Civil War Revisionists.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

Here's a thread that takes issue with something that has been bouncing around for awhile. It basically has come down to "was Lincoln a good president". The trend lately has been to say that he was not because the Southerners were really all about freedom and independence from the evil North and the war wasn't about slavery at all. I HATE that shit. That war was about slavery. And those who hold that slavery should be legal should NOT be elevated to hero status for those beliefs, IMO. It's pointless to try and argue that.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2834690&mesg_id=2834690&page=

[Swamp Rat]

1. I was tempted to say something, but what's the use?

There's one SOB that I would end up getting in an argument with and he's not worth my time. Typical Southern rednecks wanting to hold on to their illusion and bigotry.

I'm glad Skinner locked the confederate flag thread this morning because that one bastard I got in an argument with before posted a slam against me... but too chicken to say it to my face, though. He's real passive-aggressive (and I believe racist) who hides behind his first amendment argument. Those idiots somehow thought that I would defend their first amendment right to offend me, you know, their fucking HATE SPEECH. I am not so noble to support their political construct, while black folks are being imprisoned and murdered every day, kept in low social positions and denied the basic rights many elitists on this board take for granted.

Lately, I'm losing faith with this board. There are too many closet racists and conservatives for my tastes, but it's kinda like the Democratic party as a whole - where do we go? They let us down year after year, decade after decade, but the alternative is fascists like Bush and his GOP. At least there are just as many good people here.

I agree with you. The civil war was about slavery first before any other issue. The argument about economics, when boiled down, points right back to slavery. There are a lot of people here in complete denial about the American Holocaust. This alone makes me question whether there will EVER be justice in this country.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

2. Yeah, I love the "well, they would have given up slavery eventually"

argument. Sure, what's another 100 years or so of slavery right? The North was completely wrong to "invade" them. :eyes:

[FrenchieCat]

3. Don't even get bothered....

by that type of rethoric. It's a circular argument. Lincoln certainly was a progressive for his day. period.

If there was a chance to "do it again"...I certainly wouldn't try to think that someone else would have done much better.

It's kind of like wondering if JFK would have been liberal enough for the current Democratic party. My answer: I don't give a sh*t....cause he was the best to be had for his day. That's the reality of it.....and every other "theory" can just blow.


Thank God for favors like Lincoln!

[GOPFighter]

4. I just read the thread...

...you referenced. You did a great job defending Lincoln IMO. I've noticed that once the conservative Dems start posting most progressives just leave the thread rather than get in a frustrating argument with them. Too bad.

[Princess Turandot]

5. The worst thing was that Lincoln was not alive to manage the

post-Civil War era. I think his leadership would have settled the 'moral debate' nonsense about him once and for all. I also would hope that he would have served a third term. Our history would have been quite different, I imagine. He was without a doubt one of the 3 most important presidents that we have had: Washington, who against all odds, created a country, Lincoln, who in the face of much opposition saved the country and tried to correct its moral compass, and FDR, without whom none of us might even be posting anything we please on a board like this.

[msgadget]

6. You more than held your own

against a non-receptive group, Semi. The 'they' we liberals talk about are often members of the party we think works on our behalf. Always a little eye-opening to read or hear otherwise.

If slavery had been allowed to remain a state by state issue, it'd still be around after the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which basically gave rise to the Republican Party in opposition (if memory serves, which it normally does NOT). Slaves were capital no owner willingly gave up, just as one wouldn't voluntarily turn over cash or land.