In response to:

White Liberals Tell Black Lies about Civil Rights

annfan_777 Wrote: Feb 14, 2013 9:00 AM
Rondoman Wrote: 9 minutes ago (8:42 AM) Actually, Lincoln was a radical racist who became pro-civil rights in order to divide the country and destroy the south. The war was begun over states'rights and Lincoln's imperial desire to make himself the supreme law of the land. ------------------- You are a shameless liar and an ignoramus of epidemic proportions. The South threatened to secede and cause the civil war BEFORE Lincoln was even elected, you asinine bozo. The war was about SLAVERY and the south's unwillingness to budge on that issue, it was NOT about state's rights, but human rights. Lincoln was our greatest president and one of the most significant figures in human history. The south LOST - get over it.
civilwarteacherbookworm Wrote: Feb 14, 2013 10:05 AM
annfan is no student oh history. I have taught American civil war in college-both north and south for over 12 years. The war was not over states rights. In fact the confederate constitution FORBID secession. Also in Feb 1865, the Sec. of War for the Confederacy came to the confederate congress and said that in order to save the confederacy they needed to free and arm the slaves. A confederate senator jumped up and said " if we didn't fight this war to keep our slaves, what did we fight it for" and the confederate congress censured the Sec. of War for his ideas--also during the 1850's the south became a closed society over one issue--slavery
Jeff_Georgia Wrote: Feb 14, 2013 9:56 AM
Sorry, but you are wrong, AF. Slavery was as best a secondary reason for the war.
Jeff_Georgia Wrote: Feb 14, 2013 10:00 AM
AF: check your Declaration of Independence: "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them..."

"... But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security..."
Rondoman Wrote: Feb 14, 2013 9:35 AM
You really need to check the facts, lady. As I have said before, my middle name is Lincoln, a name I once defended with great pride until I found inconsistencies that forced me to seek the truth. I am a dedicated Christian and NEVER deliberately lie. It was with great embarrassment that I was forced to admit that my information about Lincoln was all wrong. Lincoln had the Union army poison the drinking water of many released southern soldiers after the war and had others mowed down with Gatling guns. Many southern boys who stayed home to take care of families were put on public display and assassinated as examples. Lincoln's wife wanted all southerners to be "driven into the sea." And yes, Karl Marx congratulated Lincoln.
CVN65 Wrote: Feb 14, 2013 9:21 AM
Incorrect. The war was over the rights of the states to decide their own rules without coercion from blocks of other states. At the time the Republic was but a child and the citizens of the various States remembered that they had willingly joined the Union and signed the Constitution freely. At no point was it made clear that it was a death pact- once you join you can never leave. Bruce Catton's excellent rendering of the 12 months leading up to Fort Sumter details these events. The War of the States was fought over the issue of which would have primacy- the states or the Federal govt. Slavery was just one of the issues that brought this to a head at that particular time.
CVN65 Wrote: Feb 14, 2013 9:25 AM
Moreover Lincoln, while preserving the Union, did so at what cost? The states were stripped of much of their sovereignty, the Federal govt started out it's power trip that still continues today, Lincoln assumed the role of a tyrant and also imprisoned the Maryland state house giving his friend the Governor unbridled power. Plenty of blame to go around. Was Lincoln the greatest? It's a matter of opinion. He was the first of the modern presidents in the vein of BHO and LBJ and the Bushes.
ERICHBRITTON Wrote: Feb 14, 2013 9:21 AM
Might I add that after the war was over Lincoln , when faced with retaining the enormous amount of power that he had garnered through the suspension of a lot of rights and privileges, abdicated them back to the states without a second thought. Yes Lincoln kind of hamfisted the constitution in the midst of civil war but he did what he needed to save the union. Rodman you are an idiot and need to go back to school.
evie10 Wrote: Feb 14, 2013 10:56 AM
You can - but you realize Lincoln was dead.

Liberals ignored my book Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama throughout the fall. Now that I'm safely home from my book tour, they feel free to jabber on about their make-believe history of the civil rights movement with abandon.

In the hackiest of all hacky articles, Sam Tanenhaus, the man responsible for ruining The New York Times Book Review, has written a cover story in The New Republic, titled: "Original Sin: Why the GOP is and will continue to be the party of white people."

MSNBC has been howling this cliche for a decade --...