Ulysses S. Grant

It is hard to lose a war when you have overwhelming numbers of troops to add to your forces once you kill off your other troops. Grant lost so many troops I did not know how many until today.

 

The Confederacy could have closed that numbers gap if they had armed slaves . . . though there were obvious reasons for not wanting to do that. International support was also an issue. The Confederacy had to downplay their whole slavery angle in order to keep England interested, but they were losing that battle as well.

 

It isn't going to give up anything. Everyone knows that. National defense is appropriate at the federal level as I said. The things other than the four I mentioned should be in the states, the private sector or the trash can in my view. My views involve a reconstruction of federalism from the top down. I understand it won't happen. I like putting political power closer to those affected by it. I like that the states have to compete against each other for residents. If someone doesn't like what government does, it can go to another state. No chance when all the power is in Washington.

Curious position given that government is the source of the inflation.

I'm not against it. I just don't want it in federal government. It belongs in the states. Most of the taxes belong there as well.

No doubt about that.

Then we agree.

Thanks.

 

Holy crap.

 

Yeah, history can be amazing. *Cue rainbow star* The more you know.

 

I would have said history can be amazing if that is what I meant. Notice I did not say that to you or anybody.

 

Are you serious that the South should have armed slaves? Have you had any military training of any kind?

 

I'm sorry you don't share the love that I and others have for history truth. There's no accounting for tastes, I guess.

 

If numbers were what they were concerned about, sure. Of course, that would have lead to an armed rebellion from the slaves, plus white supremacist sentiment in the South would have prevented most white soldiers from being willing to serve alongside slave troops.

There are written sources from the time period, from the South, saying exactly this.

 

Slaves were not better off once freed. That is why so many tried to move to the North though the North passed laws preventing them from being citizens in the North. Blacks to this day are mislead by Democrats as they were back in the 1800s.

 

You can't be sorry for that since I do truly study history though as kid in grade school the history I liked most was that of South America.

 

I'm sorry that you think that freedom is worthless. I don't share your disregard for liberty. Neither did the escaped slaves. Slaves tried to move through the North to Canada because US laws put them in danger of being sent back South, though they did have the opportunity for citizenship in the North . . . something the South criticized when seceding. Did you fall asleep in history class?

 

Too bad you slept through the actual time period in question.

 

What democrats constantly ignore is the fact that humans get conditioned. You are conditioned to talk like a Democrat. I once was conditioned that way too. I broke away and now see things like republicans.

So if the slaves were pressed into the military, why would they rebel? The north was not fighting over slavery.

 

For F sakes. You do this deliberately. Try to talk for me. I do not disregard liberty. I am a republican fighting for liberty.

After the slaves were freed, they had no jobs. Southern farms were ruined. They went to the north where they were rejected.

 

Yeah, I'm used the copy/pasted propaganda. I've chosen to rely on what actual primary sources from the time period have to say.

Because then they would be armed and experienced. It was a concept known as "servile insurrection" . . . which Southerns repeatedly wrote about. Again, how did you miss this in history class?

I didn't say they were. I'm talking about the South, not the North. The South WAS fighting for slavery. And explicitly said so. Many times. Why is it that you historical revisionists can never confront that fact? Or address it at all? Or even acknowledge anything the Confederacy had to say for itself about its reasons for secession and rebellion? Just kidding. We all know why.

 

I was not a fan of history even in high school. It was after I studied as a then Democrat I became a fan of history. I have traveled to discover history. Kids in grade school and even in high school often do not want to study history. This accounts for the vast amount of ignorance we see now.

 

What you actually mean is the South spoke of slavery as a reason to secede. But they did not fight a war over it. They fought the war because Lincoln invaded in VA. I am sorry you picked some lousy books to study history in. There are actually good books on the topics under discussion.

 

Many fled to the North before then. For freedom from slavery. A "job" in slavery isn't preferable to freedom from slavery. Why can't you realize that?

Southern farms survived, even after they no longer had access to forced, free labor. Again, not sure why you feel the need to make that **** up.

 

You have wasted much of your time attacking me. Is this how you studied history by attacking views different than yours?

 

At least you got the first sentence right, even if that was the only sentence you got right. I rely on primary sources when studying history. I care about actual sources, not opinion-piece books written over a century after the fact. Why does that intimidate you?

BTW, the Civil War started before VA even seceded, so I don't know who is feeding you this metric shitload of lies about the war starting because "Lincoln invaded in VA." Where do you people dream up this bull ****?

 

You tried to discuss this during the war. I know escaped slaves went north. But they were not welcome there.

Southern farms lost men to the war. They had homes burned down. They were living in fear. Abe waged war on them.

 

By relying on historical evidence? Yes. That's how you develop a fact-based view of history. By relying on facts and using them against those either can't or won't comprehend facts. Again, not sure why you think that's a controversial position.

 

You have wore out any welcome on my part to hold a discussion. I have been attacked by you in every post.

 

Had you presented historical evidence,. I would have gladly looked at it and told you what I do not agree with. I don't like your attack tactics at all.