A moment in history.. Fair play and the great emancipator..

[ironglows]

This is quite a History lesson.

Indeed it is. Lincoln is a lesson in socialism which showed his socialist views ignored States rights. And like communism which follows socialism, committed genocide against American people (almost 1 million) that disagreed with him.
The challenge with history is separating facts, from flowers.

Anybody who ordered the US military to fire on fellow Americans should not be celebrated in any way, shape or form. Lincoln was a tyrant, plain and simple.

Well, disinformation works on some folks. Lincoln was cannonizd first by the Republicans, and now the Democrats.

  Not exactly; the only one who "cannonized" Lincoln was John Wilkes Booth !    He had numerous henchmen who were scheduled to decapitate the top eschelon of the US government, but each in turn, failed  in their mission, some through stupidity, some through plain cowardice.
 
     Ironically, Booth was carrying on a romance with Kate, the daughter of Salmon P Chase (R-Ohio), a big Lincoln supporter..  Booth swearing all his love etc. while planning his murderous scheme..shows character.

  Actually, Secretary of State Seward, along with members of his family, were severely wounded, while th edude assigned to kill Secretary of war Stanton, completely blew his assignment !

  He didn't realize it of course, but if he had not killed Lincoln, old Abe would have seen to it that the reconstruction program would have turned out much better for south, than it actually did !

  I highly Recommend..  "Killing Lincoln"..by Bill O'Reilly

[Dee]

Yeah, "ole abe" ordered the killing of almost 1 million men, women, and children, destroyed their homes, wrecked their economy and lives, and seized their property, and stole their livelihoods.
So he could "reshape" their States and citizenry more to HIS liking. What a humanitarian.

I guess after one finishes Bill O'rileys' book, they can do one of Hal Lindseys' books. Their fictional to.

[ironglows]

.
 Without a doubt, the Civil war was one of the least necessary and more foolish endeavors our country was ever subjected to.  A tragedy all the way around, but one that could have been called off at any time during the 4 year long conflict !
 
  https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/civil-war-casualties

  As Mark Twain said after reading his own obituary....."The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated."

  I tend to believe that the reports coming from Georgia after Sherman's campaign, were greatly exaggerated.
  Yes, there may have been some isolated incidents, told and retold, to the point of being blown up so far as to be unrecognizable by the originator.

  Generally speaking, I don't believe the average Billy Yank or Johnny Reb would routinely be viciously cruel toward women a d children !

  judging by today's American troops..and it is fair.. Our troops are among the best behaved upon any battlefield.

[ironglows]

.
  Correct you are TM !  For the Confederacy to have even thought of overcoming the union by themselves, was only a pipe dream.
      Short of being lunatics, they had to be hoping for European interference.  The logistics were all operating against them.
 
   It has been said that "amateurs think tactics, while professionals think logistics" !

  The logistics did not favor the south..  They had neither the wealth, the population, manufacturing, technology or transportation resupply routes.

  While they evidently thought theirs was the more noble cause, that alone will not suffice.  For example of this overblown tenacity, one would have to hearken back to the Bushido code of the Japanese during WW2.
 
  Their sacred blades were indeed a beauty to behold and extremely deadly in the hands of a Bushido warrior, they still failed when used against an M1 or a BAR...even though those guns were unceremoniously greasy and dirty.

  Without European intervention, they had to know it was only a "matter of time".  Apparently they could not fathom the idea that no European power wanted to take that chance, since the English king was handed  his head  in 1812-1814.  And the US, through "manifest destiny", had only become stronger.

  So, for manufacturing and technology, the Confederacy had to rely on foreign powers..arms and machines from England, France and some other European powers.

 These things had to come into primarily 2 ports ..Charleston and New Orleans.  Charleston seized almost immediately..New Orleans to follow. 
  The Union had a very much superior Navy, so they could control the ports, as well as to control the
 Mississippi river well inland, which is why Grant handily captured Natchez early on.

  The Union had a poor series of commanding generals, which prolonged the conflict..  Then US Grant was appointed..and US Grant had a very firm grasp of logistics.  Georgia was a key point, so he closed Georgia.

  That also killed any viable rail connections across the confederacy.

  "Amateurs think tactics, professionals think logistics"!  I

  n WW2 we shut off Japan's iron ore, rubber and oil  we did the same to Nazi Germany.  No matter how fanatic..their forces cannot fight without food or supplies.

  Rather like what congress did to our troops in Vietnam.

[Doublebass73]

Actually it was the Con-federates who fired first on Union troops housed in Ft. Sumter.

Who fired first is irrelevant. The US military had no business being at Fort Sumter in the first place. It would be like the US military going to 2A sanctuary states today to "keep them in line" and enforce pedophile Joe's gun control laws.

South Carolina was and is a sovereign state, just the way the founders intended. The founders also intended for the Union to be VOLUNTARY, that's the point you aren't grasping. Marching troops to Fort Sumter was federal overreach and forcing people to be a part of a union they didn't want to be in is exactly what the Soviets did.

[ironglows]

I'm thinking England and France were strategizing for the North and South to destroy esch other. The English would msrch in  from Canada and retake the North. The French from Mexico would retake Louisiana and the South. Spain would retake Florida and the Caribbean.  If not for Russian pressures and Lincoln's diplomacy we wouldn't be the America we know today (or should I say use to know before Joebama).

In a way the Civil Wsr was the first front of the great World Wars to come.

.TM7

  That is a viable concept.. Pproblem was, that the Confederacy never showed any sign of expanding.  Surely, if Lee had been able to penetrate in force, a couple northern states..showing requisite power, England may have taken a second look, but all they could muster in any real force, were raids in Kentucky and Missouri, plus a major incursion into Gettysburg.
  Gettysburg was their high point, their nadir of the war..from there it was downhill.  It appears the strategy of the Confederacy, was to drag out the war long enough, and force enough deaths, to cause the Federals to lose their will to fight..and thus, settle for "half a loaf".
 
       However, Lincoln and Grant were not Biden and Kerry...so the plan did not work !

.

[ironglows]

Actually it was the Con-federates who fired first on Union troops housed in Ft. Sumter.

Who fired first is irrelevant. The US military had no business being at Fort Sumter in the first place. It would be like the US military going to 2A sanctuary states today to "keep them in line" and enforce pedophile Joe's gun control laws.

South Carolina was and is a sovereign state, just the way the founders intended. The founders also intended for the Union to be VOLUNTARY, that's the point you aren't grasping. Marching troops to Fort Sumter was federal overreach and forcing people to be a part of a union they didn't want to be in is exactly what the Soviets did.

  Interesting point!  The US Constitution was established for the benefit of the member states of the United States.
  If certain states decide to withdraw from that agreement..are they still entitled to the same rights, privileges and courtesies, which member states reserve for one another?
 
   I would expect that if a state decides to leave that union, then all bets are off, so far as those benefits are concerned

   "Who shot first"... is a very important question !  It was an important question between the Hatfields and McCoys, the Dec 7, 1941 raid on Pearl Harbor....plus several cases in Dodge City and Ft Smith of the 19th century.

[Doublebass73]

Actually it was the Con-federates who fired first on Union troops housed in Ft. Sumter.

Who fired first is irrelevant. The US military had no business being at Fort Sumter in the first place. It would be like the US military going to 2A sanctuary states today to "keep them in line" and enforce pedophile Joe's gun control laws.

South Carolina was and is a sovereign state, just the way the founders intended. The founders also intended for the Union to be VOLUNTARY, that's the point you aren't grasping. Marching troops to Fort Sumter was federal overreach and forcing people to be a part of a union they didn't want to be in is exactly what the Soviets did.

  Interesting point!  The US Constitution was established for the benefit of the member states of the United States.
  If certain states decide to withdraw from that agreement..are they still entitled to the same rights, privileges and courtesies, which member states reserve for one another?
 
   I would expect that if a state decides to leave that union, then all bets are off, so far as those benefits are concerned

   "Who shot first"... is a very important question !  It was an important question between the Hatfields and McCoys, the Dec 7, 1941 raid on Pearl Harbor....plus several cases in Dodge City and Ft Smith of the 19th century.

You made my point with the pearl harbor reference. The Japs had no business being there in the first place so even if one of our guys fired on the Japs before they dropped their bombs it's irrelevant because our guys were defending the home turf.

If a state withdraws from the Union they are not entitled to any benefits of the US Consitution that member states have. Last time I checked none of the southern states were asking for that, they wanted to be left alone to form their own Union.

[Dee]

South Carolina had filed documents with the United States government citing their reasons for secession, and as you say DB, they asked for nuthin other than to be left alone, and the United States military to vacate Ft Sumter located in South Carolina.
Instead, the United States military chose to resupply and stay. If they had vacated Ft Sumter in South Carolina, it would likely have never happened.

Socialist Lincoln was determined to earn his keep by the northern lobbyists, and was willing to kill innocent men, women, and children to do it.

DB, people support socialism, when socialism supports their viewpoint.

[Casull]

The SC militia attacked an unarmed Union supply ship (Star of the West I think was the name) before filing papers. Then they fired on Ft. Sumter only 5 days sfter filing their secession grievances. There were sympathizers in Charleston acting as London surrogates carrying out the attacks. Lincoln no doubt remembered King George's pledge to take back the colonies if it was the last thing he ever did.

Was King George still around 75 years later?   

[ironglows]

The SC militia attacked an unarmed Union supply ship (Star of the West I think was the name) before filing papers. Then they fired on Ft. Sumter only 5 days sfter filing their secession grievances. There were sympathizers in Charleston acting as London surrogates carrying out the attacks. Lincoln no doubt remembered King George's pledge to take back the colonies if it was the last thing he ever did.

Was King George still around 75 years later?   

  Since monarchy is normally hereditary, a promise made by any monarch, is often considered an obligation  for his/her descendants.
  Victoria was queen during th eperiod in question...and she was of the royal line.

[Dee]

Socialist Lincoln was determined to earn his keep by the northern lobbyists, and was willing to kill innocent men, women, and children to do it.

, people support socialism, when socialism supports their viewpoint.

 

[Doublebass73]

DB, people support socialism, when socialism supports their viewpoint.

That's the truth.

[ironglows]

DB, people support socialism, when socialism supports their viewpoint.

That's the truth.

  ...And some people support false conclusions when it fits THEIR agenda..

[Dee]

DB, people support socialism, when socialism supports their viewpoint.

That's the truth.

  ...And some people support false conclusions when it fits THEIR agenda..

They sure do.

[Dee]

D73, Dee....In a few more years of Biden/Harris and whomever gets rigged into office after them, and the USA might Balkanize.

So, let's say you live in a state that wants to carry on with Constitutional Law and traditional American values. But an adjacent state, say California, adopts progressive Marxist tenants and says it will align itself with China and the CCP.

So by your yardstick that state has every 'state' right to secede and do what they want and align with with who they want. Are you comfortable with that scenario? Similar
situation to what Lincoln faced in some respects....

.TM7

I believe in States rights. Do you?

Lets say California which has already turned socialist, so we don't have to pretend, has a state election, and votes to align with Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, and Washington state, and wants to separate, because the Biden/Harris administration has turned communist.

Should the Biden/Harris administration order the military in, and by force destroy all 5 states economy, seize their businesses, wealth, and kill anyone that resists, including their families?

[Mule 11]

D73, Dee....In a few more years of Biden/Harris and whomever gets rigged into office after them, and the USA might Balkanize.

So, let's say you live in a state that wants to carry on with Constitutional Law and traditional American values. But an adjacent state, say California, adopts progressive Marxist tenants and says it will align itself with China and the CCP.

So by your yardstick that state has every 'state' right to secede and do what they want and align with with who they want. Are you comfortable with that scenario? Similar
situation to what Lincoln faced in some respects....

.TM7

I would like to answer that. Let them leave the union. California is a fine and beautiful peace of America. That is where it ends... After they collapse, we take it back...

[Dee]

I believe in individual rights. I believe governments  are contrived and mis represent individual rights oftdn, too often.

As far as an adjacent state going full CCP commie, i d have a problem with that. And I think Lincoln had a similar question confronting him, relatively speaking.

The Confederacy was no where near a socialist/communist entity. The Lincoln regime WAS socialist in nature, controlled by northern industrial elites bent on imposing their will on textile producers in the southern States refusing to bow to northern pricing.
So "selective socialism" is ok if you agree with it, in your view.
Well, obviously "in your view" then, the killing of almost 1 million men, women, and children, were justified in Lincolns' vision.
And also Lincolns socialist ending of States rights "in your view" was ok.
So to summarize, "some socialism" is ok, as long as you agree with its direction.
You don't like Biden, but agree with Lincoln. What a conflict.

[Dee]

TM, I see "States rights". I see "individual rights".
The only threat the Southern States posed to the Lincoln Regime was their textile prices didn't suit northern textile buyers.
I may not like California liberalism, but it's their state.
I don't pick and choose socialist agendas I like, and ones I don't like.
We aren't ever gonna agree on Lincoln. As far as I'm concerned, he went way beyond what Biden has done so far.
I grew up on this stuff. My part of Texas was heavily part of the Southern Confederacy. They taught it in our schools, they made us study the entire event, the documents of both sides, the individual events ect.
I've said everything thing that I thought might open eyes, and it hasn't. I don't see any need in spurring a wore out horse.

[ironglows]

.
   One can reduce government from federal to state to county, or parish..even down to local village..and further to the individual.
  Unfortunately in this dog-eat-dog world, federal governments are a necessary thing.  No single state, county or village could withstand a Chinese or Russian attack, so we have a larger entity, called the United States.

   ..But what about individual rights?  Well, individual rights are the entire key.  We cannot preserve our individual rights when it is an "each man for himself" scenario!

  However, our founding fathers were very prescient...they knew an over reaching federal government could attack individual rights.  ...So what to do?

      They created a very unique document for it's time.  That document is called our "Bill of Rights", and it's sole purpose was to guarantee our personal liberty.

  Each of the original 10 points, outlined an individual right for each person.. Freedom of religion, freedom to assemble, right to keep and bear arms, right to privacy in one's home and so forth.

  Those are our rights, and with them comes responsibility, a responsibility to defend those rights against any and all who would usurp them.

  We have a sinister force which has invaded our federal government of today, a force that is trying to rob us of our God-given rights !

   We would be far better off fighting the threat of today, rather than to refight old debates of 150+ years ago.

  Our Bill of Rights, takes much power away from the central government, and gives it back to the individual.  This may be the reason Barack Obama referred to our Bill of Rights..as a negative Bill of Rights !
 Presumably because it took power from the feds and gave it back to the individual...where it belongs!

[nw_hunter]

Author Thomas Dilorenzo Devoted a big part of his career to obtaining facts about the (Great Emancipator) Abraham Lincoln. His book "The Real Lincoln" lets us see a side of this man, not taught in Guvmit Skewls. After reading it, I bought several copies to give to friends who were taught as I was, that he was a great and honorable man. As far as the Northern War of Aggression. AKA the Civil War, the reasons were political. Slavery was used as a reason . Only one percent of Southerners owned slaves, and many Plantation owners were already freeing them. The NWOA  like all other wars was about Greed. The rich wanted to get even richer. Same thing today. They use honest, hard working citizens as they see fit. BTW "IG" Lincoln didn't end slavery. It still exists today, and most are not Black, but Whites.  Slavery has never been about Race.

ABOUT THE REAL LINCOLN
A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War

Most Americans consider Abraham Lincoln to be the greatest president in history. His legend as the Great Emancipator has grown to mythic proportions as hundreds of books, a national holiday, and a monument in Washington, D.C., extol his heroism and martyrdom. But what if most everything you knew about Lincoln were false? What if, instead of an American hero who sought to free the slaves, Lincoln were in fact a calculating politician who waged the bloodiest war in american history in order to build an empire that rivaled Great Britain’s?

In The Real Lincoln, author Thomas J. DiLorenzo uncovers a side of Lincoln not told in many history books–and overshadowed by the immense Lincoln legend. Through extensive research and meticulous documentation, DiLorenzo portrays the sixteenth president as a man who devoted his political career to revolutionizing the American form of government from one that was very limited in scope and highly decentralized—as the Founding Fathers intended—to a highly centralized, activist state. Standing in his way, however, was the South, with its independent states, its resistance to the national government, and its reliance on unfettered free trade. To accomplish his goals, Lincoln subverted the Constitution, trampled states’ rights, and launched a devastating Civil War, whose wounds haunt us still. According to this provacative book, 600,000 American soldiers did not die for the honorable cause of ending slavery but for the dubious agenda of sacrificing the independence of the states to the supremacy of the federal government, which has been tightening its vise grip on our republic to this very day.

In The Real Lincoln, you will discover a side of Lincoln that you were probably never taught in school—a side that calls into question the very myths that surround him and helps explain the true origins of a bloody, and perhaps, unnecessary war.

[Dee]

Thank you nw_hunter. I've always found it "odd" that while folks such as myself actually grew up in the South, and were taught in public schools, Southern History, using "Historical FACTS" such as federal, and Confederate documents, copies of documented speeches, physical evidence at times provided by local family members, including my own family, that somehow, northerners knew what happened down here, better than we that live here.

They know nothing. They repeat "the myths" read in books like Bill O'Reilly, whom got his own information from other books, and perhaps governmental disinformation concerning Lincoln and his heinous acts, while ignoring his own words, in speeches, addresses, and actions.

We here in the South, in the days when the truth was the preferred version, got the straight story, while the northern States followed this socialist Lincoln blindly believing propaganda, in hopes of better jobs, with a government bent on theft of production, profits, property, and Southern success.

As I've said: The farther you get from history, the farther you get from the truth.

[nw_hunter]

I spent the first 18 years of my life in the South. Growing up in Arkansas.The last part of my life has been in Oregon, and the last Republican Governor of Oregon was Victor Atiyeh 1979 to 1987. Taken over by Socialist Liberal Democrats, it has remained the same to present. If not for establishing a family here, I would have returned to the Southland  to live out the rest of my years. I have seen first hand that Liberals on the Left and Right coast have brought this once great country to ruin. Or close to it. These are the same kind of Socialist Liberals that Lincoln and his ilk were. They choose what ever party they feel is important to them to win seats. They are in Both the Republican party and Democrat parties. Mostly Democrat, but not entirely. Lincoln was the first Republican President, and the first RINO imo.

[Dee]

Agreed, and I suppose the phrase "none so blind as those who will not see" comes in all sizes, colors, makes and models.

To see what Lincoln used his power to do, while accepting ONLY the flowery speeches, and ignoring what he said in other addresses is amazingly incoherent.
They make heroes out of the likes of George Floyd, and psuedo conservatives are aghast.
Joe Biden is killing the economy, and flooding my home state with illegals, and pseudo conservatives are aghast.

 But Lincoln, well hell boys, he was a great man.

So far, Biden has the Capitol building fenced in, and armed. He helped make a "hero victim" out of a police officer that died of natural causes, and pseudo conservatives are indignant.

So far though,  he hasn't sicked the United States military on the Southern States like Florida, and Texas for rebellion against his policies. YET!

Lincoln DID!

[Doublebass73]

Thank you nw_hunter. I've always found it "odd" that while folks such as myself actually grew up in the South, and were taught in public schools, Southern History, using "Historical FACTS" such as federal, and Confederate documents, copies of documented speeches, physical evidence at times provided by local family members, including my own family, that somehow, northerners knew what happened down here, better than we that live here.

They know nothing. They repeat "the myths" read in books like Bill O'Reilly, whom got his own information from other books, and perhaps governmental disinformation concerning Lincoln and his heinous acts, while ignoring his own words, in speeches, addresses, and actions.

We here in the South, in the days when the truth was the preferred version, got the straight story, while the northern States followed this socialist Lincoln blindly believing propaganda, in hopes of better jobs, with a government bent on theft of production, profits, property, and Southern success.

As I've said: The farther you get from history, the farther you get from the truth.

I'm as Yankee as they come, I grew up in New England and have lived my whole life here. We don't even consider people from outside of New England as Yankees.

When I was growing up in Massachusetts public schools I was taught that Lincoln was a saint and that the freedom of black people was all due to him. I accepted it at face value because hey, they're the teachers right? It wasn't until later in life I when I decided to do my own research on the civil war that I realized I had been fed a bunch of propaganda. All I had to do was read Lincoln's own words and the whole narrative I had been fed in school fell apart.

“History is always written by the winners. When two cultures clash, the loser is obliterated, and the winner writes the history books—books which glorify their own cause and disparage the conquered foe. As Napoleon once said, ‘What is history, but a fable agreed upon?’”

[Dee]

I'm as Yankee as they come, I grew up in New England and have lived my whole life here. We don't even consider people from outside of New England as Yankees.

When I was growing up in Massachusetts public schools I was taught that Lincoln was a saint and that the freedom of black people was all due to him. I accepted it at face value because hey, they're the teachers right? It wasn't until later in life I when I decided to do my own research on the civil war that I realized I had been fed a bunch of propaganda. All I had to do was read Lincoln's own words and the whole narrative I had been fed in school fell apart.

“History is always written by the winners. When two cultures clash, the loser is obliterated, and the winner writes the history books—books which glorify their own cause and disparage the conquered foe. As Napoleon once said, ‘What is history, but a fable agreed upon?’”

Many times the personal need to be right, has nuthin to do with the truth.

[ironglows]

.
  Good to see the meme I posted was re-used, even if it was used without foundation.

   Now, who hangs onto a mistake, and rides it right into the ground?  You may  as well put it back in the stall..all lathered and wet..

[Dee]

LMAO!

[ironglows]

.
   
“History is always written by the winners."

  Hmmmm.... not exactly correct is it !  It seems Dee said that when he was attending school in Texas..they taught their own version of that part of history, which appears to differ with other states.
 
      Nobody came to the school and burned their books, no authors were jailed.  The United states still had a constitution, and we still believed in the first amendment.

   Apparently it makes a difference which version a person was taught. The primary point is, that the study of history doesn't end in high school or college. There are plenty of historians out there who can resist the urge to write new history, rather than accurately report and document the events as they happened.

  These historians hail from all over the US..and foreign countries.  Our foolish, 'never should have happened',  civil War, was closely studied generals, strategists and historians across the world.

  Many consider it to be the introduction into 20th century warfare.  Tactics  changed..armies weaned themselves from the "stand in formations in bright colored clothes and fire volleys" stupidities.
   Trench warfare began in a major way. 

That conflict was the inception of the first widespread use of self-contained cartridges.
 
  Another item that set the Civil war apart from previous conflicts, was Dr Richard Gatlings machine gun..which could fire at a rate of 250 RPM.
 
  It saw the First popular use of observation balloons. 

  It began the First widespread use of railroads, both strategically and tactically.

  Dr. Gatling, of North Carolina, initially could not interest the Union in his invention, but finally Gen Butler bought some and used them.

  So why do I call it a foolish war?  ...Because it was a war that never should have been fought. ..Because slavery would have died a natural death in 3-4 decades anyway.

    The industrial revolution was moving right along. The cotton gin was already functioning and other machines coming on line in a few years!

  It seems that some method would have been found to negotiate a gradual withdrawal from theold slavery system. 
    Perhaps that is easy for us to say, since we have 20/20 hindsight... but still we cannot be privy to all the various political moves and power nuances, which may have precipitated such rash actions.

  Another reason I call it a foolish war, is because beyond some huge world changing event, the Confederacy was crippled from the start.  The logistics were ALL mitigated against their success!

  Although I have the greatest respect for such high caliber men as Gens Lee and Jackson..a negotiated settlement would have been preferred.

  Just as Admiral Yamamoto was reluctant to take on the US, saying aloud that he was fearful that Japan had only "awakened a sleeping giant" !  I suspect the Robert E Lee had very similar reservations.  However, he stayed loyal to Virginia, and carried out his orders..as a good soldier.

  Our primary thrust today, should be to emulate those leaders attitudes. Once the war was over..as true gentlemen, strove to unite the nation, rather than to continue any division with partisan bickering.
 
  Even Abe Lincoln pledged...“With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and orphan,
 
  Pres Jeff Davis called for reconciliation, as I posted earlier, while Gen Lee had a very useful position as chancellor of Washington College (Now called Washington & Lee).
   

[Doublebass73]

I'm as Yankee as they come, I grew up in New England and have lived my whole life here. We don't even consider people from outside of New England as Yankees.

When I was growing up in Massachusetts public schools I was taught that Lincoln was a saint and that the freedom of black people was all due to him. I accepted it at face value because hey, they're the teachers right? It wasn't until later in life I when I decided to do my own research on the civil war that I realized I had been fed a bunch of propaganda. All I had to do was read Lincoln's own words and the whole narrative I had been fed in school fell apart.

“History is always written by the winners. When two cultures clash, the loser is obliterated, and the winner writes the history books—books which glorify their own cause and disparage the conquered foe. As Napoleon once said, ‘What is history, but a fable agreed upon?’”

Many times the personal need to be right, has nuthin to do with the truth.

That's true. It wasn't the easiest pill to swallow when I realized that "my side" wasn't in the right but sometimes you have to man up and realize the truth is the truth and deal with it.