Stopped? No it increased.
Another confederate statue removed
- Thread starter Guno צְבִי
- Start date
Stopped? No it increased.
Mason Melchizedek
Verified User
Mason Melchizedek
Verified User
You have it wrong. The Union wasn't attacked.
Those that seceded did it as individual States. When they voted for secession, no arms were involved. They didn't start defending themselves until a bunch of pussies got mad they wanted to leave.
Mason Melchizedek
Verified User
Mason Melchizedek
Verified User
There is a difference between attacking and defending something that you clearly don't understand.
If someone breaks into my house, I'm not attacking them when I use deadly force under the law. I'm defending what the law says I can defend.
Mason Melchizedek
Verified User
It's called facts, boy.
If you want me deported, I suggest you get off your ass and start the process instead of running your dick sucker on this forum.
Margot doesn't understand the difference between attacking and defending.
Mason Melchizedek
Verified User
You don't have to continue proving your don't know the difference.
The Union by refusing to leave where they didn't belong.
Cornwallis?
The destruction of historical statues was done by the Taliban and ISIS.
Airstrip One
Completely Effed
You can keep what is. Learn the difference, boy.
Repost: had to revise several links
This issue reminds me of the republican loss in the last election, the topic is constantly being rearranged into something other than what it was. We could include the Iraq invasion too, as it was a constant redefining of motives values and reasons. But when the south lost because of their attachment to slavery all sorts of Pandora explanations spewed forth into the history of made up whys. Today with cyberspace the reasons change and grow in all directions on a weekly basis. As Soviet radio once reported "We cannot predict the future, but the past is changing before our very eyes." After listening to the republicans yesterday, they can do the past and the future. Global happiness follows close behind their new budget. Weird how now they are on the right track, or is this the same track spun magically new?
The south wanted slavery, same as the republicans today want power and corporate wealth, nothing has really changed. All that changes is the influence of money and paid for revisionism. The new revisionism is a mea culpa history. Below are a few links that tell the story if you can see it or the harder part, accept it. If unanimity existed, history would be so easy but ignoring the fundamental reason is dishonest.
This piece covers the topic of why. "Her conclusion is that the Americans who fought the Civil War overwhelmingly thought they were fighting about slavery, and that we should take their word for it."
https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=44785
=================
"Benjamin Franklin, in a 1773 letter to Dean Woodward, confirmed that whenever the Americans had attempted to end slavery, the British government had indeed thwarted those attempts. Franklin explained that . . . . a disposition to abolish slavery prevails in North America, that many of Pennsylvanians have set their slaves at liberty, and that even the Virginia Assembly have petitioned the King for permission to make a law for preventing the importation of more into that colony. This request, however, will probably not be granted as their former laws of that kind have always been repealed. "
WallBuilders - Issues and Articles - The Founding Fathers and Slavery
Southern arguments for slavery http://www.ushistory.org/us/27f.asp
Lincoln's position: https://www.history.com/news/5-things-you-may-not-know-about-lincoln-slavery-and-emancipation
Does the constitution allow secession
https://www.historians.org/teaching...ue-herald/can-a-state-constitutionally-secede
This issue reminds me of the republican loss in the last election, the topic is constantly being rearranged into something other than what it was. We could include the Iraq invasion too, as it was a constant redefining of motives values and reasons. But when the south lost because of their attachment to slavery all sorts of Pandora explanations spewed forth into the history of made up whys. Today with cyberspace the reasons change and grow in all directions on a weekly basis. As Soviet radio once reported "We cannot predict the future, but the past is changing before our very eyes." After listening to the republicans yesterday, they can do the past and the future. Global happiness follows close behind their new budget. Weird how now they are on the right track, or is this the same track spun magically new?
The south wanted slavery, same as the republicans today want power and corporate wealth, nothing has really changed. All that changes is the influence of money and paid for revisionism. The new revisionism is a mea culpa history. Below are a few links that tell the story if you can see it or the harder part, accept it. If unanimity existed, history would be so easy but ignoring the fundamental reason is dishonest.
This piece covers the topic of why. "Her conclusion is that the Americans who fought the Civil War overwhelmingly thought they were fighting about slavery, and that we should take their word for it."
https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=44785
=================
"Benjamin Franklin, in a 1773 letter to Dean Woodward, confirmed that whenever the Americans had attempted to end slavery, the British government had indeed thwarted those attempts. Franklin explained that . . . . a disposition to abolish slavery prevails in North America, that many of Pennsylvanians have set their slaves at liberty, and that even the Virginia Assembly have petitioned the King for permission to make a law for preventing the importation of more into that colony. This request, however, will probably not be granted as their former laws of that kind have always been repealed. "
WallBuilders - Issues and Articles - The Founding Fathers and Slavery
Southern arguments for slavery http://www.ushistory.org/us/27f.asp
Lincoln's position: https://www.history.com/news/5-things-you-may-not-know-about-lincoln-slavery-and-emancipation
Does the constitution allow secession
https://www.historians.org/teaching...ue-herald/can-a-state-constitutionally-secede