Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

You're posts are bizarre. Why do you need anonymous people to help you decide how you should feel about your gggfer? Shot, why should you feel anything about them?

---

What Ag Sgt said......turn your sarcasm meter on....you don't care about your ancestry ? Is it because you don't know your parental linage? Lighten up Francis and relax...and it's y o u r. "You are posts are bizarre" makes no sense.

Rattler12 said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

You're posts are bizarre. Why do you need anonymous people to help you decide how you should feel about your gggfer? Shot, why should you feel anything about them?

---

What Ag Sgt said......turn your sarcasm meter on....you don't care about your ancestry ? Is it because you don't know your parental linage? Lighten up Francis and relax...and it's y o u r. "You are posts are bizarre" makes no sense.

---

Nothing like some grammar smack. Have a good day.

You too

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Clark Griswold said:

---

You have to love those that believe it was justified to INVADE STATES that exercised their legal right to secede because they no longer wanted to be a part of something. The North was the Big 12 of governments. Don't allow people that want to leave to leave, pretend it's all in the name of ending slavery when it's really about maintaining your food supply, and years later have white liberals arguing that such tyranny was justified.

---

It is my understanding that the Union would have had very little issue maintaining their food supply considering that the Northerners grew more food than the South. The legality of secession is one that is hardly decided but if you look at court precedents, I believe Texas v. White decided the issue to be illegal.

And most reasonable people on here don't believe all Northerners fought the war to end slavery, especially in the beginning. As the war went on, the number of people who did fight the war to end slavery increased though. That being said, the south fought the war to "preserve" slavery even though no significant credible threat existed.

---

Then what motivation do you believe they had to preserve the union? Feelings? There's always a reason and it's almost never the stated reason.

That case, decided in 1869, was wrongly decided.

Clark Griswold said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Clark Griswold said:

---

You have to love those that believe it was justified to INVADE STATES that exercised their legal right to secede because they no longer wanted to be a part of something. The North was the Big 12 of governments. Don't allow people that want to leave to leave, pretend it's all in the name of ending slavery when it's really about maintaining your food supply, and years later have white liberals arguing that such tyranny was justified.

---

It is my understanding that the Union would have had very little issue maintaining their food supply considering that the Northerners grew more food than the South. The legality of secession is one that is hardly decided but if you look at court precedents, I believe Texas v. White decided the issue to be illegal.

And most reasonable people on here don't believe all Northerners fought the war to end slavery, especially in the beginning. As the war went on, the number of people who did fight the war to end slavery increased though. That being said, the south fought the war to "preserve" slavery even though no significant credible threat existed.

---

Then what motivation do you believe they had to preserve the union? Feelings? There's always a reason and it's almost never the stated reason.

That case, decided in 1869, was wrongly decided.

---

I think Lincoln wanted to maintain the Union because the country would be stronger but I also believe he was more of an abolitionist that he wanted to let on. The rest of the country wanted to maintain the Union so that access to cheap cotton would remain available and then I also believe there is just good ole fashion patriotism. As the war went on, there was a substantial increase in the fighting spirit that included the ending of slavery.

What specifically makes the decision incorrect?

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Clark Griswold said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Clark Griswold said:

---

You have to love those that believe it was justified to INVADE STATES that exercised their legal right to secede because they no longer wanted to be a part of something. The North was the Big 12 of governments. Don't allow people that want to leave to leave, pretend it's all in the name of ending slavery when it's really about maintaining your food supply, and years later have white liberals arguing that such tyranny was justified.

---

It is my understanding that the Union would have had very little issue maintaining their food supply considering that the Northerners grew more food than the South. The legality of secession is one that is hardly decided but if you look at court precedents, I believe Texas v. White decided the issue to be illegal.

And most reasonable people on here don't believe all Northerners fought the war to end slavery, especially in the beginning. As the war went on, the number of people who did fight the war to end slavery increased though. That being said, the south fought the war to "preserve" slavery even though no significant credible threat existed.

---

Then what motivation do you believe they had to preserve the union? Feelings? There's always a reason and it's almost never the stated reason.

That case, decided in 1869, was wrongly decided.

---

I think Lincoln wanted to maintain the Union because the country would be stronger but I also believe he was more of an abolitionist that he wanted to let on. The rest of the country wanted to maintain the Union so that access to cheap cotton would remain available and then I also believe there is just good ole fashion patriotism. As the war went on, there was a substantial increase in the fighting spirit that included the ending of slavery.

What specifically makes the decision incorrect?

---

You think patriotism and ending a practice that didn't impact them but only people they didn't regard as equal anyway inspired them to send a quarter million people to their deaths? Wow. Very obvious why you vote Democrat.

The case is a long story and too long to type on a phone.

Clark Griswold said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Clark Griswold said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Clark Griswold said:

---

You have to love those that believe it was justified to INVADE STATES that exercised their legal right to secede because they no longer wanted to be a part of something. The North was the Big 12 of governments. Don't allow people that want to leave to leave, pretend it's all in the name of ending slavery when it's really about maintaining your food supply, and years later have white liberals arguing that such tyranny was justified.

---

It is my understanding that the Union would have had very little issue maintaining their food supply considering that the Northerners grew more food than the South. The legality of secession is one that is hardly decided but if you look at court precedents, I believe Texas v. White decided the issue to be illegal.

And most reasonable people on here don't believe all Northerners fought the war to end slavery, especially in the beginning. As the war went on, the number of people who did fight the war to end slavery increased though. That being said, the south fought the war to "preserve" slavery even though no significant credible threat existed.

---

Then what motivation do you believe they had to preserve the union? Feelings? There's always a reason and it's almost never the stated reason.

That case, decided in 1869, was wrongly decided.

---

I think Lincoln wanted to maintain the Union because the country would be stronger but I also believe he was more of an abolitionist that he wanted to let on. The rest of the country wanted to maintain the Union so that access to cheap cotton would remain available and then I also believe there is just good ole fashion patriotism. As the war went on, there was a substantial increase in the fighting spirit that included the ending of slavery.

What specifically makes the decision incorrect?

---

You think patriotism and ending a practice that didn't impact them but only people they didn't regard as equal anyway inspired them to send a quarter million people to their deaths? Wow. Very obvious why you vote Democrat.

The case is a long story and too long to type on a phone.

---

So are you arguing that as the war went on, ending slavery wasn't an increased motivation for fighting the war?

Soldiers in the battle don't think about those sorts of things. If it is a war in foreign land you are fighting for those you are over there with, if you are fighting at home it is to defend your home and community. Out of curiosity, did you serve in the military?

Ag_SGT said:

---

Soldiers in the battle don't think about those sorts of things. If it is a war in foreign land you are fighting for those you are over there with, if you are fighting at home it is to defend your home and community. Out of curiosity, did you serve in the military?

---

I have not.

Secondly, it might not be something they think about during battle but it sure can be a reason why they enlist. For example, what would you say the primary motivation was for the black troops that enlisted in the Union Army in 1863?

I would suggest you read Sam Houston's letter to Texas and the Texas Secession Ordinances to gain some idea about why Texans fought. Also, look at Alexander Stephen's Cornerstone Speech.

Yesterday was a skeleton crew day for Texas state employees. As a Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) employee, I took yesterday off to make it a rare 4-day weekend.

I'd suggest you stop pointing to what politicians and the like said, my viewpoint is based on the mentality it takes to actually fight in a war.

Ag_SGT said:

---

I'd suggest you stop pointing to what politicians and the like said, my viewpoint is based on the mentality it takes to actually fight in a war.

---

You are mistakingly conflating why the individual soldier might fight in a war, which is often noble, to that of the overall cause of the war in question. Soldiers can, and often do, fight for noble reasons in wars that are far from being noble themselves.

And what could be more noble than defending your home from an invading force

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

You are mistakenly conflating why the individual soldier might fight in a war, which is often noble, to that of the overall cause of the war in question. Soldiers can, and often do, fight for noble reasons in wars that are far from being noble themselves.

---

You do realize that is exactly what I said in the beginning and you took issue with me saying that

Ag_SGT said:

---

I'd suggest you stop pointing to what politicians and the like said, my viewpoint is based on the mentality it takes to actually fight in a war.

---

So you ignore the rest of that post?

You've already demonstrated you are arguing just to argue and I'm not going to waste more time. Based on your words, you agree with my first statement in this thread but apparently you just want to argue, have fun with that

Ag_SGT said:

---

And what could be more noble than defending your home from an invading force

---

Your speaking to the individual soldiers rationale for fighting. Which is fine. However, the issue many have is taking that and applying it to the war as a whole.

My rationale for joining the Army and deploying twice to Iraq was, for me at least, a noble one. However, I like many, have come to the realization that the rationale for that war is somewhat dubious. My nobility (not attempting to put myself on a pedestal) does not make the entire war in Iraq the same.

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

Ag_SGT said:

---

And what could be more noble than defending your home from an invading force

---

Your speaking to the individual soldiers rationale for fighting. Which is fine. However, the issue many have is taking that and applying it to the war as a whole.

My rationale for joining the Army and deploying twice to Iraq was, for me at least, a noble one. However, I like many, have come to the realization that the rationale for that war is somewhat dubious. My nobility (not attempting to put myself on a pedestal) does not make the entire war in Iraq the same.

---

That is dang near verbatim what I said in the very beginning.

Wow. Some of you are celebrating traitors?!?! I guess you would have supported the Confederacy and slavery.

If that is the case then I apologize. I'm glad we're in agreement.

Ag_SGT said:

---

You've already demonstrated you are arguing just to argue and I'm not going to waste more time. Based on your words, you agree with my first statement in this thread but apparently you just want to argue, have fun with that

---

That's not accurate. The Southerners weren't fighting to defend their homes. The invaded a neutral Kentucky, the invaded Maryland, and then Pennsylvania. They fought the war to preserve slavery. The home and hearth argument is just foolish.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Ag_SGT said:

---

Soldiers in the battle don't think about those sorts of things. If it is a war in foreign land you are fighting for those you are over there with, if you are fighting at home it is to defend your home and community. Out of curiosity, did you serve in the military?

---

I have not.

Secondly, it might not be something they think about during battle but it sure can be a reason why they enlist. For example, what would you say the primary motivation was for the black troops that enlisted in the Union Army in 1863?

I would suggest you read Sam Houston's letter to Texas and the Texas Secession Ordinances to gain some idea about why Texans fought. Also, look at Alexander Stephen's Cornerstone Speech.

---

Their motivation may well have been the money paid to them to fight in place of a northern aristocrat.

This thread is a great reminder that my kids will never go to a public school. The leftist white washing of history and the South is disgusting.

You people talking **** about the South are an embarrassment. Even reconstructionists understood how the US didnt stand a chance without sucking up to the South after they barely won the war of northern aggression.

Also who gives a **** about the southern flag? or any version of it? Its a reminder that some of you academic idiots need badly.

That is accurate but more than likely that was the exception.

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

This thread is a great reminder that my kids will never go to a public school. The leftist white washing of history and the South is disgusting.

You people talking **** about the South are an embarrassment. Even reconstructionists understood how the US didnt stand a chance without sucking up to the South after they barely won the war of northern aggression.

Also who gives a **** about the southern flag? or any version of it? Its a reminder that some of you academic idiots need badly.

---

Where exactly are we incorrect or "white washing" the history or the South?

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

This thread is a great reminder that my kids will never go to a public school. The leftist white washing of history and the South is disgusting.

You people talking **** about the South are an embarrassment. Even reconstructionists understood how the US didnt stand a chance without sucking up to the South after they barely won the war of northern aggression.

Also who gives a **** about the southern flag? or any version of it? Its a reminder that some of you academic idiots need badly.

---

Where exactly are we incorrect or "white washing" the history or the South?

---

Your comment about the cornerstone speech was pretty amusing.

Guy gives a speech that is outright racist, therefore the south was fighting to hold on to slavery and that is the end of the convo. At least be a bit objective and agree there was more at stake than slavery for the south.

Clark Griswold said:

---

You have to love those that believe it was justified to INVADE STATES that exercised their legal right to secede because they no longer wanted to be a part of something. The North was the Big 12 of governments. Don't allow people that want to leave to leave, pretend it's all in the name of ending slavery when it's really about maintaining your food supply, and years later have white liberals arguing that such tyranny was justified.

---

This basically nails it and northern statist sympathizers will mental gymnastics this away.

I am glad our Forefathers were led by George Washington and were not boot licking ******* to the british.
Although I detest slavery, I am glad our Southern Ancestors were led by Robert E Lee and were not boot licking ******* to the northern aggressing tyrants.

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

This thread is a great reminder that my kids will never go to a public school. The leftist white washing of history and the South is disgusting.

You people talking **** about the South are an embarrassment. Even reconstructionists understood how the US didnt stand a chance without sucking up to the South after they barely won the war of northern aggression.

Also who gives a **** about the southern flag? or any version of it? Its a reminder that some of you academic idiots need badly.

---

Where exactly are we incorrect or "white washing" the history or the South?

---

Your comment about the cornerstone speech was pretty amusing.

Guy gives a speech that is outright racist, therefore the south was fighting to hold on to slavery and that is the end of the convo. At least be a bit objective and agree there was more at stake than slavery for the south.

---

Well, there is the Cornerstone Speech, the Secession Ordinances, and the speeches given by the men sent to encourage states to secede with South Carolina. And plenty of primary sources from soldiers who were upset that they would be considered equal to freed slaves, feared a mass killing of whites by freed slaves, and the ever-present miscegenation. So yeah, I would say slavery was a major issue for all southerners fighting the war. Nevermind the excitement to just go to war and fight and become "men"!

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

Clark Griswold said:

---

You have to love those that believe it was justified to INVADE STATES that exercised their legal right to secede because they no longer wanted to be a part of something. The North was the Big 12 of governments. Don't allow people that want to leave to leave, pretend it's all in the name of ending slavery when it's really about maintaining your food supply, and years later have white liberals arguing that such tyranny was justified.

---

This basically nails it and northern statist sympathizers will mental gymnastics this away.

---

Legal precedent would argue otherwise.

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

Dos Tasadores De TAMU said:

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

How does him having an opinion counter to yours regarding the Civil War make the Dems his party?

---

Thanks for the comment

---

It wasn't a comment. It was a question. Which you avoided. Gee, I wonder why.

---

Thanks for the additional comment.

Happy Birthday, Robert E Lee!

Happy Conf. Heroes day to those who celebrate.

Interestingly, the Lee family had a sort of re-union last spring I believe.

Joe Biden, who lamented that Delaware would have joined the confederacy if it could have gotten there, was born closer in time to Lincoln's presidency than his own.

Robert E. Lee and all his wedded children married cousins. The Lees extolled the value of marriage within the family. Lee's half sister married his mother's brother making the man both his uncle and his brother-in-law.

Just some random facts from history...

The day to honor my GreatX3 grandfather, JMV Bulloch, Private, 1st Texas Cavalry, CSA

No Spin Ag said:

---

I like people that aren't traitors to their own country and create an army to start a war with it.

And I also like armies that win wars.

---

Yankees tried to invade Texas without success! My 2 GGPAS helped keep them out.