If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Atlantic)   150 Years of Misunderstanding the Civil War   (theatlantic.com) divider line 387
    More: Interesting, evangelical christianity, American wars, Battle of Gettysburg, Union Army, Emancipation Proclamation, Gettysburg Address, Na Tuk Kong, Drew Gilpin Faust  
•       •       •

19634 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Jun 2013 at 6:27 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



387 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-19 11:45:14 PM  
It was bad because we didn't simply let the retards go and form their own dystopia.

*runs*
 
2013-06-19 11:50:47 PM  
This is the field where the battle did not happen,
where the unknown soldier did not die.
This is the field where grass joined hands,
where no monument stands,
and the only heroic thing is the sky.

Birds fly here without any sound,
unfolding their wings across the open.
No people killed - or were killed - on this ground
hollowed by the neglect of an air so tame
that people celebrate it by forgetting its name.

- William Stafford
 
2013-06-20 12:07:17 AM  
He goes on to impeach politicians, extremists, and the influence of evangelical Christianity for polarizing the nation to the point where compromise or reasoned debate became impossible.

Good thing that would never happen today!
 
2013-06-20 12:21:41 AM  
Fail. Nothing about the election of 1876 wherein Tilden let Hayes win with the promise that Reconstruction would end and the federal government would look the other way when the states do not enforce the 14th and 15th amendments.  The South was allowed to win the Civil War from the point of view of continued economic slavery and second class citizenship of African-Americans even up into this very day.  Political expediency. Get the Presidency and let the country be damned.
 
2013-06-20 12:26:55 AM  
Deploying my "Slavery was the 800 lb gorilla of 19th Century politics" rant in 3... 2... 1...
 
2013-06-20 12:30:59 AM  
1. The war had nothing to do with slavery.

2. Lincoln didn't care about black people.

3. The south didn't care about slavery, just their freedom.

4. The north started the war.

There. all your southern historical revisionism in one tidy little package.
 
2013-06-20 12:34:40 AM  

log_jammin: 1. The war had nothing to do with slavery.

2. Lincoln didn't care about black people.

3. The south didn't care about slavery, just their freedom.

4. The north started the war.

There. all your southern historical revisionism in one tidy little package.


The points have been covered. Might as well go home, folks.
 
2013-06-20 12:44:01 AM  

log_jammin: 1. The war had nothing to do with slavery.

2. Lincoln didn't care about black people.

3. The south didn't care about slavery, just their freedom.

4. The north started the war.

There. all your southern historical revisionism in one tidy little package.


Slavery was the 800 lb gor- hey, stop that.
 
2013-06-20 01:09:43 AM  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebenezer_Creek

This happened in the little county where I grew up (not originally from there).  Neither side cared about black people.  Lincoln used the issue as a means to an end.
 
2013-06-20 01:24:29 AM  

hb0mb: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebenezer_Creek

This happened in the little county where I grew up (not originally from there).  Neither side cared about black people.  Lincoln used the issue as a means to an end.


log_jammin: 2. Lincoln didn't care about black people.

 
2013-06-20 01:29:40 AM  

log_jammin: hb0mb: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebenezer_Creek

This happened in the little county where I grew up (not originally from there).  Neither side cared about black people.  Lincoln used the issue as a means to an end.

log_jammin: 2. Lincoln didn't care about black people.


From quotes I've read it seems that Lincoln did earnestly believe that slavery was wrong.  However, he also believed that segregation was right and that black people were inherently inferior to white people.

What counts as progressive obviously changes with the times.
 
2013-06-20 01:44:23 AM  

log_jammin: 2. Lincoln didn't care about black people.


img.fark.net
 
2013-06-20 01:56:06 AM  
On July 1st, 1863, Alfred Iverson ordered his brigade of North Carolinians across an open field. The soldiers marched in tight formation until Union riflemen suddenly rose from behind a stone wall and opened fire. Five hundred rebels fell dead or wounded "on a line as straight as a dress parade," Iverson reported.

Tactical stupidity says nothing about the war, there was much of this on both sides. The carryover of Napoleonic tactics out of military inertia combined with the accuracy of rifled weapons, and later repeating carbines, guaranteed bloodbaths. If you've ever seen that field, you'd be stupefied that his plan was to send guys across an open field towards guys in excellent cover behind a stone wall and extending into woods, but that was the tactical doctrine of the day. Go look at the genius Federal plan at Fredericksburg, or back to Gettysburg, Pickett's "charge" on the third day.

And none of that compares to sending long lines of riflemen across open terrain under fire from artillery and machine guns in WWI; the British Army suffered 60k casualties on the first day of the Somme. Then there's Dieppe in WWII, and the Soviets for whom the high casualty frontal assault was standard doctrine.

All that means is in hindsight, the tactical doctrines of the day seem ill conceived.

As for the strategic view, it's very simple: slavery was the one subject without which compromise could have been achieved. And therefore in the end it was the cause of the war, what it was fought to decide, and the Confederacy was very much on the wrong side of that conflict.
 
2013-06-20 01:56:28 AM  
WHAT was teh point of the article?
The headline made an assertion, but the article was tl;dr.
What are the highlights?
That it was a blood war? We got that. No misunderstanding there.
That some people are still butthurt over the war? No misunderstanding there.

That the losing side of the war doesnt like how the winning side of the war presented history?
No misunderstanding there.

wtf
I hate that article so much.
 
2013-06-20 02:35:32 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: log_jammin: hb0mb: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebenezer_Creek

This happened in the little county where I grew up (not originally from there).  Neither side cared about black people.  Lincoln used the issue as a means to an end.

log_jammin: 2. Lincoln didn't care about black people.

From quotes I've read it seems that Lincoln did earnestly believe that slavery was wrong.  However, he also believed that segregation was right and that black people were inherently inferior to white people.

What counts as progressive obviously changes with the times.




There are two Lincoln's: the private and the politician. The Private Lincoln abhorred slavery-and practiced equality. Booker T Washington, who was not a fan of Lincoln's policies, said that the President treated him like a normal person, not a curiosity.

The Political Lincoln stated that Slavery was constitutionally protected in the south...he was against expanding it into the west. He also made public statements saying that he did not believe that black and whites were equal... But they should be treated the same under law. (Nor did he say one race was better than the other.) The reason Lincoln took this stand, was to appeal to be the middle road between the Abolitionist and the traditionalist. It's how he got the GOP nomination.

The ultimate truth was That the Civil War was unavoidable. And Lincoln's ultimate goal was the preservation of the Union.
 
2013-06-20 04:13:32 AM  
"The Civil War was the last good time this country ever had."

 Richard Brautigan in  "A Confederate General From  Big Sur"
 
2013-06-20 06:09:06 AM  
For those of you braindead enough to find the the story of the Civil War an "uplifting" one, this article's for you.
 
2013-06-20 06:39:19 AM  
I don't know what the article mentioned that people have "misunderstood." I think most people know the civil war was a bloody, brutal affair. I think most people know that great change often comes with a terrible price, and that life for blacks didn't magically become great afterward. I just... I don't know what the point of that long, tedious article was. I was expecting some "Mount Stupid" article about how it wasn't about slavery, but instead I got some unnecessary bullshiat.
 
2013-06-20 06:43:47 AM  

NobleHam: I don't know what the article mentioned that people have "misunderstood." I think most people know the civil war was a bloody, brutal affair. I think most people know that great change often comes with a terrible price, and that life for blacks didn't magically become great afterward. I just... I don't know what the point of that long, tedious article was. I was expecting some "Mount Stupid" article about how it wasn't about slavery, but instead I got some unnecessary bullshiat.


just the like any fark thread about the civil war
 
2013-06-20 06:44:09 AM  
"Just say slavery"
"Slavery it is, sir!"
 
2013-06-20 06:46:27 AM  

vossiewulf: On July 1st, 1863, Alfred Iverson ordered his brigade of North Carolinians across an open field. The soldiers marched in tight formation until Union riflemen suddenly rose from behind a stone wall and opened fire. Five hundred rebels fell dead or wounded "on a line as straight as a dress parade," Iverson reported.

Tactical stupidity says nothing about the war, there was much of this on both sides. The carryover of Napoleonic tactics out of military inertia combined with the accuracy of rifled weapons, and later repeating carbines, guaranteed bloodbaths. If you've ever seen that field, you'd be stupefied that his plan was to send guys across an open field towards guys in excellent cover behind a stone wall and extending into woods, but that was the tactical doctrine of the day. Go look at the genius Federal plan at Fredericksburg, or back to Gettysburg, Pickett's "charge" on the third day.

And none of that compares to sending long lines of riflemen across open terrain under fire from artillery and machine guns in WWI; the British Army suffered 60k casualties on the first day of the Somme. Then there's Dieppe in WWII, and the Soviets for whom the high casualty frontal assault was standard doctrine.

All that means is in hindsight, the tactical doctrines of the day seem ill conceived.

As for the strategic view, it's very simple: slavery was the one subject without which compromise could have been achieved. And therefore in the end it was the cause of the war, what it was fought to decide, and the Confederacy was very much on the wrong side of that conflict.


"The one with the rifle shoots! The one without, follows him! When the one with the rifle gets killed, the one who is following picks up the rifle and shoots!"
 
2013-06-20 06:56:23 AM  
The "civil" war was a power push between the Rothschilds and the Illuminati to control the economic productivity of the new world.

Oddly enough, we're not sure what the sides were.
 
2013-06-20 06:56:36 AM  

thamike: For those of you braindead enough to find the the story of the Civil War an "uplifting" one, this article's for you.


There's nothing uplifting about war.  It's a dirty business, anyone can and does recognize that.

It doesn't remove the fact that some men shine through as heroes in a war.  It doesn't negate whatever noble causes were championed by either side.  Recognizing the gritty reality does not demean the sincere idealism of the volunteers of the army or the honor of the men who were drafted, but carried out their obligation despite any chances they might have had to escape.

War is a tool of statecraft, as valid as any negotiation or trade deal.  War happens when a diplomat fails, but the interests of the nation needs to be carried out regardless.

I detest these hippies* who flop around on the ground bemoaning war as if it's the ultimate damnation of man.  Evil comes in many forms, and definitely is more noticeable during periods of intense emotions such as prolonged warfare can inspire, but is not isolated to this one activity.

You are attacking a ghost, insulting a naive strawman who doesn't truly exist.

*By hippies, I mean the word in it's original definition, not the broadly vague term used by people mocking the conservative stereotype.
 
2013-06-20 06:57:45 AM  
good explanation of the truth vs romanticism of the war.
I was in, until the lines about how the work needs to continue
..and there was no real mention of the reason it started
-succession-

But I guess from an anti-war person who never served in the military,
 it was pretty decent
 
2013-06-20 07:02:05 AM  

Ostman: "Just say slavery"
"Slavery it is, sir!"




I ALWAYS think of that scene when a slavery discussion. Also, I used to put a lot of faith in Apu's answer, but as I've gotten older it really just boils down to those two lines...
 
2013-06-20 07:04:41 AM  

NaziKamikaze: Ostman: "Just say slavery"
"Slavery it is, sir!"

I ALWAYS think of that scene when a slavery discussion. Also, I used to put a lot of faith in Apu's answer, but as I've gotten older it really just boils down to those two lines...


Came for this and leaving satisfied.
 
2013-06-20 07:08:07 AM  
150 Years of Misunderstanding the Civil War War of Northern Aggression

fixed that for you, subby
 
2013-06-20 07:08:40 AM  

BarkingUnicorn: "The Civil War was the last good time this country ever had."

 Richard Brautigan in  "A Confederate General From  Big Sur"


The Robot Wars were the last good time this country ever had."

Zapp Branigan in "A Democratic Order of Planets General from New New York"
 
2013-06-20 07:09:07 AM  
This is not new. Anybody who reads that 700000 to 800000 died should have figured out the cost.

Its always true that wars should be avoided, but some are unavoidable.
 
2013-06-20 07:13:51 AM  
Where do they teach that the Civil War was some romantic, noble cause? Even my 6 year old has been taught that it was bloody, miserable and one of the most brutal wars the U.S. has ever participated in. It's the go-to subject for Why We Should Talk Things Out First as a simple explanation for younger folks. Hell, even most of the films I've seen focus on the free license for grisly demonstration of exploding limbs, not gallant men giving long speeches to each other as they gently bleed out on a sunny field.
 
2013-06-20 07:15:39 AM  

NobleHam: I don't know what the article mentioned that people have "misunderstood." I think most people know the civil war was a bloody, brutal affair. I think most people know that great change often comes with a terrible price, and that life for blacks didn't magically become great afterward. I just... I don't know what the point of that long, tedious article was. I was expecting some "Mount Stupid" article about how it wasn't about slavery, but instead I got some unnecessary bullshiat.


The article, like many that have come before, once again only address slavery as a moral issue. It was only a moral issue to the north.

To the south, it wasn't about the morality or immorality of slavery. It was about money, pure and simple. Their entire economy was based around having labor that wasn't paid with anything more than a leaky roof and just enough food to stay alive. Taking away slavery, purely from an economic standpoint, would force all those plantation owners to suddenly start paying their help... resulting in a major economic shift.
 
2013-06-20 07:16:46 AM  
natas6.0
..and there was no real mention of the reason it started
-succession-


Did the King of America die without leaving an heir?
Now that really IS news to me.
 
2013-06-20 07:17:13 AM  
That regardless of how loud a southerner screams it, the Civil War was actually the war of southern treason and not the war of northern aggression?
 
2013-06-20 07:18:20 AM  

Darth_Lukecash: TuteTibiImperes: log_jammin: hb0mb: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebenezer_Creek

This happened in the little county where I grew up (not originally from there).  Neither side cared about black people.  Lincoln used the issue as a means to an end.

log_jammin: 2. Lincoln didn't care about black people.

From quotes I've read it seems that Lincoln did earnestly believe that slavery was wrong.  However, he also believed that segregation was right and that black people were inherently inferior to white people.

What counts as progressive obviously changes with the times.

There are two Lincoln's: the private and the politician. The Private Lincoln abhorred slavery-and practiced equality. Booker T Washington, who was not a fan of Lincoln's policies, said that the President treated him like a normal person, not a curiosity.

The Political Lincoln stated that Slavery was constitutionally protected in the south...he was against expanding it into the west. He also made public statements saying that he did not believe that black and whites were equal... But they should be treated the same under law. (Nor did he say one race was better than the other.) The reason Lincoln took this stand, was to appeal to be the middle road between the Abolitionist and the traditionalist. It's how he got the GOP nomination.

The ultimate truth was That the Civil War was unavoidable. And Lincoln's ultimate goal was the preservation of the Union.


I have a really, really hard time labeling any war as unavoidable.  One of the core courses of my undergrad major (and I can't remember the official title) was "Why Nations Declare War...and Peace", taught two doors down the hall from Dr. Brundage's office.  The driving force behind a state initiating a conflict is the mis-perception of relative abilities to conduct war; aggressor nations always believe they are stronger relative to their target than they really are.  But a second tenet of the course was that war is never inevitable; this serves to counteract an ill-conceived notion that emerged in the 1920s and again in the 1950s that the First World War was somehow "going to happen, it was a matter of time, what with all the military spending" (which was muddying cause and effect).

I believe that the American Civil War occurred when it did because the insurrectionists believed they could successfully defend their territory against an invasion from the north, but as Sherman pointed out in Louisiana in 1861:

You people of the South don't know what you are doing. This country will be drenched in blood, and God only knows how it will end. It is all folly, madness, a crime against civilization! You people speak so lightly of war; you don't know what you're talking about. War is a terrible thing! You mistake, too, the people of the North. They are a peaceable people but an earnest people, and they will fight, too. They are not going to let this country be destroyed without a mighty effort to save it... Besides, where are your men and appliances of war to contend against them? The North can make a steam engine, locomotive, or railway car; hardly a yard of cloth or pair of shoes can you make. You are rushing into war with one of the most powerful, ingeniously mechanical, and determined people on Earth - right at your doors. You are bound to fail. Only in your spirit and determination are you prepared for war. In all else you are totally unprepared, with a bad cause to start with. At first you will make headway, but as your limited resources begin to fail, shut out from the markets of Europe as you will be, your cause will begin to wane. If your people will but stop and think, they must see in the end that you will surely fail.

Sectional conflict in the U.S. was highly likely, but I don't think we can label it as inevitable.  Many of the same conditions regarding the balance of power existed in the Caribbean in 1961, but a war over missiles in Cuba turned out to not be inevitable.
 
2013-06-20 07:18:55 AM  

NobleHam: I don't know what the article mentioned that people have "misunderstood." I think most people know the civil war was a bloody, brutal affair. I think most people know that great change often comes with a terrible price, and that life for blacks didn't magically become great afterward. I just... I don't know what the point of that long, tedious article was. I was expecting some "Mount Stupid" article about how it wasn't about slavery, but instead I got some unnecessary bullshiat.


One could argue that slavery was a terrible price paid for great change. With a nation being built, revolutionary things happening yearly, and America slowly rising to the top, could it all have been done without that labor force?
Today we realize slavery is abhorrent, but at the time was it needed to become who we are today and reach that realization? Would we have had G.W. Carver or MLK jr without slavery? Would Ms. Tubman have been able to be a beacon of selflessness, determination, and ingenuity to future generations without slavery to fight against?
 
2013-06-20 07:20:13 AM  

Deadite: That regardless of how loud a southerner screams it, the Civil War was actually the war of southern treason and not the war of northern aggression?


The article quotes mostly professors from Southern universities. What conclusion on that matter do you think they draw? They also claim that the civil rights struggle is over and the South is no longer a stagnant backwater.
 
2013-06-20 07:21:29 AM  

clkeagle: NobleHam: I don't know what the article mentioned that people have "misunderstood." I think most people know the civil war was a bloody, brutal affair. I think most people know that great change often comes with a terrible price, and that life for blacks didn't magically become great afterward. I just... I don't know what the point of that long, tedious article was. I was expecting some "Mount Stupid" article about how it wasn't about slavery, but instead I got some unnecessary bullshiat.

The article, like many that have come before, once again only address slavery as a moral issue. It was only a moral issue to the north.

To the south, it wasn't about the morality or immorality of slavery. It was about money, pure and simple. Their entire economy was based around having labor that wasn't paid with anything more than a leaky roof and just enough food to stay alive. Taking away slavery, purely from an economic standpoint, would force all those plantation owners to suddenly start paying their help... resulting in a major economic shift.


You make it sound like the North wasn't benefiting from the South's economic boons...
 
2013-06-20 07:22:08 AM  

StaleCoffee: Where do they teach that the Civil War was some romantic, noble cause? Even my 6 year old has been taught that it was bloody, miserable and one of the most brutal wars the U.S. has ever participated in. It's the go-to subject for Why We Should Talk Things Out First as a simple explanation for younger folks. Hell, even most of the films I've seen focus on the free license for grisly demonstration of exploding limbs, not gallant men giving long speeches to each other as they gently bleed out on a sunny field.


It's a plague of popular history.  Even Ken Burns glossed over the horrors of mid-19th century conflict a little.  But if you REALLY want to see gross romanticization in action, go to a meeting of the Sons of Confederate Veterans (or find your nearest cluster of Unreconstructed white men who vote libertarian).
 
2013-06-20 07:25:53 AM  
UNC_Samurai:

Interesting, I never truly thought on the Cuban Missile Crisis and the subject of successfully prevented wars.  It's slightly strange to think how much things would have changed with a tiny difference.  That is true, but I would hasten to add that as long as the war stayed conventional, the Soviets would have been in a very poor tactical situation in Cuba.  Unless they were willing to open a European front, they would have lost Cuba with a quickness.  Not taking into account a protracted guerilla war which would have seriously sapped American power for a long time, of course.

Definitely an interesting scenario, I'm going to think more on it.
 
2013-06-20 07:26:34 AM  

Darth_Lukecash: TuteTibiImperes: log_jammin: hb0mb: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebenezer_Creek

This happened in the little county where I grew up (not originally from there).  Neither side cared about black people.  Lincoln used the issue as a means to an end.

log_jammin: 2. Lincoln didn't care about black people.

From quotes I've read it seems that Lincoln did earnestly believe that slavery was wrong.  However, he also believed that segregation was right and that black people were inherently inferior to white people.

What counts as progressive obviously changes with the times.

There are two Lincoln's: the private and the politician. The Private Lincoln abhorred slavery-and practiced equality. Booker T Washington, who was not a fan of Lincoln's policies, said that the President treated him like a normal person, not a curiosity.

The Political Lincoln stated that Slavery was constitutionally protected in the south...he was against expanding it into the west. He also made public statements saying that he did not believe that black and whites were equal... But they should be treated the same under law. (Nor did he say one race was better than the other.) The reason Lincoln took this stand, was to appeal to be the middle road between the Abolitionist and the traditionalist. It's how he got the GOP nomination.

The ultimate truth was That the Civil War was unavoidable. And Lincoln's ultimate goal was the preservation of the Union.


Exactly.


""If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union." http://www.angelfire.com/my/abrahamlincoln/Greeley.html">(Letter to Horace Greeley, August 22, 1862) "
 
2013-06-20 07:28:35 AM  

wildcardjack: The "civil" war was a power push between the Rothschilds and the Illuminati to control the economic productivity of the new world.

Oddly enough, we're not sure what the sides were.



When coins were withdrawn from circulation in the northern states during the Civil War, opportunists began minting private pennies that became de facto legal tender throughout the Union. The coinage of a few cents may seem like small change, but in 1863 alone, almost 9,000 different token designs, depicting everything from patriotic flags to beer barrels, were struck. Some so closely resembled that the government banned private mints in 1864.
 
2013-06-20 07:29:25 AM  
ask any southerner whose family has been here since before the recent unpleasantness, and they will tell you to a man the war was over "states rights" of course, one of those rights happened to be the enslavement of the black race.
 
2013-06-20 07:29:35 AM  

ChaosStar: Would we have had G.W. Carver or MLK jr without slavery? Would Ms. Tubman have been able to be a beacon of selflessness, determination, and ingenuity to future generations without slavery to fight against?


Without the Nazis, Audie Murphy wouldn't have had a chance to become such a decorated war hero.  I still would have preferred to not have the Nazis instead.
 
2013-06-20 07:30:39 AM  
The best way to look at the Civil War is that the North fought to preserve the Union and the South fought to preserve slavery.
 
2013-06-20 07:31:08 AM  
log_jammin:
2. Lincoln didn't care about black people.
.


img.fark.net
ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha  ha ha ha ha ... He doesn't like darkies.
Who does? ha ha ha ha
 
2013-06-20 07:33:59 AM  

kradio: The best way to look at the Civil War is that the North fought to preserve the Union and the South fought to preserve slavery.


No matter how generally inaccurate that may be.
 
2013-06-20 07:34:09 AM  
Im still hesitant to buy the line that it wasn't about slavery.
It wasn't focused on slavery, but slaves were the economic engine of the south and the treatment of the black man (as well as endentured servants and the like) stood in opposition to the founding ideals of the nation.

It was about money and power and this made slavery a pretty big part of the story.
 
2013-06-20 07:34:37 AM  

kradio: The best way to look at the Civil War is that the North fought to preserve the Union and the South fought to preserve slavery.


To be completely impartial and acknowledge the views of both sides, namely:

bigbobowski: ask any southerner whose family has been here since before the recent unpleasantness, and they will tell you to a man the war was over "states rights" of course, one of those rights happened to be the enslavement of the black race.


Let me fix your statement to say
 The best way to look at the Civil War is that the North fought to preserve the Union and the South fought to preserve slavery their freedom from federal authority.
 
jbc [TotalFark]
2013-06-20 07:34:38 AM  
FTFA:"In early July, on the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg, pilgrims..."
 
FAIL.

Everyone knows the Pilgrims fought the East Koreans at the Alamo.
 
2013-06-20 07:35:15 AM  

CheatCommando: Deadite: That regardless of how loud a southerner screams it, the Civil War was actually the war of southern treason and not the war of northern aggression?

The article quotes mostly professors from Southern universities. What conclusion on that matter do you think they draw? They also claim that the civil rights struggle is over and the South is no longer a stagnant backwater.


The same one I hear from my friend's relatives in oklaholma, that everything would have been just fine since john deere would have came along and freed everyone anyways without blood shed from that damn north. Yeah it's truthiness they keep repeating it and they believe it wholeheartedly but if they catch their daughter with Jamal and its right back to the 1850's.

Mostly trying to get someone to bite and flip out about what I wrote, since that usually gets a southerner's temper flared up.
 
Displayed 50 of 387 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report