Can We Have A Civil Discussion About The War Between The States ?

[SlowwHand]

Boris illustrates to absolute perfection why the South seceded.

Facts:
Your numbers are erroneous.
That's another thing you can cite, over and over, but will remain flawed.

Southern leadership had slaves, for the most part.
Not all leadership did, but to remain objective I will in fact recognize that fact.

The average citizen, who was in the infantry, was tired then, as I tire now, of listening to the Boris' of the North spouting "Ignorant Cracker" remarks.
That was the reason they wanted to secede.
Maybe they had a point, since it continues to such a degree today, one can imagine how it was at that time.

Lincoln wasn't for freeing the slaves to avert war.
But, he was for disallowing any more Slave States to come into existence.
Which is fine, just don't make him into a water-walker, because he wasn't.

Opinion
Had the North minded their own business, slavery would have gone away with within 5-10 years.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Boris illustrates to absolute perfection why the South seceded.

Facts:
Your numbers are erroneous.
That's another thing you can cite, over and over, but will remain flawed.

Southern leadership had slaves, for the most part.
Not all leadership did, but to remain objective I will in fact recognize that fact.

So find me first-hand documentary statistics on slave ownership that contradicts these numbers. This site is citing CONFEDERATE census numbers. These are the factual numbers, Sloww. You're just putting your hands over your ears and singing "Mary Had a Little Lamb" as a tactic.

The average citizen, who was in the infantry, was tired then, as I tire now, of listening to the Boris' of the North spouting "Ignorant Cracker" remarks.

Okay, so clearly your call for a "civil" discussion was a crock of bullshit, since you are the first to throw out a slanderous insult. I didn't say anything about "ignorant crackers." I was presenting a simple, factual rebuttal to a statement. If that gets your feathers in a ruffle, then I suggest you stop pretending to want a rational discussion so we know you're going to be cry-baby.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by AnnC
Here's an interesting question: What if Jefferson Davis (and Pierre Beauregard) had decided not to fire on Fort Sumter? I.e. what if they'd just left the Federals there and perhaps built a fort right across the water on Morris Island to keep an eye on them?

Would Lincoln have been able to convince the US Congress to go to war against the South in circumstances where the South had not initiated any kind of military action?

There were problems on each side of the fence. Beauregard was close to losing control of the situation in Charleston, which was really the flashpoint of anti-Federal feeling. Firing on Sumter might have been delayed, but not for long.

The other side of the coin was Lincoln's own plan. The Sumter "resupply" operation was only part of the action, the other being a reinforcement of the garrison at Fort Pickens in Florida, an issue far lesser known to the general populace because things went the way they did at Sumter. Forts Barrancas and Pickens in Florida had seen action in early January, when the Army lietenant in charge had fired on a crowd of civilians who wanted the Federals out of their fort. The Army garrison then retreated out of Fort Barrancas to Fort Pickens, in Pensacola harbor. The governor of Florida and President Buchanan had agreed to a truce at that point, where neither side would take any action that would lead to further hostilities.

Lincoln's plan was much more complex and devious - William Seward used and deceived Associate Justice of the Supreme Court John A. Campbell, a well-respected, conservative southerner who was against secession, to "negotiate" outside official channels with a three man commision of the CSA government. Campbell was told that Lincoln was willing to negotiate transfer of both Sumter and Pickens, and Seward implied that remaining Federal forts in CSA territory would be up for discussion, at the same time as the Navy department was preparing for a combined armed resupply and reinforcement mission. Lincoln and Seward were involved in the planning and coordination of that action, and it's extremely doubtful that Seward approached Campbell without Lincoln's at least implicit approval.

Davis and the CSA government soon found out that Lincoln was offering one thing through the back door with Campbell, while making large scale military plans that included reinforcing the Pickens garrison to the point it could carry out orders to retake Barrancas and establish control over Pensacola.

In all the public posturing about peaceful resupply of Sumter, breaking the truce with the state of Florida, by armed reinforcement and aggressive action was somehow forgotten about. So was using a member of another branch of government to as a conduit for deceitful negotiations.

Once the state and CSA governments realized they were being played by Lincoln, they considered the possibility that the "unarmed" resupply mission with 29 guns and 1400 men might not really be intending to land in and take Pensacola, which was even less significant then than it is now. If the South Carolinians didn't have the balls to resist the "resupply" of Sumter, then why not then proceed to reinforce the garrison, for further action.

Given the mistrust of Lincoln's motives and the deceit regarding Yankee intentions, Lincoln pretty much assured that the South Carolinians would have to act in their own perceived defense, which was exactly the excuse he wanted.

[Chris 62]

Hey Sloww, who was the "Beast of New orleans"?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


So find me first-hand documentary statistics on slave ownership that contradicts these numbers.

How about the US Census figures for 1850 and 1860?

The going rate for healthy slaves suitable for employment as field hands was around $1200.00 cash in 1861. House slaves could be a little less than that, or a little more, depending on skills.

Unless you count extended families, not near 1/3 of southern families had the economic means to own or purchase slaves. A larger number who didn't own slaves contracted with their owners for day labor on an as needed basis, which may be reflected in some statistics, but the vast majority of southern families didn't own (in total) land or other assets worth even one slave.

[Capt Dizle]

The flood of white European immigrants into the north was the main reason the northern economy did not develop the dependence upon slavery that cursed the south. It is worth noting that the conditions under which these immigrants lived were not a hell of a lot better than black southern slaves.

With such a pool of white free labor the north was able to funnel much more of its wealth into railroads and industry and as a result became more and more wealthy.

The south meanwhile found itself trapped. Depending on slave labor huge portions of its wealth had to be poured into buying more and more slaves. As a result southern investment in railroads and industry lagged behind the north.

This situation however was being addressed. In the years leading up to the war, the south had begun to greatly increase its spending in railroads and industry. Things were changing.

The north of course was always dominant in shipping, which is one of the reasons that most immigration came via northern ports. By the mid-fifties more and more immigrants were looking southward. It was only a matter of time until the industrial revolution, late to come to the southern states, would have erased the institution of slavery.

People who accuse the south of immorality are just ignorant. Britain outlawed slavery as it went through the industrial revolution for economic reasons. Same thing occured north of the mason dixon line. Where did the south get it's slaves from in the first place? Point the finger accurately for God's sake.

The north abandoned slavery (but not slaving) for economic reasons and it only became a moral issue when one was needed to justify the enslavement of the south.

The south was pressured to secede by northern efforts to achieve political hegemony.

The idea that the war was fought over slavery is not the big myth, it's the big lie.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Oh, I know. I was using Epperson's site years ago in a debate over the cause of the Civil War. It's very nice to have first-hand documentary evidence.

Ahh, the good ol' monolithic south argument. It's just sooooo inconvenient to admit that several states found entirely different reasons for secession.

[Capt Dizle]

Damn straight. To say that Virginia opted for secession for the same reason as states from the deep south is not merely ignorant but intellectually corrupt.

[Capt Dizle]

I meant to say intellectually dishonest but hell in reference to northern revisionists one statement is as applicable as the other.

[SlowwHand]

Boris, I've put the numbers and the links time and again.
You prefer to remain a bigot.
Yes, a bigot. Bigotry doesn't just entail color or gender preference.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Chris 62
Hey Sloww, who was the "Beast of New orleans"?

That would be General Benjamin Butler.

[SlowwHand]

Known to many as Andy Sipowicz

[Chris 62]

Yep, ol Ben Butler, tried to ship the ladies of ill repute up the river...

[MichaeltheGreat]

"We are a band of brothers, native to the soil..."

[Sprayber]

It's interesting that those that say they are smart enough to see through the so called propaganda of the current Republican administration take everything that is spoon fed to them about the Civil War from an earlier Republican adminstration and treat it as gospel.

There was no monolitic South. Many Southerners did not even want seccession and fought on the side of the Union while many of the people in the North weren't too keen on fighting Lincoln's war.

[SlowwHand]

True, Sprayber.
Brother against brother.

Another "in yo face" to Boris, Bob Lee had no slaves.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
The South Was Not Responsible For Slavery
by Arthur H. Jennings



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Neither the introduction of slaves into America nor their continued importation can be charged to the South.

What a silly statement! Everyone knows that slavery began in the USa before its independence!

Undoubtedly England, Spain and the Dutch were primarily and largely responsible for the introduction and the earlier importation of slaves to this country. As Bancroft says, "The sovereigns of England and Spain were the greatest slave merchants in the world."

Silly, same reason

Later on, this country came into prominence in the traffic in human bodies and DuBois, the negro historical writer says, "The American slave trade came to be carried on principally by United States capital, in United States ships, officered by United States citizens and under the United States flag." Supporting this, Dr. Phillips of Tulane University in his section of The South in the Building of the Nation states, "The great volume of the slave traffic from the earlier 17th century onward was carried on by English and Yankee vessels, with some competition from the French and the Dutch."

So what! At this point in time the "yankees" were English subjects just as much as Bristol merchants! By the end of the colonial period American colonial shippers owned a whopping 30 ships, a tiny fraction of the 1000+ owned by the British. Yankee shippers could not have accounted for more than a tiny fraction of the total slave trade.

The responsibility for this home, or American, participation in the slave importing business rests primarily and principally upon New England and likewise, very largely, upon New York. It was a boast and a taunt of pre-war days with pro-slavery orators that, "The North imported slaves, the South only bought them" -- and historians assert that "there is some truth in the assertion."
Indeed, it has been widely claimed that "No Southern man or Southern ship ever brought a slave to the United States,"

Refuted below.

and while this statement is disputed and is perhaps not strictly true according to the letter, it is undoubtedly true in spirit, for the cases where a Southern man or Southern ship could be charged with importing slaves are few indeed, while New England, as well as New York, were openly and boldly engaged in the traffic, employing hundreds of ships in the nefarious business.
"Slavery," says Henry Watterson, in the Louisville Courier Journal, "existed in the beginning North and South. But the North finding slave labor unsuited to its needs and, therefore, unprofitable, sold its slaves to the South, not forgetting to pocket the money it got for them, having indeed at great profit brought them over from Africa in its ships."
Mr. Cecil Chesterman, a distinguished English historian, in his History of the United States, says on this point, "The North had been the original slave traders.

No, the Portugese were.

The African slave trade had been their particular industry. Boston itself had risen to prosperity on the profits of the abominable traffic."

John Hancock, the richest man in Massachusetts, owned a mere 6 ocean going ships at the time of the revolution. I doubt that the meager Bostonian fleet could have made the fortune of the entire city.

The Marquis of Lothian, in his Confederate Secession, makes the statement that "out of 1,500 American slave traders, only five were from the South," but apparently this statement is contradicted later in his volume when he says, "out of 202 slavers entering the port of Charleston, S.C., in four years, 1796 to 1799 inclusive, 91 were English, 88 Yankee, 10 were French and 13 South...."

This statement refutes all those statements within this article that claim that no southern ship was ever involved in the slave trade.

Many indeed are the authorities that support the statement that the South did not import slaves. "Slavery," says Senator John W. Daniel of Virginia, "was thrust on the South, an uninvited, aye, a forbidden guest," and Dr. Charles Morris, in his History of Civilization says, "The institution of slavery was not of their making; it had been thrust upon their fathers against their violent opposition."

Garbage. There are no records of the Jamestown settlers violently opposing slave importation. The southern states had nearly 80 years of pre-Civil War independence within which to abolish slavery. When my Quaker ancestors were given an ultimaum to divest themselves of their slaves or quit their faith they chose to become Methodists! For Pete's sake, it's not like slave ownership was physiologically addicting!

Mrs. Sea, in her book, The Synoptical Review of Slavery, says, "I have heard the statement made, and gentlemen of the highest standing for scholarly attainment given as authority, that no Southern man ever owned a slave ship and that no slave ship handled by a Southern man ever brought a cargo of slaves from Africa."

Refuted within this article above!

Dr. Lyon G. Taylor, the scholarly President of William and Mary College, Virginia, and an authority, says, regarding this statement, "I am sure it can be said that no Southern man or Southern ship, as far as is known, engaged in the slave trade."

Once again a remarkable demonstration of Southern honor.

References to Southern ships or Southern men as engaged in the slave importing business are at best vague. The famous case of the Wanderer, one of the most noted of slave trading vessels, is often mentioned and her ownership is credited to men of Charleston and Savannah, but even if this be true, she was built in New York, her captain was a New York man, and a member of the New York Yacht Club and the Wanderer sailed under the proud flag of that Club when she went to the Congo after slaves. Her captain was later expelled from the Club for this offense.

The crime of slave importation actually took place where the ship unloaded its cargo in South Carolina didn't it? Why didn't South Carolina authorities arrest this man? In the absence of a crime being committed within the state of New York the legal authorities of that state could not bring charges against him.

The fact that there was domestic traffic in slaves, some of this domestic traffic being carried on through coastwise trading, seems to have confused some and induced them to believe the South engaged in the slave importing business. On the other hand, the responsibility of New England and New York for the almost exclusive monopoly of domestic participation in the slave importing business is most clearly established. Massachusetts looms largely to the front when investigation into this gruesome subject is pursued. The first slave ship of this country, the Desire, was fitted out in Massachusetts, and set sail for the coast of Africa from Marblehead. Massachusetts was the first of all the colonies to authorize the establishment of slavery by statute law, doing this some decades before her example was followed by any of the Southern colonies. The first statute establishing slavery in America is embodied in the Code of the Massachusetts Colony in New England, adopted in 1641, and it should be realized that slave trading in Massachusetts was not a private enterprise but was carried on by authority of the Plymouth Rock colony.

Virginia had a twenty year head start. By 1641 Virginia was a self governing colony and had just as much opportunity to abolish the trade as did Massachusetts, but did not do so until forced to 220+ years later. [QUOTE]
The Puritans early evinced a tendency to enslave Indian captives and sell them out of the country, and from that early day down to a period practically after the War Between the States had begun (for the last slave ship, the Nightingale, sailing from Boston and fitted out there, with 900 slaves on board was captured at the mouth of the Congo River after the war had started), New England, with Massachusetts leading, stood preeminent in the slave trade.
Much of the prominence and wealth of these states was derived from the slave trade and the commercial importance of such towns as Newport, Rhode Island, was based entirely upon the traffic. It is stated that Faneuil Hall, the famous "Cradle of Liberty" where so many abolition speeches, denunciatory of the South were made, was built with money earned in the slave traffic, as Peter Faneuil was actively engaged in it. "It was a traffic," says Dr. Phillips, in The South in Building of the Nation, "in which highly honorable men like Peter Feneuil engaged and which the Puritans did not condemn in the Colonial period." Stephen Girard is another prominent philanthropist of the North who made money in slaves, working large numbers of them on a Louisiana sugar plantation which he owned, and it is asserted that Girard College was built with money earned by the labors of these slaves.
In fact, DuBois asserts that the New England conscience which would not allow slavery to flourish on the sacred soil of Massachusetts did not hesitate to seize the profits resulting from the rape of slaves from their African homes and their sale to Southern planters. {/QUOTE] You're condemning a group, the people of the state of Massachusetts, for the crime of a few, the owners of slave ships. The importation of slaves was illegal after 1808. The crime was committed in southern ports, hithin the jurisdiction of southern courts. Surely you don't believe that it was possilble for ships to clandestinely unload and market hundreds of slaves at a time? It was the authorities in the southern states who ignored the law.

But, according to John Adams, it was not a tender conscience but an economic reason upon which the forbidding of slaves in Massachusetts was based, for he is quoted as saying, "Argument might have had some weight in the abolition of slavery in Massachusetts, but the real cause was the multiplication of laboring white people who no longer would suffer the rich to employ these sable rivals so much to their injury." Thomas Jefferson, who had introduced a scathing denunciation of, and protest against, the slave trade in the Declaration of Independence, withdrew it upon the insistence of Adams and other New Englanders, and he indulges in the following little bit of sarcasm at their expense: "Our Northern friends... were tender under these censures, for, though their people have very few slaves, yet they had been considerable carriers of them to others."

It is established fact that several southern delegations threatened to walk out of the conferrence if those passages had been left in.

Economic reasons were the base of abolition of slavery in New England. There is abundance of record to show dissatisfaction with negro labor, who were stated to be "eye servants, great thieves, much addicted to lying and stealing," and the superiority of white labor was brought prominently forward. Furthermore, the mortality of the negroes in the cold New England climate was great and figures were brought forward to show how their importation into the section was not "profitable." Governor Dudley in a formal report in 1708 stated, "Negroes have been found unprofitable investments, the planters preferring white servants."
Boston was all along prominent in the slave trade, the Continental Monthly of New York, as late as January, 1862, being quoted as saying, "The city of New York has been until lage [1862] the principal port of the world for this infamous traffic, the cities of Portland and Boston being only second to her in that distinction." "Slave dealers," it continues, "added much to the wealth of our metropolis."

Are you claiming that the slaves were actually brought into the port at this time? I don't believe it.

Vessels from Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New Hampshire were early and largely engaged in the slave trade, and it is a very significant fact that while duties, more or less heavy, were imposed upon the imported slaves in Southern harbors, and other harbors of the country, the port of New England were offered as a free exchange mart for slavers.
New England citizens were traders by instinct and profession, and with the birth of commerce in the New World they eagerly turned the high profits of the African slave trade and made it a regular business. The Hartford Courant in an issue of July, 1916, said, "Northern rum had much to do with the extension of slavery in the South. Many people in this state [Connecticut] as well as in Boston, made snug fortunes for themselves by sending rum to Africa to be exchanged for slaves and then selling the slaves to the planters of Southern states."
Rhode Island at an early date had 150 vessels engaged in the slave trade, while at a later date, when New York had loomed to the front of the trade, the New York Journal of Commerce is quoted as saying, "Few of our readers are aware of the extent to which this infernal traffic is carried on by vessels clearing from New York and down town merchants of wealth and respectability are engaged extensively in buying and selling African negroes, and have been for an indefinite number of years."

One of the problems with this article is that the author jumps back and forth from the colonial era to the early republic. As i pointed out before American colonists owned a total of no more than 30 ships maximum during the colonial period. Anyone would take umbrage about indicting colonists for the activities of Britons.

As early as 1711 a slave market was established in New York City in the neighborhood of Wall street where slaves from Africa were brought to supply the Southern market. There was another prominent slave market in Boston. The slaves were hurried into the South as fast as possible as hundreds died from cold and exposure and the sudden change from a tropic African climate to a bleak Northern temperature. The United States Dept. Marshall for that New York district reported in 1856 that "the business of fitting out slavers was never prosecuted with greater energy than at present." In a year and a half preceding the War Between the States eighty-five slave trading vessels are reported as fitting out in New York harbor and DuBois writes that, "from 1850 to 1860 the fitting out of slavers became a flourishing business in the United States and centered in New York City."
Although Massachusetts and New York were thus prominent in the business of enslaving and importing Africans and selling them to South America and the Southern colonies, and later the Southern states in the Union, other parts of New England took most prominent part in the slave trade. Indeed, in the Reminiscences of Samuel Hopkins, Rhode Island is said to have been "more deeply interested in the slave trade than any other colony in New England and has enslaved more Africans."
Thus begining with that first slave ship of this country, the Desire of Marblehead, Mass., the slave trade flourished in New England and New York. The favorite method was to exchange rum for negroes and to sell the negroes to the Southern plantations. Federal laws were powerless to hold in check the keenness for this profitable traffic in human flesh. As late as 1850, the noted slave smuggler, Drake, who flourished and operated along the Gulf Coast, is reported to have said, "Slave trading is growing more profitable every year, and if you should hang all the Yankee merchants engaged in it, hundreds more would take their place."
The outlawing of the traffic seemed but to stimulate it. From the very inception of the institution of slavery in this country there was protest and action against it throughout the Southern colonies. The vigorous action of Virginia and her protests to the royal governor to prohibit the further importation of slaves to her territory are well known. We have seen how Jefferson introduced into the Declaration of Independence a protest against the slave trade which he withdrew at the behest of New England. Every prominent man in Virginia at this period was in favor of gradual emancipation and there were more than five times as many members of abolition socities in the South than in the North. Only with the rise of the rabid abolitionists of New England and their fierce denunciations of the South did the South abandon hope of gradual emancipation.

What hope of gradual emancipation? Up to the time of the Civil War it was illegal in several states to free a slave!

Touching this, Mr. Cecil Chesterman, quoted above, states very proudly in his History of the United States, "What could exceed the effrontery of men," asked the Southerner, "who reproach us with grave personal sin in owning property which they themselves sold us and the price of which is at this moment in their pockets?"

Did they hold a gun to his head and force him to buy slaves?

Virginia legislated against slavery over a score of times; South Carolina protested against it as early as 1727, and in Georgia there was absolute prohibition of it by law. Let it be remembered that when the National Government took action and the slavery prohibition laws of Congress went into effect in 1808, every Southern state had prohibited it.

You mean prohibited the IMPORTATION of slaves don't you? You surely don't mean for us to swallow the statement that slavery itself was illegal in the south by 1808.

But, as stated, the outlawing of the traffic seemed but to stimulate it. In the earlier years of the 19th century thousands of slaves were imported into this country. In the year 1819, Gen. James Talmage, speaking in the House of Representatives, declared, "It is a well known fact that about 14,000 slaves have been brought into our country this year." And Sergeant, of Pennsylvania, said, "It is notorious that in spite of the utmost vigilance that can be employed, African negroes are clandestinely brought in and sold as slaves."
"I have ample evidence of the fact that the reopening of the African slave trade is an accomplished fact and the traffic is brisk." Not only was the traffic brisk with the United States but thousands of slaves were being smuggled into Brazil.

Wouldn't the most efficient way of stopping the trade have been to have stopped it in the cities of the south? Surely it would have been a simple matter to have seperated Africans from American born black people.

Southern members of Congress complained of the violations of the law and the illegal importation of slaves into their territory. Smith, of South Carolina, said on the floor of Congress in 1819: "Our Northern friends are not afraid to furnish the Southern States with Africans;" and in 1819, Middleton, of South Carolina, and Wright, of Virginia, estimated the illicit introduction of slaves at from 1300 to 1500 respectively.

Again, if he was so much against it he could have stopped it within his own state.

I got tired of going through this article in detail and pointing out the obvious. The southern states had every opportunity to abolish slavery within their borders. To maintain that slavery was forced upon them is simply ludicrous.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


How about the US Census figures for 1850 and 1860?

The going rate for healthy slaves suitable for employment as field hands was around $1200.00 cash in 1861. House slaves could be a little less than that, or a little more, depending on skills.

Unless you count extended families, not near 1/3 of southern families had the economic means to own or purchase slaves. A larger number who didn't own slaves contracted with their owners for day labor on an as needed basis, which may be reflected in some statistics, but the vast majority of southern families didn't own (in total) land or other assets worth even one slave.

While that's nice conjecture, you'll have to produce some statistics for me to believe them and then explain why they contradict the official records of the states, and why I should believe one over the other.

And excuse me, MtG, but AFAIK, it is southern apologists who favor the "monolithic south" argument by asserting none of the Southern states fought over slavery. All these documents show is that, yes, many of them did. It is in no way indicative of a universal mindset.

Boris, I've put the numbers and the links time and again.

Bullshit, Sloww, and you know it. You've never provided any links to documentary sources. Linking to revisionist history articles doesn't cut it. You've merely repeated an assertion you know is unfounded.

And how on earth am I the bigot? You're the first one to resort to cheap insults. I think you should evaluate your own hysterical reaction to being challenged on your ignorant assumptions and think long and hard about why you get so pissy about it. Maybe it's because you know you're wrong?

It doesn't make any difference to me whether slaveholders accounted for 25% or 30% or even 35% of Southern families in the context of the arguments, as it doesn't change the basic motivations of the South for war. It's just a matter of being factual. It seems to me folks like you continue to swear by the erroneous assertions because you just want the South's **** to stink a little less. Well, get over it. I'd like to say we never perpetrated the Mai Lai massacre, but facts are facts and we should just accept them and move on, ya know.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
True, Sprayber.
Brother against brother.

Another "in yo face" to Boris, Bob Lee had no slaves.

I know you just gets yourself a little wee hard on for me, but really, it's getting sad. What does Lee's lack of ownership of slaves really have to do with this? WOuld you like me to list the Southern leaders and generals who did have slaves? It would be a loooooong list, wouldn't it?

[Chris 62]

What famous Union admiral left the South to fight for the federals?

[orange]

nm

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Chris 62
What famous Union admiral left the South to fight for the federals?

I dunno, but we could find out all the counties and towns that refused to secede from the Union and that the CSA had to occupy and forcibly put down rebellions to keep in line...

[Capt Dizle]

No, we can't have a civil discusssion here about the war of northern agression.

[SlowwHand]

Boris, I'm totally done with your ignorant ass. (As oppossed to your "Cracker" remark).

Chris, I believe you've stumped me.
I could research, but that woould be cheating.

[Boris Godunov]

Sure we can, once the slavery apologists get over the fact they lost the damn war and move on with their lives. Then the War of Southern Treason can be approached fairly and rationally.

[Capt Dizle]

Maybe we should talk about the American War of Treason against good King George, eh, Boris?

[Sprayber]

Just some questions Boris.

Would you have supported Lincoln in the Presidential election?

Would you have have signed up to go and fight in Virginia during the first year of the war?

Which would be more important to you. preserving the Union or ending slavery.

Dont think backwards now. Go with what you would have known in 1861

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Boris, I'm totally done with your ignorant ass. (As oppossed to your "Cracker" remark).

Ok, time to put up or shut up, Sloww. Quote me on a "cracker" comment. I never said any such thing in this thread and you know it. Until then, I will consider attributing such a quote to me inaccurately is a personal insult and hope suitable action is taken.

Honestly, this southern persecution complex is really irritating. I promise you that were you to come here to NYC, you'd be treated with the same hospitality and charm as anyone else, you ****ing ****!

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Sure we can, once the slavery apologists get over the fact they lost the damn war and move on with their lives. Then the War of Southern Treason can be approached fairly and rationally.

You assume everyone that dares to smear the good name of the northern name is apologizing for slavery. I for one am glad I was born in the United States instead of the CSA. It's the attitude that northerners have about a war in which they had nothing to do with that gets to me. We wont apologize for slavery as long as northerners admit that black people weren't that big a deal to them either. John Brown was more of a black hero than Lincoln ever could be. At least John Brown didnt use them as political capital.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Chris, I believe you've stumped me.
I could research, but that woould be cheating.

David Farragut is the answer, and here is some stuff on him to read (I knew before I looked for the site, BTW )

http://www.us-civilwar.com/farragut.htm