The ACW employs a number of tricks, uniquely applied to Grant, to take a man who cared nothing for the slave and transform him into a civil rights fighter. The magic is done by never explaining why Grant's views evolve. 1/4 #history#ushistory#civilwar acwm.org/blog/myths-mis…
2/4 The ACW admits that Grant cared little for the slave at the start of the war--quoting the same letters that have appeared on my feed. Grant only changes his view to win the war. Did Southern views "evolve" for the same reason? #BlackHistory#quote
3/4 Does the ACW have an article about Stephens moving from the Cornerstone to a fighter for civil rights of Blacks? No! Instead, the ACW refers you to a Grant book by 2 activist historians that I already exposed on my feed! (Blight & Simpson)
4/4 In fact, the 1868 Republican Platform supported Black voting ONLY in the South, leaving it to the North ("loyal states") to decide for themselves. Grant followed the radicals to secure power. The ACW forgets all these details: that is how the magic trick is performed. #truth
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/6 Our enemies are a traditionless and a homeless race; from the time of Cromwell to the present moment they have been disturbers of the peace of the world. Gathered together by Cromwell from the bogs and fens of the North of Ireland and of England, they commenced
12/26/1862
2/6 by disturbing the peace of their own country; they disturbed Holland, to which they fled, and they disturbed England on their return. They persecuted Catholics in England, and they hung Quakers and witches in America. Having been hurried into a war with a people so devoid of
3/6 every mark of civilization you have no doubt wondered that I have not carried out the policy, which I had intended should be our policy, of fighting our battles on the fields of the enemy instead of suffering him to fight them on ours. This was not the result of my will, but
1/5 How many lies can you pack into one article? First, Ty says that we argue that Lee was a "benevolent slave master." No, we argue he wasn't a slave master at all! Lee owned no slaves at the time of the war. Hence he wasn't good or bad: he simply owned no slaves. #FactsMatter
2/5 @IndyRecorder actually published an article blaming Lee for the death of U.S. soldiers. But Lee wouldn't have killed a single U.S. soldier that did not invade VA first. So why isn't Lincoln responsible? What law did Lee break? What law did VA break? The article doesn't say!
3/5 Was Lee a reluctant to join the Confederacy? Well, yes! Is it a myth? Nope. We just look at his own words. Strangely @IndyRecorder doesn't quote Lee at all! Mind if I do? Pre-war quotes, of course! No "mythology here." #twitterstorians#USHistory
1/5The enemies of history are catching on that in the North, the War was often told accurately (they say from the southern perspective). The reason for this is the fact that the North was wrong & the world's leading historians proved it. #twitterstorians futurity.org/civil-war-hist…
2/5Northern editorials, especially, prior to Sumter, often pointed out the legality of secession & negative comments about free Blacks. Here is the Albany Atlas & Argus from 3/5/1861 as an example. Did this sentiment magically disappear after the war? #twitterstorians
3/5One of the very first war monuments to the Union was in Indiana (1862).Bohan argues Confederates whitewashed history but notice Union monuments (which preceded Southern ones) don't mention slavery at all! It wasn't hard to convince the North this wasn't what the war was about!