One good History Books.

[Maindron1]

I can’t help but wonder why many people will not get a history book and read instead of a thriller, romance, horror and such. I was one of those people too but one afternoon, I was having my “me” time when this whole human division kept turning around my head. So I decided to start reading about the American civil war which from what I know was about the south wanting to keep slavery alive but the opposite side was trying to defend freedom for all.

I am not from the US, I am rather from Haiti which was the first black republic in the world, the only country – as small and so very poor as it may be – who actually fought their way from slavery to freedom with nothing but the strong will to be free or die and they’ve done it with machetes.

So, to go back to my story, I was browsing through and I came up to this book “Civil War Battles in Winchester and Frederick County, Virginia, 1861-1865” and this book was put together by the County Civil War Commission. As I was reading it, It has come to my attention that this was one of the fiercest battle in history and one of the most selfless battle as well, people risking their lives for something they believe in, whether it was that you believe that all man should be free, or black should stay slaves and have no right to freedom. I am not judging here, but It is so interesting to see that back in the 1860s, even though the world was so divided and cruel, some harts could not help but to wonder about life, to see the cruelty at home and abroad and some take a stand and do something about it and doing so, put their lives at risk and eventually die for their beliefs.

It tells me that we have had good people from the beginning of times but what I can’t help but wonder is whether our harts are improving toward love or are we stuck there and here, I know that we are not getting worse but are we getting better at helping other people?

I think that we are, but some people will say that we are not and that we will only help if in the process we do not inconvenience ourselves, or we get something back in return, and that is not really helping; I say it is, and there is nothing wrong with it and if more people were doing it, the world will be better off.

To go back to the book, it has a very detailed information about the importance of a strategic location to a war like the civil war, and how Winchester was the route to Washington and that they have to protect it at all cost, both Army were fighting to get control, but at the end, the Union army prevail. You can read the entire book at www.historybookcorner.com

The point that I am trying to make is that history help us remember, we’ve been through a lot, and we are where we are because of the sacrifices strangers make because that they believe in something, and we too should make sacrifices for what we believe in, and that is the way the world will see a better tomorrow.

Our actions as big or small, good or bad can have a worldwide effect.
Rodriguez Maindron.

[marcello]

the opposite side was trying to defend freedom for all.

I think the more accurate description of the North primary war aim was preserving the Union.
Abolition only became politically possible/desiderable due to the war radicalization. Before the war the bone of contention in regards to the slavery issue, for the most part, was not yet abolition but expansion or containment, though the latter outcome was (not entirely unreasonably perhaps) seen by southerners as setting the stage for abolition in the long run.
It is quite possible that if the CSA had caved in after few battles early on there would have been no full abolition for quite a long time, in the interest of bringing the southern states smoothly back to the fold; in the event southern freedmen were, though probably unavoidably, largely abandoned to the ex confederates not so tender mercies after a brief occupation.
As for the motivation for the individual soldiers these are a different matter. Some people might be motivated by ideology (abolitionism) or have a stake in the slave system. But the defense of the nation (USA/CSA or this being America of the 1860's the native State), as well as familiy, way of life etc is probably a much bigger issue, though I have never looked in this in great detail. Once in an army others motivations can take over, such as esprit de corps.

[King Lear]

You have to nonetheless realize...history is always writen by the victors. Governments often deamonize revolutions to cover up their own actions and to reafirm themselves so that they can claim anyone who says something they do is wrong, they deamonize and associate with said group. Quite frankly, the war was never over slavery, the war was never over states rights either. The war was over if the US can defy the constitution (which claims that anyone who can suceed can freely do so) when they deem it neccisary. In all reality, it was not a "Civil war". Any civil war in history must involve a nation against it's own people who do not have an established government. The south had this. The war was never over slavery in that the reality of the matter is less then 10 percent of southerners owned slaves (propaganda made by the government however states it was roughly 47 percent) this is another example of how the US government has minipulated history to try to acheive its goal in deamonizing anyone who stands upon the freedoms of the individual, endlessly labeling them racists or traitors for beleiving that his region has the right to govern itself, free from an opressive police state. Slavery was never the issue in the war. Lincoln used slavery as a political tool as war propaganda to give his troops a reason to fight. General Robert Edward Lee (famous Confederate General) said himself that "if the war were over slavery id quit my job" Ulyses S. Grand said the same thing (Well known drunk, who was known to own many slaves within his plantation who he had a reputation of treating brutaly) Infact it was said the last man to give up his slaves in Virginia was,in fact Ulysess S Grant (what do you know?) On the other hand Lee Even set up a school for black children with his own money to fund it. Heres another example of how the government covers up the truth, Lincoln Himself said, even before the war started in many of his letters in 1858 said himself that he had planned to deport ALL blacks to Lybia and other parts of Africa and said he despised every one of them and wanted every single one of them out of the country. Lincoln in short was as a modern politican, Lying whenever something fits it and when it comes to his benefit. Davis on the other hand had mentioned countless times that he had planned to end slavery and after the war he most likely would have done such. My people, quite frankly we have been lied to because the government fears the people and they do anything in our power to try to keep us from rebeling. He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future.

[[NC]Master]

i agree with you that history is a part of us and we should keep inform our selfes to prevent mistakes who were made in the past and to help us understanding the world today. But maybe history should also give us a base of thinking about political situations today and to help us not to be manupulated. History teachs us a way of thinking. And here is my point which brings us to the civil war. As my Posters before me allready said history is written by the winners and also we often make the mistake that we are seeing a situation in the past with our mind today. You have to understand that most people in that period didn't even reflect on slavery it was a normal circumstance in the south. From the beginning of human beeing till modern history slavery was a part of the humans in most culture. Also what is the meaning of slavery? How far is this going is a man who is free in law but not free in spirit not also a slave? Its philosophic maybe but i think a big part of beeing free is on us to achieve! If we stay not informed and belive everything we see, read or hear than we are slaves! Especially theese times it is so important to questioning things if we don't we can easy be a slave of a system or of other people. Its to bad that most of the people today have stopped thinking and questioning we believe the media we believe polotics. And that is what powerfull people use today. Its not called buissiness its called mind control make people think they need this to be cool or hipe or what ever.

So to bring this back to civil war

Most people in the south didn't had slaves. Politics made in Washington were bad for their living because in the south there was no big industry and people got problems to keep their own homes. It was only a question of time till the people wanted to be out of the union. In my opinion most people in the south did'nt thought about slavery when they went to war because most of them had no slaves at all. What they wanted was new laws and defending their homes. Also we should only judge people if we know about the situation and living in the past!

[King Lear]

Don't neglect to mention the massive terrifs on exported goods or the fact that the south actually payed 80 percent of the nation's taxes while the north payed 20 percent. Not only that but Lincoln's "emancipation proclomation" only applied to slave in the south (and being he had no authority in the south since they had an established government it was merely a ploblicity stunt to claim the war was over slavery) not only this, but it DID NOT apply to any slaves in the North...In fact large cities like NEW YORK CITY did not end slavery until the 1880s.

In all reality people today are completely brainwashed to everything the government tells them. They beleive ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING they hear on tv and the media. This is one of the reasons our culture has completely dissapeared into nothingness and we have so many oppresive laws today... BECAUSE THE PEOPLE WONT DO A DAMN THING ABOUT IT BECAUSE THEY ARE PROGRAMED TO IGNORE IT. One of the main blambes for this is the public school system. It teaches children to be submissive to an authoritarian figure and that any resistance is useless and will be severely punished. This is another way how they minipulate us into their favor through programing us at a very young age. They also teach our children history ONLY IF IT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE GOVERNMENT. Basicly they have grip over everything we believe through the brainwashing of our youth. The only answer is privitization of schools or homeschooling...Now getting back to minipulation... In all reality our government today is not run by the people, the president, or any of that..but by mega corporations owned by global Banksters (the Rothschild family) and oil Barons (the Rockafeller family) these two families basicly control all the money in the world and thus all the nations of the world are under their grip. Anyone who dares to hear the real truth about how society is run go to Infowars.com. "Give me power over a nation's economy, and i care not who runs it"-David de Rothschild

Also if you visit it listen to the Alex Jones podcast he goes over alot of it

Please note that this is not off topic posting or site advertisement as it is relivent to the previous post in that it is on the subject of minipulation and control over thinking.

EDIT: posts merged; MM

[[NC]Master]

Don't neglect to mention the massive terrifs on exported goods or the fact that the south actually payed 80 percent of the nation's taxes while the north payed 20 percent. Not only that but Lincoln's "emancipation proclomation" only applied to slave in the south (and being he had no authority in the south since they had an established government it was merely a ploblicity stunt to claim the war was over slavery) not only this, but it DID NOT apply to any slaves in the North...In fact large cities like NEW YORK CITY did not end slavery until the 1880s.

In all reality people today are completely brainwashed to everything the government tells them. They beleive ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING they hear on tv and the media. This is one of the reasons our culture has completely dissapeared into nothingness and we have so many oppresive laws today... BECAUSE THE PEOPLE WONT DO A DAMN THING ABOUT IT BECAUSE THEY ARE PROGRAMED TO IGNORE IT. One of the main blambes for this is the public school system. It teaches children to be submissive to an authoritarian figure and that any resistance is useless and will be severely punished. This is another way how they minipulate us into their favor through programing us at a very young age. They also teach our children history ONLY IF IT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE GOVERNMENT. Basicly they have grip over everything we believe through the brainwashing of our youth. The only answer is privitization of schools or homeschooling...Now getting back to minipulation... In all reality our government today is not run by the people, the president, or any of that..but by mega corporations owned by global Banksters (the Rothschild family) and oil Barons (the Rockafeller family) these two families basicly control all the money in the world and thus all the nations of the world are under their grip. Anyone who dares to hear the real truth about how society is run go to Infowars.com. "Give me power over a nation's economy, and i care not who runs it"-David de Rothschild

Also if you visit it listen to the Alex Jones podcast he goes over alot of it

Please note that this is not off topic posting or site advertisement as it is relivent to the previous post in that it is on the subject of minipulation and control over thinking.

I agree in most terms but i think there is a way out of this. Maybe someday the people will realize what is happening and will do something about it it is hard but it is possible. The answer is QUESTIONING! Search in the history. history deliveres most information to topics today also try to combine and ask questions do not only belive the answers given search yourself using different sources. And make your own picture out of that then you are on the way to self thinking!

[King Lear]

I apoligize if i over exerted myself in my previous post as i realize without learning the truth for themselves they can not learn it. Nonetheless some people are so programed they are incapable of independant thought so i presented an idea to them in which they could learn. Nontheless if you are going to learn the truth yourself you must do it on your own accord (and do not trust any media sites whatsoever, wikipedia or any government owned website or agency to influence you) but In understanding the true past you can avoid the mistakes presented by false choices of those who create history, who ever-so-often print it lieing, as to their favor of their own profit and the demize and the destruction of others, wherewith we can know in our hearts that it is wrong, and any just man should not from which have any part in.

[Minas Moth]

The answer is QUESTIONING! Search in the history. history deliveres most information to topics today also try to combine and ask questions do not only belive the answers given search yourself using different sources. And make your own picture out of that then you are on the way to self thinking!

so I'll get a little philosophical here. If we agree that History indeed is, and even more importantly, was written was winners, then your premiss of learning from history to question the authorities today actually kills itself. you can't hope of achieving anything or much from reading the history as you havw all agreed in above posts it should be considered faulty and untrustworthy.

however, if you do take such a consideration to be true, then what from all the information we know today or have experienced during our lives should be considered true and trustworthy? do we believe in and to those who were on loosing side? do we believe their version of history, no matter if they are "lost causers", "Nazi sympathizers", "socialist" or whatever? isn't the history of a loosing side written by its supporters defunct even more than that of the victors? as Livy said "vae victis" or woe to the vanquished. the history of the "vanquished" has one inherited and terminal flaw no matter whose it is. it often looses itself in explanations how the "vanquished" were actually better then the victors, how they held to their principles, lived by the highest morale standards and were defeated only because the victors couldn't/wouldn't understand them and were driven by some evil forces that care nothing of a common fellow.

we certainly do live in a world where "few" or some are deciding the fates of many (billions in this case), but that is in human nature. through history (we so question now) there were followers and there were those who followed. people like Rockefeller got what they have now, mostly by their own hands. the first Rockefeller started with few oil rigs and soon expanded. true, he didn't cared about the way how he expanded (short of murder) but who can say that other couldn't accomplish as much. today, there is actually no reason you or me or anyone should believe that you can't do something in the world because few are running it. brainwashing our young ones? seriously, if we were so brainwashed, then debates such as this would be nonexistent or they would be forbidden just like many other things (as was mentioned earlier). educational system is flawed, don't get me wrong, but today you have more than enough sources to gather intel from various places and make your own mind. I fail to see how "privatization of schools" could improve things. if that would happen everywhere then indeed we would have the vae victis situation, or you think that someone should watch private schools what they teach our young ones? and who has enough sources to do that? I can think of only one candidate - the government.

now, to close this rant of mine. there is actually nothing stopping any of us to rise as high as Rockefeller or the other guy that was mentioned, and when we reach that height to actually change the system from its core. are you willing to do that? would you dare to venture into the "devils" lair of ultimate power and wealth and still claim that you will indeed change the things when you get there? or would your resolve melt away as power and wealth would settle in? don't be to judgmental of the people who have much or in the eyes of the common man: everything...

He who has it all is not a fortunate man, fortunate is the one who need little


p.s. I didn't mean to offend anyone with this post, so please don't state a flame war or something like that because of it. I merely expressed my views. and although I don't necessarily agree with the views of the posters above, I do respect them and I don't seek to change them. so please treat my own views in a same way...

regards

[Fallenempire]

i like a peoples history by howard zinn basically the only history book i ever read other than school.

[[NC]Master]

@ minas moth you don't get my point what i am saying is that different people offers different views to one and the same topic!

As a example The Topic about Israel and Iran!
Its something that is actuall happening so i think everyone knows a little bit about it.

We have not one but a few views about that i will hold this short and i know it is possible to write much more about that but i just want to use that as a example!

1. USA as a allie of Israel they are suporting them where they can Iran is the Bastilion in the mid-east so the USA dos everything to suport them give them weapons even nuklear bombs!
2. Israel itselfs saing that iran is building atomic bombs and allways planing to bomb regions of the iran where they think nuklear weapons could be!
3. Iran which is saying that they are not planing to build nuklear weapons at all and are saying that they want peace but also fear israel and USA planing to invade Iran or even a nuklear atack of israel, which would be possible!
4. Gras a german poet who is scritisism israel for their behavior against iran (he was as a jung man part in the ss) but nevertheless some of his points seem to me true and now to the next point!
5. Israel reaction to Gras they bann him from israel and forbidd him to ever come in the country (reaction to a poetry) in the press gras gets aplause and from other side he gets blamed to be a nazi and antijewisch!
6. BBC and other documentaries leran about past and living of the people of iran about coulture about war against irak and about the usa which has stoped all import into the country!
7. Russia! Russsia is a allied to iran it may not be that official but in the past war the sowjets and after the fall the russians supporter manly iran.
8. Russia is loosing his allies which is part of the plan of the USA!

USW!! You search and you find! also it is of course possible to build his own minde escapssialy in the internet one source will never tell you the truce but if you use for example a communist site and compare it with a one republicans wrote and maybe find a site from muslim communitys and so on you find out that they all have a diffrent mind on the same topic BUT! ITS YOU in the end who have to end the puzzle and find out with your mind what the essential thing is ! ALLWAYS THERE IS NEVER BLACK AND WHITE THERE IS NOT EVEL AND HOLLY ITS ALLWAYS A GREY ZONE! If you want to find essence of history or of what is happening today you need to free yourself from prejudices only than youl find out its difficult but possible!

[marcello]

In fact large cities like NEW YORK CITY did not end slavery until the 1880s.

Perhaps in some really bad alternate history novel. In our timeline slavery in New York was abolished by 1841, with the first steps being taken in the late 18th century and most done by 1827.Of course there was plenty of racism towards blacks after that but in other news, sky is blue.
Confederate sympathizers are entitled to their opinions, but they are not entitled to making up their facts.

Ulyses S. Grand said the same thing (Well known drunk, who was known to own many slaves within his plantation who he had a reputation of treating brutaly) Infact it was said the last man to give up his slaves in Virginia was,in fact Ulysess S Grant (what do you know?)

The one slave he did personally own that is known, William Jones, was manumitted in 1859, that is on the records. As for the slaves from the Dent's estate they would have become free at the same time of all the others in Missouri. If someone has uncovered something else, it would be interesting to read.

Davis on the other hand had mentioned countless times that he had planned to end slavery and after the war he most likely would have done such.

Even assuming he had been sincere, it most likely would not have gone anywhere in the short term. Just my opinion in this case, of course, but when even your VP goes around making speeches like this...

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.
In the conflict thus far, success has been on our side, complete throughout the length and breadth of the Confederate States. It is upon this, as I have stated, our social fabric is firmly planted; and I cannot permit myself to doubt the ultimate success of a full recognition of this principle throughout the civilized and enlightened world.
As I have stated, the truth of this principle may be slow in development, as all truths are and ever have been, in the various branches of science. It was so with the principles announced by Galileo it was so with Adam Smith and his principles of political economy. It was so with Harvey, and his theory of the circulation of the blood. It is stated that not a single one of the medical profession, living at the time of the announcement of the truths made by him, admitted them. Now, they are universally acknowledged. May we not, therefore, look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgment of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first government ever instituted upon the principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature's laws. With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material-the granite; then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is best, not only for the superior, but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the ordinance of the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of His ordinances, or to question them. For His own purposes, He has made one race to differ from another, as He has made "one star to differ from another star in glory." The great objects of humanity are best attained when there is conformity to His laws and decrees, in the formation of governments as well as in all things else. Our confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws. This stone which was rejected by the first builders "is become the chief of the corner" the real "corner-stone" in our new edifice. I have been asked, what of the future? It has been apprehended by some that we would have arrayed against us the civilized world. I care not who or how many they may be against us, when we stand upon the eternal principles of truth, if we are true to ourselves and the principles for which we contend, we are obliged to, and must triumph.
Thousands of people who begin to understand these truths are not yet completely out of the shell; they do not see them in their length and breadth. We hear much of the civilization and Christianization of the barbarous tribes of Africa. In my judgment, those ends will never be attained, but by first teaching them the lesson taught to Adam, that "in the sweat of his brow he should eat his bread," and teaching them to work, and feed, and clothe themselves.

He could have applied a layer rhetoric over that but he did not, that you have to hand it over to him.
I could go on quoting the secession ordinances of states which too openly touch the slavery issue,such as South Carolina, but it would get tedious and the above (notwithstanding his later backpedaling) seem to be pretty typical of the mindset of the people who called the shots in the confederacy.
Or at the very least of what they thought would sell politically.
Estimating how long slavery would have lasted in a winning CSA is an exercise in divination, all I would say is that at some point it would have been abolished, but that's it.

As for Lincoln and the northerners being racist to large extent, or for there being other bones of contention in addition to slavery, sky is blue and water is wet. However it is not, say, the North fault if southerners chose to invest their money in a plantation economy.

EDIT
Also it would be interesting to know when, where and with what words exactly Jefferson Davis said he had planned to end slavery after the war.
He used his veto power to close a loophole in the legislation banning the international slave trade and he lobbied for an emancipation in exchange for military service scheme at the eleventh hour; but these were arguably concessions to necessity (the latter is self explanatory and resumption of the slave trade would have alienated both the british and Upper South to an extent) as much as anything else. Presumably he must have claimed that postwar, I certainly have never had much interest for his role in that period so I could have easily missed that, but when/where?

[King Lear]

so I'll get a little philosophical here. If we agree that History indeed is, and even more importantly, was written was winners, then your premiss of learning from history to question the authorities today actually kills itself. you can't hope of achieving anything or much from reading the history as you havw all agreed in above posts it should be considered faulty and untrustworthy.

however, if you do take such a consideration to be true, then what from all the information we know today or have experienced during our lives should be considered true and trustworthy? do we believe in and to those who were on loosing side? do we believe their version of history, no matter if they are "lost causers", "Nazi sympathizers", "socialist" or whatever? isn't the history of a loosing side written by its supporters defunct even more than that of the victors? as Livy said "vae victis" or woe to the vanquished. the history of the "vanquished" has one inherited and terminal flaw no matter whose it is. it often looses itself in explanations how the "vanquished" were actually better then the victors, how they held to their principles, lived by the highest morale standards and were defeated only because the victors couldn't/wouldn't understand them and were driven by some evil forces that care nothing of a common fellow.

we certainly do live in a world where "few" or some are deciding the fates of many (billions in this case), but that is in human nature. through history (we so question now) there were followers and there were those who followed. people like Rockefeller got what they have now, mostly by their own hands. the first Rockefeller started with few oil rigs and soon expanded. true, he didn't cared about the way how he expanded (short of murder) but who can say that other couldn't accomplish as much. today, there is actually no reason you or me or anyone should believe that you can't do something in the world because few are running it. brainwashing our young ones? seriously, if we were so brainwashed, then debates such as this would be nonexistent or they would be forbidden just like many other things (as was mentioned earlier). educational system is flawed, don't get me wrong, but today you have more than enough sources to gather intel from various places and make your own mind. I fail to see how "privatization of schools" could improve things. if that would happen everywhere then indeed we would have the vae victis situation, or you think that someone should watch private schools what they teach our young ones? and who has enough sources to do that? I can think of only one candidate - the government.

now, to close this rant of mine. there is actually nothing stopping any of us to rise as high as Rockefeller or the other guy that was mentioned, and when we reach that height to actually change the system from its core. are you willing to do that? would you dare to venture into the "devils" lair of ultimate power and wealth and still claim that you will indeed change the things when you get there? or would your resolve melt away as power and wealth would settle in? don't be to judgmental of the people who have much or in the eyes of the common man: everything...

He who has it all is not a fortunate man, fortunate is the one who need little


p.s. I didn't mean to offend anyone with this post, so please don't state a flame war or something like that because of it. I merely expressed my views. and although I don't necessarily agree with the views of the posters above, I do respect them and I don't seek to change them. so please treat my own views in a same way...

regards

Firstly i must say that what i am trying to point out is that people, should above all seek the solid facts in history, not that which is propigated by those who warp it into making you think it is vulger, but to examine ALL THE solid facts above all, Such as reading from the notes of those who actually lived in those days, furthermore i resent your comment comparing those who lived in that time to "Nazi symphasizers" and "socialists" and must say poorer choices of words could not be chosen unless you had a specific intent to label someone as some kind of racist or fascist to inject a foreign visage into the minds of the readers wherewith to cause a radical assumption of said person/persons (me and perhaps other posters or viewers)
Furthermore since you had claimed that right or wrong is in the eye of the beholder (basicly) based upon what he has reviewed himself, you cannot deny the emplications that modern society has imposed on the past which warps it in its intirety. Anyone who says anything, for example against our president, for example are often in the media regardless of race related or not, or disaproves of certain said actions, is Imposed as a racist. Almost everyone who has even slightly mentioned secession in recent time is immediatly slapped with this phraise. Basicly anyone outside of mainstream politics is also called a racist for saying that a political change is the key to creating a more free society. Thus those who are in the inner circle maintain power. Unless something drastic occurs we will never improve upon or keep on going with the "Great Experiment" that Washington and Jefferson called a Democracy in a free America.

Perhaps in some really bad alternate history novel. In our timeline slavery in New York was abolished by 1841, with the first steps being taken in the late 18th century and most done by 1827.Of course there was plenty of racism towards blacks after that but in other news, sky is blue.
Confederate sympathizers are entitled to their opinions, but they are not entitled to making up their facts.

The one slave he did personally own that is known, William Jones, was manumitted in 1859, that is on the records. As for the slaves from the Dent's estate they would have become free at the same time of all the others in Missouri. If someone has uncovered something else, it would be interesting to read.

Even assuming he had been sincere, it most likely would not have gone anywhere in the short term. Just my opinion in this case, of course, but when even your VP goes around making speeches like this...

He could have applied a layer rhetoric over that but he did not, that you have to hand it over to him.
I could go on quoting the secession ordinances of states which too openly touch the slavery issue,such as South Carolina, but it would get tedious and the above (notwithstanding his later backpedaling) seem to be pretty typical of the mindset of the people who called the shots in the confederacy.
Or at the very least of what they thought would sell politically.
Estimating how long slavery would have lasted in a winning CSA is an exercise in divination, all I would say is that at some point it would have been abolished, but that's it.

As for Lincoln and the northerners being racist to large extent, or for there being other bones of contention in addition to slavery, sky is blue and water is wet. However it is not, say, the North fault if southerners chose to invest their money in a plantation economy.

EDIT
Also it would be interesting to know when, where and with what words exactly Jefferson Davis said he had planned to end slavery after the war.
He used his veto power to close a loophole in the legislation banning the international slave trade and he lobbied for an emancipation in exchange for military service scheme at the eleventh hour; but these were arguably concessions to necessity (the latter is self explanatory and resumption of the slave trade would have alienated both the british and Upper South to an extent) as much as anything else. Presumably he must have claimed that postwar, I certainly have never had much interest for his role in that period so I could have easily missed that, but when/where?

Firstly i must say that i was speaking out of what i knew out of the top of my head, and as i was covering many topics i may have had to be a little vague on what i said to present so many at that time,
furthermore expressing Davis's vice president's views as his own seems to be an inaccurate way to compare someones character, he may have had similar views on many topics or been a personal friend, but he is not the same person, and would have different beliefs and interests as such. Overall i say a government that despises change or revolution is corrupt. That is my stance.

"Whether by the House or by the People, if an Abolitionist be chosen President of the United States, you will have presented to you the question of whether you will permit the government to pass into the hands of your avowed and implacable enemies... such a result would be a species of revolution by which the purposes of the Government would be destroyed and the observance of its mere forms entitled to no respect. In that event, in such manner as should be most expedient, I should deem it your duty to provide for your safely outside the Union of those who have shown the will, and would have acquired the power, to deprive you of your birthright and reduce you to worse than the Colonial dependence of your fathers."- Jefferson Davis

EDIT: posts merged; MM

[marcello]

furthermore expressing Davis's vice president's views as his own seems to be an inaccurate way to compare someones character, he may have had similar views on many topics or been a personal friend, but he is not the same person, and would have different beliefs and interests as such.

I am not saying their view would be the same. I am saying that if he actually planned to end slavery after the war he would face overwhelming opposition: starting from his VP and all the way down to representatives. He could not end slavery, explicitly protected by the confederate constitution among the other things, by executive fiat on his own volition. Political majorities were needed and these would have taken considerable time, as the necessary political, economical and social changes were not going to happen overnight. Davis would have been on his way out by 1867, unless the confederate constitution was amended.
And as I said, I don't know where he claimed that had such intention in first place. He took some measures that went against the desires of some proslavery extremists, but such measures were supported by strong practical reasons independent from a general stance on slavery.