The Civil War--A turning point in America's history?

[Porkulus Hummer]

Whether or not the Confederacy was right in any moral stance, is up for others to decide another time--I personally believe they were not morally right. However, from a legal, constitutional stance it is clear imo that they were 100% right--Secession at the time was legal and was encouraged by the Founding Fathers--To abolish or break away from a government the people felt weren't representing them.

The US government went, imo, against it's purpose and trampled on the body of every patriot in the Revolutionary War when it acted belligerently to and declared war on the CSA--It violated the very idea that the people had the right to seek a more perfect union if they felt the union as it were was not representing them properly.

Furthermore, I believe that were the founding fathers alive at the time of the Civil War, they would've allowed the Confederacy to remain in peace.

[NascarGirl2448]

I think people have been taught a lot of lies about the War for Southern Independence, and that the only reason lincoln and company ever wanted to fight was not because of slavery (it existed in the North also) but because of the economic consequences they knew they would suffer if the South was allowed to secede. But, had General Stonewall Jackson lived, the war would have been over after Gettysburg, because the South would have won hands down. Losing General Stuart a year later didn't help matters either.

[Techgod]

It is really about (now & then) whose right is it to oppress others.

It should be the states right to oppress!:rolleyes:

[angelicmadrigal]

I think people have been taught a lot of lies about the War for Southern Independence, and that the only reason lincoln and company ever wanted to fight was not because of slavery (it existed in the North also) but because of the economic consequences they knew they would suffer if the South was allowed to secede.

And? To me that's a perfectly LOGICAL reason.

[NascarGirl2448]

And? To me that's a perfectly LOGICAL reason.

Think about why we broke off from England in the first place. The British were doing the exact same thing to the colonies that the North was doing to the South, and just like the colonists, the South got sick of it and left.

Another thing the history books don't tell you is that most of the citizens in the North were willing to allow the South to leave in peace. It wasn't until lincoln and company panicked when they realized just how bad things would get economically (especially if the ports froze over in the winter if it got cold enough) that anyone thought about fighting. The North would have still been able to get needed supplies, they would have just gotten a taste of their own medicine when they were having to pay the same high taxes they were levying on the South.

[Techgod]

:rolleyes:

[NascarGirl2448]

:rolleyes:

What are you rolling your eyes at? :confused:

[Thor]

However, from a legal, constitutional stance it is clear imo that they were 100% right--Secession at the time was legal and was encouraged by the Founding Fathers--To abolish or break away from a government the people felt weren't representing them.


They were right from a "constitutional stance"? Where in the Constitution does it mention the right to secede? Not only that, but Robert E. Lee believed that secession was unconstitutional.

And the people felt that the government wasn't "representing them"? Horse hockey! The Southern states felt they were losing power (they were right) and that Southern expansion would be threatened, particularly vis-a-vis slavery. Once Lincoln was elected, they went into a tizzy and decided to jump ship and form their own country. They didn't even give him a chance! Simply put, the South couldn't get what it wanted in a free election, so they stomped off like petulent children.

And if you think that secession is legal, where does it end? What if a county feels that the state government isn't "representing" them? Does the county have a right to secede and form it's own state? Does a city have a right to secede from the county? How about a neighborhood? Can they secede from a city?

The US government went, imo, against it's purpose and trampled on the body of every patriot in the Revolutionary War when it acted belligerently to and declared war on the CSA

What history book are you reading? The South declared war on the US when they fired on Fort Sumter.

Furthermore, I believe that were the founding fathers alive at the time of the Civil War, they would've allowed the Confederacy to remain in peace.

You really believe that the founding fathers would have allowed the nation they fought so hard to form, to be broken up into pieces? I really doubt this.

[Andrew_980]

The seceding confederacy was as unconstitutional as the revolution was treason to the crown, equally right or wrong.

[Thor]

I think people have been taught a lot of lies about the War for Southern Independence, and that the only reason lincoln and company ever wanted to fight was not because of slavery (it existed in the North also)

Slavery had been abolished in all the Northern states by the time of the Civil War. This is why escaped slaves tried to get to the North.

but because of the economic consequences they knew they would suffer if the South was allowed to secede

So the Civil War was fought over money? Where do you get this? Please cite some reference to back up this claim.

[Thor]

Think about why we broke off from England in the first place. The British were doing the exact same thing to the colonies that the North was doing to the South, and just like the colonists, the South got sick of it and left.


What was the North doing to the South? Were they quartering soldiers in the private homes of Southerners? Were Northern troops patrolling the streets of Charleston and Atlanta? Were Southerners being arrested for seditious acts? Were the Southern states not being represented in Congress?

No, the Southern states were terrified that slavery would be restricted or even abolished and their "way of life" would be endangered. It all comes back to slavery, no matter how you try to spin it as a "state's rights" issue.

[NascarGirl2448]

Slavery had been abolished in all the Northern states by the time of the Civil War. This is why escaped slaves tried to get to the North.

Then why did lincoln's "emancipation proclamation" only free the SOUTHERN slaves? Its common knowledge that slavery existed in the North also. Even US Grant owned slaves, and his wife was quoted as saying that the slaves would NEVER go free, because "good help was just too hard to find."

So the Civil War was fought over money? Where do you get this? Please cite some reference to back up this claim.

Where do I get it? From years of being taught the TRUTH about the War for Southern Independence. Also its no secret that the South was fighting for the same reasons America broke away from England. Why people continue to deny this is beyond me.

http://www.geocities.com/mark_willey/civlwar.html

Pay particular attention to this part:

Secession to protect slavery made no sense at all, even though some Southerners said so, because slavery was secured by the Constitution, by the Supreme Court and even by Abe Lincoln's public promises that he had neither plans nor desire to interfere with it. The war was actually a tariff war - Lincoln trying to hang on to millions of dollars per year in tariffs on Southern goods. In his first inaugural Lincoln promised a military invasion of any state that failed to collect tariffs for the federal government - that he would in his own words, "hold, occupy and possess" said tariffs by "using force against or among the people."

[Andrew_980]

The victor determines history, we may never know half of the truth.

[Thor]

Then why did lincoln's "emancipation proclamation" only free the SOUTHERN slaves?

Because the Emacipation Proclamation only applied to those states, or part of a state, which were then in rebellion against the government of the United States.

Its common knowledge that slavery existed in the North also.

Not at the time of the Civil War. Read your history books. I don't know where you are getting this "common knowledge", but it's completely wrong.

Even US Grant owned slaves, and his wife was quoted as saying that the slaves would NEVER go free, because "good help was just too hard to find."


US Grant briefly owned one slave. What does this prove?

Where do I get it? From years of being taught the TRUTH about the War for Southern Independence.

The truth? From where? Southern "history books" of the late 19th century? The source you cite loses a lot of credibility with the title of this chapter -

LINCOLN - 19th CENTURY HITLER

Care to try again?

Also its no secret that the South was fighting for the same reasons America broke away from England. Why people continue to deny this is beyond me.

Because it's not true.

[RickRhetoric]

Was the Civil War (War Against Northern Aggression) a turning point in American history?

Indeed so, suh! Ah declare it was! Union General Sherman put to rest any future notions we rebels might have about secession.

[NascarGirl2448]

Because the Emacipation Proclamation only applied to those states, or part of a state, which were then in rebellion against the government of the United States.

Never mind that slavery only became an issue to get England on the side of the North. England had already declared that they didn't have a dog in the fight, so they stayed out of it. All of a sudden, lincoln and company make slavery an issue, and lo and behold, guess who jumps in? That's right, England. No wonder the Confederates were outnumbered. British were putting soldiers on ships and sending them over here as fast as we could kill them.

Not at the time of the Civil War. Read your history books. I don't know where you are getting this "common knowledge", but it's completely wrong.

Yes the history books are wrong, but its not our fault.

US Grant briefly owned one slave. What does this prove?

If it was indeed so "brief" why on God's green earth did his wife say they would NEVER free their slaves?

The truth? From where? Southern "history books" of the late 19th century?

I got it from my grandfather, who got it straight from the horse's mouth. My grandfather knew soldiers, when he was young, who actually fought for the South during the War for Southern Independence. I believe I'll give them more credibility than a history book that has been distorted.

Because it's not true.

Never mind that true history says otherwise

[Clintville]

Secession from the US was thought of as treasonous, even before the Civil War.

[Clintville]

Then why did lincoln's "emancipation proclamation" only free the SOUTHERN slaves? Its common knowledge that slavery existed in the North also. Even US Grant owned slaves, and his wife was quoted as saying that the slaves would NEVER go free, because "good help was just too hard to find."

That was just a war measure. The Union government planned to abolish slavery once the war ended.

Grant did own slaves, but he emancipated them on his own During his presidency he supported civil rights for freed slaves.

[Thor]

Never mind that slavery only became an issue to get England on the side of the North. England had already declared that they didn't have a dog in the fight, so they stayed out of it.

This is true. The North decided to make slavery a cause in the war to prevent England from recognizing the Confederacy.

All of a sudden, lincoln and company make slavery an issue, and lo and behold, guess who jumps in? That's right, England.

What do you mean England "jumps right in"? England was not a participant in the Civil War.

No wonder the Confederates were outnumbered. British were putting soldiers on ships and sending them over here as fast as we could kill them.


What in the hey are you talking about? The Confederates were "outnumbered" because most of the population lived in the North. At the outbreak of the Civil War the Northern states had a population of roughly 27 million. The Confederacy had 9 million. And 4 million of those were slaves. The Brirish were not sending soldiers to fight in our Civil War. Where are you getting this stuff?

Yes the history books are wrong, but its not our fault.


So history is wrong? You want to insist that slavery existed in the North at the time of the Civil War? Every Northern state had abolished slavery by then. There was no slavery north of the Southern border of Missouri. (Remember something called the Missouri Compromise of 1820?) Please show some reference to back up this claim.

If it was indeed so "brief" why on God's green earth did his wife say they would NEVER free their slaves?


His wife owned 4 slaves that she obtained from her father. Why she said this I do not know. But why does it matter?

I got it from my grandfather, who got it straight from the horse's mouth. My grandfather knew soldiers, when he was young, who actually fought for the South during the War for Southern Independence. I believe I'll give them more credibility than a history book that has been distorted.


I see... so your source is hearsay. I don't think any of my college professors would have accepted "things my grandfather was told" as a legitimate source for historical material.

Never mind that true history says otherwise

The South was basically fighting to keep their slaves. No matter how you try to spin it, the underlying issue was slavery. If the South did not have slavery there would not have been a Civil War.

[Clintville]

Never mind that slavery only became an issue to get England on the side of the North. England had already declared that they didn't have a dog in the fight, so they stayed out of it. All of a sudden, lincoln and company make slavery an issue, and lo and behold, guess who jumps in? That's right, England. No wonder the Confederates were outnumbered. British were putting soldiers on ships and sending them over here as fast as we could kill them.


What are you talking about? "England" (as in the UK) was never militarily involved (as in sending men) in the war. They came close to recognizing the CSA, but the Emancipation Proclamation changed that (as they didn't want to look like they were supporting slavery), as well as the fact that is was apparent the Union would succeed.

The EP made ending slavery the goal, but it was always the main issue. The declarations from the Southern state governments that seceded mad that clear.

[Clintville]

So history is wrong? You want to insist that slavery existed in the North at the time of the Civil War? Every Northern state had abolished slavery by then. There was no slavery north of the Southern border of Missouri. (Remember something called the Missouri Compromise of 1820?) Please show some reference to back up this claim.


I think she is referring to the border states that were part of the Union. "The North" typically refers to the states/half state that remained loyal.

[OldSchoolConservative]

I was born, raised and live in the south (North Carolina). And I do agree that had Stonewall Jackson lived that the course of United States history would have been significantly altered. The irony is that Jackson was accidentally shot by a regiment from North Carolina. Nevertheless, the Union won and like an earlier poster alluded to the North won and therefore to the victors go the spoils and they write history. It has been that way throughout the ages. And even as a Southerner I do not see how one can logically compare the plight of the South with that of the founding fathers and the Revolution. The South did have representation, they did not have soldiers quartered in their homes as someone already alluded to and it was not like speech was being squashed by censorship.
The problem the South had was that by default a lower population than the North led to less representation in the House which by default tends to produce more "North friendly laws". And yes slavery was the main issue but there were other economic concerns the South had. But that was not enough to justify rebellion. The bottomline is that the Civil War did answer an important question that would have likely have happeend sooner or later. And that is do states have the right to secede? And I guess by precedent the Civil War early in our history answered that question.

[NascarGirl2448]

What in the hey are you talking about? The Confederates were "outnumbered" because most of the population lived in the North. At the outbreak of the Civil War the Northern states had a population of roughly 27 million. The Confederacy had 9 million. And 4 million of those were slaves. The Brirish were not sending soldiers to fight in our Civil War. Where are you getting this stuff?

I got it from someone who knew people who were right in the thick of the action, thank you. I don't what kind of revisionist "history" you've been reading, but the history books are NOT going to tell the whole story, much less the truth.

His wife owned 4 slaves that she obtained from her father. Why she said this I do not know. But why does it matter?

Only that it goes to show what the prevailing attitude towards slavery REALLY was in the north.

I see... so your source is hearsay. I don't think any of my college professors would have accepted "things my grandfather was told" as a legitimate source for historical material.

Oh I see, people don't want to accept history that came straight from the horse's mouth if it contradicts anything their books say in any way shape or form. I wish you could have met my grandfather. He would have given it to you straight, not beaten around the bush like so many "historians" do. I can remember being at battlefields all over Virginia and having my grandfather tell me exactly what happened there, as he had gotten the truth from those who were actually there.

The South was basically fighting to keep their slaves. No matter how you try to spin it, the underlying issue was slavery. If the South did not have slavery there would not have been a Civil War.

No matter how the history books try and spin it, the War for Southern Independence was NOT fought over slavery. And you can deny the fact that England DID send troops over here to take lincoln's side till the cows come home, but it is an irrefutable fact of history that the books don't like to tell you. If England had stayed out of it, and they should have since they didn't have a dog in the fight anyway, the South would not have been so miserably outnumbered.

The PRIMARY cause of this whole thing was high taxes that the South was sick of having to pay, so they left and formed their own country. Most people in the north didn't want war in the first place, but once England decided they had to get into the war, even though they didn't have a dog in the fight, the Confederacy was in trouble.

[NascarGirl2448]

What are you talking about? "England" (as in the UK) was never militarily involved (as in sending men) in the war. They came close to recognizing the CSA, but the Emancipation Proclamation changed that (as they didn't want to look like they were supporting slavery), as well as the fact that is was apparent the Union would succeed.

I'm talking about a fact you will never get from a history book. If you had been lucky enough to know someone who was actually there, you would have gotten an entirely different story, no doubt.

The EP made ending slavery the goal, but it was always the main issue. The declarations from the Southern state governments that seceded mad that clear.

Slavery was on its way out anyway, and I think most people in the north knew that, which explains why they didn't want war. But once lincoln and company found a way to use England to their advantage, the war was over, in more ways than one.

[Panhead0422]

Snip from Thor:
You really believe that the founding fathers would have allowed the nation they fought so hard to form, to be broken up into pieces? I really doubt this.

Yes, if they could look forward from the grave and see what the government of this country has grown into, I believe that they would lead the secession themselves.

[Clintville]

I got it from someone who knew people who were right in the thick of the action, thank you. I don't what kind of revisionist "history" you've been reading, but the history books are NOT going to tell the whole story, much less the truth.

The history books aren't going to leave out an entire freaking country. As well as the population of the country.


Only that it goes to show what the prevailing attitude towards slavery REALLY was in the north.

No, it shows that one person in the north owned slaves. The majority of the states in the north outlawed slavery and most abolitionists definitely came from the north. The southern states made it clear that they were seceding because of slavery.

And then look at what happened after the war, the southerners created Jim Crow laws and kept freed slaves in not a much better situation.


No matter how the history books try and spin it, the War for Southern Independence was NOT fought over slavery. And you can deny the fact that England DID send troops over here to take lincoln's side till the cows come home, but it is an irrefutable fact of history that the books don't like to tell you. If England had stayed out of it, and they should have since they didn't have a dog in the fight anyway, the South would not have been so miserably outnumbered.

The UK was never in the war! The US outnumbered the south greatly in regards to men, money, and infrastructure. The north had many more thousands of miles of railroad and had an industrial economy (meaning they could produce more armaments much faster).


The PRIMARY cause of this whole thing was high taxes that the South was sick of having to pay, so they left and formed their own country. Most people in the north didn't want war in the first place, but once England decided they had to get into the war, even though they didn't have a dog in the fight, the Confederacy was in trouble.
No, the war was fought over slavery. They themselves made it pretty clear. The south had representation so you cannot say it is the same as the American Revolution. Before the war, slavery was the biggest national issue, parties fragmented because they could not make up their minds on the issue. Tarrifs and states rights (all of which were over slavery, however) were only secondary issues and would have not led to secession by themselves.

[Clintville]

I'm talking about a fact you will never get from a history book. If you had been lucky enough to know someone who was actually there, you would have gotten an entirely different story, no doubt.

Sorry, but Britain was not in the war. No matter what anyone from any time says.

Slavery was on its way out anyway, and I think most people in the north knew that, which explains why they didn't want war. But once lincoln and company found a way to use England to their advantage, the war was over, in more ways than one.
The South started the war.

[NascarGirl2448]

Sorry, but Britain was not in the war. No matter what anyone from any time says.

That's revisionist "history" for you. The truth about the War for Southern Independence has never been told by any history book. I would give those who were actually there a LOT more credibility.

The South started the war.

Wrong again. The north started the war when they realized they would be getting a taste of their own medicine when they tried to buy cotton and other things from the South. The South had every right to secede, and exercised it. Just like the colonies exercised their right to break off from England.

[NascarGirl2448]

The history books aren't going to leave out an entire freaking country. As well as the population of the country.

So you deny the history books have distorted the TRUE history of the War for Southern Independence?

No, it shows that one person in the north owned slaves. The majority of the states in the north outlawed slavery and most abolitionists definitely came from the north. The southern states made it clear that they were seceding because of slavery.

Slavery was on its way out in the South anyway. The war, despite what the revisionist history books say, was over the heavy tariffs the north kept imposing on the South. The South got sick of it and left.

And then look at what happened after the war, the southerners created Jim Crow laws and kept freed slaves in not a much better situation.

Obviously you left out the fact that carpetbaggers from up north came down here and made things worse for the South.

The UK was never in the war! The US outnumbered the south greatly in regards to men, money, and infrastructure. The north had many more thousands of miles of railroad and had an industrial economy (meaning they could produce more armaments much faster).

You can deny it all you want, but England did indeed take lincoln and company's side during the war, especially after lincoln decided to make slavery the "main" issue, when it was a secondary issue at best. It was bad enough that sherman and sheridan and their cohorts targeted women and children in the South and basically left them to starve or freeze to death. The north may have had a more "industrial" economy, which the South was coming around to, but the fact remains that yes, England did send soldiers over here as fast as the Confederates could kill them.

No, the war was fought over slavery. They themselves made it pretty clear. The south had representation so you cannot say it is the same as the American Revolution. Before the war, slavery was the biggest national issue, parties fragmented because they could not make up their minds on the issue. Tarrifs and states rights (all of which were over slavery, however) were only secondary issues and would have not led to secession by themselves.

WRONG. Tariffs and state's rights were the PRIMARY issues that led to the War for Southern Independence. Slavery was a minor issue until lincoln tried to make it the "main" issue, if for no other reason than to get England on their side.

[NascarGirl2448]

I was born, raised and live in the south (North Carolina). And I do agree that had Stonewall Jackson lived that the course of United States history would have been significantly altered. The irony is that Jackson was accidentally shot by a regiment from North Carolina.

That whole incident was a tragic accident. It was getting dark, and General Jackson was riding back to the camp, and the soldiers couldn't see that it was him. They thought the yankees were trying to sneak up on them as night fell. They didn't realize it was one of their own until it was too late.

Ironically, Dr McGuire, who amputated General Jackson's arm in an attempt to save his life, was the same doctor who removed my great-grandmother's appendix.

[angelicmadrigal]

Think about why we broke off from England in the first place. The British were doing the exact same thing to the colonies that the North was doing to the South, and just like the colonists, the South got sick of it and left.


Again, it's a perfectly logic reason, group A does not want to lose resources if group B leaves. So group A tries to keep group B from leaving. No brainer there.

[NascarGirl2448]

Again, it's a perfectly logic reason, group A does not want to lose resources if group B leaves. So group A tries to keep group B from leaving. No brainer there.

So I guess it was OK for lincoln and company to change the real reason for the war when they were losing? Its exactly what they did.

[merickson]

I had heard that England was pro-South until they found that Egyptian cotton could meet the demand of the British mills.

[Thor]

I got it from someone who knew people who were right in the thick of the action, thank you.

So you got it from someone who says that he was told these things. Hearsay. Not a good source of information and totally inadmissable in court (except in certain circumstances). How do you know that what your grandfather was told wasn't a lie? How do you know he remembered it correctly? How do you know he didn't embellish the story? You can't. You have no historical evidence to support this absurd claim, and your hysterical cry that it's "revisionist history" does nothing to make it believable.

I don't what kind of revisionist "history" you've been reading, but the history books are NOT going to tell the whole story, much less the truth.


I've been reading Shelby Foote, Bruce Catton and other Civil War historians. And not one of them even mentions legions of English soldiers fighting for the Union. How can you believe that something like this could be buried? There would be documentation on all sides. The English would have records of the units that fought. The Union would have records of this. The Confederacy would certainly have mentioned it in historical records because they undoubtedly would have captured some of these guys! There would also be documentation from the British soldiers who fought in the Civil War. There would be letters home, memoirs written after the war, etc. YOU HAVE NOTHING other than the stories supposedly told to you by your grandfather. PLEASE PROVIDE ANY SORT OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS YOUR ABSURD CONTENTION THAT BRITISH SOLDIERS FOUGHT FOR THE UNION IN THE CIVIL WAR! I'll guarantee that you can't.

Only that it goes to show what the prevailing attitude towards slavery REALLY was in the north.

The attitude of one woman "shows the prevailing attitude toward slavery in the north"? I think the many abolitionist organizations throughout the north better reflect the prevailing attitude.

Oh I see, people don't want to accept history that came straight from the horse's mouth if it contradicts anything their books say in any way shape or form. I wish you could have met my grandfather. He would have given it to you straight, not beaten around the bush like so many "historians" do. I can remember being at battlefields all over Virginia and having my grandfather tell me exactly what happened there, as he had gotten the truth from those who were actually there.

You don't get it, do you? Things your grandfather was told is NOT "straight from the horse's mouth"! It is hearsay! If your grandfather was there and he told you something, THAT would be straight from the horse's mouth. Your grandfather telling you what other people said is hearsay.

No matter how the history books try and spin it, the War for Southern Independence was NOT fought over slavery.

Oh, yes it was. The underlying issue was slavery. No slavery, no war. It's that simple. Of course, Southern apologists want to claim that the war was fought over "state's rights". I suppose this is somewhat true. It was an issue as to whether or not a state should have the right to enslave people.

And you can deny the fact that England DID send troops over here to take lincoln's side till the cows come home, but it is an irrefutable fact of history that the books don't like to tell you.

It's an "irrefutable fact" that you have no evidence to support! I repeat my earlier challenge. Please show ANY historical documentation that this is true. Your claim that it was whitewashed from the history books is beyond ridiculous. Are you also one of those whackos who thinks the moon landings were faked?

[Thor]

That's revisionist "history" for you. The truth about the War for Southern Independence has never been told by any history book. I would give those who were actually there a LOT more credibility.


Plenty of Southerners wrote books about their Civil War experiences. Why is it that NONE of them mention an encounter with Brirish soldiers fighting for the Union? Hmmmmmmmm?

Wrong again. The north started the war when they realized they would be getting a taste of their own medicine when they tried to buy cotton and other things from the South.

Have you ever actually studied the period leading up to the Civil War? The war began when the South fired on Fort Sumter. It had nothing to do with the North "trying to buy cotton" from the South. But please reference a historical source that backs up your claim.

[Thor]

Obviously you left out the fact that carpetbaggers from up north came down here and made things worse for the South.


Red herring.

What does this have to do with Jim Crow laws?

[NascarGirl2448]

So you got it from someone who says that he was told these things. Hearsay. Not a good source of information and totally inadmissable in court (except in certain circumstances). How do you know that what your grandfather was told wasn't a lie? How do you know he remembered it correctly? How do you know he didn't embellish the story? You can't. You have no historical evidence to support this absurd claim, and your hysterical cry that it's "revisionist history" does nothing to make it believable.

I'm sorry you don't accept truth that came straight from the horse's mouth, but I have no reason to believe anything my grandfather told me was not true.

I've been reading Shelby Foote, Bruce Catton and other Civil War historians. And not one of them even mentions legions of English soldiers fighting for the Union. How can you believe that something like this could be buried? There would be documentation on all sides. The English would have records of the units that fought. The Union would have records of this. The Confederacy would certainly have mentioned it in historical records because they undoubtedly would have captured some of these guys! There would also be documentation from the British soldiers who fought in the Civil War. There would be letters home, memoirs written after the war, etc. YOU HAVE NOTHING other than the stories supposedly told to you by your grandfather. PLEASE PROVIDE ANY SORT OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS YOUR ABSURD CONTENTION THAT BRITISH SOLDIERS FOUGHT FOR THE UNION IN THE CIVIL WAR! I'll guarantee that you can't.

And where did these people get their information??? I don't know why you're having such a hard time grasping information about what really happened that came from those who were actually there, but I give the soldiers who were there credibility over someone who writes a book any day.

The attitude of one woman "shows the prevailing attitude toward slavery in the north"? I think the many abolutionist organizations throughout the north better reflect the prevailing attitude.

Once again, the books don't tell you the truth.

You don't get it, do you? Things your grandfather was told is NOT "straight from the horse's mouth"! It is hearsay! If your grandfather was there and he told you something, THAT would be straight from the horse's mouth.

Hearsay my foot!!!!!!! I wish you had met my grandfather. He would have told it just like it happened, just like he got it from those who were actually there.

Oh, yes it was. The underlying issue was slavery. No slavery, no war. It's that simple. Of course, Southern apologists want to claim that the war was fought over "state's rights". I suppose this is somewhat true. It was an issue as to whether or not a state should have the right to enslave people.

So you're still in denial that the South seceded because of economic reasons, which has been proven time and time again, and slavery was only an issue once England was about to take our side. Gotcha.

It's an "irrefutable fact" that you have no evidence to support! I repeat my earlier challenge. Please show ANY historical documentation that this is true. Your claim that it was whitewashed from the history books is beyond ridiculous. Are you also one of those whackos who thinks the moon landings were faked?

:)) :)) :)) This is just getting too ridiculous. FYI, I believe we really did land on the moon. If you don't think history can be whitewashed, then I don't know what kind of history you were ever taught, but someone, somewhere, had to be very biased against the South.

[NascarGirl2448]

Plenty of Southerners wrote books about their Civil War experiences. Why is it that NONE of them mention an encounter with Brirish soldiers fighting for the Union? Hmmmmmmmm?

Some may not have known who was British and who was American. Ever think of that?

Have you ever actually studied the period leading up to the Civil War? The war began when the South fired on Fort Sumter. It had nothing to do with the North "trying to buy cotton" from the South. But please reference a historical source that backs up your claim.

Of course I have. As for "reference" I already gave you one earlier in this thread. Here it is again.

http://www.geocities.com/mark_willey/civlwar.html

[angelicmadrigal]

So I guess it was OK for lincoln and company to change the real reason for the war when they were losing? Its exactly what they did.

More evidence that politicians are liars, again that's a no brainer as well.

[NascarGirl2448]

More evidence that politicians are liars, again that's a no brainer as well.

Show me a politician that's never told a lie, and I'll show you one that's obviously lying right through their teeth. How does that joke go, how can you tell a politician is lying? Their mouths are open.

[Thor]

I'm sorry you don't accept truth that came straight from the horse's mouth, but I have no reason to believe anything my grandfather told me was not true.


You really don't get this at all, do you? Things that were told to your grandfather that he then told you do not count as coming "straight from the horse's mouth". It is hearsay. Nice to hear you believe everything your grandfather said. But neither I, nor anyone else, has any reason to believe that what he told you is true. Particularly since there is no corroborating evidence.

And where did these people get their information???

Historical records and documents. Contemporary writings. Newspapers of the period. Eyewitness accounts. Where do you get YOUR information? Oh, yeah... your grandfather.:rolleyes:

I give the soldiers who were there credibility over someone who writes a book any day.


Plenty of soldiers wrote about their experiences in the Civil War. Not one of them mentions British soldiers fighting for the Union. Who are these nameless soldiers you refer to that supposedly witnessed British soldiers on Civil War battlefields? Betcha can't name one.

Hearsay my foot!!!!!!! I wish you had met my grandfather. He would have told it just like it happened, just like he got it from those who were actually there.

Yes, it IS hearsay! Your grandfather could not possibly have told it "just like it happened" because he wasn't there! All he could do was repeat what someone else told him.

So you're still in denial that the South seceded because of economic reasons, which has been proven time and time again

No, you are the one in denial. Slavery was the issue that caused the war. This is undeniable. But yet, you deny it. Remember what Lincoln said when he met Harriet Beecher Stowe? "So you are the lady who started this war."

This is just getting too ridiculous

I agree. It is ridiculous. You insist on the truth of something for which there is no evidence. You may as well say men from Mars fought for the Union. There is just as much evidence for that as there is for your absurd statement that the British took up arms against the Confederacy.

If you don't think history can be whitewashed, then I don't know what kind of history you were ever taught

Yes, some things can be kept out of the history books. The fact that Navajos were used as codetalkers during WWII was kept under wraps for decades. But this was an issue of classified military information. The coverup you are promoting would have to be so vast as to include literally MILLIONS of people. There is NO EVIDENCE at all. No records. No captured British soldiers. No British casualties. No British uniforms or equipment found on any battlefield. No mention of British involvement by ANYONE who was there. IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

Some may not have known who was British and who was American. Ever think of that?


Oh, yeah.... Because British and American uniforms look so much alike....:rolleyes:

Of course I have. As for "reference" I already gave you one earlier in this thread. Here it is again.


Can you provide a LEGITIMATE historical reference? You cite a website that credits no author and cites no references. Also, as I stated before, this site loses a lot of credibility when it titles one of its chapters "LINCOLN - 19th CENTURY HITLER".

Give me a break....

[Clintville]

That's revisionist "history" for you. The truth about the War for Southern Independence has never been told by any history book. I would give those who were actually there a LOT more credibility.

I would give everyone else who was there more credibility, because no one else said the UK was in the war.

Wrong again. The north started the war when they realized they would be getting a taste of their own medicine when they tried to buy cotton and other things from the South. The South had every right to secede, and exercised it. Just like the colonies exercised their right to break off from England.

Yeah, it was the Confederates that fired first. And the colonies didn't have a right to break off from Britain. The Patriots were fully aware that what they were doing was treason.

[Clintville]

So you deny the history books have distorted the TRUE history of the War for Southern Independence?

In that case, yes. You cannot leave out an entire country. How come no one save whoever you talked to did not see another army fighting in the war? Why would Britain even fight alongside the US?

Slavery was on its way out in the South anyway. The war, despite what the revisionist history books say, was over the heavy tariffs the north kept imposing on the South. The South got sick of it and left.

No, again, the southerners made it clear that it was slavery. Read their secession declarations.

Obviously you left out the fact that carpetbaggers from up north came down here and made things worse for the South.

Not for black people.

The north may have had a more "industrial" economy, which the South was coming around to, but the fact remains that yes, England did send soldiers over here as fast as the Confederates could kill them.

How is that a fact? Show me some proof that "England" was somehow in the war.

WRONG. Tariffs and state's rights were the PRIMARY issues that led to the War for Southern Independence. Slavery was a minor issue until lincoln tried to make it the "main" issue, if for no other reason than to get England on their side.
[/quote]
No, slavery was the main issue before the war entirely. And all the beefs the southern states made about state's rights were about slavery. They were hypocrites, they wanted state's rights when it came to slavery, but when it came to northern states enforcing the fugitive slave laws, they were against it then.

[7426k]

Snip from Thor:
You really believe that the founding fathers would have allowed the nation they fought so hard to form, to be broken up into pieces? I really doubt this.

Yes, if they could look forward from the grave and see what the government of this country has grown into, I believe that they would lead the secession themselves.
I have never understood this logic. You think that the founders wouldn't be happy to learn that the government they created wholecloth has helped this nation grow into the free-est, most prosperous and most important nation on earth?

[NascarGirl2448]

You really don't get this at all, do you? Things that were told to your grandfather that he then told you do not count as coming "straight from the horse's mouth". It is hearsay. Nice to hear you believe everything your grandfather said. But neither I, nor anyone else, has any reason to believe that what he told you is true. Particularly since there is no corroborating evidence.

Its nice to know you deny everything Confederate soldiers said (who WERE there!) because they aren't alive for you to hear it from.

Historical records and documents. Contemporary writings. Newspapers of the period. Eyewitness accounts. Where do you get YOUR information? Oh, yeah... your grandfather.

My grandfather got it straight from the horse's mouth. No matter how much you want to deny reality, the history books are NOT going to tell anyone the truth. And since when did the media that was controlled by the north tell the truth about what was really going on in DC. I've seen the "attempts" to tell what really happened during the war. My grandfather spent more time talking back to the TV than I knew was humanly possible. That's when I learned NOT to trust the media.

Yes, it IS hearsay! Your grandfather could not possibly have told it "just like it happened" because he wasn't there! All he could do was repeat what someone else told him.

So I guess if a friend of yours told you stories they had heard from a World War II veteran about what it was really like in the thick in the battle, you wouldn't believe them either. Nice to know you have to actually see things to believe them. :rolleyes:

No, you are the one in denial. Slavery was the issue that caused the war. This is undeniable. But yet, you deny it. Remember what Lincoln said when he met Harriet Beecher Stowe? "So you are the lady who started this war."

Got any proof lincoln ever said that? Besides, everyone with any knowledge of the reality of the War for Southern Independence knows slavery was NOT the "main" issue. It was ONE issue. ONE.

I agree. It is ridiculous. You insist on the truth of something for which there is no evidence. You may as well say men from Mars fought for the Union. There is just as much evidence for that as there is for your absurd statement that the British took up arms against the Confederacy.

:)) When the truth becomes "absurd" we're all in trouble.

Yes, some things can be kept out of the history books. The fact that Navajos were used as codetalkers during WWII was kept under wraps for decades. But this was an issue of classified military information. The coverup you are promoting would have to be so vast as to include literally MILLIONS of people. There is NO EVIDENCE at all. No records. No captured British soldiers. No British casualties. No British uniforms or equipment found on any battlefield. No mention of British involvement by ANYONE who was there. IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

Has it not occurred to you that British soldiers who came over here would have been wearing BLUE "union" uniforms??? :doh:

Oh, yeah.... Because British and American uniforms look so much alike....

See above.

Can you provide a LEGITIMATE historical reference? You cite a website that credits no author and cites no references. Also, as I stated before, this site loses a lot of credibility when it titles one of its chapters "LINCOLN - 19th CENTURY HITLER".

Give me a break....

If the shoe fits

[merickson]

Some may not have known who was British and who was American. Ever think of that?
Will all respect to your grandfather, I think that many people in this thread have been thinking that some southern soldiers may not have known who was British and who was American.

The problem with deriving the causes of the Civil War from those who were on the scene, is that the average person (at any time) gets their news of the wider world from the contemporanious main stream media. Eye witness accounts are always biased.

[angelicmadrigal]

Show me a politician that's never told a lie, and I'll show you one that's obviously lying right through their teeth. How does that joke go, how can you tell a politician is lying? Their mouths are open.

Exactly, so I don't know if Old Abe was a liar it would be a shocker to anyone.

[Clintville]

So I guess it was OK for lincoln and company to change the real reason for the war when they were losing? Its exactly what they did.
Yeah, if it boosts morale. Slavery was going to be destroyed regardless.

[Clintville]

I'm sorry you don't accept truth that came straight from the horse's mouth, but I have no reason to believe anything my grandfather told me was not true.

Except that no one else from that time mentions it either. You're grandpa wasn't the only one that knew someone from it. There were millions of others and none mention the UK in the war.

And where did these people get their information??? I don't know why you're having such a hard time grasping information about what really happened that came from those who were actually there, but I give the soldiers who were there credibility over someone who writes a book any day.

Show me a soldier that said the UK was in the war.

Once again, the books don't tell you the truth.

But all the anti-slavery organizations, the newspapers, the people from back then prove that many in the north was against slavery or its expansion.

Hearsay my foot!!!!!!! I wish you had met my grandfather. He would have told it just like it happened, just like he got it from those who were actually there.

No one else there said the things you claim. The guy your grandpa interviewed must have been playing a joke or was crazy or something.

So you're still in denial that the South seceded because of economic reasons, which has been proven time and time again, and slavery was only an issue once England was about to take our side. Gotcha.

Slavery was a huge issue. All states rights issues regarded slavery, the main political debates were about slavery.

"We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable."

You see this paragraph of evil? That was part of the Texas Ordinance of Secession. Other states had the same. It wasn't just slavery they were trying to uphold, it was white supremacy, as can be seen by the Jim Crow laws. Sorry, but the Confederacy was mainly founded on slavery and racism. There is real evidence of it.


:)) :)) :)) This is just getting too ridiculous. FYI, I believe we really did land on the moon. If you don't think history can be whitewashed, then I don't know what kind of history you were ever taught, but someone, somewhere, had to be very biased against the South.
Yes, history can be whitewashed. A real example would be the Indian Wars. During the Vietnam Era, movies about certain events during that time were changed to make American soldiers into murderers (not that massacres didn't happen, just they were in some cases exaggerated). People can tell this didn't happen from documents and witness accounts from that time; however people can be tricked and can lead to popular misconceptions (the US Army giving smallpox blankets for example, never happened, but many think it did). However, it is pretty impossible to trick people into thinking a whole damn country was not involved in a war not 200 years ago. What you are saying is like Japan was involved in the Mexican American War.

You have no actual evidence at all.

[NascarGirl2448]

Will all respect to your grandfather, I think that many people in this thread have been thinking that some southern soldiers may not have known who was British and who was American.

My grandfather had a better understanding of the War for Southern Independence than the average person. That was proven time and time again when we would go to battlefields and my grandfather would start telling me what had happened, who was where, and stuff the tour guides who were getting paid to tell the story didn't know! Needless to say, a lot of tour guides learned a lot of true Southern history in my grandfather's lifetime.

The problem with deriving the causes of the Civil War from those who were on the scene, is that the average person (at any time) gets their news of the wider world from the contemporaneous main stream media. Eye witness accounts are always biased.

The media has been more biased than anything, if you ask me. Even if eye-witness accounts are "biased" I think they're a lot less biased than the media once they get wind of a story.

[NascarGirl2448]

Exactly, so I don't know if Old Abe was a liar it would be a shocker to anyone.

Yet he was called "honest abe." Go figure.

[NascarGirl2448]

You have no actual evidence at all.

If by "actual" evidence, you mean listening to the "media" then forget it

[NascarGirl2448]

Yeah, if it boosts morale. Slavery was going to be destroyed regardless.

It was on its way out in the South anyway, with or without lincoln

[Clintville]

Some may not have known who was British and who was American. Ever think of that?

That would be retarded. The different colored uniforms and the different flag would definitely not confuse them.

[Clintville]

Its nice to know you deny everything Confederate soldiers said (who WERE there!) because they aren't alive for you to hear it from.

But how could a country invade a country without anyone reporting it? Did the Templars remove them?


My grandfather got it straight from the horse's mouth.

So did we. We have a lot more horses that say nothing about Britain being in the war.


So I guess if a friend of yours told you stories they had heard from a World War II veteran about what it was really like in the thick in the battle, you wouldn't believe them either. Nice to know you have to actually see things to believe them. :rolleyes:

If my grandpa said Mexico was on the Axis and helped Japan bomb Pearl Harbor, then no, I wouldn't believe him. That is crazy talk.

Got any proof lincoln ever said that? Besides, everyone with any knowledge of the reality of the War for Southern Independence knows slavery was NOT the "main" issue. It was ONE issue. ONE.

Whether Lincoln said it or not doesn't matter. The book had a huge impact on the country. It made many people in the north outraged against slavery, and in the south the book was considered slanderous, especially to pro slavery people. And no, slavery was the main issue, they mention it in the documents. If you knew anything real about history you would know that it was a huge issue before the war. There was always great controversy. And there was violence, ever heard of Bleeding Kansas? It happened three years before slavery. So there definitely were people willing to fight over slavery.


:)) When the truth becomes "absurd" we're all in trouble.

Please, give one document that mentions British soldiers invading the south.

Has it not occurred to you that British soldiers who came over here would have been wearing BLUE "union" uniforms??? :doh:

Uh, no they wouldn't. Why would they? You apparently don't know much about wars, but the allied army doesn't literally join the other. British and American soldiers didn't where the same clothing in WWII. They wouldn't change colors. Even if they did change uniforms for some reason, wouldn't the giant Union Jack the British carrying would catch a few eyes.

[Clintville]

If by "actual" evidence, you mean listening to the "media" then forget it
No, I mean looking at actual documents. Not stories your grandpa told you.

[NascarGirl2448]

No, I mean looking at actual documents. Not stories your grandpa told you.

Well sorry the reality of what actually happened doesn't register with most people, but I would believe anything my grandfather told me (he got the reality from people who were actually there, whether people believe it or not) over re-written history any day.

[NascarGirl2448]

So did we. We have a lot more horses that say nothing about Britain being in the war.

:rolleyes:

If my grandpa said Mexico was on the Axis and helped Japan bomb Pearl Harbor, then no, I wouldn't believe him. That is crazy talk.

SO is anything people say about us trying to fake landing on the moon.

Whether Lincoln said it or not doesn't matter. The book had a huge impact on the country. It made many people in the north outraged against slavery, and in the south the book was considered slanderous, especially to pro slavery people. And no, slavery was the main issue, they mention it in the documents. If you knew anything real about history you would know that it was a huge issue before the war. There was always great controversy. And there was violence, ever heard of Bleeding Kansas? It happened three years before slavery. So there definitely were people willing to fight over slavery.

Since that book was obviously a lie, it only shows how desperate the north was to not only levy huge taxes on the South, but to control the South in all other ways. Also, Kansas was not a Southern state. And you can deny it till the cows come home, but slavery was NOT a main issue in the war until the north realized just how badly they were getting their butts kicked, and panicked when England was about to take our side.

Please, give one document that mentions British soldiers invading the south.

For the millionth time, the british would have blended right in with the northern army. Otherwise, everyone there would have known the north was cheating because they were so desperate. But the Confederate soldiers were not stupid. They knew the north was getting all the new bodies from someplace. The reason no one has ever written anything about this is because the truth has been so distorted over the past 154 years that no one is going to want to admit that the north had to cheat to win. Has the reason that John Wilkes Booth was practically allowed to escape after killing lincoln ever been allowed to get out? We know edwin stanton had something to do with the escape, since he closed all of the bridges leading out of DC except for the one Booth happened to cross that night.

Uh, no they wouldn't. Why would they? You apparently don't know much about wars, but the allied army doesn't literally join the other. British and American soldiers didn't where the same clothing in WWII. They wouldn't change colors. Even if they did change uniforms for some reason, wouldn't the giant Union Jack the British carrying would catch a few eyes.

Ok then why don't you go over to Iraq, or Afghanistan right now and tell me how many flags of how many different countries are flying on military bases? There are several different countries involved in the war, are there not? I know the US flag is flying, but how many others? I bet you anything the other countries involved are under the UN banner or some such flag.

[snagswolf]

Well sorry the reality of what actually happened doesn't register with most people, but I would believe anything my grandfather told me (he got the reality from people who were actually there, whether people believe it or not) over re-written history any day.
So, basically you're telling us we shouldn't believe history books, but instead we should believe some girl on the internet we've never met, who tells us her grandfather told her the 'truth' about the Civil War? And without knowing if this girl is making this stuff up, or if her grandfather was actually bat**** crazy, we should just accept it as fact?

[snagswolf]

Since that book was obviously a lie, it only shows how desperate the north was to not only levy huge taxes on the South, but to control the South in all other ways. Also, Kansas was not a Southern state. And you can deny it till the cows come home, but slavery was NOT a main issue in the war until the north realized just how badly they were getting their butts kicked, and panicked when England was about to take our side.
My grandfather, who was born just 40 years after the end of the Civil War, and part British, told me that England wasn't involved, nor did they intend to be involved.

[Vaard]

Think about why we broke off from England in the first place. The British were doing the exact same thing to the colonies that the North was doing to the South, and just like the colonists, the South got sick of it and left.

Another thing the history books don't tell you is that most of the citizens in the North were willing to allow the South to leave in peace. It wasn't until lincoln and company panicked when they realized just how bad things would get economically (especially if the ports froze over in the winter if it got cold enough) that anyone thought about fighting. The North would have still been able to get needed supplies, they would have just gotten a taste of their own medicine when they were having to pay the same high taxes they were levying on the South.


no one in the south was allowed to vote or have representation in government?

[super cool ski instructor]

What an interesting thread :confused:

[Thor]

Its nice to know you deny everything Confederate soldiers said (who WERE there!) because they aren't alive for you to hear it from.


Oh, good grief! WHERE did I say that I "deny everything Confederate soldiers said"? I have only said that whatever you heard from your grandfather is HEARSAY! In fact, I specifically mentioned the writings of Confederate veterans (NONE of whom mention British soldiers fighting for the Union).

My grandfather got it straight from the horse's mouth.

So you keep claiming...

And when he then tells you it becomes hearsay.

And since when did the media that was controlled by the north tell the truth about what was really going on in DC

What does the media have to do with this? British warships docking at American ports and unloading thousands of troops would not have gone unnoticed! SOMEBODY would have reported it! There would also be records of these ships! There is NOTHING!

So I guess if a friend of yours told you stories they had heard from a World War II veteran about what it was really like in the thick in the battle, you wouldn't believe them either. Nice to know you have to actually see things to believe them.

If a friend of mine told me stories that he claimed to have been told by a WWII veteran and those stories involved something incredible (like Russian planes were seen bombing Pearl Harbor) and there was NO EVIDENCE to support the story.... Then, no. I would not believe it.

Got any proof lincoln ever said that?

I've got a better question.... Got any proof that British soldiers fought in the Civil War?

No? Yeah, didn't think so.

Besides, everyone with any knowledge of the reality of the War for Southern Independence knows slavery was NOT the "main" issue.

I'm sure everyone at the Confederate Ladie's Auxiliary would agree with you. :rolleyes:

Has it not occurred to you that British soldiers who came over here would have been wearing BLUE "union" uniforms???

You're just making stuff up as you go along, aren't you?

If the shoe fits

I don't even know what you're trying to say here.

My grandfather had a better understanding of the War for Southern Independence than the average person. That was proven time and time again when we would go to battlefields and my grandfather would start telling me what had happened, who was where, and stuff the tour guides who were getting paid to tell the story didn't know!

Really? And what was the reaction of these tour guides when your grandfather started talking about how the British sent soldiers to fight for the Union?

[Thor]

Since that book was obviously a lie, it only shows how desperate the north was to not only levy huge taxes on the South, but to control the South in all other ways.

The book was written by a private citizen. It was not the product of some Northern conspiracy.

Also, Kansas was not a Southern state.

No, it was not. And, as usual, you miss the point. Kansas was brought to near anarchy over the issue of slavery.

And you can deny it till the cows come home, but slavery was NOT a main issue in the war until the north realized just how badly they were getting their butts kicked, and panicked when England was about to take our side.


MOOOOOOO!

For the millionth time, the british would have blended right in with the northern army.

Yeah, they would've blended right in! No one would have noticed all those guys with British accents talking about how they couldn't wait to get back home to England!

Otherwise, everyone there would have known the north was cheating because they were so desperate

Please explain how you "cheat" in war.

But the Confederate soldiers were not stupid. They knew the north was getting all the new bodies from someplace

Where could the Union have gotten all those soldiers? Oh, that's right! THERE WAS A DRAFT GOING ON!!!!

The reason no one has ever written anything about this is because the truth has been so distorted over the past 154 years that no one is going to want to admit that the north had to cheat to win

Oh, come on! This doesn't explain why NO SOUTHERNER would have written about this.

Has the reason that John Wilkes Booth was practically allowed to escape after killing lincoln ever been allowed to get out? We know edwin stanton had something to do with the escape, since he closed all of the bridges leading out of DC except for the one Booth happened to cross that night.


Oh, so now you think Edwin Stanton was involved in Lincoln's assassination? Did your grandpa tell you this, too?

[NascarGirl2448]

Oh, good grief! WHERE did I say that I "deny everything Confederate soldiers said"? I have only said that whatever you heard from your grandfather is HEARSAY! In fact, I specifically mentioned the writings of Confederate veterans (NONE of whom mention British soldiers fighting for the Union).

Did it ever occur to you that they may not have known?? :wall:

So you keep claiming...

And when he then tells you it becomes hearsay.

NO it stays fact. :wall:

What does the media have to do with this? British warships docking at American ports and unloading thousands of troops would not have gone unnoticed! SOMEBODY would have reported it! There would also be records of these ships! There is NOTHING!

Once again, did it EVER occur to you that the media of the time is NOT LIKELY to report that the north is having to CHEAT???? I don't why you have such a problem understanding that people are not going to admit to things that make them look weak. :doh:

If a friend of mine told me stories that he claimed to have been told by a WWII veteran and those stories involved something incredible (like Russian planes were seen bombing Pearl Harbor) and there was NO EVIDENCE to support the story.... Then, no. I would not believe it.

The russians didn't have anything to do with Pearl Harbor, so stop pulling crap out of thin air.

I've got a better question.... Got any proof that British soldiers fought in the Civil War?

Got any proof they didn't and people kept cheating under wraps? Yeah I didn't think you did.

I'm sure everyone at the Confederate Ladie's Auxiliary would agree with you. :rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

You're just making stuff up as you go along, aren't you?

More like getting exasperated at having to repeat the facts over and over :wall: :wall:

Really? And what was the reaction of these tour guides when your grandfather started talking about how the British sent soldiers to fight for the Union?

The nationality of northern soldiers was never mentioned, only what happened at that particular battlefield.

[Clintville]

Well sorry the reality of what actually happened doesn't register with most people, but I would believe anything my grandfather told me (he got the reality from people who were actually there, whether people believe it or not) over re-written history any day.
Well, that is just sad.

[NascarGirl2448]

Well, that is just sad.

Sad that I believe what those who were there say over what someone writes 30 years later??? :rolleyes: If that's "sad" then we might as well not have anyone tell us anything. I guess you would rather learn your history from a book than from those who actually found out firsthand??? Come on.

[NascarGirl2448]

Oh, so now you think Edwin Stanton was involved in Lincoln's assassination? Did your grandpa tell you this, too?

Actually found this out while watching a History Channel documentary one night. It did seem like stanton would know exactly how bridges lead out of DC and would have ordered them all closed immediately instead of leaving one open, and I don't think it was a coincidence that it just happened to be the bridge Booth crossed to get out of DC.

[NascarGirl2448]

Please explain how you "cheat" in war.

Its not hard to figure out when you bring outsiders into it that didn't have a dog in the fight. Why so few people really knew what was going on is not hard to figure out.

[Thor]

Did it ever occur to you that they may not have known?? :wall:


Now, wait a minute! You claim that some nameless Confederate veterans told your grandfather about British soldiers fighting for the Union, and they knew about this because "they were there". Now, you want to say that "they may not have known"? Well, if no one knew about it, how was anyone able to tell your grandfather?

NO it stays fact.

Maybe fact to you. Hearsay to the rest of the world.

Once again, did it EVER occur to you that the media of the time is NOT LIKELY to report that the north is having to CHEAT???? I don't why you have such a problem understanding that people are not going to admit to things that make them look weak.

BALONEY! Many Northern papers were against the war and despised Lincoln. Some even had Southern sympathies. If something like this was going on I can GUARANTEE you that SOMEONE would have reported it! No one working at the docks would have seen this? No BRITISH sources would have mentioned thousands of their young men going off to fight in a foreign war? Get real.

The russians didn't have anything to do with Pearl Harbor, so stop pulling crap out of thin air.


You mean like British soldiers fighting in the Civil War?

But it did happen! My grandfather told me about it! He got his information from Pearl Harbor survivors who were there!

Got any proof they didn't and people kept cheating under wraps? Yeah I didn't think you did.


I'm guessing you never took a logic course.

It is not my responsibility to prove that your claim is false. It is YOUR responsibility to prove that your claim is true! If you can't (which is the case here) then your claim can be reasonably dismissed as unfounded. I claim that I have an invisible troll living in a tree stump in my back yard. Can you prove I don't?

More like getting exasperated at having to repeat the facts over and over

You haven't given us ANY facts! All you keep doing is repeating things your grandfather was told.

The nationality of northern soldiers was never mentioned, only what happened at that particular battlefield.

Such an amazing piece of information, and your grandfather never brought it up on one of the battlefield tours? Gee... I wonder why....

[7426k]

My grandfather, who was born just 40 years after the end of the Civil War, and part British, told me that England wasn't involved, nor did they intend to be involved.

My grandfather, who was born approximately 45 years after the end of the war, used to bore us with ramblings about how wrong Sir Snagswold Sr. was about English involvement.

Therefore, it's a fact. You're not calling my grandpapa a liar, are ya?

[Thor]

I guess you would rather learn your history from a book than from those who actually found out firsthand??? Come on.

You really don't understand the concept of a "first hand" account, do you?

A first hand account is something that comes from the mouth or pen of a person who was there. Your grandfather can NOT provide a "first hand" account of anything that happened during the Civil War. HE WAS NOT THERE. If your grandfather tells you something that he claims was told to him, that is hearsay. And hearsay minus any corroborating evidence equals (at best) unfounded rumor.

Class dismissed.

[Thor]

Its not hard to figure out when you bring outsiders into it that didn't have a dog in the fight.

Please explain why England would send troops to fight for the Union in our Civil War. I think someone asked this earlier but you ignored the question.

Why so few people really knew what was going on is not hard to figure out.

"So few people"? MILLIONS of people would have known. The thousands of British soldiers who were sent here would have know. Their families and friends would have known. The British sailors who brought the troops to America would have known. People working in the British government would have known. All the Union soldiers who came into contact with these British troops would have known. Anyone who saw British ships unloading troops at an American port would have known. Anyone who saw British soldiers marching around would have known. To say that "so few people knew" is absolutely ludicrous! And yet, there is not a shred of evidence to support the veracity of your grandfather's story? I encourage you to join the real world.

[snagswolf]

My grandfather, who was born approximately 45 years after the end of the war, used to bore us with ramblings about how wrong Sir Snagswold Sr. was about English involvement.

Therefore, it's a fact. You're not calling my grandpapa a liar, are ya?
He's obviously a liar. My grandfather is the only grandfather who tells the truth, and no one else should be believed.

[Clintville]

:rolleyes:

Well, it is true. No one but your grandpa says these things.


SO is anything people say about us trying to fake landing on the moon.

As well as the people that say the UK invaded the south.

Since that book was obviously a lie, it only shows how desperate the north was to not only levy huge taxes on the South, but to control the South in all other ways. Also, Kansas was not a Southern state. And you can deny it till the cows come home, but slavery was NOT a main issue in the war until the north realized just how badly they were getting their butts kicked, and panicked when England was about to take our side.

No, the book wasn't really a lie. Slavery was a pretty crappy condition for the ones being enslaved. And yeah, it was the main issue for the South's secession. Again, that it was they complained about the most themselves. Did you read that passage?

For the millionth time, the british would have blended right in with the northern army. Otherwise, everyone there would have known the north was cheating because they were so desperate. But the Confederate soldiers were not stupid. They knew the north was getting all the new bodies from someplace.
No they would not have been. Why would they?

And how is it cheating? (not that it happened) Was the UK cheating when we helped them out in WWII? Did America cheat when we got European states (France in particular) to help us in our War of Independence?


Ok then why don't you go over to Iraq, or Afghanistan right now and tell me how many flags of how many different countries are flying on military bases? There are several different countries involved in the war, are there not? I know the US flag is flying, but how many others? I bet you anything the other countries involved are under the UN banner or some such flag and they do fight separately.
No, they have their own symbols as well. Still, the Civil War isn't the same. There weren't camouflaged uniforms. I am pretty sure the British still used their bright red uniforms at the time.

[Clintville]

Did it ever occur to you that they may not have known?? :wall:

Then they would be stupid. You cannot miss thousands of British troops.

And how did the guy you grandpa talked to know?


NO it stays fact. :wall:

No, it stays a story you grandpa told you.


Once again, did it EVER occur to you that the media of the time is NOT LIKELY to report that the north is having to CHEAT???? I don't why you have such a problem understanding that people are not going to admit to things that make them look weak. :doh:

He wasn't talking about media, how come there are no records of the "British landing" at all? And if the evil US government was somehow able to cover up everything, how come there are no Southern records of British legions?


The russians didn't have anything to do with Pearl Harbor, so stop pulling crap out of thin air.

Seriously, that is just funny... or sad. I don't want to get banned again, so I'll just keep my mouth shut.

But...

The [British] didn't have anything to do with [The South's Glorious and Patriotic Struggle against Northern Oppression of Lincoln's Evil American Empire in order to found a Most Serene Southern Republic NOT founded upon Slavery] , so stop pulling crap out of thin air.

Got any proof they didn't and people kept cheating under wraps? Yeah I didn't think you did.

Yeah, the complete absence of all evidence besides your grandpa. So I'd say he is in the clear.



The nationality of northern soldiers was never mentioned, only what happened at that particular battlefield.

The nationality of the northern soldiers was American.

[Clintville]

Sad that I believe what those who were there say over what someone writes 30 years later??? :rolleyes: If that's "sad" then we might as well not have anyone tell us anything. I guess you would rather learn your history from a book than from those who actually found out firsthand??? Come on.
No, I am learning from the people there. They are just dead so I have to read what they wrote.

None of them mention Britain and historical events and writings show that slavery was the biggest issue before and during the war.

[Clintville]

Its not hard to figure out when you bring outsiders into it that didn't have a dog in the fight. Why so few people really knew what was going on is not hard to figure out.
America cheats in a lot of wars I guess. And the British had plenty to be concerned about. Cotton was pretty important to them.

[NascarGirl2448]

Now, wait a minute! You claim that some nameless Confederate veterans told your grandfather about British soldiers fighting for the Union, and they knew about this because "they were there". Now, you want to say that "they may not have known"? Well, if no one knew about it, how was anyone able to tell your grandfather?
Maybe fact to you. Hearsay to the rest of the world.
BALONEY! Many Northern papers were against the war and despised Lincoln. Some even had Southern sympathies. If something like this was going on I can GUARANTEE you that SOMEONE would have reported it! No one working at the docks would have seen this? No BRITISH sources would have mentioned thousands of their young men going off to fight in a foreign war? Get real.
You mean like British soldiers fighting in the Civil War?
But it did happen! My grandfather told me about it! He got his information from Pearl Harbor survivors who were there!
I'm guessing you never took a logic course.
It is not my responsibility to prove that your claim is false. It is YOUR responsibility to prove that your claim is true! If you can't (which is the case here) then your claim can be reasonably dismissed as unfounded. I claim that I have an invisible troll living in a tree stump in my back yard. Can you prove I don't?
You haven't given us ANY facts! All you keep doing is repeating things your grandfather was told.
Such an amazing piece of information, and your grandfather never brought it up on one of the battlefield tours? Gee... I wonder why....

Do you enjoy going around in circles? You sure love to make me repeat myself over and over.

[NascarGirl2448]

America cheats in a lot of wars I guess. And the British had plenty to be concerned about. Cotton was pretty important to them.

No wonder they liked the high taxes the north was levying on the South. They probably had a sweetheart deal with England to sell it cheap.

[Drawz]

Do you enjoy going around in circles? You sure love to make me repeat myself over and over.

Perhaps the soldiers your grandfather spoke to were ashamed that the lost the war? And years later ingaged in a bit of revisionist history of their own to explain their defeat?

[NascarGirl2448]

Perhaps the soldiers your grandfather spoke to were ashamed that the lost the war? And years later ingaged in a bit of revisionist history of their own to explain their defeat?

Somehow I doubt the soldiers who lived in the Old Soldier's Home in Richmond Virginia were ashamed they fought for the Confederacy. My grandfather used to march his company down there from Benedictine and the soldiers would sit out on the front porch and watch.

[Drawz]

Somehow I doubt the soldiers who lived in the Old Soldier's Home in Richmond Virginia were ashamed they fought for the Confederacy. My grandfather used to march his company down there from Benedictine and the soldiers would sit out on the front porch and watch.

Not ashamed they fought. Ashamed they lost.

[Clintville]

Do you enjoy going around in circles? You sure love to make me repeat myself over and over.
No, we want real evidence of the stuff you are saying.

[NascarGirl2448]

Not ashamed they fought. Ashamed they lost.

I highly doubt it.

[Clintville]

I highly doubt it.

I don't know, if you had to make up an entire foreign army to explain your loss, then you are probably a bit embarrassed about it.

[Drawz]

I don't know, if you had to make up an entire foreign army to explain your loss, then you are probably a bit embarrassed about it.

Ding!

[Drawz]

I highly doubt it.

That's what you highly doubt? Really?
You have no problem with an army of thousands of British soldiers (coming off the boats as fast as the Rebs could kill them) that left no trace whatsoever of their presence on American soil.
But you balk at a group of old defeated soldiers telling tall tales to explain away their defeat?

[NascarGirl2448]

I don't know, if you had to make up an entire foreign army to explain your loss, then you are probably a bit embarrassed about it.

:)) :)) :)) That's pretty funny. Not the least bit true, but pretty funny nonetheless.

[NascarGirl2448]

That's what you highly doubt? Really?
You have no problem with an army of thousands of British soldiers (coming off the boats as fast as the Rebs could kill them) that left no trace whatsoever of their presence on American soil.
But you balk at a group of old defeated soldiers telling tall tales to explain away their defeat?

:rolleyes: I guess some people still want to believe lincoln was "honest."

[super cool ski instructor]

I was reading an article on Margaret Mitchell and she was devestated when, at the age of 10, she found out the South actually lost the war. I have no doubt that alot of the men who fought for the Confederacy tended to glamourize their efforts, but I have never heard of British soldiers taking part.

[Thor]

Do you enjoy going around in circles? You sure love to make me repeat myself over and over.

Yes, you do keep repeating yourself. You keep insisting that an absurdity is true. But you refuse to answer some basic questions. I'll ask again, if what you say is true, please explain:

1) Why would England send troops to fight in our Civil War?

2) Who were these nameless veterans who supposedly told your grandfather about British soldiers fighting for the Union?

3) How is it that these nameless veterans knew about British soldiers fighting for the Union, but NO ONE else mentions it?

4) Provide the name (along with a historical reference) of ONE British soldier who fought for the Union in the Civil War.

5) How could British ships dock at American ports and unload thousands of soldiers without SOMEBODY noticing it?

6) Please show ANY documentation or historical evidence that supports your cockamamy
story.

I'll be waiting for a response.

[Thor]

:rolleyes: I guess some people still want to believe lincoln was "honest."

Apparently, Lincoln was a lot more honest than whoever told your grandfather about British soldiers fighting for the Union.

[angelicmadrigal]

Yet he was called "honest abe." Go figure.

Well a lot of nicknames aren't exactly true.

[NascarGirl2448]

Yes, you do keep repeating yourself. You keep insisting that an absurdity is true. But you refuse to answer some basic questions. I'll ask again, if what you say is true, please explain:

1) Why would England send troops to fight in our Civil War?

2) Who were these nameless veterans who supposedly told your grandfather about British soldiers fighting for the Union?

3) How is it that these nameless veterans knew about British soldiers fighting for the Union, but NO ONE else mentions it?

4) Provide the name (along with a historical reference) of ONE British soldier who fought for the Union in the Civil War.

5) How could British ships dock at American ports and unload thousands of soldiers without SOMEBODY noticing it?

6) Please show ANY documentation or historical evidence that supports your cockamamy
story.

I'll be waiting for a response.

:rolleyes: You want the truth about the War for Southern Independence? Read The South was Right for starters.

[NascarGirl2448]

Apparently, Lincoln was a lot more honest than whoever told your grandfather about British soldiers fighting for the Union.

:rolleyes:

[NascarGirl2448]

Well a lot of nicknames aren't exactly true.

Some are rather ironic

[Clintville]

:rolleyes: You want the truth about the War for Southern Independence? Read The South was Right for starters.
Just answer the damn questions.

And no, they were trying to protect slavery and white supremacy. Was what they did after the war okay? You know the "Redeemers" trying to preserve the southern way of life (racism).

[NascarGirl2448]

Just answer the damn questions.

I don't know why its so hard to pick up a book. Read The South was Right it will tell you everything you want to know, and then some.

And no, they were trying to protect slavery and white supremacy. Was what they did after the war okay? You know the "Redeemers" trying to preserve the southern way of life (racism).

:rolleyes:

[Clintville]

I don't know why its so hard to pick up a book. Read The South was Right it will tell you everything you want to know, and then some.

And it says Britain was in the war? I don't get it, the history you don't agree with is "revisionism" but this is truth? And if you read the book, you can answer the questions. I mean, the book has to be able to back up its claims.


:rolleyes:

Well, it is true. What happened after Reconstruction?

[NascarGirl2448]

And it says Britain was in the war? I don't get it, the history you don't agree with is "revisionism" but this is truth? And if you read the book, you can answer the questions. I mean, the book has to be able to back up its claims.

Well considering I'm going camping this weekend, and haven't read the book in some time, it would be easier for you to read it and get the answers then, would it not?

Well, it is true. What happened after Reconstruction?

Oh you mean after the carpetbaggers from the north invaded and screwed things up even worse?

[Clintville]

Oh you mean after the carpetbaggers from the north invaded and screwed things up even worse?
Depends on how bad you think segregation and denial of civil and political rights is. Oh, and terrorism.

[BrittleBullet]

I was reading an article on Margaret Mitchell and she was devestated when, at the age of 10, she found out the South actually lost the war. I have no doubt that alot of the men who fought for the Confederacy tended to glamourize their efforts, but I have never heard of British soldiers taking part.

There's a reason for this.
It didn't happen.

[BrittleBullet]

This is the first time I've ever heard someone report a "fact" they heard from a friend, who heard from a friend, 100 years ago.
LOL

[Drawz]

There's a reason for this.
It didn't happen.

Sure it did. They were soldiers from the "Royal Special 'Invisible' 'Conspiracy' Forces".
Don't tell me you've never heard of the RSICF before!

[BrittleBullet]

Sure it did. They were soldiers from the "Royal Special 'Invisible' 'Conspiracy' Forces".
Don't tell me you've never heard of the RSICF before!

I didn't before...
But now that I heard it straight from the horse's mouth, I won't have anyone tell me any different, despite the historical facts!

[Drawz]

I didn't before...
But now that I heard it straight from the horse's mouth, I won't have anyone tell me any different, despite the historical facts!

:lol:
I think you mean the revisionist-historical facts.

[BrittleBullet]

:lol:
I think you mean the revisionist-historical facts.

Either way, you won't find it in any history book(s)!

[NascarGirl2448]

There's a reason for this.
It didn't happen.

:rolleyes:

[NascarGirl2448]

Sure it did. They were soldiers from the "Royal Special 'Invisible' 'Conspiracy' Forces".
Don't tell me you've never heard of the RSICF before!

:)) :rolleyes:

[NascarGirl2448]

Depends on how bad you think segregation and denial of civil and political rights is. Oh, and terrorism.

Women were considered inferior for a good 50 years after the War for Southern Independence also. Remember we didn't even have the right to VOTE until 1920. Either way, I don't have time to argue this all day. I'm leaving to go camping in a couple hours.

[Thor]

In an earlier post, you said this:

Once again, the books don't tell you the truth.


Now, you tell me this:

:rolleyes: You want the truth about the War for Southern Independence? Read The South was Right for starters.

So, you denigrate what is in books about the Civil War, but to support your position you tell us to read a book about the Civil War.

Not very consistent, is it?

So how about answering my questions instead of dodging them?

And don't you have a better response other than rolling your eyes when people challenge you to provide EVIDENCE when you spout nonsense?

[Thor]

Oh you mean after the carpetbaggers from the north invaded and screwed things up even worse?

"Screwed things up even worse" than the KKK? Or Jim Crow laws? Or lawless lynchings?


Women were considered inferior for a good 50 years after the War for Southern Independence also. Remember we didn't even have the right to VOTE until 1920.

Women weren't terrorized, whipped and sometimes killed by hooded thugs. Women weren't required to ride in the back of the bus. Women weren't denied justice when they were assulted. Women weren't railroaded by an unjust "justice" system. Women weren't summarily lynched for "crimes" like failing to show proper respect. Women weren't told that they couldn't patronize certain establishments.

You can't compare the hurdles faced by women to those faced by Southern blacks in the Jim Crow era. I'd say nice try, but it wasn't.

[Thor]

Bump for NascarGirl.

[Tom Kalbfus]

What was the North doing to the South? Were they quartering soldiers in the private homes of Southerners? Were Northern troops patrolling the streets of Charleston and Atlanta? Were Southerners being arrested for seditious acts? Were the Southern states not being represented in Congress?

No, the Southern states were terrified that slavery would be restricted or even abolished and their "way of life" would be endangered. It all comes back to slavery, no matter how you try to spin it as a "state's rights" issue.
What good is a slave force if its members are a minority? That is white people out numbered black people in most places in the South, that means only a small minority of white southerners could possibly have owned slaves, and the majority of white people did not, yet the majority of white people in the south supported the Rebellion against the North for slaves that were kept by a minority of the upper classes and whose labor competed against theirs and depressed wages, and for that most white southerners enlisted in the Confederate Army to rebel against the North? The typical "Johnnie Reb" owned a single family farm with no slaves to help them with their chores, while Mr and Mrs. "Upper Crust" owned a whole plantation of slaves, and the poor white familiy of "Johnnie Reb" were terribly concerned about those slaves on the plantation down the road from them might be freed, and in order to stop that, they joined the Confederate Army to go shoot some "Yankees".

Now what would "Johnnie Reb" have been doing if those blacks stayed in Africa and were never enslaved? Would they have still joined the Confederate Army and Rebelled against the United States? Would he have gotten up one fine day and decided they wanted to shoot some "Yankees" because life got too boring and they wanted to see some action?

I'm of the opinion that we would have been better off in black Africans were not dragged to our shores in chains as slaves and made to work on plantations for southern owners. I think owning slaves was a very short-sighted decision, none of them had ever thought of the long term social implications of bringing all those black African slaves into our society in America. We are paying the price of that currently.

[Thor]

I think owning slaves was a very short-sighted decision, none of them had ever thought of the long term social implications of bringing all those black African slaves into our society in America. We are paying the price of that currently.

I think you need to clarify what you mean here. Your statement "we are paying the price for that" could be interpreted as racist.

[Tom Kalbfus]

I think you need to clarify what you mean here. Your statement "we are paying the price for that" could be interpreted as racist.
Its quite ironic that you say that, because I was saying black slavery was a mistake.
I think blacks should have come as immigrants, and we as a society should have then decided whether to let them in, instead they were dragged to our shores in chains against their will, they were uprooted from their African villages and brought here to work on plantations in the South as slaves, and this itself has created racism.

There is not a lot of racism against blacks in Japan for instance as there are very few blacks in Japan in the first place.

I think to have a truly "Colorblind" Society, you need a society where most of the people are members of the same race, and in which members of other races are not in sufficient numbers for the majority race to develop a stereotype against them.

So long as there are black, whites, and asians living in close proximity to one another they will form their own seperate like communities, and there will be a degree of racial tension between them.

Programs like affirmative action are meant to reduce the friction between the communitites, but they also force racial quotas in hiring, they have forced school busing to put the two groups together where they may experience racism daily because they are in each other's face where otherwise they might not. Black Leaders such as Al Shapton seem to encourage racism, and racism goes both ways, when blacks riot and burn businesses owned by asians or Jews for instance, that is also racism, and if we lived in a monoracial society, we wouldn't have to worry about things like race riots, racism, or rioting, we could hire and fire who we wanted without someone raising the specter or racism, we wouldn't have to worry about our children getting beat up in school because of rival race based gangs beating up on rival races and so forth. Life is so much simpler without all this stuff.

[Clintville]

There is not a lot of racism against blacks in Japan for instance as there are very few blacks in Japan in the first place.

Maybe not physically harmful, but when it comes to political correctness, some of Japan is far behind.

[thr3]

History is not some abstract concpet that can be defined.

Idiots.

[Tom Kalbfus]

Maybe not physically harmful, but when it comes to political correctness, some of Japan is far behind.
Let me put it this way, would you prefer that an equal number of whites and blacks, each group equal to the entire population of Japan suddenly migrate to that Island such to make the racial make up 33% white, 33% black and 33% asian so the island can be racially homogenized so the Japanese can learn tollerance between thr three races and share their country with them? Do they get a say as to whether large numbers of different races were to suddenly share their country with them so that all races balance equally in number? That would make the population of Japan about 300 million by the way.

Now if you recall from history, those slaves shipped in from Africa had no passports, and no visas, they didn't come through ellis island, and their immigration was not controlled by the US government or the predecesor colonial governments or the British crown in any way, basically they were involuntary undocumented aliens forced from their homeland and into the United States against their will. So yes, If I had that history to do over again and I was in charge, I would not permit their entry into this country, but the people buying and selling blacks as slaves weren't asking the government's permission to smuggle in all of these aliens were they. If they were to come, they should come of their own accord, and we should decide whether to permit their immigration just like any other immigrant group.

The legacy of slavery has left us some racial problems with relations between blacks and other groups in this country, they perceive discrimination, and want redress, and this is often expensive and it has strengthened the power of the Federal Government in relation to the States as a consequence. The Civil War has forced upon us a strong central government which now threatens our liberties!

[Clintville]

Let me put it this way, would you prefer that an equal number of whites and blacks, each group equal to the entire population of Japan suddenly migrate to that Island such to make the racial make up 33% white, 33% black and 33% asian so the island can be racially homogenized so the Japanese can learn tollerance between thr three races and share their country with them? Do they get a say as to whether large numbers of different races were to suddenly share their country with them so that all races balance equally in number? That would make the population of Japan about 300 million by the way.

Now if you recall from history, those slaves shipped in from Africa had no passports, and no visas, they didn't come through ellis island, and their immigration was not controlled by the US government or the predecesor colonial governments or the British crown in any way, basically they were involuntary undocumented aliens forced from their homeland and into the United States against their will. So yes, If I had that history to do over again and I was in charge, I would not permit their entry into this country, but the people buying and selling blacks as slaves weren't asking the government's permission to smuggle in all of these aliens were they. If they were to come, they should come of their own accord, and we should decide whether to permit their immigration just like any other immigrant group.

The legacy of slavery has left us some racial problems with relations between blacks and other groups in this country, they perceive discrimination, and want redress, and this is often expensive and it has strengthened the power of the Federal Government in relation to the States as a consequence. The Civil War has forced upon us a strong central government which now threatens our liberties!

I wasn't disagreeing with you, just saying Japan is pretty xenophobic. Really I was just bumping the thread in case Nascargirl comes back.

[jimjames418]

Depends on how bad you think segregation and denial of civil and political rights is. Oh, and terrorism.
Oh you mean the segregation and denial of civil rights and of political rights as imposed by the carpertbaggers from the North. The white people of the South were denied the right to vote and to hold political office for 30 years after the end of the civil war. And Jim Crow Laws passed and enforcement of segregation was done by the people from North. :rolleyes:

[NascarGirl2448]

I wasn't disagreeing with you, just saying Japan is pretty xenophobic. Really I was just bumping the thread in case Nascargirl comes back.

Whew!! Go away for a weekend and miss a lot!! This thread has gone from The War for Southern Independence to the debate over slavery to Japan!!! What does a country halfway around the world have to do with anything?

[NascarGirl2448]

Oh you mean the segregation and denial of civil rights and of political rights as imposed by the carpertbaggers from the North. The white people of the South were denied the right to vote and to hold political office for 30 years after the end of the civil war. And Jim Crow Laws passed and enforcement of segregation was done by the people from North. :rolleyes:

Ahhhh the truths of life the history books leave out.

[Clintville]

Ahhhh the truths of life the history books leave out.
Please explain how segregation laws were created by Northerners. Next I bet you'll say the KKK was a northern group (either that or it was a not a murderous terrorist group).

[jimjames418]

Please explain how segregation laws were created by Northerners. Next I bet you'll say the KKK was a northern group (either that or it was a not a murderous terrorist group).
Carpetbaggers was the term southerners gave to northerners who moved to the South during the Reconstruction era, after 1865. They formed a coalition with freedmen (freed slaves), and scalawags (southern whites who supported Reconstruction) in the Republican Party. Together they politically controlled former Confederate states for varying periods during which the Jim Crow Laws were passed.

[Clintville]

Carpetbaggers was the term southerners gave to northerners who moved to the South during the Reconstruction era, after 1865. They formed a coalition with freedmen (freed slaves), and scalawags (southern whites who supported Reconstruction) in the Republican Party. Together they politically controlled former Confederate states for varying periods during which the Jim Crow Laws were passed.
Did you read the sentence "coalition with freedmen"? One, Jim Crow laws passed after Reconstruction ended. Two, why would the Republicans want to deny blacks their rights? Besides the fact that many of them did genuinely believe they deserved rights, they also wanted to gain the political power. It was the Republicans northerners that passed the Civil Rights laws and outlawed and combated the KKK and the Redeemers (all Southern Democrats). It was Woodrow Wilson, the first southern Democratic president since the war, that segregated federal offices.

[jimjames418]

Did you read the sentence "coalition with freedmen"? One, Jim Crow laws passed after Reconstruction ended. Two, why would the Republicans want to deny blacks their rights? Besides the fact that many of them did genuinely believe they deserved rights, they also wanted to gain the political power. It was the Republicans northerners that passed the Civil Rights laws and outlawed and combated the KKK and the Redeemers (all Southern Democrats). It was Woodrow Wilson, the first southern Democratic president since the war, that segregated federal offices.
Jim Crow laws were laws that imposed racial segregation. They existed mainly in the South and originated from the Black Codes that were enforced from 1865 and from prewar segregation on railroad cars in northern cities.

[Clintville]

Jim Crow laws were laws that imposed racial segregation. They existed mainly in the South and originated from the Black Codes that were enforced from 1865 and from prewar segregation on railroad cars in northern cities.
No, it was after Reconstruction. One of the goals of Reconstruction (which were somewhat temporarily successful) was to give civil and political rights to freed slaves and blacks. Laws that were made in state constitutions that denied (de jure or de facto) after Reconstruction. Blacks were able to vote, and in some occasions hold office, during Reconstruction. Once it ended, the Redeemer governments (southern Democrats) created the Jim Crow laws (such as poll taxes and grandfather clauses). Not to mention, they also just plain illegally intimidated (and many times just murdered). The Civil Rights Act, which was introduced by Republicans was supposed to stop discrimination.

You're still forgetting the KKK, a southern terrorist group.

[Nik Notorious]

This thread is like reading a great book that has the ending torn out. I'm still waiting for NascarGirl to give us some honest to god, actual proof that the British were fighting alongside the North. None of this "my grandpappy told me" stuff, no obviously slanted websites.

And for what it's worth, cute little smiley's have no place in serious debate. If you can't prove your case without this guy :rolleyes: , you probably shouldn't be debating in the first case.

[Tom Kalbfus]

Carpetbaggers was the term southerners gave to northerners who moved to the South during the Reconstruction era, after 1865. They formed a coalition with freedmen (freed slaves), and scalawags (southern whites who supported Reconstruction) in the Republican Party. Together they politically controlled former Confederate states for varying periods during which the Jim Crow Laws were passed.
That was all part of "getting even", if it weren't for slavery none of this would have happened. Basically the people who wanted justice aligned themselves with people who wanted revenge aligned themselves with people who wanted to build big political power bases through reconstruction. The Conquered Southern States were a big opportunity to have rigged elections and reliable means for Republicans to gain power, this probably marks the birth of the modern liberal movement, they align themselves with a good cause and then seek maximum advantage for themselves from this situation. The liberal movement began with the abolition of slavery, which was a good thing, but they kept on going to other causes such as women's voting rights, equal protection, and as time went on and these issues were solved, they began looking for new causes - they always had to have a cause, once all the basic rights were adjudicated, the further causes such has combating poverty began to cost more and more in terms of dollars, civil rights became civil right$. In order to have justice and fairness, the liberal had to push for bigger and bigger governments that spent more and more of taxpayer's money, Universal healthcare is just the latest example of this. Yes the Democrats align themselves with the people who have no health insurance, but the price for them doing so is they want to massively expand government, they want a bigger government buerocracy that they can control, and in exchange for that power they are willing to "champion the common man."

[Thor]

This thread is like reading a great book that has the ending torn out. I'm still waiting for NascarGirl to give us some honest to god, actual proof that the British were fighting alongside the North. None of this "my grandpappy told me" stuff, no obviously slanted websites.


I'm still waiting also! Seems she can't produce any actual evidence (other than "my grandfather told me" or referencing websites written by nameless authors), so all she does is roll her eyes.

Let me try it!

My grandfather told me that British soldiers fought with the Indians at the battle of the Little Big Horn! Custer would have won if the British weren't helping! He knows this because he heard it from people who were there! Of course, you won't find this in the history books because they never tell the truth! You want evidence that what I'm telling you is true? :rolleyes:

Wow! It works! I can win any debate using this method!

[super cool ski instructor]

This thread is like reading a great book that has the ending torn out. I'm still waiting for NascarGirl to give us some honest to god, actual proof that the British were fighting alongside the North. None of this "my grandpappy told me" stuff, no obviously slanted websites.

And for what it's worth, cute little smiley's have no place in serious debate. If you can't prove your case without this guy :rolleyes: , you probably shouldn't be debating in the first case.

Great post!! :clap:

And can you copy and paste that last paragraph into over 1/2 of the threads around here?

[Tom Kalbfus]

I'm still waiting also! Seems she can't produce any actual evidence (other than "my grandfather told me" or referencing websites written by nameless authors), so all she does is roll her eyes.

Let me try it!

My grandfather told me that British soldiers fought with the Indians at the battle of the Little Big Horn! Custer would have won if the British weren't helping! He knows this because he heard it from people who were there! Of course, you won't find this in the history books because they never tell the truth! You want evidence that what I'm telling you is true? :rolleyes:

Wow! It works! I can win any debate using this method!
One has to be wary of Historians writing in their biases of course, considering what's happened with the liberal media, one must realize that historians are another kind of media.

1) The Civil War did happen, I'm 99% sure of that, I've been to the battlefields, seen the tombstones, the bullets the artifacts, and if that is all fake, I don't know what we can determine about the past and know for sure whether its fiction or not.

2) Apparently it was about slavery, I don't think the Civil War would have happened if it weren't for slavery, this clash was a long time in coming, and it began largely by plantation owners following their short term interests in pursuit of cheap labor.

[NascarGirl2448]

why would the Republicans want to deny blacks their rights?

Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond ring a bell? Both of them were Republicans, and not proponents of civil rights, either.

[NascarGirl2448]

i'm still waiting also! Seems she can't produce any actual evidence (other than "my grandfather told me" or referencing websites written by nameless authors), so all she does is roll her eyes.

Let me try it!

My grandfather told me that british soldiers fought with the indians at the battle of the little big horn! Custer would have won if the british weren't helping! He knows this because he heard it from people who were there! Of course, you won't find this in the history books because they never tell the truth! You want evidence that what i'm telling you is true? :rolleyes:

Wow! It works! I can win any debate using this method!

:)) :)) :)) :)) :))

[NascarGirl2448]

One has to be wary of Historians writing in their biases of course, considering what's happened with the liberal media, one must realize that historians are another kind of media.

Which is why people are often not taught the truth about what really happened.

1) The Civil War did happen, I'm 99% sure of that, I've been to the battlefields, seen the tombstones, the bullets the artifacts, and if that is all fake, I don't know what we can determine about the past and know for sure whether its fiction or not.

The War for Southern Independence did indeed happen. Why people are never told the truth about what really happened is another matter.

2) Apparently it was about slavery, I don't think the Civil War would have happened if it weren't for slavery, this clash was a long time in coming, and it began largely by plantation owners following their short term interests in pursuit of cheap labor.

Slavery was a MINOR issue. The main reason the South seceded, as has been pointed out already, whether people wanted to believe it or not, was the South was tired of being taxed to the hilt by the north.

[Nik Notorious]

Yet again, you keep repeating the same line over and over without a shred of evidence to back you up. Look, you're the one making these claims. The burden lies on you to prove them. If you can't no one is going to take what you say seriously no matter how many times you say it.

For what it's worth, I started out in this thread kind of agreeing with you. I thought you had some good points and was hoping to hear them. Instead all I've gotten is some crazy theory about Brittan fighting alongside the north, a theory that I have to say I've never heard anywhere else. No disrespect to you or your grandfather, but I've got no reason at all to believe him. Bring us facts, then we can talk. Otherwise, your posts are just plain comedy.

[NascarGirl2448]

Yet again, you keep repeating the same line over and over without a shred of evidence to back you up. Look, you're the one making these claims. The burden lies on you to prove them. If you can't no one is going to take what you say seriously no matter how many times you say it.

I pointed you in the right direction. Gave you a link to a website that backed up historical truths, but you kept wanting more. Gave you the name of a book to read, but I don't see anyone reading it.

For what it's worth, I started out in this thread kind of agreeing with you. I thought you had some good points and was hoping to hear them. Instead all I've gotten is some crazy theory about Brittan fighting alongside the north, a theory that I have to say I've never heard anywhere else. No disrespect to you or your grandfather, but I've got no reason at all to believe him. Bring us facts, then we can talk. Otherwise, your posts are just plain comedy.

:)) I pointed you in the right direction, but all I can do is tell you what I know, and tell you where to find the rest.

[Nik Notorious]

I pointed you in the right direction. Gave you a link to a website that backed up historical truths, but you kept wanting more. Gave you the name of a book to read, but I don't see anyone reading it.



:)) I pointed you in the right direction, but all I can do is tell you what I know, and tell you where to find the rest.


That's not the way it works. There's no author to that website listed and no way to verify what it says. Giving the name of a book is not proof. Give us actual links to actual websites. Find a prominent historian who can back up your claims. Don't tell us the Brits help out the north then tell us to go find the proof. If you don't have any of that, maybe you ought to go ahead and bow out of this thread.

Laugh all you want, but you ought to know that so far the joke's on you.

[NascarGirl2448]

That's not the way it works. There's no author to that website listed and no way to verify what it says. Giving the name of a book is not proof. Give us actual links to actual websites. Find a prominent historian who can back up your claims. Don't tell us the Brits help out the north then tell us to go find the proof. If you don't have any of that, maybe you ought to go ahead and bow out of this thread.

Laugh all you want, but you ought to know that so far the joke's on you.

Did you treat your teachers this way in school? When they showed you where to find information, did you demand they do everything for you? If you did, then I don't know why I even bother. I have told you where to find what you're looking for.

[Nik Notorious]

Did you treat your teachers this way in school? When they showed you where to find information, did you demand they do everything for you? If you did, then I don't know why I even bother. I have told you where to find what you're looking for.


Try again. This isn't school and the rules don't work the same way here. My teachers weren't trying to debate an issue, you are. When you are in a debate and you suggest something like you did, it's up to you to bring the proper information. I read the website you linked to, and I didn't buy it. Now what? What proof do you have of anything you've said?

[jimjames418]

That's not the way it works. There's no author to that website listed and no way to verify what it says. Giving the name of a book is not proof. Give us actual links to actual websites. Find a prominent historian who can back up your claims. Don't tell us the Brits help out the north then tell us to go find the proof. If you don't have any of that, maybe you ought to go ahead and bow out of this thread.

Laugh all you want, but you ought to know that so far the joke's on you.
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was officially neutral in the American Civil War. Confederate strategy for securing independence was largely based on British and French intervention, which never happened; intervention would have meant war with the United States.

A serious conflict between Britain and the United States erupted over the "Trent Affair" in 1861, and a British shipyard (John Laird and Sons) built two warships for the Confederacy over vehement American protests. The British also built and operated most of the blockade runners, spending hundreds of millions of pounds on them; but that was legal. In the end, these instances of British involvement neither shifted the outcome of the war nor provoked the U.S. into declaring war against Britain.

The United States' diplomatic mission headed by Minister Charles Francis Adams, Sr. proved much more successful than the Confederate missions, which were never officially recognized.

If you desire more information:

Term papers on BRITISH INVOLVEMENT AMERICAN CIVIL WAR, BRITISH ... (http://www.academon.com/lib/paper/25237.html)
Library of College Term Papers, Research Papers, Essays and Book Reports.

[Nik Notorious]

See, at least you've got sites and back-up for your information. I can appreciate that.

[NascarGirl2448]

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was officially neutral in the American Civil War. Confederate strategy for securing independence was largely based on British and French intervention, which never happened; intervention would have meant war with the United States.

A serious conflict between Britain and the United States erupted over the "Trent Affair" in 1861, and a British shipyard (John Laird and Sons) built two warships for the Confederacy over vehement American protests. The British also built and operated most of the blockade runners, spending hundreds of millions of pounds on them; but that was legal. In the end, these instances of British involvement neither shifted the outcome of the war nor provoked the U.S. into declaring war against Britain.

The United States' diplomatic mission headed by Minister Charles Francis Adams, Sr. proved much more successful than the Confederate missions, which were never officially recognized.

If you desire more information:

Term papers on BRITISH INVOLVEMENT AMERICAN CIVIL WAR, BRITISH ... (http://www.academon.com/lib/paper/25237.html)
Library of College Term Papers, Research Papers, Essays and Book Reports.

Interesting site. I knew the Confederate Veterans weren't stretching the truth. England did get involved in the War for Southern Independence.

[NascarGirl2448]

See, at least you've got sites and back-up for your information. I can appreciate that.

It backs up everything I've said also. I knew there was something out there that would tell the reality of what happened, including actual living Confederate veterans.

[Drawz]

It backs up everything I've said also. I knew there was something out there that would tell the reality of what happened, including actual living Confederate veterans.

Um, that quote says the Brits built two ships for the SOUTH and owned and operated blockade runners for the SOUTH.
Your position was that the British sent thousands of troops to fight alonside the NORTH on American soil.
So how exactly does that "back up everything I've said"?

[NascarGirl2448]

Um, that quote says the Brits built two ships for the SOUTH and owned and operated blockade runners for the SOUTH.
Your position was that the British sent thousands of troops to fight alonside the NORTH on American soil.
So how exactly does that "back up everything I've said"?

You're the ones who kept denying England got involved, and obviously England DID get involved.

[Drawz]

You're the ones who kept denying England got involved, and obviously England DID get involved.

Wow...

Again, "It proves everything I've said".

Now you're just being plain dishonest.

Edit: excuse me. "backs up" not proves.

[jimjames418]

In that time frame hundreds of thousands of British citizens were employed in the cotton mills. The War for Southern Independence shut must of those mills down and threw the people out of work. The English government had a tough time controlling the riots of the unemployed, they had no strength to enter the fight in the United States.

[Thor]

Slavery was a MINOR issue. The main reason the South seceded, as has been pointed out already, whether people wanted to believe it or not, was the South was tired of being taxed to the hilt by the north.

Yes, you keep saying this. But you continue to ignore us when we ask for evidence that supports your claim.


Did you treat your teachers this way in school? When they showed you where to find information, did you demand they do everything for you? If you did, then I don't know why I even bother. I have told you where to find what you're looking for.

You have, huh?

Okay, tell us on what page that book tells of British soldiers fighting for the Union.

Why do you keep dodging my questions? Why do you not answer them?

[jimjames418]

The Jim Crow laws were based on the Black Codes, which were in effect prior to the war and continued in effect after the war.

Northern Black Codes - Were they effective? (http://cniss.wustl.edu/workshoppapers/artpaper.pdf) by William Arthur Carden
The Illinois Black Code (http://www.lib.niu.edu/ipo/1996/iht329602.html) by Roger D. Bridges
1827 Michigan Black Code
Ohio black code prohibited any "black or mulatto person" from settling in Ohio

[Nik Notorious]

It backs up everything I've said also. I knew there was something out there that would tell the reality of what happened, including actual living Confederate veterans.


Yet you couldn't produce it, after being asked time and time again. If it was easy enough for jimjames to do it, why didn't you? And as Drawz has mentioned, it doesn't do anything for your claims but contradict them. Keep trying.

[Thor]

Interesting site. I knew the Confederate Veterans weren't stretching the truth. England did get involved in the War for Southern Independence.

Let's try this again...

Here's a direct challenge. Please name ONE battle where these phantom British soldiers fought against the Confederacy (with a legitimate historical reference).

I'm waiting....

[jimjames418]

Australian & New Zealand American Civil War Veterans (http://www.acwv.info/index.htm)

[Clintville]

I pointed you in the right direction. Gave you a link to a website that backed up historical truths, but you kept wanting more. Gave you the name of a book to read, but I don't see anyone reading it.

Apparently you have the book, so look it up and how it backs up both your claims.

And still, what do you say about the Redeemers and the KKK? Their popularity shows that racism and white supremacy was huge in the south.

[Clintville]

Interesting site. I knew the Confederate Veterans weren't stretching the truth. England did get involved in the War for Southern Independence.
Did you even read that? They helped the Confederates more than the Union.

[Clintville]

You're the ones who kept denying England got involved, and obviously England DID get involved.
We all knew the British sold weapons and were somewhat involved diplomatically. Facts actually back up that claim. We were denying they sent thousands of troops to invade the South.

[Clintville]

The Jim Crow laws were based on the Black Codes, which were in effect prior to the war and continued in effect after the war.

Northern Black Codes - Were they effective? (http://cniss.wustl.edu/workshoppapers/artpaper.pdf) by William Arthur Carden
The Illinois Black Code (http://www.lib.niu.edu/ipo/1996/iht329602.html) by Roger D. Bridges
1827 Michigan Black Code
Ohio black code prohibited any "black or mulatto person" from settling in Ohio
Yes, but it was the southern governments that repealed any attempts from the Reconstruction governments to give political and civil rights to blacks.

[jimjames418]

Yes, but it was the southern governments that repealed any attempts from the Reconstruction governments to give political and civil rights to blacks.
You just don't want to admit it. The northern states were just as bad as the southern states in taking away the civil rights of blacks. The only difference is that the southern states at least attempted to find a place in society for blacks to exist, the nothern states just acted like the blacks did not exist at all and made no effort to hide the fact.

[Clintville]

You just don't want to admit it. The northern states were just as bad as the southern states in taking away the civil rights of blacks. The only difference is that the southern states at least attempted to find a place in society for blacks to exist, the nothern states just acted like the blacks did not exist at all and made no effort to hide the fact.
Uh, again, the Reconstruction governments did want to give civil and political rights to blacks, it was somewhat successful while Reconstruction was going on. It was after the feds moved out that the Jim Crow laws started being put in the state constitutions.

And remember, it was the Klan and the Redeemers trying to re-establish a white dominated society by intimidating and murdering freemen that tried to vote.

[NascarGirl2448]

Wow...

Again, "It proves everything I've said".

Now you're just being plain dishonest.

Edit: excuse me. "backs up" not proves.

:rolleyes: The craziness never ends when people find out the "history" they were taught all their lives isn't the whole story. I think people's attitude towards the reality that foreigners who didn't have a dog in the fight actually DID get involved proves that beyond any and all doubt.

[angelicmadrigal]

:rolleyes: The craziness never ends when people find out the "history" they were taught all their lives isn't the whole story. I think people's attitude towards the reality that foreigners who didn't have a dog in the fight actually DID get involved proves that beyond any and all doubt.

Well you know we do have several posters here from the UK, someone COULD just ask them if they ever heard anything about it in any of THEIR history courses.

[NascarGirl2448]

Yet you couldn't produce it, after being asked time and time again. If it was easy enough for jimjames to do it, why didn't you? And as Drawz has mentioned, it doesn't do anything for your claims but contradict them. Keep trying.

Read The South was Right for starters. It will tell you a LOT about what really happened that the history books distort. Also so he obviously has more time than I do, so what? I don't have time to go digging for every clump of dirt out there. All I can do, and really, have time to do, is point the curious in the right direction.

[NascarGirl2448]

Well you know we do have several posters here from the UK, someone COULD just ask them if they ever heard anything about it in any of THEIR history courses.

It would be interesting to see the British perspective on this.

[angelicmadrigal]

It would be interesting to see the British perspective on this.

I would think so, after all had such support occured they'd have no real reason not to put it in their history books.

[NascarGirl2448]

I would think so, after all had such support occured they'd have no real reason not to put it in their history books.

Also I would to see how they cover the butt whipping they got in the Revolutionary War!!!

[angelicmadrigal]

Also I would to see how they cover the butt whipping they got in the Revolutionary War!!!

Probably the same way everyone deals with unpleasant info about their country.

[NascarGirl2448]

Probably the same way everyone deals with unpleasant info about their country.

Probably. But it would still be interesting to read a British history book just to see how they view history. I'd honestly like to read history books from several different countries to see how the rest of the world views events in history, like how Germany viewed WW2 or how the Soviet Union viewed the Cold War and President Reagan. That could be very interesting.

[Clintville]

Read The South was Right for starters. It will tell you a LOT about what really happened that the history books distort. Also so he obviously has more time than I do, so what? I don't have time to go digging for every clump of dirt out there. All I can do, and really, have time to do, is point the curious in the right direction.
Can you say what he writes and his evidence of both the south not seceding over slavery, the Republicans making the south racist, or the British joining the war?

[Clintville]

It would be interesting to see the British perspective on this.
It would be the same as ours.

But, you gave the reasons why (not how of course) the Union would somehow rewrite history (kind of, I don't know why the US would be ashamed of getting the UK to help them), but why would the British be ashamed about fighting a war, why would they want to delete history?

[Drawz]

:rolleyes: The craziness never ends when people find out the "history" they were taught all their lives isn't the whole story. I think people's attitude towards the reality that foreigners who didn't have a dog in the fight actually DID get involved proves that beyond any and all doubt.

Your capacity to avoid what are to you, unpleasent facts and twist reality to fit your own notions astounds me.

You claim that confederate soldiers told your grandfather that they lost the war because the British were sending troops to fight on the side of the North. Soldiers who were "coming off the boats as fast as they [the Rebs] could kill them.

After refusing repeatedly to back up this claim with any evidence you see a quote posted by another person titled British Involvement in the Civil War. You jump on this post as evidence that those old soldiers were not stretching the truth. Completely ignoring the fact that according to that quote, those old soldiers had it bass-ackwards and the Brits were in fact helping the Confederacy by building ships for them and manning blockade runners for them.

Thanks for the trip down imagination/avoidance lane, I think I'm done with this absurd arguement.

[Clintville]

Also I would to see how they cover the butt whipping they got in the Revolutionary War!!!
I am pretty sure they cover it the same. Not that they really got their butts whipped. They were able to capture most of the coastal area, and the casualties were pretty close on both sides.

[Clintville]

Probably. But it would still be interesting to read a British history book just to see how they view history. I'd honestly like to read history books from several different countries to see how the rest of the world views events in history, like how Germany viewed WW2 or how the Soviet Union viewed the Cold War and President Reagan. That could be very interesting.
The Soviet Union was an illiberal communist oligarchy. They of course give slanted views, the same with present day China and North Korea (the latter being much more extreme). As for Germany, they are extremely ashamed of that part of history but it is still taught in schools and not changed to make Germany look good.

[jimjames418]

and the Brits were in fact helping the Confederacy by building ships for them and manning blockade runners for them.
The British did not do it to help the Confederacy, they did it because their country needed the cotton that the south produced, and the south would only trade the cotton for war material.

[Drawz]

The British did not do it to help the Confederacy, they did it because their country needed the cotton that the south produced, and the south would only trade the cotton for war material.

Motivation notwithstanding, they helped the South, no?

[Nik Notorious]

Read The South was Right for starters. It will tell you a LOT about what really happened that the history books distort. Also so he obviously has more time than I do, so what? I don't have time to go digging for every clump of dirt out there. All I can do, and really, have time to do, is point the curious in the right direction.

You still don't get it, do you? If you are going to argue the points you are arguing YOU'VE got to back it up. Telling me to go read a book isn't backing up your claims. If you aren't willing (or don't have time) to do the work, don't get into the debate in the first place.

[jimjames418]

Motivation notwithstanding, they helped the South, no?
I can't argure with a man who quotes Lazarus Long in his sig. But the British had many more things on their plate at the time. Like Russia , making settlements in the western reaches of Canada and the Russians had their eye on Hong Kong just waiting for England to give them an opportunity to take it over. And Russia was also at the time sending many settlers to the northwest part of the United States. Slipping them in as "misplaced persons".

A whole lot was going on in the world at the time besides our civil war. ;)

[Drawz]

I can't argure with a man who quotes Lazarus Long in his sig.

One of my favorite sci-fi characters ever.

"Everything in excess! To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks."

-L.L.

[jimjames418]

One of my favorite sci-fi characters ever.

"Everything in excess! To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks."

-L.L.
Did you ever visit the Howard Foundation?

The Robert E. Howard Foundation » Science-Fiction (http://www.rehfoundation.org/?page_id=216)

[Tom Kalbfus]

The British did not do it to help the Confederacy, they did it because their country needed the cotton that the south produced, and the south would only trade the cotton for war material.
Maybe that was part of the reason, the other part was divide and conquer, perhaps they were looking towards getting some of their colonies back, if they could pry the South from the North, perhaps they thought they could then add it back into the British Empire, the Civil War looked like just such an opportunity to them, and they would probably take back the south even with its slavery. The South would of course need the British Navy to protect them from the North once the Civil War was over and done with, the majority of British didn't see it that way, but perhaps some did.

Anyway if the British did jump into the American Civil War, the logical side for them to jump into would be the South, as the South would be much more dependent on British protection than the North, and in that way they could perhaps fold them back into the British Empire.

[Thor]

Let's try this again...

Here's a direct challenge. Please name ONE battle where these phantom British soldiers fought against the Confederacy (with a legitimate historical reference).

I'm waiting....

Still waiting for a response from NascarGirl....

[Thor]

You still don't get it, do you? If you are going to argue the points you are arguing YOU'VE got to back it up. Telling me to go read a book isn't backing up your claims. If you aren't willing (or don't have time) to do the work, don't get into the debate in the first place.

Can you imagine a college debating team tossing a book on the podium and declaring, "It's all in there! Go read it!"?

It's not up to us to read the book! It is up to the debater to read the book and reference sections that support his/her position.

NascarGirl either doesn't understand this or she is simply running for cover because she knows she has nothing to back up her claims.

[jimjames418]

Maybe that was part of the reason, the other part was divide and conquer, perhaps they were looking towards getting some of their colonies back, if they could pry the South from the North, perhaps they thought they could then add it back into the British Empire, the Civil War looked like just such an opportunity to them, and they would probably take back the south even with its slavery. The South would of course need the British Navy to protect them from the North once the Civil War was over and done with, the majority of British didn't see it that way, but perhaps some did.:mrgreen:
Not at all. The British had outlawed slavery in all their colonies, and the British Navy was very active in hunting down slave ships and freeing the slaves they carried. Nice try though, you did put some thought into it.

[Clintville]

Bump.

[Tom Kalbfus]

:mrgreen:
Not at all. The British had outlawed slavery in all their colonies, and the British Navy was very active in hunting down slave ships and freeing the slaves they carried. Nice try though, you did put some thought into it.
I'm sure they would have found a second class status for those black workers, something between slavery and full citizenship, just like in South Africa.

I think there is a tendency for the lower classes to outnumber the upper classes over time, after all most societies are arranged in a pyramid social structure, that is true of our modern society as well, we have lots of poor, more middle class and very few rich. The rich typically have a lot of people working for them so the lower income groups have to necessarily out number the rich, the difference is, in a capitalistic society where everyone has equal citizenship, there is upward mobility, those at the top have their positions threated by those climbing to the top, as some will get displaced downward in the process, but by designating some people as a racial slave or permanent lower class, the upper class assures its position from competition from people climbing up from the lower classes by fixing their position at the bottom of the social pyramid.

[NascarGirl2448]

Can you imagine a college debating team tossing a book on the podium and declaring, "It's all in there! Go read it!"?

It's not up to us to read the book! It is up to the debater to read the book and reference sections that support his/her position.

NascarGirl either doesn't understand this or she is simply running for cover because she knows she has nothing to back up her claims.

:rolleyes: Are people really so reluctant to read anymore?? I have told you time and time again where to find the information that you seek. Stop relying on other people to do things for you. Can you imagine someone trying to learn something only relying on a term paper written by a college student without going to cited sources for more information?

[Clintville]

:rolleyes: Are people really so reluctant to read anymore?? I have told you time and time again where to find the information that you seek. Stop relying on other people to do things for you. Can you imagine someone trying to learn something only relying on a term paper written by a college student without going to cited sources for more information?
Again, this isn't school, this is a debate. You have the book, we do not. Cant you remember the evidence the author brings up for all these claims?

Though of course, why is this book right and the others wrong?

[NascarGirl2448]

Again, this isn't school, this is a debate. You have the book, we do not. Cant you remember the evidence the author brings up for all these claims?

Though of course, why is this book right and the others wrong?

No wonder I never became a teacher. Its amazing how much other people rely on others for things they can do on their own.

[Clintville]

No wonder I never became a teacher. Its amazing how much other people rely on others for things they can do on their own.
Again, you have the book, you can just look it up. Or you could just remember it, with your mind.

And please answer, how is this book different from the others?

[Nik Notorious]

:rolleyes: Are people really so reluctant to read anymore?? I have told you time and time again where to find the information that you seek. Stop relying on other people to do things for you. Can you imagine someone trying to learn something only relying on a term paper written by a college student without going to cited sources for more information?


You're pretty much just missing the point on purpose now. Tell you what, I'll make it easy on you. Let's pretend I read your book, and I still don't agree with you. Then what? What else do you have to prove your point?

Let's be clear, I've got no problem reading the book you've mentioned. I've got no problem doing the work. That's not what this is about, though. This is about the fact that you made a claim, and aside from "go read a book" and "go look at this website", you've given us no facts to back up what you've said. None, nothing, zero. When a person, anywhere, makes any kind of statement they claim to be factual, it's up to them to prove it. You're the District Attorney, you have to prove your case. It's not about you doing the work for us, it's about you doing the work for yourself.

[Drawz]

Again, you have the book, you can just look it up. Or you could just remember it, with your mind.

And please answer, how is this book different from the others?

C'mon, be fair. How can you expect her to read a book??
Imagine how tired her eyes are, they've been rolling for damn near this entire thread.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Nik Notorious]

C'mon, be fair. How can you expect her to read a book??
Imagine how tired her eyes are, they've been rolling for damn near this entire thread.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:


This right here, that there is comedy. If only I could find an appropriate smiley to convey my laughter.



:mrgreen:

is that him?

[NascarGirl2448]

C'mon, be fair. How can you expect her to read a book??
Imagine how tired her eyes are, they've been rolling for damn near this entire thread.

:)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) I needed a good laugh this morning. Now go to the bookstore and pick up a copy of The South was Right maybe just maybe the truth of the 1860's will FINALLY sink in. Then again, I doubt anyone who was indoctrinated in the lies of government school history books will ever come to accept the truth.

[NascarGirl2448]

And please answer, how is this book different from the others?

For the millionth time, its pretty much the only book written that actually tells the TRUTH about the 1860's. For one thing, it refutes the commonly held misconception that the War for Southern Independence was fought over slavery, when in REALITY, it was an economic war more than anything else.

[super cool ski instructor]

C'mon, be fair. How can you expect her to read a book??
Imagine how tired her eyes are, they've been rolling for damn near this entire thread.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Okay that made me laugh!!

[Thor]

Let's try this again...

Here's a direct challenge. Please name ONE battle where these phantom British soldiers fought against the Confederacy (with a legitimate historical reference).

I'm waiting....

STILL waiting for NascarGirl to respond....

[super cool ski instructor]

Look Nascargirl...I have read this entire thread and I am afraid to say that you are not really giving anybody a reason to believe what you are saying.

As already stated....by...well pretty much everyone, it is up to YOU to prove your claims. It is not up to Thor, or Nik Notorious, or anyone else to go and do the work for you. YOU made the claims...YOU need to provide proof. YOU do not tell THEM to go read a book to prove YOUR claims....that is up to YOU.

I saw the website you linked to...and quite frankly I am not sure why I am to believe what is said on it. You telling me to believe it does not mean I should believe it. It looks pretty weak to me.

You say to go read a book...well alot of people have read alot of books on the subject...why am I to believe the one you reference is the one and only source of truth in this matter? Because you say so?

You're whole argument in this thread is really waek because you make claims and refuse to back them up.

[Thor]

No wonder I never became a teacher. Its amazing how much other people rely on others for things they can do on their own.

Why do you not understand this?

We are not in school! You are not the teacher!

You are asserting something as factual (that British soldiers fought for the Union in the Civil War). It is YOUR responsibility to present evidence that backs up this claim. All you have to do is tell us WHERE in this book it talks about British soldiers fighting for the Union.

Is that so hard?

[super cool ski instructor]

Why do you not understand this?

We are not in school! You are not the teacher!

You are asserting something as factual (that British soldiers fought for the Union in the Civil War). It is YOUR responsibility to present evidence that backs up this claim. All you have to do is tell us WHERE in this book it talks about British soldiers fighting for the Union.

Is that so hard?

Amazing that she berates people for not doing the work...when she herself has not done any of the work......

[Thor]

For the millionth time, its pretty much the only book written that actually tells the TRUTH about the 1860's. For one thing, it refutes the commonly held misconception that the War for Southern Independence was fought over slavery, when in REALITY, it was an economic war more than anything else.

So EVERY OTHER book says one thing, and this ONE lone book says another. But we are supposed to believe that this ONE book tells "the truth"? Why? Because you say so?

I'll bet I could find a book somewhere that tells the "truth" about the Nazi perspective and explains why they were "right". Should we then toss out all the other books written about Hitler and WWII?

And no matter what you say, slavery was undeniably the underlying issue that caused the Civil War. Why did the Southern states immediately start seceding after Lincoln's election? Because they were afraid he was going to levy tariffs? NO! They feared that he intended to interfere with slavery. True, the war did not begin because one side was on a crusade to end slavery. It began because the Union wanted to preserve the nation and the South wanted to break it up. But the reason the Southern states seceded in the first place was directly due to slavery.

[Thor]

Amazing that she berates people for not doing the work...when she herself has not done any of the work......

I can just imagine my college professor assigning a report and I just toss a book on his desk with the explanation, "It's all in there! Read it for yourself! You expect me to do the work for you?"

[Nik Notorious]

This might be a little off topic, but while I have all of your attention I thought I'd bring to light a little issue I've been dealing with for a while. You see, I've long believed in the existence of a wonderful breakfast called green eggs and ham. I just know all of you would enjoy it as much as I do. You'll like it on a train and on a plane. Want proof? There's a very informative book on the subject written by a doctor. Go look it up, I can't do all the work for you.

[super cool ski instructor]

Nik Notorious owes me a new keyboard!

[Drawz]

:lol:

[Nik Notorious]

Nik Notorious owes me a new keyboard!


Prove it. ;)

[Thor]

This might be a little off topic, but while I have all of your attention I thought I'd bring to light a little issue I've been dealing with for a while. You see, I've long believed in the existence of a wonderful breakfast called green eggs and ham. I just know all of you would enjoy it as much as I do. You'll like it on a train and on a plane. Want proof? There's a very informative book on the subject written by a doctor. Go look it up, I can't do all the work for you.

British soldiers came off the boats!
Under darkness, they changed their coats!
Union duds, they paraded in!
Fought the Rebs, helped the North win!
"I do not like this," said Robert E. Lee.
"Brits dressed as Yankees fighting me."
"I will fight them in a dell."
"I will fight them very well!"
"I will fight them on a ridge!"
"I will fight them on a bridge!"
"I will fight them on a hill!"
"Look how many that I kill!"
"I will fight them night or day!"
"I will fight and make them pay!"
"I will fight them here or there!"
"I will fight them anywhere!"
"I do not like Brits wearing blue."
"Killing them is what I do!"

[Nik Notorious]

Now THAT'S how you prove your point. :))

[super cool ski instructor]

I love this thread...so full of laughs :))

[Clintville]

For the millionth time, its pretty much the only book written that actually tells the TRUTH about the 1860's. For one thing, it refutes the commonly held misconception that the War for Southern Independence was fought over slavery, when in REALITY, it was an economic war more than anything else.
And it bases this on what?

[NascarGirl2448]

This might be a little off topic, but while I have all of your attention I thought I'd bring to light a little issue I've been dealing with for a while. You see, I've long believed in the existence of a wonderful breakfast called green eggs and ham. I just know all of you would enjoy it as much as I do. You'll like it on a train and on a plane. Want proof? There's a very informative book on the subject written by a doctor. Go look it up, I can't do all the work for you.

:)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) I've had a rough day and dang it I needed a good laugh tonight.

[NascarGirl2448]

british soldiers came off the boats!
Under darkness, they changed their coats!
Union duds, they paraded in!
Fought the rebs, helped the north win!
"i do not like this," said robert e. Lee.
"brits dressed as yankees fighting me."
"i will fight them in a dell."
"i will fight them very well!"
"i will fight them on a ridge!"
"i will fight them on a bridge!"
"i will fight them on a hill!"
"look how many that i kill!"
"i will fight them night or day!"
"i will fight and make them pay!"
"i will fight them here or there!"
"i will fight them anywhere!"
"i do not like brits wearing blue."
"killing them is what i do!"

:)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :))

[NascarGirl2448]

I can just imagine my college professor assigning a report and I just toss a book on his desk with the explanation, "It's all in there! Read it for yourself! You expect me to do the work for you?"

Most of the time reading it for yourself is better than listening to the professor, especially the ones who slant things so far to the left it drives you nuts.

[Nik Notorious]

:)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) I've had a rough day and dang it I needed a good laugh tonight.


Glad I could help. I just wish mine had been as funny as Thor's post.

[angelicmadrigal]

British soldiers came off the boats!
Under darkness, they changed their coats!
Union duds, they paraded in!
Fought the Rebs, helped the North win!
"I do not like this," said Robert E. Lee.
"Brits dressed as Yankees fighting me."
"I will fight them in a dell."
"I will fight them very well!"
"I will fight them on a ridge!"
"I will fight them on a bridge!"
"I will fight them on a hill!"
"Look how many that I kill!"
"I will fight them night or day!"
"I will fight and make them pay!"
"I will fight them here or there!"
"I will fight them anywhere!"
"I do not like Brits wearing blue."
"Killing them is what I do!"

::chuckles:: that's way better than that other poem posted recently on this board.

[NascarGirl2448]

Glad I could help. I just wish mine had been as funny as Thor's post.

:) There's some real talent here in the humor department.

[Clintville]

And yet she still fails to answer any questions.

[Nik Notorious]

And yet she still fails to answer any questions.


I'm not a doctor, but let me give you some medical advise. Don't hold your breath.

[Clintville]

Bump?

It's still here, in case you want to try and answer.