In Richmond, a Civil War expert seeks...

In Richmond, a Civil War expert seeks to emancipate history's narrative

There are 7 comments on the www.washingtonpost.com story from Nov 1, 2010, titled In Richmond, a Civil War expert seeks to emancipate history's narrative. In it, www.washingtonpost.com reports that:

Civil War historian and University of Richmond President Edward Ayers at the American Civil War Center at Historic Tredegar, in Richmond.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.washingtonpost.com.

Lincolns war

Powder Springs, GA

#1 Nov 1, 2010
Ayers is mistaken. The war was fought over secession, not slavery. Lincoln's war was unnecessary, illegal, and immoral. Lincoln himself stated his goal was not to end slavery but to reunite the Union. Lincoln's plan changed only after stunning Confederate battlefield victories in 1862 and a loss of political support in the north. Lincoln changed the stated reason for the war to ending slavery to keep radical Republican support and to shift public argument from the legal question to appeal to a moral rational. Several northern states still has slavery, Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and others and the Union didn't declare war on them! Other northern states had ended slavery without war and most of the south would have terminated slavery the same peaceful way in due time. The war and the subsequent end of slavery caused an economic catastrophe in the south that took a century to recover from. Free slaves turned to crime due to loss of jobs and that crime gave rise to vigilantes defending their property by use of force. This was the first widespread race based violence in America. The Union deliberately used black troops for occupation duty in the south and black troops harassed southerners at will, committing hoards of crimes against innocent civilians which created intense racial animosity. Free blacks refused to work paying jobs and demanded land and other payments which created resentment when they didn't get payments. The Federal government built public schools FOR BLACKS ONLY after the war and thousands of abolitionist northerners came south to teach BLACKS ONLY to hate white southerners. The war was a huge failure, not a success.

“It's a Brand New Day”

Since: Feb 06

New Rochelle

#2 Nov 1, 2010
Lincolns war wrote:
Ayers is mistaken. The war was fought over secession, not slavery. Lincoln's war was unnecessary, illegal, and immoral. Lincoln himself stated his goal was not to end slavery but to reunite the Union. Lincoln's plan changed only after stunning Confederate battlefield victories in 1862 and a loss of political support in the north. Lincoln changed the stated reason for the war to ending slavery to keep radical Republican support and to shift public argument from the legal question to appeal to a moral rational. Several northern states still has slavery, Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and others and the Union didn't declare war on them! Other northern states had ended slavery without war and most of the south would have terminated slavery the same peaceful way in due time. The war and the subsequent end of slavery caused an economic catastrophe in the south that took a century to recover from. Free slaves turned to crime due to loss of jobs and that crime gave rise to vigilantes defending their property by use of force. This was the first widespread race based violence in America. The Union deliberately used black troops for occupation duty in the south and black troops harassed southerners at will, committing hoards of crimes against innocent civilians which created intense racial animosity. Free blacks refused to work paying jobs and demanded land and other payments which created resentment when they didn't get payments. The Federal government built public schools FOR BLACKS ONLY after the war and thousands of abolitionist northerners came south to teach BLACKS ONLY to hate white southerners. The war was a huge failure, not a success.
No, Lincoln did not start the Civil War. It started by traitorous forces turning their coats and firing on Fort Sumpter.

No, the war was necesary, legal, legitimate, and of the highest moral reasons: preventing the spread of slavery.

No, it wasn't "about secession" but rather about the ability of the southern states to establish slavery in the new territories.

The southern economic catastrophy you blame on "the North" was in fact caused by the plantation owners.

The rest of your idiotic crap paragraph is filled with racist liwes. Your history teachers should be ashamed of you.

Wake up, and leave the KKK tea party. It has turned your brain to sorry mush.
Glasnos

El Paso, TX

#3 Nov 1, 2010
Lincolns war wrote:
Ayers is mistaken. The war was fought over secession, not slavery. Lincoln's war was unnecessary, illegal, and immoral. Lincoln himself stated his goal was not to end slavery but to reunite the Union. Lincoln's plan changed only after stunning Confederate battlefield victories in 1862 and a loss of political support in the north. Lincoln changed the stated reason for the war to ending slavery to keep radical Republican support and to shift public argument from the legal question to appeal to a moral rational. Several northern states still has slavery, Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and others and the Union didn't declare war on them! Other northern states had ended slavery without war and most of the south would have terminated slavery the same peaceful way in due time. The war and the subsequent end of slavery caused an economic catastrophe in the south that took a century to recover from. Free slaves turned to crime due to loss of jobs and that crime gave rise to vigilantes defending their property by use of force. This was the first widespread race based violence in America. The Union deliberately used black troops for occupation duty in the south and black troops harassed southerners at will, committing hoards of crimes against innocent civilians which created intense racial animosity. Free blacks refused to work paying jobs and demanded land and other payments which created resentment when they didn't get payments. The Federal government built public schools FOR BLACKS ONLY after the war and thousands of abolitionist northerners came south to teach BLACKS ONLY to hate white southerners. The war was a huge failure, not a success.
The only thing you missed was that LIncoln jailed congressional oppononents, and suspended habeus corpus ... and ignored the Supreme Court.
The first income tax was also instituted so the federal government could finance the war.
True History

Powder Springs, GA

#5 Nov 1, 2010
Mr_Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
No, Lincoln did not start the Civil War. It started by traitorous forces turning their coats and firing on Fort Sumpter.
No, the war was necesary, legal, legitimate, and of the highest moral reasons: preventing the spread of slavery.
No, it wasn't "about secession" but rather about the ability of the southern states to establish slavery in the new territories.
The southern economic catastrophy you blame on "the North" was in fact caused by the plantation owners.
The rest of your idiotic crap paragraph is filled with racist liwes. Your history teachers should be ashamed of you.
Wake up, and leave the KKK tea party. It has turned your brain to sorry mush.
Liar! The southern states legally withdrew from the United States as was their right under the US Constitution. The Confederate States were a free and independent country for 8 months and Ft Sumpter was the property of the State of South Carolina when Lincoln sent warships there in a deliberate attempt to provoke war.
Slavery was spreading to the territories on its own. Each new free state admitted to the union was matched by a new slave state. The US Constitution approved slavery and the US Supreme Court rules in favor of slavery repeatedly. Several northern states still had slavery and northern banks held slaves as loan collateral and the City of New York owned 20,000 slaves who worked in the south.
Slavery was becoming unprofitable in older states as the land wore out from a century of farming. The north taxed southern produce excessively and that's the reason for secession when the cotton tax went from 15% to 49% and all the tax money was devoted to northern interests. All northern ports engaged in the slave trade and all northern textile plants purchased slave grown cotton. Slavery would have been outlawed in numerous southern states within 20 years and Lincoln promised to allow slavery for 20 more years if the south would surrender. The Confederate Constitution outlawed the import of new slaves because they were already too numerous to be profitable and there were no jobs for free negroes.
Lincoln, himself, recognized that there was no employment available for free negroes and unemployment among northern blacks was a big problem. Lincoln's plan was to ship all former slaves to the West Indies and to Africa. His death prevented that from happening. Congress refused to fund the shipments and left millions of poor blacks to starve in the south when slavery ended. The south didn't recover economically for a full century and millions of blacks still live in poverty because slavery was outlawed without a plan for the predictable effects of vast black unemployment.
Your personal attacks are childish rants and so typical of your low class upbringing.
True History

Powder Springs, GA

#6 Nov 1, 2010
Glasnos wrote:
<quoted text>
The only thing you missed was that LIncoln jailed congressional oppononents, and suspended habeus corpus ... and ignored the Supreme Court.
The first income tax was also instituted so the federal government could finance the war.
Lincoln illegally deported the Governor of Ohio because he spoke out against the war. The federal government also printed paper money for the first time since the Revolutionary War.
Violent riots broke out in New York City upon news of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. Every black on the streets was grabbed and lynched from the lamp posts because they were blamed for being the cause of the war. Some 75 blacks were hung until dead.
Secession 2012

Bronx, NY

#8 Nov 1, 2010
Check out what the scumbag government has in store for YOU!
http://dumpdc.wordpress.com/2010/11/01/the-en...

“It's a Brand New Day”

Since: Feb 06

New Rochelle

#9 Nov 1, 2010
True History wrote:
<quoted text>Liar! The southern states legally withdrew from the United States as was their right under the US Constitution. The Confederate States were a free and independent country for 8 months and Ft Sumpter was the property of the State of South Carolina when Lincoln sent warships there in a deliberate attempt to provoke war.
Slavery was spreading to the territories on its own. Each new free state admitted to the union was matched by a new slave state. The US Constitution approved slavery and the US Supreme Court rules in favor of slavery repeatedly. Several northern states still had slavery and northern banks held slaves as loan collateral and the City of New York owned 20,000 slaves who worked in the south.
Slavery was becoming unprofitable in older states as the land wore out from a century of farming. The north taxed southern produce excessively and that's the reason for secession when the cotton tax went from 15% to 49% and all the tax money was devoted to northern interests. All northern ports engaged in the slave trade and all northern textile plants purchased slave grown cotton. Slavery would have been outlawed in numerous southern states within 20 years and Lincoln promised to allow slavery for 20 more years if the south would surrender. The Confederate Constitution outlawed the import of new slaves because they were already too numerous to be profitable and there were no jobs for free negroes.
Lincoln, himself, recognized that there was no employment available for free negroes and unemployment among northern blacks was a big problem. Lincoln's plan was to ship all former slaves to the West Indies and to Africa. His death prevented that from happening. Congress refused to fund the shipments and left millions of poor blacks to starve in the south when slavery ended. The south didn't recover economically for a full century and millions of blacks still live in poverty because slavery was outlawed without a plan for the predictable effects of vast black unemployment.
Your personal attacks are childish rants and so typical of your low class upbringing.
Your brain is in crazy world. You are a danger to yourself. Get help.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

University of Richmond Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Sotomayor: US high court needs more diversity, ... (Apr '16) Apr '16 Quirky 61
News Even in museums, battles loom over Confederate ... (Jul '15) Jul '15 rebel111 2
News Leftwich convicted (Sep '11) Jun '15 in the know 3
News Texas Supreme Court blocks same-sex marriage li... (Feb '15) Feb '15 Yee Haw 1
News Man claims kingdom so daughter can be princess (Jul '14) Jul '14 Mechanic 11
News Court To Consider 5 Gay Marriage Cases At Once (Jun '14) Jun '14 DNF 11
News Recalls becoming 'background noise' that owners... (Jun '14) Jun '14 shawn 2
More from around the web