14 year old kid takes selfie with Confederate Flag. Liberals suspend him from school

That is an outrageous lie on your part. The Union had FOUR slave states of its own throughout the 4 years of the war. KY MD DE and MO were slave states with a total of 300,000 black slaves and Lincoln let them stay in the Union!!! How can the war be about slavery when both sides practiced slavery???

The press has been lying about this for 150 years. The truth is slavery was a small part of the Civil War.

In fact, when Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, it specifically named the States, or portions thereof, to which the Proclamation applied. NONE of those listed include the four UNION States that had slaves. So much for Lincoln supposed concern for the slaves. He was willing to free them in areas that didn't recognize his authority but did nothing to free them in areas where he actually did.
 
What shame.? That the south practiced slavery? When the Civil War started, slavery was still legal and practiced in Washington DC. You don't know what you're talking about.


It was still legal in Kentucky, a UNION State, until the 13th Amendment passed. It was still legal in Missouri, a UNION State, until just before the war ended. Why didn't they abolish it immediately if Lincoln was so concerned about getting rid of it?
 
@USF

When were the Irish enslaved by Americans?

I never said that they were "enslaved" by Americans, anymore then the Americans enslaved those from Africa who had already been enslaved by others.
Now you and I both know that you used the word "enslaved" was only so you could later change what you were saying.

:D
 
Are you saying secession is wrong?? The original 13 colonies seceded from england. America was founded on secession, you ignoramus.

If Wales, Scotland (they recently came close), or Northern Ireland withdrew from the UK, that would be secession. The American colonies were never a part of the Acts of Union, nor did they have members in Parliament. As such, we could never have seceded. What we could do, was declare our independence, which we did.

As for secession, I believe if done for the wrong reason (losing a presidential election or the preservation of slavery, for example), you are inviting God's judgment upon you (or something less dramatic, like misfortune).
 
In fact, when Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, it specifically named the States, or portions thereof, to which the Proclamation applied. NONE of those listed include the four UNION States that had slaves. So much for Lincoln supposed concern for the slaves. He was willing to free them in areas that didn't recognize his authority but did nothing to free them in areas where he actually did.

Uh, yeah, there were amendments on the table before the presidential elections which would have protected slavery in the south. The problem was that the south knew if slavery was abolished in the western territories, that eventually an amendment to abolish slavery could be passed over the south's objections, even if it took to the end of the century (this was basically Lincoln's plan). As you can see, most people valued Union over abolition.

Three guesses which moronic region decided that all wasn't good-enough, felt outraged over the topic of abolition and freedom altogether, and abandoned their legally established safe space in Congress (via the Gag Rule) to form a lesser nation. And then started a war.
 
In fact, when Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, it specifically named the States, or portions thereof, to which the Proclamation applied. NONE of those listed include the four UNION States that had slaves. So much for Lincoln supposed concern for the slaves. He was willing to free them in areas that didn't recognize his authority but did nothing to free them in areas where he actually did.

I know that. The EP didn't free any slaves. It was just a PR stunt to keep england and france from recognizing the Confederacy.
 
If Wales, Scotland (they recently came close), or Northern Ireland withdrew from the UK, that would be secession. The American colonies were never a part of the Acts of Union, nor did they have members in Parliament. As such, we could never have seceded. What we could do, was declare our independence, which we did.

HAHAHA. Is that the best you got??? The 13 colonies SECEDED and everyone but you concedes that.
 
I don't want to erase history; I want the shame of the south to stand for all time. Or for the people of the south to denounce their lousy history.
much of this seems to have come from the recent flyings of the Confederate flag over state capitols.
That was an egregious re-opening of wounds, and the politicians who promoted this should be shamed.

Look back to Lincoln who did not want to punish -but wanted Reconstruction without needless recriminations/penalties to the CSA.
It is that spirit that guided these United States thru the Gettysburg anniversities
( where the soldiers and presidents came together in spirtit of brotherhood and unity)

I recall the100th anniversary of the end of the Civil War, and while the emphasis was always on the survival of the Union-
there was no hatred for the south's Daughters of the Confederacy, or whacked out calls for removal of Confederate monuments.
neither the northenors or southerners had any desire to relitigate the war or it's aftermath.

Vestiges of slavery need to be rooted out. But not the soldiers of the battles or the history, and the monuments.
It's who we are as a country and those ties that bind should be able to withstand the extremists on all sides who still seek division
 
I am certainly unique in my hatred of the south, in that I have always wanted the flag removed, commemorations ended, and history denounced. Perhaps the recent trends will have staying power.

I never saw the value in aspects of Lincoln's proposal. For example, why only a 10% loyalty oath from the south as a part of readmission to America? Any number less than 51% is utterly worthless. Even the radicals only pushed for 30%.
 
much of this seems to have come from the recent flyings of the Confederate flag over state capitols.
That was an egregious re-opening of wounds, and the politicians who promoted this should be shamed.

Look back to Lincoln who did not want to punish -but wanted Reconstruction without needless recriminations/penalties to the CSA.
It is that spirit that guided these United States thru the Gettysburg anniversities
( where the soldiers and presidents came together in spirtit of brotherhood and unity)

I recall the100th anniversary of the end of the Civil War, and while the emphasis was always on the survival of the Union-
there was no hatred for the south's Daughters of the Confederacy, or whacked out calls for removal of Confederate monuments.
neither the northenors or southerners had any desire to relitigate the war or it's aftermath.

Vestiges of slavery need to be rooted out. But not the soldiers of the battles or the history, and the monuments.
It's who we are as a country and those ties that bind should be able to withstand the extremists on all sides who still seek division

Just like the liberal's desire to stop forcing the mentally ill into mental facilities and they never stopped to consider the long term fall out from their efforts; they now seem to be forgetting to consider how this could back fire on them, in the future.
 
What shame.? That the south practiced slavery? When the Civil War started, slavery was still legal and practiced in Washington DC. You don't know what you're talking about.

The shame was first, and foremost, losing control of the presidency after 60 years of power, and promptly seceding. The Federalists didn't do this in 1800, and the Whigs didn't do this when they frequently had to deal with southern bafoonery. Only the south lacked the honor, character, patriotism, and basic American values.
 
I am certainly unique in my hatred of the south, in that I have always wanted the flag removed, commemorations ended, and history denounced. Perhaps the recent trends will have staying power.

I never saw the value in aspects of Lincoln's proposal. For example, why only a 10% loyalty oath from the south as a part of readmission to America? Any number less than 51% is utterly worthless. Even the radicals only pushed for 30%.
Reconstruction Timeline
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/~kmporter/reconstructiontimeline.html

True the radical Republicans certainly didn't follow Lincoln's lead either.
But Johnson called for the 13th, which is more important then any oath. The 14th was the kicker.

Basically Lincoln though the war needed to be put behind us as quickly as possible -but Congress was much more demanding.
Aside from all this; Reconstruction is one of my areas of US history I am lax on.
 
Uh, yeah, there were amendments on the table before the presidential elections which would have protected slavery in the south. The problem was that the south knew if slavery was abolished in the western territories, that eventually an amendment to abolish slavery could be passed over the south's objections, even if it took to the end of the century (this was basically Lincoln's plan). As you can see, most people valued Union over abolition.

Three guesses which moronic region decided that all wasn't good-enough, felt outraged over the topic of abolition and freedom altogether, and abandoned their legally established safe space in Congress (via the Gag Rule) to form a lesser nation. And then started a war.

Uh, nothing you said had anything to do with when the Emancipation Proclamation was issued, NONE of the states in the Union that had slaves were listed.

Address the statement and stop diverting to avoid embarrassment.
 
The shame was first, and foremost, losing control of the presidency after 60 years of power, and promptly seceding. The Federalists didn't do this in 1800, and the Whigs didn't do this when they frequently had to deal with southern bafoonery. Only the south lacked the honor, character, patriotism, and basic American values.


Apparently Lincoln lacked the guts to do in the Union what he demanded in an area that looked at him at nothing but a loud mouthed POS.
 
Uh, nothing you said had anything to do with when the Emancipation Proclamation was issued, NONE of the states in the Union that had slaves were listed.

Address the statement and stop diverting to avoid embarrassment.

I don't see why you find it noteworthy. Lincoln was very open about using his war powers, and since he wasn't at war with American states, the EP wouldn't have legally applied to the four American states which had slavery.
 
I don't see why you find it noteworthy. Lincoln was very open about using his war powers, and since he wasn't at war with American states, the EP wouldn't have legally applied to the four American states which had slavery.

I find hypocrisy noteworthy. Apparently you don't.

I find you laughable as do most people.
 
Back
Top