http://www.newsobserver.com/580/story/537265.html

Quote :

"Published: Jan 29, 2007 12:30 AM Modified: Jan 29, 2007 06:41 AM No. 2 all-time It is a sickening stain you cast upon not only the honor of Robert E. Lee, but also the state of North Carolina by allowing the Washington Post article "At 200, Lee's legacy still up for debate" to be published in your paper (on Jan. 20). It was the epitome of political correctness and negativism. No state supplied more men, more materiel and more loyalty to the Confederacy during the War Between the States than North Carolina. Robert E. Lee is still revered in the South. He will always be. We cannot erase his nobility, no more than the altar of the demigod Lincoln in Washington could be destroyed. Lee was against slavery and fought the war for independence. The war, like all wars, was over money, and the size of a greedy, centralized government. What we have today is a direct result of victorious Northern aggression. The North won; the people and the Constitution lost. Please spare us loyal North Carolinians your liberal bias as pertains to our heroes. Robert E. Lee is second only to Christ, and once knowing the truth about either of them, you can never go back. S.D. Latham Adjutant, Sons of Confederate Veterans Camp 1695 Belhaven"

1/29/2007 8:49:17 PM

Quote :

"The North won; the people and the Constitution lost. "

who writes this garbage?

[Edited on January 29, 2007 at 8:56 PM. Reason : oh...it's a letter to the editor ]

1/29/2007 8:55:50 PM

1/29/2007 9:08:26 PM

Quote :

"No state supplied more men, more materiel and more loyalty to the Confederacy during the War Between the States than North Carolina."

We also supplied more Union troops than any other Confederate state.

Oh, and #3: Erwin Rommel

1/29/2007 9:14:06 PM

Quote :

"who writes this garbage?"

People who think rationally about the War of Northern Aggression.

1/29/2007 9:23:04 PM

state's rights are being trampled to hell right now.

1/29/2007 9:45:12 PM

Quote :

"People who think rationally about the War of Northern Aggression."

Quote :

"Robert E. Lee is second only to Christ"

Well he sounds like a rational person.

1/29/2007 9:48:31 PM

i mean... this guy is right though

1/29/2007 9:48:56 PM

Quote :

" the War of Northern Aggression the War of Northern Aggression the War of Northern Aggression the War of Northern Aggression the War of Northern Aggression the War of Northern Aggression the War of Northern Aggression the War of Northern Aggression the War of Northern Aggression "

if you say it enough times you can convince yourself that the war wasn't about slave-owners rights.

1/29/2007 10:04:13 PM

Quote :

"more loyalty to the Confederacy"

last to join, first to leave...
at least among the last to join and among the first to leave...
once the union hit nc, the locals didn't put up much of a fight anymore... might have supplied the most troops, but those troops weren't fighting for "the confederacy", they were fighting for nc...

[/sweeping generalizations]

[Edited on January 29, 2007 at 10:16 PM. Reason : .]

1/29/2007 10:15:29 PM

if you say it enough times you can convince yourself that the war wasn't was only about slave-owners rights and not anything else in the slightest.

1/29/2007 10:22:43 PM

Quote :

"if you say it enough times you can convince yourself that the war wasn't about slave-owners rights."

You can also say it if you have any fucking clue as to history of the Civil War. The right to slavery was a part of the civil war (and an unfortunate one) but it was not even the most important driving force. That is the unfortunate truth about what people are taught about American History.

You must also think the Pilgrims came to America for religious freedom, too.

1/29/2007 10:27:50 PM

^they did. well. they came for their own freedom to be the only religion, but thats almost the same thing.

1/29/2007 10:29:30 PM

Very appropriate

1/29/2007 10:38:06 PM

It was about sustaining a region dependent on slavery.

Talk all you want about tariffs, representation, nullification, states' rights, or whatever else... the fact remains that without slavery, the war would've never happened.

1/29/2007 10:38:17 PM

Lincoln wasn't that thrilled to get into a war with the south over something like slavery. I think he even supported an amendment which would've cemented the practice in place.

But when the south refused to pay the tariff tax on northern goods, why then it was time to put them rebels in their place.

1/29/2007 10:41:14 PM

yeah, succession wasn't an issue at all, it was all tariffs

1/29/2007 10:49:38 PM

Quote :

"if you have any fucking clue as to history of the Civil War ... the right to slavery was a part of the civil war (and an unfortunate one) but it was not even the most important driving force."

the right to own slaves was the singular issue driving the secession. every other issue (variation on the theme of states rights) was tertiary to that point, and used only to sell the secession and resulting war to the ignorant and illiterate sonsofbitches who had to fight the war. Robert E. Lee was a decent man and brilliant commander, but he was also a tool who's emotions were played on by the money interests

and FYI, I've got a fucking clue to the history of the Civil War, I was a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans myself. I've got archive records of my great-great-grand who served in the Confederacy's 36th Artillery Regiment NC Troops out of Beaufort NC, under Col William Lamb. I've been to reenactments. Ive documented all their battles including the failed battle for Fort Fisher and the subsequent fighting retreat back to Salisbury.

but I quickly found that once you got past the outer layer of artifact and historical preservation, the reality of the SCV that it was more of a good-ol-boy social networking hate-fest where everyone talked about how to solve the "problems" of Jews Niggers and Immigrants.

and all this jingoism of "war of northern aggression" "states rights" and blah blah blah, its all a bunch of bullshit because the driving economic and moral rationale for secession and war was to preserve the southern way of life: Plantation Slavery.

i mean, goddamn, man... even the fucking entire Baptist denomination was split in half over this. The resulting "Southern Baptists" instituted a slavery theology based on select biblical passages that were interpreted as divine sanction for enslaving the African race.

but I'm wasting my time here, i suspect.... because you "unreconstructed southerners" are still gonna just be "states rights, states rights, 10th amendment, Northern Aggression". I guess you have to, though. don't you?










[Edited on January 29, 2007 at 11:17 PM. Reason : ]

1/29/2007 10:49:40 PM

Lincoln didnt want the war to be about slavery because 90% of whites in the country thought blacks were at best second class citizens. fighting a war for them against fellow Americans was not going to go over very well. However, that has nothing to do with the motivating factors for Southerners. Just because you call it the war of Northern Agression doesnt change the facts about how the war was started.

[Edited on January 29, 2007 at 10:59 PM. Reason : to earthdogg et al]

1/29/2007 10:58:45 PM

Quote :

"if you say it enough times you can convince yourself that the war wasn't about slave-owners rights."

Why did dirt poor Southern whites risk death in war so the richest 2% of Southern society could continue to have free labor then?

1/29/2007 11:26:08 PM

patriotism/sense of duty
support for the status quo
the hope that one day they would be rich. the same reason 50% of this country doesnt mind the top 1% getting tax breaks
they didnt have any other option. home guards anyone?

many fought for the union army
many didnt fight
many fought for honor, glory, and to avoid humiliation

pretty much the same reasons that everyone across the world fought in wars started by elites (hello ww1)

1/29/2007 11:36:30 PM

Because saying bullshit like

Quote :

"War of northern aggression"

worked just as well on white trash then as it does now.

[Edited on January 29, 2007 at 11:37 PM. Reason : ]

1/29/2007 11:37:33 PM

it was obviously only about slavery ... duhh !

1/29/2007 11:39:45 PM

Anybody who thinks that white men from the north were killing white men from the south and risking their own lives to free slaves stopped learning history in the 3rd grade.

The Civil War was the most tragic event in American history and marks a severe failure in our society and political systems.

1/29/2007 11:40:34 PM

hooray for southern aristocracy!!!!!!

1/29/2007 11:46:55 PM

Quote :

"patriotism/sense of duty support for the status quo the hope that one day they would be rich. the same reason 50% of this country doesnt mind the top 1% getting tax breaks they didnt have any other option. home guards anyone? many fought for the union army many didnt fight many fought for honor, glory, and to avoid humiliation pretty much the same reasons that everyone across the world fought in wars started by elites (hello ww1)"

Patriotism might play a part, although how much, who really knows today.
I don't think many thought one day they'd be rich or middle-class even. No education system of note, no land ownership, no hope to think your kid could have a better life than yourself.

Although your point about wars fought between elites hits pretty much at it: it was a bunch of northern rich boys versus a bunch of southern rich boys. That's all there was to it, nothing more.

The entire issue of slavery was an entirely pointless issue that was drawn to get northern saps to fight for a non-existant cause, like the fictional bombing of the USS Maine before the Spanish-American War.

FYI. The largest slaveholder in my hometown of New Bern:

Quote :

"I should add here, though, that though the number of free black slave owners in North Carolina was very small, North Carolina had the free black who owned more slaves than any other free black in the South. John Carruthers Stanley, who was from New Bern, Craven County, who was the son of an African Ebo woman and a white merchant shipper, John Wright Stanley, and was born on the eve of the American Revolution, and was freed by a friend of his father, and Carruthers was their name and he took the middle name, Caruthers, purchased, he was a barber. He as given some property to begin with and then he began purchasing slaves. And in the teens and twenties, he acquired 163 slaves. He was born a slave, a free black, and he was one of the largest slaveholders in North Carolina—white or black—in the entire state."

http://www.unctv.org/bif/transcripts/2004/transcript2014.html

1/29/2007 11:54:44 PM

I once wrote an UNBIASED paper on how Robert E. Lee was the best American military mastermind in our history. Carry on.

1/29/2007 11:58:37 PM

Quote :

"Lincoln wasn't that thrilled to get into a war with the south over something like slavery. I think he even supported an amendment which would've cemented the practice in place. But when the south refused to pay the tariff tax on northern goods, why then it was time to put them rebels in their place."

Good points. And yes, Lincoln most definitely supported an Amendment that would have forever forbidden the federal government from interfering with South slavery. Abraham Lincoln announced his support for this Amendment to the world during his First Inaugural Address.

Lincoln was more than willing to accomodate slavery. He threatened war over the tariff - a component of the mercantilist, corporate welfare Whig agenda to which the old railroad lobbyist had pledged his political life.

1/30/2007 12:06:17 AM

Quote :

"Oh, and #3: Erwin Rommel "

Where do I rank?

All the Best,

General William T. "Final Solution the Indian Problem" Sherman

1/30/2007 12:12:51 AM

He ranks right in there with all the other 3452039865 generals who bought into the idea of total war.

1/30/2007 12:23:10 AM

Quote :

" the right to own slaves was the singular issue driving the secession"

A ridiculous oversimplification. All from someone with a "clue to the history of the Civil War" too.

Accepting your argument that the Deep South left the Union solely over slavery - in spite of Abraham Lincoln and his Republican Party's pledge to leave slavery be in the states where it existed - North Carolina and many of the other states in the upper South didn't leave until after Lincoln launched an invasion of the South in response to Fort Sumter. In fact most of those states actually wanted to stay in the Union originally.

In any case, why, if one were interested in preserving their rights as slaveowners want to secede from the Union anyway? The incoming president was busy working for a constitutional amendment to enshrine Southern slavery in the Constitution, Lincoln dutifully pledged to enforce the fugitive slave laws, and the Dred Scott decision made the Union essentially a prison for runaway slaves. Why leave that for the prospect of slaves escaping the South to freedom in the North after secession with no fugitive slave law?

Quote :

"Talk all you want about tariffs, representation, nullification, states' rights, or whatever else... the fact remains that without slavery, the war would've never happened."

Of course, Andrew Jackson and the State of South Carolina very nearly went to war over nullification of tariffs - without slavery.

1/30/2007 12:27:43 AM

Remind me what product these tariffs were taxing?

And what "peculiar institution" made growing said product economically viable?

1/30/2007 12:31:24 AM

Quote :

"Why did dirt poor Southern whites risk death in war so the richest 2% of Southern society could continue to have free labor then?"

They didn't really have an option, they were drafted. So much for them being liberitarian heros.

1/30/2007 2:28:31 AM

They actually had to violently put down an anticonscription uprising in the NC mountains

1/30/2007 6:49:44 AM

joe_schmoe, if the war was about freeing the slaves then why were all union-supporing counties/states exempt from the emancipation proclamation?

1/30/2007 7:28:20 AM

Quote :

"They didn't really have an option, they were drafted. So much for them being liberitarian heros."

Fair point. Although the North were no better in this regard. Both had conscription, both had buyout clauses for the rich. Wars have no such things as heroes usually. More often then not both sides are victims of the vice of greed of power in the leadership positions. One of the little known facts of the war were the riots against the draft that took place in New York City where Union troops were forced marched to deal with the insurgency. This is portrayed semi-accurately in the film Gangs of New York if you ever watched.

[Edited on January 30, 2007 at 7:44 AM. Reason : .]

1/30/2007 7:43:29 AM

Quote :

"Wars have no such things as heroes usually"

maybe you meant to say that most soldiers are not heroes. which would be so fucking redundant as to merit an automatic 3 month suspension.

wars frequently have heroes, you fucking moron

[Edited on January 30, 2007 at 8:13 AM. Reason : s]

1/30/2007 8:12:47 AM

i hate the north so much!!! those meanies!!

1/30/2007 8:38:31 AM

You people are always good for a laugh.

1/30/2007 9:05:55 AM

match this sarcasm

Quote :

" Although your point about wars fought between elites hits pretty much at it: it was a bunch of northern rich boys versus a bunch of southern rich boys. That's all there was to it, nothing more."

with this comment:
(paraphrase) "yes they were drafted" "both [sides] had conscription"

1/30/2007 9:10:27 AM

haha funny how over 100 years have passed since this event in our history and people still can arguee about what are facts and what are not.

1/30/2007 9:14:15 AM

b/c depending on where/how they were raised, certain opinions have been burned into their head, and most don't bother to attempt to find out the real story.

1/30/2007 9:16:50 AM

Quote :

"Fair point. Although the North were no better in this regard. Both had conscription, both had buyout clauses for the rich. Wars have no such things as heroes usually. More often then not both sides are victims of the vice of greed of power in the leadership positions. One of the little known facts of the war were the riots against the draft that took place in New York City where Union troops were forced marched to deal with the insurgency. This is portrayed semi-accurately in the film Gangs of New York if you ever watched."

these riots occured because many of the immigrants who were forced to fight were treated no better than the slaves in the south.

1/30/2007 9:27:40 AM

Quote :

"In any case, why, if one were interested in preserving their rights as slaveowners want to secede from the Union anyway? The incoming president was busy working for a constitutional amendment to enshrine Southern slavery in the Constitution, Lincoln dutifully pledged to enforce the fugitive slave laws, and the Dred Scott decision made the Union essentially a prison for runaway slaves. Why leave that for the prospect of slaves escaping the South to freedom in the North after secession with no fugitive slave law?"

Slavery, which was the keystone of Southern economic life, was limited to the states it already existed in (though there was talk of annexing Cuba for that reason), and the Northern industrial advances were lending towards its domianance of American economic life. When President Lincoln was elected to office without a single electoral vote from the South, the Southern politicans and "aristocracy" both saw power slipping from their hands, read the writing on the wall, and felt their only means of preserving power was through secession. Slavery was the central focus of the debate, but it was more about power than some abstract morality.

Those who have pointed out that the majority of free whites in the North wouldn't have fought to free slaves are correct, however those who argue that Southerners, even dirt poor ones, weren't fighting to perserve the institution of slavery miss the depth of the roots of the instituion. The white aristocracy could maintain their power largely by a) the percieved social mobility within Southern society (which wasn't too far fetched, most of the "aristocracy" of the South was only a few generations away from industious dirt farmers) and b) the brotherhood of white men. No matter how poor or bad off a white farmer was, he could take comfort in the fact that he was still socially and morally superior to even the most well taken care of black slave. W. C. Cash's book The Mind of the South goes into this in great depth.

What I have never heard argued satsfactorily is the Union's justification and motivation for invasion of the South. Lincoln was unquestionably trying to maneuver the South into firing the first shot to gain international political favor and he could count on their hotheaded sense of honor to work in his favor. The best I can figure out is that a subjected South would be insanely profitable for Northern investors, and indeed it was.

In defense of General Lee, he was probably one of the most far-sighted and morally grounded individuals on either side of the divide and Emory Thomas' recent biography does a pretty good job of presenting a quality and non-idealized version of Lee, though he (and myself to be honest) clearly admire him.

Finally, I love being from the South, but I'm sober enough to take a good hard look at our sacrifices and our sins, which are many. That being said, I get tired of hearing the moral pontifications of non-Southerners about race relations. I'm sorry, outside of the major cities and industrial areas, the rest of this country is overwhelmingly white, so while I might respect your ideals don't lecture me about implementation.



[Edited on January 30, 2007 at 9:35 AM. Reason : /u]

1/30/2007 9:30:08 AM

slavery was ending with or without the war



sometimes I wonder if some of you people even believe the shit you say on here

1/30/2007 9:33:34 AM

I, as a white conservative southerner, do beleive that the main issue of this war was slavery. It had been brewing for years in the 1850's, with armed flareups in Kansas and Virginia.
Why did it come to a head at this time? This country was using slavery on a wider scale than any other civilized nation in the world at the time. England had already outlawed it in all of their colonies, as had France. The idea of slavery was becoming seriously taboo on a worldwide scale at the time, and with the advent of steam and internal combustion engines, was about to become economically obsolete within decades as well. The only thing that kept slavery alive here, ironically, was another mechanical invention: the Cotton Gin. However, slaves were still an extremely expensive commodity then, much more expensive to purchase, house, feed, and keep alive than the farming equipment invented by the likes of McCormick, et al. in the decades to come. Slavery was a dying institution to begin with, but the war certainly hastned it's demise.

True, there were other states' rights issues as well, but slavery was the one which mattered the most as to what brought things to the point of war.

Robert E. Lee? He was a great soldier for sure, and his viewpoint of loyalty to his homestate and antebellum ideals was very Jeffersonian. Still valid at the time perhaps, but the idea of a small, but strong central government and sectionalist states were obviously not shared by as many of his fellow countrymen in the 1860's as had been six decades earlier. The fact that he chose the State of Virginia over Lincoln's offer to command the Union Army is probably what cost the lives of untold thousands.

[Edited on January 30, 2007 at 9:50 AM. Reason : /]

1/30/2007 9:45:14 AM

but you can agree that slavery was not the reason that robert e. lee accepted the position

1/30/2007 9:51:28 AM

^ unequivocally

Quote :

"The fact that he chose the State of Virginia over Lincoln's offer to command the Union Army is probably what cost the lives of untold thousands."

Perhaps, but his kind of honor placed doing whats right over what is profitable or even human life. While in a sedinatary, materalistic world we find that quaint if not downright backwards, it is precisely that concept of "ideals above self" that motivated the founding of these United States.

[Edited on January 30, 2007 at 9:57 AM. Reason : .]

1/30/2007 9:52:55 AM

Quote :

"maybe you meant to say that most soldiers are not heroes. which would be so fucking redundant as to merit an automatic 3 month suspension. wars frequently have heroes, you fucking moron"

You took my post out of context. I was talking about the leadership of each side. You know, the people that make the decisions going into war and during and portray themselves as responsible for every win (and hence defeat, although they rarely claim that responsibility)? Read the sentences before and after.

Quote :

"Although your point about wars fought between elites hits pretty much at it: it was a bunch of northern rich boys versus a bunch of southern rich boys. That's all there was to it, nothing more. with this comment: (paraphrase) "yes they were drafted" "both [sides] had conscription"

Where's the contradiction? The draftees (or enlistees) were not the Northern government or the Southern government, nor made the decisions, they were paid to carry out the will of each. Little different than a cockfight where two roosters duke it out. The winning rooster is rewarded by continuing to live, but the ultimate benefitter and the only one anyone cares about is the owner of the winning rooster.

[Edited on January 30, 2007 at 10:32 AM. Reason : .]

1/30/2007 10:27:21 AM

Quote :

"Fair point. Although the North were no better in this regard. Both had conscription, both had buyout clauses for the rich."

Don't do this. Don't try and act like you know all about the civil war since I called you out for clearly being wrong. You clearly didn't know the south had a draft, and you can note that I never said the north didn't. They obviously must have, as most northerners didn't want to fight a war agianst slavery.

1/30/2007 10:39:38 AM