Civil war Books From the Southern Perspective

OK, I am cutting that entire wall of quotes without context that you blasted, it means absolutely nothing. And no, you do not impress me by doing that, it means nothing. Especially with no way to validate them.

But let's concentrate on your closing one. I love this one, to be honest.

As far as I am aware, President Lincoln was not in the habit of referring to himself in the third person. What speech or writing exactly is that made from? If President Trump or President Obama tried to speak of themselves in the third person, there would have been pundits making fun of it for years. So please, give us a reference to when he said that.

And yes, the President was indeed in constant opposition to the Abolitionist movement of individuals like those you listed. They were firebrands, and felt that the only solution was to cleanse the South with fire. They would have seen it completely destroyed after the war, as a form of Divine Punishment by the hands of man.

I believe the same way. I would have indeed been an abolitionist if I was alive in that era (as my ancestor was, who was a Lutheran Minister in Georgia and a stopping place on the Underground Railroad).

Interesting that you mentioned for example Charles Sumner. Who was known as a "Radical", even among abolitionist and emancipation supporting Republicans. And he was not very popular even among most Republicans.

Like his castigation of General Stone, which led to General Stone's arrest for treason and imprisonment for over 7 months. Arrested at midnight under secret orders of the Secretary of War, he was imprisoned in a stockade known for holding secessionists. Finally almost 8 months later he was released, with no charges ever being filed.

In fact, he was so incensed over the secession that he stated many times that all of the Southern states should be dissolved and returned into territories. Then have to go through the slow process (while under harsh Federal occupation) to eventually return to statehood, with borders completely different than those they had at the time the Constitution was adopted.

Even more interesting is Alaska. The Honorable Mr. Sumner was critical in that, being the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In the treaty that followed, any Russians, or other nationals that decided to remain in Alaska after the purchase became US citizens.

Oh, but not the Inuit, Aleut, and other natives that lived there. That right was denied to them.

And even later, the "claim" he tried to lay upon the UK for supporting the Confederates. To the sum of over $2 billion.

No, if the President was in opposition to individuals like Mr. Sumner, I consider that a good thing. He would have destroyed everything south of the Potomac and thought it was a good thing. Every one you mentioned (Thaddeus Stevens, Horace Greeley, Salmon Chase, Charles Sumner) was known as a "Radical Republican", and most of the party rejected them. So saying that he was an opponent was not a surprise, and something I support.

 

I caught that also.

Interesting, I was curious when he gave a quote which had President Lincoln referring to himself in the third person, and found that curious. So I tried to look it up, and basically found his wall of crap was mostly a repost from various other forums.

And all pretty much dismissed it, as we do here. Because it is all crap, and not even original crap at that. It is lazy copied crap. Complete with the same bad grammar and typos as the previous ones had.

 

Mr. Lincoln, that I know of, never referred to himself in the third person. I have read much of his stuff, and never once did I come across that.

We are letting a Christian dominionist 'lost causer' give us unvetted block quotes. Either a link to an original is given, or that quote is ignored by me from now on.

 

this is what pro north posters are trained to say when they are confronted with first hand historical documents/speeches from the time period their betters have assured them do not exist. They know not how to handle it, so they resort to post such as we have here. It will not take long for one who does read my threads, to see who is based on history and who is running scared.

 

Interesting. I would prefer you to support your claims. Its one thing to tell listeners what they want to hear, its another to support it. I have supported my historical understanding with first hand observation almost universally from europeans or norther's or slaves themselves, back it up with actual stats from historical records. This you say has been discredited many times, I dont disagree that is why i make these posts. History has been thrown away [discredited] and replaced by a pc winners version of history.



But you ask a few questions, "If slavery was as good as he and his heroes believed, why did so many slaves flee to the North?


To this i shall ask how many fled to the north? how many did not. Allow me to quote from my thread [the one you claimed but did not read]
https://www.christianforums.com/thr...ation-about-slavery-in-the-old-south.8094230/


Runaway Slaves?

“Blacks could have escaped to nearby union lines but few chose to do so, and instead remained at home and became the most essential element in the southern infrastructure to resisting northern invasion”
-Professor Edward C. Smith

Sometimes the picture portrayed is that slaves all wanted to run away from their masters and would do so any chance they got. While there is no question that many slaves ran away from bad conditions and bad masters, this occurrence was infrequent. During the decades leading up to the war, 1850's and 60's, only 1 out of every 4,919 slaves ran away. In antebellum America masters took there slaves by the thousands north and west without an issue of runaways. During the war a perfect opportunity for those who wanted to run presented itself, and those who wanted to could have done so. By the middle to end of the war, nearly all male whites were in service in the CSA army. The north invading the south and winning provided a great opportunity for slaves to run away, yet very few slaves chose to do so. According to Lincoln and secretary seawards numbers, 95% of slaves stayed home during the war. Of the thousands who did run away during the war, many left because of bribes and offers by the federals of free land and money that few ever did receive.

After the war the veterans of the confederacy wanted to build a statue recognizing the effort from the woman at home, the woman said instead to build a statue for the loyal slaves who made it all possible. The politically incorrect runaway slave you will not typically read about are those slaves that were captured by union soldiers, forced into service of manual labor (slavery) and ultimately ran away back to their masters. Many in the south felt the slaves had it very good, such as John Randolf who said “the slaves will advertise for runaway masters.”

The following excerpt is taken from a slave narrative:

Simon Phillips was one of 300 Negroes belonging to Bryant Watkins, a plantation owner of Greensboro, Alabama. He was a house man, which meant that he mixed the drinks, opened the carriage doors, brought refreshments on the porch to guests, saw that the carriage was always in the best of condition, and tended the front lawn. When asked about slave days, he gets a far-away expression in his eyes; an expression of tranquil joy."People," he says, "has the wrong idea of slave days. We was treated good. My massa never laid a hand on me durin' the whole time I was wid him. He scolded me once for not bringin' him a drink when I was supposed to, but he never whup me." ….."Not since those days," he states, "have I had such good food."......Sometime they [ negros slaves] loaned the massa money when he was hard pushed. "But what I want to say is, we didn't have no idea of runnin' and escapin'. We was happy."



Black Union Soldiers


Thousands of blacks fought for the north as well. Estimates for colored northern solders is around 180,000. Many blacks indeed supported the union especially among the northern free colored population. Often being the result of bad masters and the evils of slavery, ran to the north and bravely returned to fight for the freedom of their fellow man, as Honorable a reason to fight as you can find. These men should be of the most respected, and brave men, of the civil war. These men also proved what many whites doubted, their ability to stand and fight.

“If slaves will make good soldiers our whole theory of slavery is wrong, but they wont make soldiers. As a class they are wanting in every qualification of a soldier.”
-Confederate General Thomas Cobb

However many blacks who fought or helped the north were not there voluntarily. The federals captured and forced large numbers of black into military service from Virginia to Alabama and in between. Sometimes entire plantations [men and Boys] were taken and made captive and forced in to either fighting units of colored troops, or more often into forced labor for the military [Sound like slavery?].

“A Major general ordered an indiscriminate conscription of every able bodied colored man...the negroes fled to the woods and swamps...they were hunted....seized them and forced them to enlist”
-General Rufuf A Saxton to Secretary of war Stanton Dec 30 1864

“The Negroes will not go voluntarily, so I am obliged to force them.... they must be forced to go”
-General Innis N Palmer to general Butler in 64

Slaves, union soldiers and generals gave accounts of entire plantations hiding in the woods and needing to be hunted down and forced, [while kicking and screaming] to help the northern war effort. Colored soldiers in Virginia led a armed revolt against the union army. Not until 1865 when the war was near its end, did the north make forced conscription of slaves illegal. The often used term “them damn yankees” originated by a slave who was forced captured by the union and taken from his owner. His reply “de d'yam yankees”.

"Freed people throughout the Union-occupied South often toiled harder and longer under Federal officers and soldiers than they had under slave owners and overseers--and received inferior food, clothing, and shelter to boot."
"Free At Last: A Documentary History of Slavery, Freedom, and the Civil War", 1992 edited by Ira Berlin, & others.

In the slave narratives former slaves talk often of their family members being taken by union soldiers off the plantations. The politically incorrect runaway slaves you will not hear about, are those slaves captured and forced into labor by the union, that ran away from the union back to their plantations. There are many accounts of slaves being taken by union soldiers and running away from the union army to return to their masters. Leading a lieutenant in a letter to his wife saying “as a general rule [slaves] preferred to stay at home”.

“Let us capture Negroes and use them to the best of advantage”
-General Sherman to General Halleck September 4 1864

“The Negroes were sad...this mode of [conscription] is redundant”
-May 2 1862 written to US secretary of treasury

“A major of colored troops is here with his party of captured Negroes, with or without consent...they are being conscripted”
-General Grant received on Feb 26 1864

“Officers in command of colored troops are in constant habit of pressing all able bodied slaves into the military service”
-Union General Rousseau

“Whenever the enemy have been able to gain access, they have forced into the ranks of their army able bodied [Black] men that they could seize”
-Confederate president Jeff Davis

 

in other words when they cannot back up their positions logically or historically, they must resort to baseless claims of racism equally unsupported. What we must come to expect from pro north posters.

 

First thanks for reading. It took till the very end to try and find fault i am ok with that. Please give me some time to look up direct reference I wont really have time till after x-mas. It came from this book [shelf behind me]

https://www.amazon.com/Forced-into-Glory-Abraham-Lincolns/dp/0874850851

an amazing book that I highly recommend. My first book i read critical of Lincoln. You are correct it was not a third person reference the quote should start later, i apologize on the grammer that needs correction. it should read [im 99% sure]

"compelled by necessary to do it, to maintain the union”



Yes they were radical abolitionist and Lincoln was not i agree. You are correct in saying just because he rejected them does not make out a big deal. It does if he is portrayed as an abolitionist/radical as he often is.

 

Well, if they really exist, then you should easily be able to come up wit a reputable reference.

These are not reputable references.

https://historum.com/threads/was-abraham-lincoln-a-friend-of-blacks.127780/

www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?729580-A-Critical-look-at-Abraham-Lincoln

www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?511408-Was-Abraham-Lincoln-a-Friend-of-Blacks

https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/archive/index.php?thread-79354.html

https://www.google.com/search?q=“He...maintain+the+union”&filter=0&biw=1432&bih=651

Which, by the way seem to be what is known as "self-references". Made up entirely by you. I tried to look up your claimed quotes in many different ways, and what I found was rather interesting. Every single one seemed to only refer back to an almost identical copy of your quotes seem to refer back to these exact same sources, or other copies. Every one of them appears to be made by you.

So no, I am trained to question things, anything that simply does not seem to make sense. If you are correct, then you should be able to provide links claiming what you say is true. I myself tried to see if what you were saying is true, yet every time all I seemed to find is yet another copy of you saying that what you said was true, and nothing else.

But please, show me what I am doing wrong here.

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=“He+never+...by+necessary+to+do+it,+to+maintain+the+union”

The ball is entirely in your court now. Show us where this quote comes from, or just admit you have been making things up.

And by the way, screaming back at me or not even responding is basically admitting that you made it all up. Proof, or ****.

 

That is not a verifiable reference. And President Lincoln is one of the most quoted individuals there is on the Internet. Pretty much every speech he made or document he wrote is available and available online. Yet you refer back to a book only, by somebody that is not even a historian but apparently a cultural warrior?

No, this is what a real reference is.

Claim: The idea that Japan won the war against the US is a lie, because they never unconditionally surrendered as they demanded. Therefore they won WWII.

Response: Japan was never ordered to "unconditionally surrender" in WWII, that is obvious by the Potsdam Declaration.

www.ndl.go.jp/constitution/e/etc/c06.html

No unconditional surrender of Japan was ever demanded, simply the surrender of their armed forces. Therefore your claim is coprolite.

There, that is what an actual "reference" looks like. And while not exactly in an APA format, it is fairly close, and is verifiable by others.

Otherwise, I can say "Hey, anybody that uses 'Vermont' in their on-line name is a liar. Do not believe me, here is the reference!:

www.amazon.com/random_book_found_with_Vermont_in_the_name

There, see how easy that is? Want to prove me wrong, then buy the book, read all of the book, and then type it in which is about as valid as the claim you made.

Now, verifiable reputable source, or be gone.

 

its a bit more than that i am afraid. Your false assumption is that my sources are on the internet. I will have to look back through a 600 page book i have not read for a couple years and find a single quote given [should be a chapter on the EP might shorten the search] than go to the back of the book and find the original source.



I took a few minutes reading chapter 2 "the emancipation proclamation that wasent" emancipation is spread out over a few chapters. I will have to dig deeper for that original later but this chapter quotes from multiple friends and close officials who report in their biographies what Lincoln said all saying similar things [some used on my post]. Herdon, Lamon,Whitney, Guowski etc all saying similar language used by Lincoln at the time. It will just take some time to find the right one. X-mas is a bad time for me to dig in [4 kids]. this weekend i will have time.

 

You gave a quote from memory, without even validating that the claim is accurate?

No, tell the truth. You copy and pasted the same nonsense you have given to a great many other sites. I have provided the links, others are able to validate what I say is true. Why not just admit you made it all up.

And a reference by an individual that is not even a historian, that appears nowhere else? That is not a reference, that is pure crap. I am sure I can find a reference that Abraham Lincoln was a gay man and none of his children are really his since Mary Todd-Lincoln was really a man in a dress. Sure, I can claim that, and might even find a book that says that. That does not mean it is true.

That is what a reputable and verifiable reference means. Yours are not verifiable, and not reputable. And not repeatable. Therefore they are pretty much rejected.

Even more so since apparently the reference actually comes from your mind, from something you read years ago.

 

Oh, and if anybody is questioning my accuracy, here are some more of his "quotes":

Appears in my previous Ron Paul citation, and the following:
https://www.christianforums.com/thr...southern-secession-the-cotton-states.8088501/

Which curiously also appears to be by him.

No, over and over in trying to find your "quotes", that is what I found. I did try to look them up, and most I only found in posts you had made in other places. Others I found were out of context.

You see, that is the thing, I take little for granted, and question and verify everything. Even if I agree with it, I question it. And your "references" have this amazing ability to only appear in other posts you have made.

And the last post you made helps you not at all. Referring to other posts you have made and saying that process you are right is nonsense. It is the kind of nonsense we see down in the Conspiracy Theory section, not here in the History section.

Maybe this entire thread should be booted down to the CT area. That seems to be the most appropriate place for it.

 

Looks like our boy is one of those people who goes from forum to forum reproducing the same bogus posts, running the same bogus arguments, using the same hollow rhetoric and claiming 'victory' when others refuse to play the game. They usually move on eventually. I honestly can't fathom the mentality that drives this behaviour, but my qualifications are in history, not abnormal psychology.

 

Ok I had a few minutes today and realized what the issue was. I thought the section quoted came from my section on the emancipation proclamation. And i was looking for the source from forced into glory.

https://www.amazon.com/Forced-into-Glory-Abraham-Lincolns/dp/0874850851

since I quoted that a few times without the original reference and was having trouble finding it. No wonder. So here is the problem, post 76 Mushroom quotes a section not from the ep, but the 13th amendment and Lincoln on my post 37. But the whole issue is Mush did not see that I did give the source for the section he quoted, he just missed it.



The 13th Amendment And The 13th Amendment You Have Never Heard Of

The original 13th amendment was called the Corwin amendment, one that Lincoln pushed to get passed. It would forever allow slavery in America and would make it unconstitutional for the federal government to abolish it.

No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State,, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.


In his first inaugural address Lincoln stated on the Corwin amendment

“Holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable".
-Abraham Lincoln

He then sent a letter to the governor of each state transmitting the approved amendment for what he hoped would be ratification and noting that his predecessor, President James Buchanan, had also endorsed it. He told New York Senator William Seward, who would become his secretary of state, to push the amendment through the U.S. Senate. He also instructed Seward to get a federal law passed that would repeal the personal liberty laws in some of the Northern states that were used by those states to nullify the federal Fugitive Slave Act, which Lincoln strongly supported.

“Lincoln’s first inaugural address, delivered on March 4, 1861, is probably the most powerful defense of slavery ever made by an American politician. In the speech Lincoln denies having any intention to interfere with Southern slavery; supports the federal Fugitive Slave Clause of the Constitution, which compelled citizens of non-slave states to capture runaway slaves; and also supported a constitutional amendment known as the Corwin Amendment that would have prohibited the federal government from ever interfering in Southern slavery, thereby enshrining it explicitly in the text of the U.S. Constitution.”
-Thomas Dilorenzo

Today's 13th amendment that abolishes slavery Lincoln had less to do with, This is from Spielberg's Upside-Down History: The Myth of Lincoln and the Thirteenth Amendment

“Harvard University Professor David H. Donald, the recipient of several Pulitzer prizes for his historical writings, including a biography of Lincoln. David Donald is the preeminent Lincoln scholar of our time on page 545 of his magnus opus, Lincoln, Donald notes that Lincoln did discuss the Thirteenth Amendment with two members of Congress – James M. Ashley of Ohio and James S. Rollins of Missouri. But if he used "means of persuading congressmen to vote for the Thirteeth Amendment," the theme of the Spielberg movie, "his actions are not recorded. Conclusions about the President's role rested on gossip . . . Moreover, there is not a shred of evidence that even one Democratic member of Congress changed his vote on the Thirteenth Amendment (which had previously been defeated) because of Lincoln's actions. Donald documents that Lincoln was told that some New Jersey Democrats could possibly be persuaded to vote for the amendment "if he could persuade [Senator] Charles Sumner to drop a bill to regulate the Camden & Amboy [New Jersey] Railroad, but he declined to intervene". "One New Jersey Democrat," writes David Donald, "well known as a lobbyist for the Camden & Amboy, who had voted against the amendment in July, did abstain in the final vote, but it cannot be proved that Lincoln influenced his change". Thus, according to the foremost authority on Lincoln, there is no evidence at all that Lincoln influenced even a single vote in the U.S. House of Representatives”.Lincoln late in the war being pressured to support the 13th amendment from abolitionist within his party also supported the amendment.

Shortly before his death Lincoln said of the 13th amendment “He never would have done it, if he had not been compelled by necessary to do it, to maintain the union” [this quote comes from Bennet himself and i apologize and will edit . Missouri abolitionist John Hume said of Lincoln “The president was in constant opposition” to the abolitionist movement of Chase, Sumner, Stevens, Greeley and others.






So yes this is not a direct source that I had read but secondary through Dilorenzo [as i made clear ] and from Hume [direct source.] Hume source found here.

http://www.fulltextarchive.com/page/The-Abolitionists3/



I will say I just got for x-mas david donald [leading Lincoln scholar] book Lincoln Reconsidered.

https://www.amazon.com/Lincoln-Reconsidered-Essays-Civil-War/dp/0375725326

I will wait to comment further on Lincoln till i am done this book as i will be doing thread directly about various aspects of Lincoln and the Lincoln myth.

 

I also wanted to add clearley mush has had some misconceptions of me quoting those other threads. I in fact get the source from published books [that i have cited/quoted or speeches] and have been very busy making threads on various forums. So as other posters have realized, mushs claims are a bit off, to be nice to him. He got excited, it happens.

 

1stvermont continues to spam without citation, and when he does cite, by his own admission, he is often wrong.

 

JakeStarkey continues to make unsupported claims without support while not reading posts he criticizes.

 

You don't cite where he can check your material.

We can't go forward until you do; otherwise, it is merely your opinion, and who cares.

 

I would suggest that proves you dont read my posts. But lets test your post. I offered books from the southern perspective you had no interest in any opinion besides your own. I am ok with that, most people on both sides are like that on any issue. So know why dont you pick a topic and i will post material for you on it from the southern perspective. We can than see if I source the material . Maybe slavery, maybe Lincoln, states rights, antebellum politics, causes of southern secession etc whatever you chose. I think we both know you dont want to play this game as it will expose your claims. But what the hell i am bored nobody else is posting so lets do it.

 

I am not going to comb through your material. You need one to post your material and two link directly its source.

I know the southern perspective. I know it better than you.

My point is that you are operating on confirmation bias.

When you can start using and linking peer-reviewed scholarly material instead one-way Christian Dominionst and cognitive dissonant dominated material, we can talk.

But remember this. Your side lost the war, and your side has lost the history books. Is that why you won't use them?

 

Not even anybody in the South believes that kind of nonsense anymore. The Civil War is long dead and buried, and those that live in the South are by and large happy for it to be that way.

By and large, I find this entire thread nothing more than an argument in favor of slavery, and trying to show how the war was wrong. Never mind that the states that seceded were in violation of the very charters of the nation they belonged too, and this was proven to be wrong in that they lost the war that followed.

And interestingly enough, they even failed to learn from their own past history, in trying to create a form of government that had already failed them once before.

The US started as a Confederation, and it failed. From 1881 to 1889 we tried a Confederacy, and it was a classic failure. However, one of the primary justifications for refuting the right of secession was right in the full title of that founding document, the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. This document stated very clearly that the States were perpetual, and that neither did a state have the right to withdraw, nor did the Union formed have the right to evict a state.

In short, the Rebels thought they could violate this, and went to war by attacking US forces in order to try and show they could. They lost the war, and it is settled. Anybody trying to say otherwise is a fool.

All this "Lincoln thought this" and "That person said that" is pure coprolite, and not worth the time to bother reading anymore.

And there is a reason why I say when I question thing "verifiable and reputable" references. Simply saying "I read it from this book" which can not be verified on-line is nonsense. If I tried to write a report and turned it in in college giving a reference that was not available in the college library or from an on-line source the professors could check, it would be thrown out or outright rejected. There are thousands of references that are available for free on-line, and a great many of the older references that give the "Southern Perspective" are actually in the public domain.

I largely reject these "references" because they are largely garbage. I tried to look at one, and as usual for me the first thing I looked at afterwards was the other books the author had written. That tells me if they are a serious scholar of history and the subject, or are just pushing an opinion. Of the dozen or so other books they wrote, none of them was a historical reference. There were books about black culture in movies, urban conflicts, and a ton of other things, not a single one of them historical in nature.

And just because somebody has done work other than historical does not mean I would reject them BTW. Terry Jones is mostly known as a member of Monty Python. Actor, Comedian, Director, Producer, he is well known for his humor and abilities in the arts.

But he is also an Oxford graduate with a major in Medieval History. He has written 2 highly regarded books on Chaucer, and has also created several historical documentaries on things from living in the Medieval period, to the history of numbers, barbarians, Rome and Egypt. He always took history very seriously, even though he made his career in making others laugh.

Or Brian May. Most are not aware that the lead guitar for Queen has a PHD in Astrophysics. Or that Dolph Lundregn has a Masters in Chemical Engineering. Both of them legitimately have more of a claim to being a "Science Guy" than another one, who only has a BS in Mechanical Engineering.

 

So we prove what I said all along. You make baseless claims of my post without reading them. Like I said

"I think we both know you dont want to play this game as it will expose your claims. But what the hell i am bored nobody else is posting so lets do it.

 

There's never been a prevailing wind that holds steady to a point of the compass in history.

Being a Southerner my opinion is that Lincoln tacked pretty well considering the changing winds that were confronting him, and he ultimately did reach land, a land close to being free of slavery.

Lincoln did more than any other man except the actual fighting men to eradicate slavery. Period.

But all Southern history should be preserved -- preserved for the few who ask why, why did they believe that, why did they do that, could a people ever believe that again.

 

Please support this claim that nobody in the south believes "this kind of nonsense" further even if everyone in the south was indoctrinated through the winners education [public education] that cannot change history, it would just show how Reconstruction and the federal has been able to indoctrinate its peasants very well. But the claim would be refuted by observation by anyone in the south. But I do agree many do think it good the north won, because they have been taught the same version of the civil war as you have, so of course they would, they would be monsters not to. South equals slavery/racism north equals freedom/Constitution etc That is why i make these threads so people can at least find the truth if they wish.

I would rather you read the thread. I see it as presenting the historical civil war rather than a pro north agenda. Was the war wrong? that is a matter of opinion. I see Lincolns war as killing hundreds of thousands and destroying the republic of the founders and the principles of the declaration as a bad thing, so i see the war as bad yes.

? I apologize but it was the north in every kind of violation and radically changed the union and destroyed the principles the government was founded on.

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...e-political-effects-of-the-civil-war.8093078/
https://www.christianforums.com/thr...n-the-upper-south-american-civil-war.8088497/
https://www.christianforums.com/thr...he-cotton-states-causes-of-secession.8088502/
https://www.christianforums.com/thr...southern-secession-the-cotton-states.8088501/
https://www.christianforums.com/threads/the-legality-of-secession-in-antebellum-america.8095853/

Liberty and self government though beaten at times by tyrants, should never be discarded. Might does not equal right.

? I apologize but it was the north in every kind of violation and radically changed the union and destroyed the principles the government was founded on.

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...e-political-effects-of-the-civil-war.8093078/
https://www.christianforums.com/thr...n-the-upper-south-american-civil-war.8088497/
https://www.christianforums.com/thr...he-cotton-states-causes-of-secession.8088502/
https://www.christianforums.com/thr...southern-secession-the-cotton-states.8088501/
https://www.christianforums.com/threads/the-legality-of-secession-in-antebellum-america.8095853/

Others disagree. However the south did not return to the articles of confederation but the original republic of the founders, that of a union of states often referred to as a confederation of states or the confederate states of america.

From Confederation to Consolidation the Political Effects of the Civil war
https://www.christianforums.com/thr...e-political-effects-of-the-civil-war.8093078/

anymore proof needed the winner writes the history just look at this post here. Rather than your version, I would rather take a historical
look at the matter.

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/the-legality-of-secession-in-antebellum-america.8095853/
https://www.christianforums.com/thr...e-political-effects-of-the-civil-war.8093078/

In other words when a pro north posters is faced with the historical Lincoln, he decides its not worth reading. His imagination can do for itself. If their was any dout who is historical [north vs south version] and whos is imagination, we have just solved it.

I dont fully disagree. History is out there, its just not allowed to be given to the masses unless first filtered. I like you question stuff and sources that is good otherwise nobody would get the pro south side. I hope you do for the pro north version as well witch you clearly have not given some of your statements that are factually incorrect and only of the northern version of the war. So it really is just another excuse of yours not to read material that might challenge your accepted imaginative version of the civil war.

Heresyphobia- Fear of deviation from traditional doctrine

Gnosiophobia- Fear of knowledge

Phronemophobia- Fear of thinking

By all means give an example and I shall help. Lets start at the top of my Lincoln post since that is what you are referring to. Here are my first two qoutes

“Never did a man achieve more fame for what he did not do and for what he never intended to do”
- Lerone Bennett JR Forced into Glory Abraham Lincolns White dream

“To forestall a more revolutionary move against slavery...foreseeing he could not resits antislavery pressure much longer...using every weapon at his command to slow down, sidetrack or stop the emancipation flow”
-Steven Oates With menace Towards none the Life of Abraham Lincoln

Great movie

 

I would suggest this comes from the pro north history. Stick around i will be doing a thread on Lincoln I would like you to defend your current view on that thread.