KKK plans largest protest and rally ever in Memphis over changing of park names

[soulflower]

Slavery was the cause of secession of the lower tier southern states but secession was the cause of the war. When Lincoln requested 75,000 troops from each state in the union to invade the seceded states the nothern tier southern states seceded. Lincoln didn't send troops south to free the slaves he sent them to force the states back into the union.

I know you would like to think that 600,000 men lost their fighting to keep or free the slaves but that just wasn't the case. Most of those men couldn't care less about slavery.

As is the case with most wars. Most of the people who fight wars don't have an economic or political stake in the outcome.

Nevertheless, Slavery was the reason the South chose to leave the Union. It was a dumb reason to start a war and there's no honor in doing stupid things...

[octoburn]

Then if the Republicans conducted a "Get out the white vote" campaign, you would be supportive?

Are you admitting that we don't? It would at least be more honest than putting so much effort into suppressing voting by certain groups.

[Smokey 1]

As is the case with most wars. Most of the people who fight wars don't have an economic or political stake in the outcome.

Nevertheless, Slavery was the reason the South chose to leave the Union. It was a dumb reason to start a war and there's no honor in doing stupid things...

That was on Lincoln. If he didn't invade the south and just let them alone there would have been no war.

[Wild Eyed Southern Boy]

Forest Park in Baltimore is not named after Nathan Bedford Forrest, the KKK founder.

NBF is not the founder of the KKK. He disbanded it in 1874 with the burnings of the robes in a march to Nashville, TN.

He was a popular politician in Memphis following the war, both with blacks & whites.

A little known fact is that his personal bodyguard in his cavalry troop during the WBTS was largely composed of his former slaves. But then again, there a lot about the WBTS that doesn't make sense.

[soulflower]

That was on Lincoln. If he didn't invade the south and just let them alone there would have been no war.

You really believe that don't you

[Smokey 1]

You really believe that don't you

Of course. Why would there have been a war if Lincoln left them alone? What would they have to fight about?

[Wild Eyed Southern Boy]

As is the case with most wars. Most of the people who fight wars don't have an economic or political stake in the outcome.

Nevertheless, Slavery was the reason the South chose to leave the Union. It was a dumb reason to start a war and there's no honor in doing stupid things...

But you gotta admit the politicians were slick on both sides, convincing a bunch of poor people and dirt farmers to fight it out for them, either in the pretense of state's rights or preserving the Union, so that they could make a lot of money out of it or keep what they had ill gotten off of slavery.

[DaggerJohn]

...A little known fact is that his personal bodyguard in his cavalry troop during the WBTS was largely composed of his former slaves. But then again, there a lot about the WBTS that doesn't make sense.

You're not allowed to suggest that slaves or former slaves felt any attachment whatsoever to their masters. That goes entirely against today's "conventional wisdom".

[soulflower]

Of course. Why would there have been a war if Lincoln left them alone? What would they have to fight about?

There would've been no war if they didn't secede over slavery

[soulflower]

But you gotta admit the politicians were slick on both sides, convincing a bunch of poor people and dirt farmers to fight it out for them, either in the pretense of state's rights or preserving the Union, so that they could make a lot of money out of it or keep what they had ill gotten off of slavery.

Poor men have always fought wars for rich men. But atleast back then, the children of the wealthy mostly participated in the wars

[Dryfire]

There would've been no war if they didn't secede over slavery

If Lincoln would have left them alone instead of sending in the troops there wouldn't have been a war.

[DaggerJohn]

But you gotta admit the politicians were slick on both sides, convincing a bunch of poor people and dirt farmers to fight it out for them, either in the pretense of state's rights or preserving the Union, so that they could make a lot of money out of it or keep what they had ill gotten off of slavery.

Don't you think most people fight for their homes? If I was dirt-poor in Alabama in 1861 I would naturally fight for the Confederacy without being persuaded by any politician, because that is my home. So too, if I were of like situation in Pennsylvania in 1861, I'd fight for the Union without being persuaded by a politician, because that is my home. Is the Alabama-born me different from the Pennsylvania-born me? No, not at all.

I don't think you should overanalyze these things.

[Smokey 1]

There would've been no war if they didn't secede over slavery

That is true and like I said that was on Lincoln. He didn't have to try and force them back into the union. The states had a right to a government of their choosing.

A Boston abolitionist said it best.

On the part of the North, the war was carried on not to liberate the slaves, but by a government that had always perverted and violated the Constitution to keep the slaves in bondage, and was still willing to do so if the slaveholders could be thereby induced to stay in the Union. The principle on which the war was waged by the North was simply this: that men may rightfully be compelled to submit to and support a government that they do not want, and that resistance on their part makes them traitors and criminals.

No principle that is possible to be named can be more self-evidently false than this nor more self-evidently fatal to all political freedom. Yet it triumphed in the field, and is now assumed to be established. If it be really established, the number of slaves, instead of having been diminished by the war, has been greatly increased; for a man thus subjected to a government that he does not want is a slave. And there is no difference, in principle — but only in degree — between political and chattel slavery. The former, no less than the latter, denies a man's ownership of himself and the products of his labor, and asserts that other men may own him and dispose of him and his property for their uses and at their pleasure.

http://mises.org/daily/4723/No-Treason-no-1

[soulflower]

That is true and like I said that was on Lincoln. He didn't have to try and force them back into the union. The states had a right to a government of their choosing.

A Boston abolitionist said it best.



http://mises.org/daily/4723/No-Treason-no-1

It's not that complicated

The South left the Union because of Slavery. The war was a reaction to the South leaving the Union.

[Wild Eyed Southern Boy]

Don't you think most people fight for their homes? If I was dirt-poor in Alabama in 1861 I would naturally fight for the Confederacy without being persuaded by any politician, because that is my home. So too, if I were of like situation in Pennsylvania in 1861, I'd fight for the Union without being persuaded by a politician, because that is my home. Is the Alabama-born me different from the Pennsylvania-born me? No, not at all.

I don't think you should overanalyze these things.

I don't believe that I over-analyze this too much.

Politicians have always invoked fighting for "God & Country" when the reality was "Land, Wealth and/or Oil".

But, I do have the family verbal history and Bible history (for some reason most southern families wrote down meaningful events in a great big family Bible), of 3Great Grandfather, one SGT. Thomas Garten Newton McCord of Bon Aqua, Tennessee, of Nixon's 54TH Tenn. Inf. who fought his way out of Ft. Donelson under N. B. Forrest's command in Feb. 1862.

When several of the CSA states passed laws that exempted slave holders from conscription, it did not sit well with most soldiers. In Sam Watkin's "Co. Aytch", it was the subject of much scorn.

[musicmd]

You're not allowed to suggest that slaves or former slaves felt any attachment whatsoever to their masters. That goes entirely against today's "conventional wisdom".

Wisdom of a bigot

[Smokey 1]

It's not that complicated

The South left the Union because of Slavery. The war was a reaction to the South leaving the Union.

Yes, a reaction by Lincoln to deny the states their rightful independence. Did you even bother to read parts of Lysander Spooners essay?

[musicmd]

I'm not a Democrat, nor am I a supporter of Eric Holder, but what are the special racial interests that cater to black interests that do not address all racial interests?

Don't wait hold your breathe

[Wild Eyed Southern Boy]

You're not allowed to suggest that slaves or former slaves felt any attachment whatsoever to their masters. That goes entirely against today's "conventional wisdom".

I don't know about attachment, maybe if all you've ever known was some sort of bondage, anything resembling trust in you could be used to create loyalty. I'm sure a job at the saw mill or driving bales to market with a mule drawn wagon, beat the Hell out of picking cotton in the sun.

Early in the war Lincoln inquired about arming freed slaves and the secretary of war advised against it because it was felt that freed slaves might take up arms against the Union because it was perceived as an invader.

[musicmd]

Is the SPLC making things up? Buddies might not be the right word, but they weren't always enemies as the link I posted shows.

Really blacks and whites have always been enemies in the south, but the KKK had police power. NOI and KKK just had war of words.