I trust the Internet now less than I have ever trusted it in the past - yet, I have been able to (in the past) find reliable information on certain things. Right now, subjects that are under the current observation of, and manipulation by, certain factions in this country, are making it difficult to find FACTUAL information on some subjects. My friends, we are in a crucial era right now. History is being rewritten as we speak. A famous person once said, "If we forget our past, we're doomed to repeat it." - I don't even know who the fuck said it, or if that's even spoken verbatim. Fact of the matter is, that person was onto something, and he said something positively true, and potentially profound to the point of being misconstrued or forgotten in the future (read: now.) Now, it's been an eye-opener to me when I went to the web this evening to access some documentation on the lesser-known aspects of what went on during the civil war. Google (a fine search engine, but remarkably easy to manipulate, should you be on the programming side of it) will NOT fetch the same results it did a year or two ago. Al Gore owns a majority portion of stock in Google. Yes, folks. That means OVER HALF. I challenge anyone amongst us to meet me face-to-face, look me straight in the eye, and tell me that if they had that sort of influence, they would not use it to either their own advantage, or to advance their own agenda. (I will give you fair warning - if you take me up on the offer, and I call your bluff and don't believe you, you shall release all claims for personal injury when you are being shot in both eyes with whatever pistol I'm carrying at the time, and on the odd chance I miss my target, expect a 30-06 or .308 planted at the base of your cranium as you run away.) Joe pointed out how quickly factual claims disputing the validity of an Obama presidency are systematically purged from Wikipedia, etc. This glorious tool we have before us, ladies and gentlemen, if you haven't come to the conclusion already - will be the downfall of the way of life in which we have fought for, and cherish. The Internet is amazing - all-encompassing, global, etc, - but IS NOT PERMANENT. Any 'history' recorded on the Internet is subject to editing, and anyone eager to learn about any subject in our past will turn towards the Internet, "google" the subject they're looking to learn about, and depending on what they are searching for, they will either find factual information, or "planted" history. I learned this firsthand while searching for the same references I had a few years ago regarding factual information recorded during the Civil War. That shit is gone now. I bet the Roman citizens never realized the fall until it was too late. We, as "informed citizens" - with a world of resources at our fingertips (including those that are made up as history progresses) - should be wise enough to see USDA PRIME BS when it's fed to us. What the fuck is wrong with most of you people?
And I thought I was paranoid. You know, there are things out there called books that you can get information from. That is if the Dems haven't made their way into every library, store and home in America taking any factual book and replacing it with their version.
So what facts were you looking for, now that has my curiousity up. Are you saying that it wasnt fought simply over slavery? Like the school books my kids bring home say???? Im sure their teachers hate me 1)for being smarter than them and 2)for teaching my kids that you dont always believe what you read. Im just waiting for the first images of white english settlers running through the jungles snaring Africans and dragging them back to their boats. It's amazing that with all the similarities with Obama and Lincoln no one has mentioned Lincolns plan to send slaves back to Africa, I mean, whoa, talk about grown from the same mold....
Mention states rights and your are immediately labeled a southern racist denier. Although when you consider objectively it makes no sense whatsoever to say that the civil war was simply about slavery. Less than 3% of the population had slaves think about it. Living the regular frontier life was a real bitch so according to the school books thousands of able bodied men left their families behind to fend for themselves in a harsh environment so that someone they did not even know could keep their slaves? Riiiiiight. And for those who think concerns about Google are way over rated please do go to a library and politely ask for a book like "The Bell Curve". Or sticking to the topic tell the librarian you are researching the reason behind the civil war and specifically the role of defending constitutional rights of the states played as opposed to "We cannot let them take our niggers!" That will be interesting indeed. The libraries are as bad as Google. And back to the subject of the times being hard and rough. Who do you think had a better chance of surviving some illness of the time say yellow fever? A slave on a Plantation where the owner paid the equivalent for the slave that a modern farmer would pay for say a grain concubine. A slave of whom the owner has a vested interest in the health of his property. Or some poor white frontier person with just enough money to get by and build up supplies to make it through the next coming winter season. Whose choice was to sell the pig they planned on slaughtering for winter and take a chance that a doctor might be able to help and the family surviving on dried beans and cornmeal till May or June comes around. Here is a clue it was not necessarily the way the abolitionist painted it was it when you use your common sense. In a whole lot of ways those slaves had it better then the average white settler out on the frontier. And while I do not for the record approve of the idea that anyone should be a slave why not just simply paint an honest picture of what occurred. Why lie whats wrong with the truth? Lets see the facts for what they really were. Did the South march through the North to the North East burning down towns raping and pillaging, leaving the women and children with burned down shells of a home with no man around to help out so they could fend for themselves. If they did they would not look so cavalier and glamorous would they?
Slaves had a better chance of surviving than a common white person in the south. Share croppers had no value to the plantation owner and were treated worse than slaves. If by chance a poor family had the opportunity to obtain a slave the slave generally ate with the family and shared the house. Who do you think taught them to read? The poor farmer worked arm in arm with them. That's what kills me, the fact that they make it sound like the south was all pissy about slaves. The north was pissed because it had no way of sustaining itself. The south was completley, and monetarily, seperate from the north. Without a strong federal government they couldnt take the money through 'taxes' and bring it up north. Of course it comes full circle. the 'dumb' south, that was against a strong central government is the same area that is supporting it now. If you 'quartered' the country the southeast has a higher working populous, and pays a majority share of the tax burden. California cannot support itself, but somehow has the highest number of electoral votes, New York cant support the burden of Manhattan let alone the whole state, but whoa, what is the majority political party of New York????? I think I am going to save for the next few years then move to New Zealand, or Australia.
It's true how many old homes do you see with slave quarters in the back. Once again ONLY on plantations and that's a really small segment of the population. So the proposed historical facts just simply do not add up.
Thank you... You two have eloquently stated the fundamentals that would have taken me quite a while to put to words. What is also worth mentioning, is the fact that the North, even during the Civil War, took place in a great deal of slave trading. For instance, the "Breakers Mansion" in Rhode Island was wone of many homes built during the civil war that had subterranean tunnels, complete with shackles on the walls, so that they could trade slaves under the eye of the current government.
I think its funny that they want to teach that the Civil War ended slavery, when it just ended it in the 'south'. Kentucky had slaves up into the 1890s. Damn you john wilkes booth!!!! If you just would have waited a couple of months....
