.

And of course the war had nothing to do with slavery.

Lincoln was Tyrannical evil.

And Robert E Lee wasn’t really that good of a general. …
(His record is Meh… And he was even once nicknamed Granny Lee!)

But NONE of that can dare to be discussed in a place like this. :)

If America ever breaks out into another civil war. As a Canadian I will invest and enlist on the side with the color of right.

I am not going to rise to your dangling bait, except to say no one called Lee “Granny” after the 7 Days.
I will admit to sitting perched on my chair, smiling broadly…

Well I always thought Lee was a bad-a$$, until last night… :s and i keep reading about him… and the more and more I read - I realized I was sorely dissappointed.

If anything, Lee was good - only because the Union commanders were a DISASTER.

Eventually Grant came into the picture, and threw zerg waves of union troops at the Lee until he surrendered.  End of story.

Don’t get me wrong, good on Lee for taking a rebel stand and trying, but it wasn’t some amazing military feat of mind.

Cromwell suggested I read Last Chance, by Scott Bowden.
It really opened my eyes to his strategic genius regarding Gettysburg.

@Emperor_Taiki:

@Jermofoot:

Lincoln didn’t go to war.  The South did explicitly over slaves.  So Lincoln did the most logical thing facing an adversary with a very high population of slaves.

Slavery was coming to an end anyway.  The US was one of the last remaining places to still condone it (hence the South splitting to preserve that ability).

The South was fighting for political independence from Washington, if Lincoln hadn’t ordered a violent suppression of the rebellion there would have been no war. The South’s goal was not to conquer the North, they wanted simply to maintain their own independence, much like the Colonists were not trying to conquer the British Empire, they just wanted independence from British rule.

You make a good point that slavery was coming to an end anyway. So why fight a war over something that was about to be resolved? Perhaps Lincoln( and his backers) had other motives and saw their chance at giving a moral spin to the war slipping away, perhaps there were other state rights issues besides slavery that gave the South reason to secede.

Preserving the Union.  That whole Constitution thing.

@Mallery29:

4. How is the audience to participate? real life reenactment of Antietam

5. What do you do about opposing viewpoints? Arrest those individuals and suspend habeaus corpus

6. What events take place at these battle remembrances? The Sherman Special: Rape, Pillage, and Plunder

7. Who are given positions of honor at the remembrances? Who is not? LAST MAN STANDING!

8. Are there different events and expectations for different audiences? For the North, Queen and holo Freddie Mercury plays “We are the Champions”, for the South, a holo Sinatra sings “Here’s to the Losers”

:lol:  These responses are sooo offensive! It’s disgusting!

Time for JERMOFOOT to Eat some HUMBLE PIE too. :)

Have you actually read the Emancipation Proclamation?

Is more words Lincoln says
“If you surrender now - You can keep your slaves, but if you DON’T Surrender, we’ll make it illegal to own slaves just in the REBEL states.”

The Irony?

AFTER the war was over, for a period of time, places like Missouri, and people like Ulysses Grant, still OWNED Slaves.

And Jermofoot LOL if you think Slavery is abolished…

No THOSE are his best ideas, not comedy :oops:

@Cromwell_Dude:

1. So who speaks at the battle remembrances?
2. Who chooses who speaks?

---

1 and 2) Notice I didn’t say an equal number of Northerners and Southerners. I said an equal number of pro-Confederates and pro-Northerners make up the Commission.

How do we have current “Pro-Northerners” and “Pro-Southerners”? I mean, as an individual today if you are a “Pro-Southerner” you must want to secede again and being a “Pro-Northerner” doesn’t even make sense. Do you mean instead that these people would be be speaking on behalf of one side or the other, from a historical standpoint? Because that would be a bit more reasonable.

@Gargantua:

Time for JERMOFOOT to Eat some HUMBLE PIE too. :)

Have you actually read the Emancipation Proclamation?

Is more words Lincoln says
“If you surrender now - You can keep your slaves, but if you DON’T Surrender, we’ll make it illegal to own slaves just in the REBEL states.”

The Irony?

AFTER the war was over, for a period of time, places like Missouri, and people like Ulysses Grant, still OWNED Slaves.

I missed your point. I think you did too.

@LHoffman:

@Cromwell_Dude:

1. So who speaks at the battle remembrances?
2. Who chooses who speaks?

---

1 and 2) Notice I didn’t say an equal number of Northerners and Southerners. I said an equal number of pro-Confederates and pro-Northerners make up the Commission.

How do we have current “Pro-Northerners” and “Pro-Southerners”? I mean, as an individual today if you are a “Pro-Southerner” you must want to secede again and being a “Pro-Northerner” doesn’t even make sense. Do you mean instead that these people would be be speaking on behalf of one side or the other, from a historical standpoint? Because that would be a bit more reasonable.

I believe the point is pro-state’s rights for those who say they are “Pro-Southerner.”

GG

@Jermofoot:

@Gargantua:

Time for JERMOFOOT to Eat some HUMBLE PIE too. :)

Have you actually read the Emancipation Proclamation?

Is more words Lincoln says
“If you surrender now - You can keep your slaves, but if you DON’T Surrender, we’ll make it illegal to own slaves just in the REBEL states.”

The Irony?

AFTER the war was over, for a period of time, places like Missouri, and people like Ulysses Grant, still OWNED Slaves.

I missed your point. I think you did too.

My point is that you don’t know [edited by GG] about the American Civil War.

@Guerrilla:

I believe the point is pro-state’s rights for those who say they are “Pro-Southerner.”

GG

I still do not understand. Someone who claims they are pro-Southerner today, or who would be a speaker for the Confederacy at this imagined event, would be identified today as someone who is pro-State’s rights? The two do not necessarily go together. For example, I consider myself pro-State’s rights, but I do not support secession or the Confederate cause.

Besides, putting people who are politically pro-Southern, or somehow sympathizers on a public platform to speak seems like very much the wrong message to send; it would highlight continuing divide, not unity in remembrance. Seems to me like that could become an argument of “we were right”. Similar for the reverse, you don’t want people who identify with the other side pointing fingers or being scornful. Fortunately, I believe most people would act as such.

The road to take on this issue is the one Lincoln did: neither for the North or for the South, but for the union of the two. By all means there should be representatives from both sides, but it should be neither a victory celebration or a continued resistance rally. I still would prefer some clarification on what Cromwell is talking about with “pro-” one or the other.

@LHoffman:

@Guerrilla:

I believe the point is pro-state’s rights for those who say they are “Pro-Southerner.”

GG

I still do not understand. Someone who claims they are pro-Southerner today, or who would be a speaker for the Confederacy at this imagined event, would be identified today as someone who is pro-State’s rights? The two do not necessarily go together. For example, I consider myself pro-State’s rights, but I do not support secession or the Confederate cause.

Besides, putting people who are politically pro-Southern, or somehow sympathizers on a public platform to speak seems like very much the wrong message to send; it would highlight continuing divide, not unity in remembrance. Seems to me like that could become an argument of “we were right”. Similar for the reverse, you don’t want people who identify with the other side pointing fingers or being scornful. Fortunately, I believe most people would act as such.

The road to take on this issue is the one Lincoln did: neither for the North or for the South, but for the union of the two. By all means there should be representatives from both sides, but it should be neither a victory celebration or a continued resistance rally. I still would prefer some clarification on what Cromwell is talking about with “pro-” one or the other.

I think the point is, individuals in support of the south are stating what was the true cause of the Civil War. Even with the slavery issue, that is an issue of state’s rights vs. federal, although I think the union found the right answer. Often when people say they support the south, they lay at least equal blame and moral failure initially on the North as well as the South. No, State’s rights is not necessarily synonymous with the South… but, the North was certainly profiting off of their industrial base (higher profits, ergo more taxes to the Federal government, who do you think is going to get favors?), and the South was impoverished.

In that case, the nation still think the North was right, and from that devise that strong federal government control is right, because the North was right. Do you see what I am saying? It should be, like you said, a “we were right,” but far too often, that still means whatever the North originally thought was correct.

GG

@Guerrilla:

I think the point is, people are stating what was the true cause of the Civil War. Even with the slavery issue, that is an issue of state’s rights vs. federal, although I think they found the right answer. Often when people say that, they lay at least equal blame and moral failure initially on the North as well as the South.

GG

I sort of get what you are saying. I will not ask you to clarify further, however, your use of indefinite pronouns (“they” “people”) are somewhat confusing.

@LHoffman:

@Guerrilla:

I think the point is, people are stating what was the true cause of the Civil War. Even with the slavery issue, that is an issue of state’s rights vs. federal, although I think they found the right answer. Often when people say that, they lay at least equal blame and moral failure initially on the North as well as the South.

GG

I sort of get what you are saying. I will not ask you to clarify further, however, your use of indefinite pronouns (“they” “people”) are somewhat confusing.

Edited what I said, and expanded…

@Guerrilla:

In that case, the nation still think the North was right, and from that devise that strong federal government control is right, because the North was right. Do you see what I am saying? It should be, like you said, a “we were right,” but far too often, that still means whatever the North originally thought was correct.

GG

Yes, I believe I understand. Thank you for the clarification GG.

Would you want Nazis in charge of Holocaust remembrances?

Y E S ! Imagine how efficient -no rememberance at all- would be.