Well, if we are being politically incorrect, and Im sure many neo-confederates are gonna chime in, lemme just throw this out there...


There were two sides to the American Civil war....

Those above the Mason Dixon line.....

And the loosers..........

Why is it that the loosing side always spends decades (or even centuries in this case) bitching about it and trying to present 'their side'??

Water under the bridge my friends....let it go!

Well, I'll be glad to let it go when everyone is ready to drop the slavery and reparations issues.

What most people, especially Yankees, don't understand is that the South is still suffering from the aftermath of reconstruction. You can't rape a country and then just say "forget about it".

Ed

Grew-up in Philadelphia, PA and my Great Grandfather served aa a Federal Marine in the War Between the States, earning his Citizenship. Attended Catholic Schools and we were taught in both Elementary and High School History that the main cause of the War was the Northern States' explotation of the Southern States.

The North wanted to build-up it's manufacturing capability and needed the raw material from the South. Problem was the North's manufactured goods were of an inferior quality compared to English manufactured goods. The North pushed through a tariff on the English goods making them more expensive for the South to purchase. At the same time the North paid the South less for the raw materials than the English did thus putting a double whammy on the South.

Of course we were taught that slavery was wrong and the South should not have tried to succeed, but it always stuck with me the North really forced the South's hand. Just want to let the Southerners know that my Yankee education was not as one sided as you might expect!

Well, I'll be glad to let it go when everyone is ready to drop the slavery and reparations issues.

What most people, especially Yankees, don't understand is that the South is still suffering from the aftermath of reconstruction. You can't rape a country and then just say "forget about it".

Ed
Right. Still suffering after 140 years? More like whining. What possible remnant of post civil war reconstruction is still a prevalent detriment to the Southern infrastructure? Please, educate me on this one, Im all ears.

Set the record straight? The record is straight. The South Lost, the North won, slavery is abolished, Federal Government supersedes State law......game over.

So what you are saying is we should embrace Obama's "Hope" and "Change" as it is an inevitable conclusion to the destruction of states' rights and sovereignty, and if the federal government wishes to give over national sovereignty to a "New World Order" it is beyond our responsibility or right to oppose it?

Right. Still suffering after 140 years? More like whining. What possible remnant of post civil war reconstruction is still a prevalent detriment to the Southern infrastructure? Please, educate me on this one, Im all ears.

Well Scott,

For starters, before the WBTS the South provided about 80% of the economy for the entire country. The South is now up to just under 40% over 140 years later. The money was sucked off from the South to build the railroads and infrastructure of the North. Even though the South paid 80% of the revenue, they only received 20% back to build their infrastructure. After the war, it was even less. It was not until FDR that significant infrastructure was built in the South again.

We still discuss it because the issues are still topical. Lincoln was the first President to suspend Habeas Corpus for the entire country and arrested the entire Maryland legislature to prevent a legal vote. 140 years later the Government is still practicing the unconstitutional methods explored by the Northern politicians back then.

The "North" didn't win anything, the politicians and bankers won huge profits, just like they are still reaping today from all of us. It's not a matter of North vs. South anymore, it's politicians and bankers vs. the rest of us, and we're losing. The lessons of the WBTS are our models to show what happens when the Constitution is trampled.

Here's another one for ya, ask the Cherokee why they are still upset about the "Trail of Tears" and the land stolen from them over the last 175 years. Should they just stop whining and get over it, or do they have a legitimate beef?

My great grandfather was forced off his land in 1865 and never recovered. Yankee profiteers took the land and made huge profits from it, without building any infrastructure or giving assistance to the locals. Yeah, I'm still pissed about it and am always watching for the warning signs that it will happen again. I see them more and more.

Having said all that, I still believe we are better off as a united country and I am not a supporter of the new seccesionist movement. We need to fix what is wrong with the country, not split and make both halves weaker. But we may not have that choice if we don't pay attention to the mistakes of the past like what was made during the WBTS.

Ed

Well Scott,
The "North" didn't win anything, the politicians and bankers won huge profits, just like they are still reaping today from all of us. It's not a matter of North vs. South anymore, it's politicians and bankers vs. the rest of us, and we're losing. The lessons of the WBTS are our models to show what happens when the Constitution is trampled.

Here's another one for ya, ask the Cherokee why they are still upset about the "Trail of Tears" and the land stolen from them over the last 175 years. Should they just stop whining and get over it, or do they have a legitimate beef?
Ed

Ed, you make some interesting points. I see what your saying, but the heart of this discussion, the book in question, exists only to shed a negative light on the North, nothing more. Regardless, thanks for the information. Its something to ponder.

I still find it difficult to differentiate as to whether Lincoln was the 'Great Emancipator' or the ' Great Tyrant'. A great many fine men had difficulty envisioning the men across the field as the 'enemy' during that war.
I can't say that I have any great admiration for what the Gov't. has become after the issue was settled because it has insinuated itself into the domain of the states, ignores the wishes of the citizens, bends the laws to suit its members interests, etc.....blah blah blah.

So what you are saying is we should embrace Obama's "Hope" and "Change" as it is an inevitable conclusion to the destruction of states' rights and sovereignty, and if the federal government wishes to give over national sovereignty to a "New World Order" it is beyond our responsibility or right to oppose it?

No, thats not what Im saying. Did you even read this thread? Did you even notice that I am referring solely to a BOOK about the Civil war??? I made NO reference to Obama or the new world order. Nor should I, because we are talking about a BOOK, about an event that unfolded 140 years ago and how it portrays historic figures and incidents.

Put your tin foil hat back on.

The whole thing was over states rights and where the fed could go and force the states to do. Doesn't matter how it was couched.

But, as a matter of fact, this is, what shall we call it, Destiny? The American Civil War set the stage for America to be where she was when she was needed to be there. Most notably being WWII. Look at the BIG picture. Had the WBTS never happened and the secession movement had succeeded, The "United States" would have been reduced to two rival powers who would have been locked in a struggle for control of the remaining north american continent. I suspect this conflict would have led to a whole new set of alliances and wars stemming from them. I could see the north states forming up with England and the Anglo European powers while the south could have been more closely aligned with Spain and France. Who could say what kind of wars would have stemmed from it. I suspect this would have fast tracked the remanents of the fractured union to become nothing more than a group of second rate powers with no real input on the world stage much like South America is now.

Had this happened, the "United States" would probably never been in a possition to lend aid to the allied powers in WWII. Hitler and the Axis powers would most likely have over run England and controlled all of europe. Africa would have been a ripe peach for the picking and NO ONE would have been able to stop it. Japan was in full expansion mode and would most likely over run China and Southeast Asia, Australia and, having control of all the resources in these areas, would have turned into a monster juggernaut. When combined with the unfettered might of Axis Europe, they would have easily crushed the USSR. The matter of South and North America would either just be a matter of time or we would have been forced into an alliance of self protection that may or may not have been able to resist the combined axis powers with the world's resources at their command.

I can't imagine what the world would now look like if the US had not been able to put a stop to Hitler and Hirohito. A strong united America made this possible. Had we been fragmented and bickering amoungst ourselves, who knows. I will theorize that the world would be a far far darker place.

Now, imagine what the world would look like if a succession movement took root and actually forced the breakup of the north american union. Guess who's in charge now? We would all be at the tender mercies of the communist Chinese. Taiwan would immediately be retaken and all of south east asia would be totally defenseless. Japan has no nukes so she could do NOTHING to stop the Chinese. The Russians are a foot note and might only be able to hold on to what they now have by virtue of their current nuclear arsenal. Would make more sense for them to ally themselves with the chinese, wouldn't it? Who would stand up against the Chinese then? Europe? They might be able to keep them at bay with their own nukes but I suspect it would only be a matter of time before they had to succumb to the weight of a Sino/Russian alliance. No county that could not mount a defense would be helpless and there would be NO ONE that could stop it.

The world would, once again, fundimentally change and probably for the worse. The reason the world is a relatively peaceful place is because the United States and it's allies can muster a convincing deterent against the powers who would love nothing more to see the end of the American hegimony and the enslavement and domination of the rest of the world.

Be careful what you wish for. I don't think would could imagine the level of chaos that would reign if the US broke up. One would more reasonably hope that the electorate would wake up and start throwing the politicians out of office. WE HOLD THE ULTIMATE POWER!!! Don't forget that, just fire the suckers. I don't know how far it would have to go for this type of political revolt to happen but don't in your wildest dreams hope for succession. If somehow succession were to become reality, the age of America will be over and a dark dark time will begin.

God help us all.

No, thats not what Im saying. Did you even read this thread? Did you even notice that I am referring solely to a BOOK about the Civil war??? I made NO reference to Obama or the new world order. Nor should I, because we are talking about a BOOK, about an event that unfolded 140 years ago and how it portrays historic figures and incidents.

Put your tin foil hat back on.

I read it, and I read your post. I even quoted your post. Perhaps you have the comprehension problem here...

Set the record straight? The record is straight. The South Lost, the North won, slavery is abolished, Federal Government supersedes State law......game over.

Can you cite where the immediate end of slavery over the entire US occurred from the emancipation proclamation? Or even from the end of the Civil War?
And where in the Constitution is there an article that allows the federal government to "supersede" the states or the citizens? It seems I recall that the federal government was limited to what was assigned to it in the Constitution, and all else was assigned "to the states respectively, and to the people". So where are you drawing this power, for instance, the ATF & E regulating instrastate manufacturing and sales of firearms, when there is no interstate commerce in question?

Have another glass of koolaid, Komrade....

Set the record straight? The record is straight. The South Lost, the North won, slavery is abolished, Federal Government supersedes State law......game over.
http://i36.tinypic.com/altdw9.jpg

Well, here we have Lincoln 2.0.

The scapegoats are "Right-Wing Terrorists."

Civil War 2.0 is up next.

The cause is... almost everything that has happened since Civil War 1.




Will the same thing be said years from now? I can see it now.
The record is straight. The USA Lost, the UN won, freedom is abolished, World Government supersedes National law......game over.


ETA: Obama is head of the UN Security Council, for those who don't know. The fate of America will be the fate of the world.

Back to the original point of this thread, it would be nice if there was one book that told the unbiased truth. Unfortunately, all the books on the subject have a tilt to one side or the other. The importance of this book, although biased, is to balance out the other books. It is up to the individual reader to read several books on the subject and form their own opinion. I think most people are able to read through the bias and extract the factual information. There will always be some, unfortunately, on both sides, who will only read what they want to believe and disregard any facts that inhibit their view. I sincerely believe there should be more books on the subject, not less. Each researcher usually can present one or two new tidbits that help explain how it happened and what mistakes we can try to avoid now.

Ed

Back to the original point of this thread, it would be nice if there was one book that told the unbiased truth. Unfortunately, all the books on the subject have a tilt to one side or the other. The importance of this book, although biased, is to balance out the other books. It is up to the individual reader to read several books on the subject and form their own opinion. I think most people are able to read through the bias and extract the factual information. There will always be some, unfortunately, on both sides, who will only read what they want to believe and disregard any facts that inhibit their view. I sincerely believe there should be more books on the subject, not less. Each researcher usually can present one or two new tidbits that help explain how it happened and what mistakes we can try to avoid now.

Ed

Yes, it'd be nice to see the real history. One of the biggest reasons you won't see much of it is because of today's society and our government. If such a book was published it would probably be labeled as revisionist history because it would conflict greatly with public education books. That would draw some attention to it, yes, but you would have many calling it racist and also the majority of people don't give a damn about real history, such has been seen in this thread.


I haven't read the book in question, but I have heard of most of the "false" reasons the war was fought by family and friends, since I grew up here in Alabama. Looking at how fucked up we are today, much of what has been mentioned sounds totally believeable. However, I still believe that slavery was a non-issue. Slavery would have eventually killed itself, because of the cost. Not that I condone slavery, but the majority of slaves were treated very well.

Back to the original point of this thread, it would be nice if there was one book that told the unbiased truth. Unfortunately, all the books on the subject have a tilt to one side or the other. The importance of this book, although biased, is to balance out the other books.


I think this book is pretty balanced. It is VERY kind to General Grant.

Ya know, at first I thought this was going to be an intelligent debate about factual nuances. I feel you are no different than any other Confederate flag waving "Jonny Reb" who just wants to start a fight over some usless shit that no one cares about any more, because yer pappy and yer grand pappy and his grand pappy says so.....Grabs me a shotgun Cletus, the South will rise again.....Rise against what, Cletus? The government of 140 years ago????

I understand if you wanted to reveal some unknown atrocities committed by the North during the war, but making broad accusations about Generals and opinionated statements about people who have been dead for 100 years is just pathetic. Its kind of sad.

Set the record straight? The record is straight. The South Lost, the North won, slavery is abolished, Federal Government supersedes State law......game over.

As long as there's O in office...the rule book is out. It's gone.
No monkeyLEX/ No monkeyREX.
Do what the good Lord put for you to do in your heart to do.
Then Do it.

Let's see, the war of northern aggrivation is over???... yea effin right.

What we got from you:
i.e. "some usless shit that no one cares about any more."

United Nations
1933 War Powers act
Gold Confiscation
Money not backed by silver
Money Backed by Oil
14th amendment
Federal Income Tax
Property Tax
Standing Army Police Military
10 planks of the Commie Manefesto
Illegal Immigration Policies
Civil Rights Act
No Prayer in Schools
Abortion Free Zone
Gun Control
Hate Crime Laws
Nafta
Gatt
Gordon Kahl
Randy Weaver
Ruby Ridge
Branch Davidians
Killeen Massacre / Brady Bill / Gun Registration
OKC False Flag /Terrorist Bill
911 False Flag / Patriot Act

You can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a fuggin pig.
Since you damn yankees have had it, and shared it with our
enemies so well, I think your turn is about almost up.

Back to the original point of this thread, it would be nice if there was one book that told the unbiased truth. Unfortunately, all the books on the subject have a tilt to one side or the other. The importance of this book, although biased, is to balance out the other books. It is up to the individual reader to read several books on the subject and form their own opinion. I think most people are able to read through the bias and extract the factual information. There will always be some, unfortunately, on both sides, who will only read what they want to believe and disregard any facts that inhibit their view. I sincerely believe there should be more books on the subject, not less. Each researcher usually can present one or two new tidbits that help explain how it happened and what mistakes we can try to avoid now.

Ed
Well Ed, you seem to hit the nail on the head.

I just wish EVERY GODAMN conversation around here didnt end with premonitions of world collapse and revolution. Sometimes I like to come here to trade knowledge on guns or gun related subjects. It never fails that whatever the topic, "Obama is going to ruin the world" gets inserted about halfway thru.

Dude, how can I remove a front sight block?
tinfoiler:do it now before O bans sight block removal tools!
Dude: Hey files, I just got a new car
foil hatter: you better convert it run on farts cause O is gonna take over gas and ban cars.....
Dude: Hey Files, I just saved a lot with geico!
foil hatter: You better go live off the grid because O is gonna make insurance run by Satan himself with a crew of Muslim clerics....

Some people on this forum just live to 'O' bash where ever they can....doesnt matter what its about, they MAKE it about O. Seems to me these people are acting like a schoolkid with a crush....they pick on O because they secretly Loooooove him!!!!!

My whole take on this has been put together from books written from about
1900 to 1950 throughout my life. The north was a farming and manufacturing
base. The south grew tobacco and cotton exported mainly to Europe. The gov.
ran on tariffs back then. The south had to trade with Europe so they paid most
of those tariffs. A simple "follow the money" war.
Now God had other plans. Quincy Adams had been battling in Congress most
of his life against slavery. He was well hated by a fair amount of his peers. For
a short time he mentored a young one term congressman by the name of Lincoln.
That is where Lincoln picked up the cause. So the slavery battle had been going
on since the beginning of the nation. It would do one well to remember we have
lived a lot more years without it than with it.
As far as the kkk. They were an arm of the democratic party and were dedicated to killing republicans not blacks. Roughly 1/3 of their hangings were
white people. It would have been more but it was easy to spot a republican by
the color of their skin. If you were a black, you were a republican in the south
back then. The supreme court ordered the democratic party to disassociate itself
with the kkk in the 1950's I believe. Liberals have always been evil and always
will be. They serve satan well unwittingly or not.

Damn, and all this time I thought the civil war was set in motion by THE Big money bankers in England in an attempt to divide and conquer the United States and put us back under the English crown. Silly me.

Is that why Lawyers are Esquires to the Crown?
Hmmm.

Missing 13th Amendment.

An unconstitutional position that couldn't be supported by the courts was forced through criminal invasion.

My first thought is that all you damn yankees are going to be real surprised when Gabriel blows his horn and you realize he's playing Dixie!

Ed

My first thought is that all you damn yankees are going to be real surprised when Gabriel blows his horn and you realize he's playing Dixie!

Ed :notworthy :laugh_sma

What other tune could he play?

I use an avatar similar to this pic on another forum. A member there asked me to make a "full size" version. It just seems appropriate to this thread.

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e8/ak47nut/SLR107FR%20LAMINATED-1/CONFEDERATEAKWALLPAPER.jpg