So Mississippi is celebrating Confederate History Month

[homersapien 12,172]

My God. You think McPherson is the gospel don't you?

Post the links if you have em boys

http://thomaslegion....lwarcauses.html

McPherson's in the upper rank of Civil War historians. Course, you wouldn't know that.

Apparently, you also don't understand that links citing some neo-confederate blogger hardly have the same standing as a book by a professional historian citing original texts.

[telling tiger 156]

For someone who said and I quote, "we can discuss this like adults'', you just called a man a prick who had the audacity to have a different opinion than you. How's that adult working out for you?

You're getting your ass handed to you in this debate and will defend your right to be wrong to the death.

How very Civil War southern of you.

How revisionist of you. Step in line with the sheep. Ha

For someone who said and I quote, "we can discuss this like adults'', you just called a man a prick who had the audacity to have a different opinion than you. How's that adult working out for you?

You're getting your ass handed to you in this debate and will defend your right to be wrong to the death.

How very Civil War southern of you.

How revisionist of you. Step in line with the sheep. Ha

You are quite the denier sheep yourself, there big fella....

From the CSA VP, himself...."The Union was formed on the mistaken belief that all men were created equal"...

Impossible to explain it away...Good thing, you're not explaining it away. Nothing to revise about A DIRECT QUOTE from him....bless your heart.

[aujeff11 6,243]

My God. You think McPherson is the gospel don't you?

Post the links if you have em boys

http://thomaslegion....lwarcauses.html

McPherson's in the upper rank of Civil War historians. Course, you wouldn't know that.

Apparently, you also don't understand that links citing some neo-confederate blogger hardly have the same standing as a book by a professional historian citing original texts.

Yeah well McPherson has his own critics. Maybe you shouldn't treat his material like gold as well. Funny how nothing was said about the long post. Maybe it's because it had references to support it ...

[homersapien 12,172]

My God. You think McPherson is the gospel don't you?

Post the links if you have em boys

http://thomaslegion....lwarcauses.html

McPherson's in the upper rank of Civil War historians. Course, you wouldn't know that.

Apparently, you also don't understand that links citing some neo-confederate blogger hardly have the same standing as a book by a professional historian citing original texts.

Yeah well McPherson has his own critics. Maybe you shouldn't treat his material like gold as well. Funny how nothing was said about the long post. Maybe it's because it had references to support it ...

No, it's because it's BS.

Bloggers citing revisionist historians are a dime a dozen. The historians I am citing are the best in the field.

[aujeff11 6,243]

My God. You think McPherson is the gospel don't you?

Post the links if you have em boys

http://thomaslegion....lwarcauses.html

McPherson's in the upper rank of Civil War historians. Course, you wouldn't know that.

Apparently, you also don't understand that links citing some neo-confederate blogger hardly have the same standing as a book by a professional historian citing original texts.

Yeah well McPherson has his own critics. Maybe you shouldn't treat his material like gold as well. Funny how nothing was said about the long post. Maybe it's because it had references to support it ...

No, it's because it's BS.

Bloggers citing revisionist historians are a dime a dozen. The historians I am citing are the best in the field.

He is as much a revisionist as the ones that you're going on and on about. The link I supplied wasn't from a blogger either. If you read the work at all you would know that.

[Mims44 1,969]

Yep, "states rights" my ass. They cared about one "states' right" - the right to own other people as slaves to enrich themselves.

On the surface states rights and slavery both adequately show the reason, the states right of course being the right to own slaves.

What's turned most people off to the use of "States rights" as an answer (you too I'm sure) is the reason most people will say states rights instead of slavery is to either evade the slavery issue altogether or to at least downplay it out of some sense of southern guilt.

It's the same as saying wealth & power caused the Civil War, or more accurately the threat of losing that wealth & power caused secession. but since the wealth and power were both built on slave labor, slavery is still the reason.

Unless someone is doing an academic study based on wealth & power to secession fervor or trying to incite new thought into an old thought process, there isn't much reason to say one instead of the other except to deflect.

The threat of losing their wealth didn't even cause the secession. Many wealthy slaveowners( and remember the resources were highly consecrated) didn't even want to secede from the union. They felt their wealth was safe only in the union. The threat of adding more free states to the union, allowing an overwhelming majority against the south was the reason the south chose to secede... after they exhausted all legal possibilities possible.

Nobody is trying to evade the issue either. We can have a discussion like grown men and discuss things in a reasonable manner. The slaveowners made morally bankrupt choices but I'm arguing that they believed they had the right to make those choices.

But what's your point? They were rich oligarchs. Secession was never subjected to a popular vote.

Went ahead and made that part big for you, I don't think anyone is arguing against that point. Just about everyone who has fought for anything ever has believed they had a right to some thing. You would be hard pressed to find a country or people willing to fight and die for something they believed they did not need or deserve.

IE: Even pedo's will do mental jumping jacks until they have proven to themselves that they have the RIGHT to CHOOSE to bang little kids.

[Mims44 1,969]

Also, and it's been used too many times to quote them all.

Revisionist... stop using it as a slanderous term

If revisionism is wrong then you need to tell every historian in the world to find new work. History is all about revision.

[AUDub 11,784]

My God. You think McPherson is the gospel don't you?

Post the links if you have em boys

http://thomaslegion....lwarcauses.html

McPherson's in the upper rank of Civil War historians. Course, you wouldn't know that.

Apparently, you also don't understand that links citing some neo-confederate blogger hardly have the same standing as a book by a professional historian citing original texts.

Yeah well McPherson has his own critics. Maybe you shouldn't treat his material like gold as well. Funny how nothing was said about the long post. Maybe it's because it had references to support it ...

No, it's because it's BS.

Bloggers citing revisionist historians are a dime a dozen. The historians I am citing are the best in the field.

He is as much a revisionist as the ones that you're going on and on about. The link I supplied wasn't from a blogger either. If you read the work at all you would know that.

No. Your link was from a Mormon apologist, JFK assassination conspiracy theorist, revisionist historian, neo-confederate jackwad. There really is no comparison.

You're holding up bullsh*t and are trying to convince us there's some kind of validity to the comparison. There's not.

[AUDub 11,784]

Also, and it's been used too many times to quote them all.

Revisionist... stop using it as a slanderous term

If revisionism is wrong then you need to tell every historian in the world to find new work. History is all about revision.

That's not true. At all. Like any field, inability to overcome bias is a bad quality.

[aujeff11 6,243]

Also, and it's been used too many times to quote them all.

Revisionist... stop using it as a slanderous term :lol:/>

If revisionism is wrong then you need to tell every historian in the world to find new work. History is all about revision.

That's not true. At all. Like any field, inability to overcome bias is a bad quality.

Mcpherson said the exact same damn thing Mims said

[aujeff11 6,243]

My God. You think McPherson is the gospel don't you?

Post the links if you have em boys

http://thomaslegion....lwarcauses.html

McPherson's in the upper rank of Civil War historians. Course, you wouldn't know that.

Apparently, you also don't understand that links citing some neo-confederate blogger hardly have the same standing as a book by a professional historian citing original texts.

Yeah well McPherson has his own critics. Maybe you shouldn't treat his material like gold as well. Funny how nothing was said about the long post. Maybe it's because it had references to support it ...

No, it's because it's BS.

Bloggers citing revisionist historians are a dime a dozen. The historians I am citing are the best in the field.

He is as much a revisionist as the ones that you're going on and on about. The link I supplied wasn't from a blogger either. If you read the work at all you would know that.

No. Your link was from a Mormon apologist, JFK assassination conspiracy theorist, revisionist historian, neo-confederate jackwad. There really is no comparison.

You're holding up bullsh*t and are trying to convince us there's some kind of validity to the comparison. There's not.

"Mormon apologist"....WTF

[AUDub 11,784]

My God. You think McPherson is the gospel don't you?

Post the links if you have em boys

http://thomaslegion....lwarcauses.html

McPherson's in the upper rank of Civil War historians. Course, you wouldn't know that.

Apparently, you also don't understand that links citing some neo-confederate blogger hardly have the same standing as a book by a professional historian citing original texts.

Yeah well McPherson has his own critics. Maybe you shouldn't treat his material like gold as well. Funny how nothing was said about the long post. Maybe it's because it had references to support it ...

No, it's because it's BS.

Bloggers citing revisionist historians are a dime a dozen. The historians I am citing are the best in the field.

He is as much a revisionist as the ones that you're going on and on about. The link I supplied wasn't from a blogger either. If you read the work at all you would know that.

No. Your link was from a Mormon apologist, JFK assassination conspiracy theorist, revisionist historian, neo-confederate jackwad. There really is no comparison.

You're holding up bullsh*t and are trying to convince us there's some kind of validity to the comparison. There's not.

"Mormon apologist"....WTF

Michael T. Griffith is a Mormon apologist.

Yes. Mormon apologetics is a thing.

[AUDub 11,784]

Also, and it's been used too many times to quote them all.

Revisionist... stop using it as a slanderous term

If revisionism is wrong then you need to tell every historian in the world to find new work. History is all about revision.

That's not true. At all. Like any field, inability to overcome bias is a bad quality.

Mcpherson said the exact same damn thing Mims said

LOL where exactly? McPherson sure as hell didn't endorse the illegitimate distortion of the historical record.

[aujeff11 6,243]

My God. You think McPherson is the gospel don't you?

Post the links if you have em boys

http://thomaslegion....lwarcauses.html

McPherson's in the upper rank of Civil War historians. Course, you wouldn't know that.

Apparently, you also don't understand that links citing some neo-confederate blogger hardly have the same standing as a book by a professional historian citing original texts.

Yeah well McPherson has his own critics. Maybe you shouldn't treat his material like gold as well. Funny how nothing was said about the long post. Maybe it's because it had references to support it ...

No, it's because it's BS.

Bloggers citing revisionist historians are a dime a dozen. The historians I am citing are the best in the field.

He is as much a revisionist as the ones that you're going on and on about. The link I supplied wasn't from a blogger either. If you read the work at all you would know that.

No. Your link was from a Mormon apologist, JFK assassination conspiracy theorist, revisionist historian, neo-confederate jackwad. There really is no comparison.

You're holding up bullsh*t and are trying to convince us there's some kind of validity to the comparison. There's not.

"Mormon apologist"....WTF

Michael T. Griffith is a Mormon apologist.

Yes. Mormon apologetics is a thing.

I feel bad for the Mormons then because a prick just tried to slander their beliefs over something completely unrelated to African American slavery.

And damn, if you're going to call out his credentials at least bring them all to the table:

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Michael T. Griffith holds a Master’s degree in Theology from The Catholic Distance University, a Bachelor’s degree in Liberal Arts from Excelsior College, two Associate in Applied Science degrees from the Community College of the Air Force, and an Advanced Certificate of Civil War Studies and a Certificate of Civil War Studies from Carroll College. He is a two-time graduate of the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California, in Arabic and Hebrew, and of the U.S. Air Force Technical Training School in San Angelo, Texas, and has completed advanced Hebrew programs at Haifa University in Israel and at the Spiro Institute in London, England. He is also the author of five books on Mormonism and ancient texts and one book on the John F. Kennedy assassination.

[Mims44 1,969]

Also, and it's been used too many times to quote them all.

Revisionist... stop using it as a slanderous term :lol:/>

If revisionism is wrong then you need to tell every historian in the world to find new work. History is all about revision.

That's not true. At all. Like any field, inability to overcome bias is a bad quality.

Mcpherson said the exact same damn thing Mims said

That's because he, like damn near every other historian is a revisionist.

[aujeff11 6,243]

Also, and it's been used too many times to quote them all.

Revisionist... stop using it as a slanderous term :lol:/>

If revisionism is wrong then you need to tell every historian in the world to find new work. History is all about revision.

That's not true. At all. Like any field, inability to overcome bias is a bad quality.

Mcpherson said the exact same damn thing Mims said

LOL where exactly? McPherson sure as hell didn't endorse the illegitimate distortion of the historical record.

Is revisionism "illegitimate distortion?" And is that what Mims said?

Here is the link...

https://www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/perspectives-on-history/september-2003/revisionist-historians

[AUDub 11,784]

Also, and it's been used too many times to quote them all.

Revisionist... stop using it as a slanderous term :lol:/>

If revisionism is wrong then you need to tell every historian in the world to find new work. History is all about revision.

That's not true. At all. Like any field, inability to overcome bias is a bad quality.

Mcpherson said the exact same damn thing Mims said

LOL where exactly? McPherson sure as hell didn't endorse the illegitimate distortion of the historical record.

Is revisionism "illegitimate distortion?" And is that what Mims said?

Here is the link...

https://www.historia...nist-historians

Mims is using the word in a different context.

[Mims44 1,969]

Also, and it's been used too many times to quote them all.

Revisionist... stop using it as a slanderous term

If revisionism is wrong then you need to tell every historian in the world to find new work. History is all about revision.

That's not true. At all. Like any field, inability to overcome bias is a bad quality.

Mcpherson said the exact same damn thing Mims said

LOL where exactly? McPherson sure as hell didn't endorse the illegitimate distortion of the historical record.

revising is not inherently a bad thing, many historical truths are found only after countless revisions as more data is uncovered in each attempt.

revision has become this slang term people throw out to discredit one another, when in actuality the vast majority of historical works today are revision... unless they are covering something completely new, or rejecting every other work on a subject throughout the history of its existence.

[AUDub 11,784]

I feel bad for the Mormons then because a prick just tried to slander their beliefs over something completely unrelated to African American slavery.

And damn, if you're going to call out his credentials at least bring them all to the table:

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Michael T. Griffith holds a Master's degree in Theology from The Catholic Distance University, a Bachelor's degree in Liberal Arts from Excelsior College, two Associate in Applied Science degrees from the Community College of the Air Force, and an Advanced Certificate of Civil War Studies and a Certificate of Civil War Studies from Carroll College. He is a two-time graduate of the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California, in Arabic and Hebrew, and of the U.S. Air Force Technical Training School in San Angelo, Texas, and has completed advanced Hebrew programs at Haifa University in Israel and at the Spiro Institute in London, England. He is also the author of five books on Mormonism and ancient texts and one book on the John F. Kennedy assassination.

There's that word again. Tried to slander beliefs? Really? My point is that he is theology writer.

No offense, but those credentials suck. The closest thing he has to a history degree are certificates.

[AUDub 11,784]

revising is not inherently a bad thing, many historical truths are found only after countless revisions as more data is uncovered in each attempt.

revision has become this slang term people throw out to discredit one another, when in actuality the vast majority of historical works today are revision... unless they are covering something completely new, or rejecting every other work on a subject throughout the history of its existence.

The context in which McPherson uses it here:

This offshoot came to be known as revisionism. Revisionism tended to portray Southern whites, even the fire-eaters, as victims reacting to Northern attacks; it truly was a "war of Northern aggression".

refers to it in the sense of negationism, which is inherently bad.

[aujeff11 6,243]

I feel bad for the Mormons then because a prick just tried to slander their beliefs over something completely unrelated to African American slavery.

And damn, if you're going to call out his credentials at least bring them all to the table:

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Michael T. Griffith holds a Master's degree in Theology from The Catholic Distance University, a Bachelor's degree in Liberal Arts from Excelsior College, two Associate in Applied Science degrees from the Community College of the Air Force, and an Advanced Certificate of Civil War Studies and a Certificate of Civil War Studies from Carroll College. He is a two-time graduate of the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California, in Arabic and Hebrew, and of the U.S. Air Force Technical Training School in San Angelo, Texas, and has completed advanced Hebrew programs at Haifa University in Israel and at the Spiro Institute in London, England. He is also the author of five books on Mormonism and ancient texts and one book on the John F. Kennedy assassination.

There's that word again. Tried to slander beliefs? Really? My point is that he is theology writer.

No offense, but those credentials suck. The closest thing he has to a history degree are certificates.

His credentials into the studies of the civil war is already better than yours.

[aujeff11 6,243]

revising is not inherently a bad thing, many historical truths are found only after countless revisions as more data is uncovered in each attempt.

revision has become this slang term people throw out to discredit one another, when in actuality the vast majority of historical works today are revision... unless they are covering something completely new, or rejecting every other work on a subject throughout the history of its existence.

The context in which McPherson uses it here:

This offshoot came to be known as revisionism. Revisionism tended to portray Southern whites, even the fire-eaters, as victims reacting to Northern attacks; it truly was a "war of Northern aggression".

refers to it in the sense of negationism, which is inherently bad.

"yeah but he really meant!"

[AUDub 11,784]

His credentials into the studies of the civil war is already better than yours.

Yes, but you're comparing him to James McPherson, one of the most respected Civil War historians, not little ole me.

[aujeff11 6,243]

Also, and it's been used too many times to quote them all.

Revisionist... stop using it as a slanderous term :lol:/>

If revisionism is wrong then you need to tell every historian in the world to find new work. History is all about revision.

That's not true. At all. Like any field, inability to overcome bias is a bad quality.

Mcpherson said the exact same damn thing Mims said

LOL where exactly? McPherson sure as hell didn't endorse the illegitimate distortion of the historical record.

revising is not inherently a bad thing, many historical truths are found only after countless revisions as more data is uncovered in each attempt.

revision has become this slang term people throw out to discredit one another, when in actuality the vast majority of historical works today are revision... unless they are covering something completely new, or rejecting every other work on a subject throughout the history of its existence.

You're just being a revisionist of the revisionists.

[AUDub 11,784]

"yeah but he really meant!"

That's exactly what he was referring to in the context of this conversation, no matter how much y'all want to dither around with definitions.