I voted Democrat

Originally Posted by Chuck

This sounds like some hogwash your football coach taught you

No Chuck it is what the primary sources prove. But as we all know the winners write the history. You'd be hard to find any real historian who would put their credibility on the line and say The South invaded the North. If the only history you have got was form High School and The History Channel then I can understand the ignorance on the subject. Before I started work on my MA in History I believed those myths as well.

Originally Posted by Chris F

No Chuck it is what the primary sources prove. But as we all know the winners write the history. You'd be hard to find any real historian who would put their credibility on the line and say The South invaded the North. If the only history you have got was form High School and The History Channel then I can understand the ignorance on the subject. Before I started work on my MA in History I believed those myths as well.

Now THIS sounds like something your wrestling coach taught you!!!

Originally Posted by Tyburn

Well, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

From what I understand, several States left the Union pretty much Leagally. BUT then they formed their own Union and even went as far as tryin to Ellect a President.

But some States were almost split between North and South...that is to say they were North officially, but the South occupied, or failed to withdraw from key battlements.

One of which started the war, when the North decided to obliterate one such battlement. Thus you could say the South was then defending itself I suppose.

However...at some point there was definately a wish by BOTH sides to conqure and gain full control of both Unions. Ultimately the North won...but I hear the South will rise again



also...im sure some kinda trade ship was involved as a trigger to this war...but this is going on memory

There is no historical evidence that control of the North was ever a war aim for the South. All they wanted was independence from the tyranny of unfair taxation. If you have access I encourage you to read the transcripts of congress prior to the secession. Also the debates on the Missouri Compromise. The history we are fed today is noting more then a hoax to perpetuate the Abe Lincoln myth. Prior to the Civil Rights movement in the 50 and 60's every school text book taught what I said in one form or another.

Originally Posted by Chuck

Now THIS sounds like something your wrestling coach taught you!!!

my real wrestling coach did teach my history he was also a football coach.

My pro wrestling instructor was Canadian so I doubt he ever cared.


Fact is Chuck a little time in the primary sources and you would see how wrong you are. Revisionist history is very popular and sells text books bottom line. Just look how they have began to demonize Christians in our history. Major events spark revisionist. The feminist movement changed how women were viewed in history. It varies from event to event. Historians are not suppose to be influenced by popular thought when they write. They are suppose to let the sources tell the story. For example the recent surge in homosexuality ideals has lead to so called historians to write that Abe was gay because he shared a bed with his male secretary. So be careful what you swallow as truth.

Originally Posted by Tyburn

Buzzard, the Crimes of gassing a billion Jews for no reason other then they are Jews...and waterboarding one or two terrorists to SAVE billions of lives...you know...like the ones that WERENT Saved in 9/11...are two different things

This is what a lot of Americans do...they try to match something in their History with something in Global History that equates...and usually the end result is so inaccuarate as to be stupid.

There is no relation between the murders of World War Two, and the Interogation Technique of The War on Terror...they are NOT EVER comparable

Tyburn, please learn how to comprehend what you read and how to see when comparisons fit. There is a relation, only you aren't intelligent enough to see it. Ramble on about something else that has nothing to do with the topic you are replying to.

[Tyburn]

Originally Posted by Buzzard

Tyburn, please learn how to comprehend what you read and how to see when comparisons fit. There is a relation, only you aren't intelligent enough to see it. Ramble on about something else that has nothing to do with the topic you are replying to.

oh...dear Buzzard...do enlighten dumb Englishman

How does committing a war crime for the sake of nothing but deliberate murder, resulting in the death of an innocent

relate to

trying to garner life saving information out of a guilty perpertrator useing painful methods that dont result in permenant physical injury

pray tell

Originally Posted by Tyburn

oh...dear Buzzard...do enlighten dumb Englishman

How does committing a war crime for the sake of nothing but deliberate murder, resulting in the death of an innocent

relate to

trying to garner life saving information out of a guilty perpertrator useing painful methods that dont result in permenant physical injury

pray tell

I knew you wouldn't be able to comprehend, and your above post confirms it. Did you not pay attention in class? That's a rhetorical question, please don't launch into a two thousand word essay to answer it and any other topic that is floating in your brain.

[Tyburn]

Originally Posted by Buzzard

I knew you wouldn't be able to comprehend, and your above post confirms it. Did you not pay attention in class? That's a rhetorical question, please don't launch into a two thousand word essay to answer it and any other topic that is floating in your brain.

your discourtesy is unspeakably ugly to me

Originally Posted by Tyburn

your discourtesy is unspeakably ugly to me

Your lack of comprehension and the replies you make because of it are the reasons I respond to you the way I do. Your discourtesy in that matter is equally ugly to me.

The truth is sending a few people running for the hills I see. LMAO