Schools named after Confederates debated

[2GOLD 0]

It's a sad day when people are so uneducated about history that they now really have no idea what the Civil War was completely about.

 

I hate people think the only thing the Civil War was about is slavery.

 

Glad to see that at least the people here aren't morons like some of the other people I've been stuck in conversations with about it.

[AboveAverage484 0]

It's a sad day when people are so uneducated about history that they now really have no idea what the Civil War was completely about.

 

I hate people think the only thing the Civil War was about is slavery.

 

Glad to see that at least the people here aren't morons like some of the other people I've been stuck in conversations with about it.

My sentiments exactly.

 

Most of the people who did the actual fighting were pretty indifferant towards slavery and the black race in general. Most of the people wanting to abolish slavery were the abolitionist politicians and radical republicans.

 

I'm sure there were some soldiers who sought to exterminate slavery, but the North's main goal of the war was to preserve the Union.

 

Freeing the slaves seems to be what authors like putting in the textbooks so as not to offend anybody. And don't be too quick defend schools either, they're just as wrong as anybody. I picked up on quite a few mistakes that my college American history teacher made in class this past semester so many of them are pretty ignorant as well.

 

The only true way to find out why the soldiers were fighting is by reading diaries and memoirs, many of which survive today. Since that is such a tedious way I figure that's why it's easy for most books to just slap on the "free the slaves" moniker and be done with it.

 

Don't get me wrong, freeing slaves was one of the goals, just not THE goal. You have to ask yourself this question: If all the slaves were freed but the Union still broken, would the war have ended? No. If the the Confederacy was conquered and the Union restored, but slavery still in existence would the war be over? Yes.

 

Good thing we had a president with common sense to deal with both issues at the same time.

[EricMM 0]

Hey you guys.

 

Seriously.

 

Lets turn this into another racizm thread!

 

PS doesn't Jesse Jackson suck?

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

If anything, Nathan Bedford Forrest was the 19th century Osama.

Oh great, here we go again. Forrest got OUT of the KKK within its first year. When he saw it becoming a terrorist organization he quit. So guess what? UBL remains unmatched as human scum.

You misunderstand. My comparsion has nothing to do with the slavery issue. During the Civil War, Forrest was probably the most feared guerilla leader in the south. That's the basis of my comparison.

[2GOLD 0]

All KKK members who actually believe in it and didn't join to advance their political careers should be tossed in the street and beaten with rocks.

 

That is all.

 

I understand some politicans in the deep South either joined or they didn't get elected and most of them turned on the KKK the minute they were elected. Those people I can deal with, although I'm not pleased they did it but anything to screw the Klan I'm all for.

 

As for those that believe in the Klan and the message? Burn in hell.

 

Now then, who wants cake?

[Guest Olympic Slam]

Slavery was a major Civil War issue. However, if you believe that the Union rode to the rescue to defeat the South simply to FREE the slaves then you're highly mistaken.

 

Slavery was a major issue that either spawned or resulted in conflict over the following issues:

- Slave States vs. Free Soil States and the Constituionality of property rights *Important because this made for the realization that our central government was legislating something (property rights) for ALL other states. Which took precedent: the free state which said NO slavery or the constitution which guranteed property rights (i.e slaves) for all citizens throughout the country? This is the Civil War in essence. Can two cultures co-exist within one house? *cue Odd Couple theme* And was the central government truly the supreme government? Could State's rights still survive?

 

If you get anything out of a Civil War lecture, be sure that you understand that the Civil War ended state's rights in America. The South (which was a mixture of different cultures when compared to the liberal North) was basically beaten into submission and forced to conform to the North's cultures and values. The South was basically conquered and forced to assimilate *though there is resistence even today*. Kind of sad really, and yet another lesson in Culture vs. Culture. The world just isn't fair now is it?

 

EDIT: For a glimpse at what the U.S would be like if we still had State Rigt's, then we'd look something like Canada. Our Canadian friends know what its like having to share a country with multiple nations and cultures. Good or bad? Something to think about.....

Edited December 29, 2003 by Olympic Slam

[Guest JMA]

If you get anything out of a Civil War lecture, be sure that you understand that the Civil War ended state's rights in America. The South (which was a mixture of different cultures when compared to the liberal North) was basically beaten into submission and forced to conform to the North's cultures and values. The South was basically conquered and forced to assimilate *though there is resistence even today*. Kind of sad really, and yet another lesson in Culture vs. Culture. The world just isn't fair now is it?

Bah. State's rights aren't dead. Although Lee wasn't a racist as many people wrongly believe, the North was still right. And most cultures who lose wars DO get assimilated.

[Guest JumpinJackFlash]

Blah....Blah...Blah.....Blah.....

 

I would be proud to go to a school with the name Jefferson Davis. If I told someone I went to Jefferson Davis, they would say, man you're one tough dude. But if I went to a place called First Colonial, people would say, read your textbook you pussy.

 

And whats up with getting rid of Lee-Jackson-King Day(Virginia). It was an attempt to unite race, and not make it a factor anymore. But it seems blacks wanted to get rid of the Lee and Jackson part of it to further seperate each race.

 

What's up?

 

Hey! Why don't you ask the teens who are going to this school. I would think they wouldn't give a damn, and probably half of them don't even know who Jefferson Davis is.

[Masked Man of Mystery 0]

If memory of my US History AP class serves, the big issue was that people in the North generally wanted one of 3 things(in no particular order):

1. abolishment of slavery

2. the Missouri Compromise held

3. the state's choice

However, the South screwed around with this, Bleeding Kansas et all, and then declared separation and attacked a US(ie non Confederate) base and the war started. When things started looking bad for the North as the Richmond offensives were failing, then Lincoln went to the abolish slavery to make the war seem more noble and, more importantly, get some peopel to replace the corpses that were piling up in the failed Richmond drives. Please correct me if I'm wrong though.