Read the Book Before You Comment

[Boopsie]

LOL!!!!!

 

[Buckeye Bill]

Where is this YouTube video? How do I find it?

 

[MajGenl.Meade]

I see from the spelling and grammar on the very first few frames of the video that the South went to war to obtain a 5th grade education. Obviously, they lost that one too

 

[CMWinkler]

Welcome.

 

[John Hartwell]

BTW...along the respected notion of reading, etc, I am suggesting some of you might be interested in a YouTube video I came across when finding Lorena, another thread topic, but anyway its called: What the South was really fighting for. It's 3 minutes, 10 seconds long, and I think it provides a clue, for me anyway and I think others who are new to this forum might agree, as to another perspective I didn't know about. Just sharing, and if you read this thread and view that short clip, you might understand why I chose to share in a post.

Blaming the Morrill Tariff again! We've discussed this endlessly on CWT. The issue is sheer nonsense. I have just posted by "Comment" on the YouTube page:

"Utter nonsense. The Morrill Tariff was lower than previous tariffs. It was a tax on imports, and the vast majority was paid at northern ports. [furthermore] The South benefited disproportionately from the moneys brought in. The statements on the video are simply lies! The South seceded to protect slavery (the secessionists themselves stated this unequivocally -- read the secession documents). Lincoln was Constitutionally required to to defend the Union against "domestic insurgents." War only began after the South fired the first shot."

Search this site for "Morrill Tariff," you'll find it enlightening.

 

[Jamieva]

BTW...along the respected notion of reading, etc, I am suggesting some of you might be interested in a YouTube video I came across when finding Lorena, another thread topic, but anyway its called: What the South was really fighting for. It's 3 minutes, 10 seconds long, and I think it provides a clue, for me anyway and I think others who are new to this forum might agree, as to another perspective I didn't know about. Just sharing, and if you read this thread and view that short clip, you might understand why I chose to share in a post.

Nevermind I see someone else linked it

 

[ForeverFree]

Thanks for your response. However, with so much objection from those that haven't read the book, I think I would like to read it. Another trip to the Library.

Would you buy a book that claims to "prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that the world was indeed round?"

EDIT: The back cover of the book states that "This book proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that the North did not go to war to free the slaves or end slavery."

Well, no reputable scholar today would make the statement that the North went to war to free the slaves or end slavery, because, that statement simply is not true. Scholars say that the goal was to preserve the Union, NOT to end slavery.

See, I would not buy a book that seeks to prove the world is round. I already know that. Scholars agree on the fact. Similarly, I would not waste my money on a book that seeks to prove that that the North did not go to war to end slavery, because I already know that. Scholars agree on the fact.

Basically, the book is built on a straw man argument. As noted in Wiki,

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent.

The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.

This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery, entertaining "battle" and the defeat of an "enemy" may be more valued than critical thinking or understanding both sides of the issue.​

The false argument in this case is the notion that somebody has advanced the notion that the North went to war to free the slaves. The thing is, nobody - or at least, no reputable scholar - is advancing that notion.

The fact that the author is trying to sell a book built around this straw man argument is enough to disqualify it as a potential purchase. I have many other books that are on my reading list, and I see no reason why this should replace any one of them.

Alan, you are using during and after the war topics to prove a point. I will post the following, even though it is from Wiki, that shows what lincn's thoughts are about before the war started.

"
Lincoln opened his speech by first indicating that he would not touch on "those matters of administration about which there is no special anxiety or excitement." The remainder of the speech would address the concerns of Southerners, who were apprehensive that "by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered." Lincoln emphatically denied this assertion, and invited his listeners to consider his past speeches on the subject of slavery, together with the platform adopted by the Republican Party, which explicitly guaranteed the right of each individual state to decide for itself on the subject of slavery, together with the right of each state to be free from coercion of any kind from other states, or the Federal government. He went on to address several other points of particular interest at the time:

Slavery: Lincoln stated emphatically that he had "...no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."
Legal status of the South: He asserted that as he had just taken an oath "to preserve, protect, and defend the United States Constitution", this oath enjoined him to see that the laws of the Union were faithfully executed in all states—including those that had seceded.
Use of force: Lincoln promised that there would be no use of force against the South, unless it proved necessary for him to fulfill his obligation to "hold, occupy, and possess the property and places" belonging to the federal government, and to collect legal duties and imposts. However, if the South chose to actively take up arms against the Government, their insurrection would meet a firm and forceful response.
Secession: Referring to words in the preamble to the Constitution, Lincoln stated that the Constitution was established "to form a more perfect union" than the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union had effected. Since the Union established under the Articles was explicitly perpetual in name and text, thus the Union under the Constitution was equally perpetual. He added that even if the Constitution were to be construed as a simple contract, it could not be legally rescinded without an agreement between all parties, meaning all of the states, North and South.
Protection of slavery: Lincoln explicitly stated that he had no objection to the proposed Corwin Amendment to the Constitution, which had already been approved by both houses of the United States Congress. This amendment would have formally protected slavery in those states in which it already existed, and assured to each state the right to establish or repudiate it. Lincoln indicated that he thought that this right was already protected in the original Constitution, and thus that the Corwin Amendment merely reiterated what it already contained.
Slavery in the Territories: Lincoln asserted that nothing in the Constitution expressly said what either could or could not be done regarding slavery in the territories. He indicated his willingness to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act, so long as free blacks could be protected from being kidnapped and illegally sold into slavery through its misuse.
The postal service: The U.S. Mails would continue to operate throughout the South, "unless repelled."
Federal offices in the South: With no professional civil service in operation during this period of American history, Lincoln promised that he would not use the spoils system to appoint Northern office-holders to federal offices, such as postmasterships, located in the Southern states. Instead, said he, he would "forego the use of such offices" rather than force "obnoxious strangers" upon the South.
Lincoln concluded his speech with an eloquent plea for calm and cool deliberation in the face of mounting tension throughout the nation. He assured the rebellious states that the Federal government would never initiate any conflict with them, and indicated his own conviction that once "touched" once more by "the better angels of our nature," the "mystic chords of memory" North and South would "yet swell the chorus of the Union."

So how does one cover this up?

Reb,

I do not understand your point. Exactly what is being covered up, and exactly how is it being covered up?

Alan

 

[unionblue]

William,

First, Thank you for posting the youtube video described by Boopsie.

Second, the entire video is filled with the same ****, lies, and historical inaccuracies I have come to expect by those who wouldn't know their nation's history if it bit them in their donkey.

I therefore will ignore its content and continue to rely on period sources and documents.

The paintings were nice though.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

 

[Copperhead-mi]

I see from the spelling and grammar on the very first few frames of the video that the South went to war to obtain a 5th grade education. Obviously, they lost that one too

The name of the film's production company is "Confederate Soilder [sic] Production."

 

[unionblue]

The Book Slavery Was Not the Cause of the War Between the States is an excellent book with excellent documentation. Why did so many people comment on it without reading it? I found it extremely interesting.

"I found crack cocaine is an excellent drug with few side effects. Why did so many people come out against it's use without trying it?"

 

[John Winn]

I think Peggy got what she wanted - sort of a drive-by agitation. "Yeah, let's put 'em in a jar and shake it up and see if we can make 'em fight."

 

[MajGenl.Meade]

Really? I thought she was simply trying to get someone to buy the book. As if anyone would attempt that here

 

[unionblue]

I think Peggy got what she wanted - sort of a drive-by agitation. "Yeah, let's put 'em in a jar and shake it up and see if we can make 'em fight."

A typical "drive-by" poster.

 

[IcarusPhoenix]

Can you name those people you mention and furnish a reference for your statement? I suspect an opinion here.

As you usually do - blinded as you are by a modern agend - I expect you to ignore this, but the book is endorsed by Clyde Wilson, founder of the known **** hate group League of the South. You've been told this before, but your memory is remarkably selective.

This book is modern politics and had no place on this site.

 

[jackt62]

Well, after all these years, I'm glad to finally learn what the Civil War was all about! (Enjoyed the music though).

 

[jackt62]

Blaming the Morrill Tariff again! We've discussed this endlessly on CWT. The issue is sheer nonsense. I have just posted by "Comment" on the YouTube page:

"Utter nonsense. The Morrill Tariff was lower than previous tariffs. It was a tax on imports, and the vast majority was paid at northern ports. [furthermore] The South benefited disproportionately from the moneys brought in. The statements on the video are simply lies! The South seceded to protect slavery (the secessionists themselves stated this unequivocally -- read the secession documents). Lincoln was Constitutionally required to to defend the Union against "domestic insurgents." War only began after the South fired the first shot."

Search this site for "Morrill Tariff," you'll find it enlightening.

According to Wikipedia, the only reason that the Morrill Tariff was able to pass Congress was that many of the southern states had already seceded, and therefore had no say in opposing the bill. Had the representatives of those states remained in Congress, there probably would have been enough Democratic and southern congressmen present to vote down the tariff.

 

[E_just_E]

I thought it was straight trolling. For a 1 time poster to pick a topic like this and then stand back and watch what happens.

I think that it was more than trolling. It was an advertisement to get traffic to a self-published book, aka SPAM (and not the stuff one puts on a hardtack.)

 

[Jamieva]

I have to chuckle at what Amazon shows me...

People who bought this book also bought

The Lincoln book that Dilorenzo wrote
Everything you were taught in the civil war is wrong by Seabrook
The Truth of the War conspiracy of 1861

etc etc

 

[rpkennedy]

I have to chuckle at what Amazon shows me...

People who bought this book also bought

The Lincoln book that Dilorenzo wrote
Everything you were taught in the civil war is wrong by Seabrook
The Truth of the War conspiracy of 1861

etc etc

They know their audience.

R

 

[Allie]

Wow, that video. Someone do a count and tell me whether there are more factual or grammatical inaccuracies, my eyes started crossing after a while.

FYI, not having enough people who agree with you to get your way in a representative government is not the same as not being represented.

I don't even know where they're getting some of their numbers, usually I can tell what statistics people are misusing but as far as I can tell when they wanted a number they just made one up.