No statue for Robert E Lee but black ex-con Marion Barry gets one.

Threedee said:
To your last paragraph, yes, I agree that the south was not attempting to rule America. Hence, it is improper to call it the American Civil War. England, Russia, and China had legitimate civil wars, for example.

Now, you can't blame Lincoln for southerners being of inferior intelligence to Americans. The "oh, he tricked them into attacking Sumter" line isn't even an argument. The CSA should have had the sense not to attack a greater power, and the decency not to seize what did not rightfully belong to them. Period. The north did not hold majority rule in government for much of the 19th Century up to that point. When the south left, they did so with their own man still in the white house. I blame the south more for 400k dead American troops than for slavery.

Finally, you are either an American patriot or you are not. If so, then you hold American values above those of the English crown and the Confederacy. The three nations cannot all be viewed as equally worthy of one's devotion to a true patriot.
Click to expand...

This idea of 'patriot' muddies the waters. Is there anything between 'patriot' and 'traitor'? The founding fathers for years said they didn't want to declare independence, but only to have England not act as badly as it was - eventually they decided England wouldn't do that. Can a government ever mistreat its citizens, much less it colonies, enough that they're justified in seceding and it's not an issue that they're not 'patriots'? Once they seceded- of course it was an issue for the north to keep forts in the south.
 
Craig234 said:
This idea of 'patriot' muddies the waters. Is there anything between 'patriot' and 'traitor'? The founding fathers for years said they didn't want to declare independence, but only to have England not act as badly as it was - eventually they decided England wouldn't do that. Can a government ever mistreat its citizens, much less it colonies, enough that they're justified in seceding and it's not an issue that they're not 'patriots'? Once they seceded- of course it was an issue for the north to keep forts in the south.
Click to expand...

Blame the founders for using the terms patriot and loyalist.

England offered very little in terms of compromise with the colonies; America offered nearly everything in terms of compromise with the Confederates. And we never mistreated the dumb idiots.
 
Craig234 said:
"For 72 years, Northern special interest groups used these protective tariffs to exploit the South for their own benefit. Finally in 1861, the oppression of those import duties started the Civil War."

http://www.marottaonmoney.com/protective-tariffs-the-primary-cause-of-the-civil-war/
Click to expand...

Yes - tariffs were a big reason for the civil war. Also states rights and the simple fact that the N and S hated each other. Slavery had little to do with the war. The gover-media has been lying about this for 150 years.
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
Yes - tariffs were a big reason for the civil war. Also states rights and the simple fact that the N and S hated each other. Slavery had little to do with the war. The gover-media has been lying about this for 150 years.
Click to expand...

Really, why didn't the CSA mention tariffs and "states rights" in their secession documents, instead of wasting all of that ink on the purity of the white race, and whatnot?
 
marion berry is a fitting idol for the damned {condemned indeed} unlawful district of the whore [columbia] worship him, fools. damned fools.
 
Threedee said:
Really, why didn't the CSA mention tariffs and "states rights" in their secession documents, instead of wasting all of that ink on the purity of the white race, and whatnot?
Click to expand...

I'd suggest the truth is between the two. That economics were a bigger cause than the north wants to admit, and that slavery was a smaller cause than the south wanted to claim - they sais what would get the most popular support.

Slavery WAS an important difference between the north and the south. Racism, not so much. And it seems the north wasn't interested in going to war simply to end slavery.

On the other hand, the confederacy might have not had a very strong appeal to southerners to go to war if it was simply over the economic issues.

But saying it was to protect the superiority of the white race - that perhaps had the most appeal to motivate the southerners. So, they made that the focus. And they did make it the focus - their founding document makes that clear.

It's normal in war for there to be 'real reasons' for the leaders, and the reasons given to the people to get their support, and this war seems to fit that.
 
Craig234 said:
Anyone who supports trump has no place criticizing anyone for supporting Mario Berry.
Click to expand...

that worthless piece of shithead crackhead reprobate embarrassed me and I have nothing to do with the damned unlawful district of the whore where he led the people to their own damnation. he is a disgrace to all humankind. you can shove your Barack's Zombie Apocalypse army zombie ass opinion up your ass on the end of a burning stick. fuck you punk. if you had enough sense to know what was good for yourself; you would keep your damned mouth shut. do not give your idiot opinion to me. please.
 
Craig234 said:
I'd suggest the truth is between the two. That economics were a bigger cause than the north wants to admit, and that slavery was a smaller cause than the south wanted to claim - they sais what would get the most popular support.

Slavery WAS an important difference between the north and the south. Racism, not so much. And it seems the north wasn't interested in going to war simply to end slavery.

On the other hand, the confederacy might have not had a very strong appeal to southerners to go to war if it was simply over the economic issues.

But saying it was to protect the superiority of the white race - that perhaps had the most appeal to motivate the southerners. So, they made that the focus. And they did make it the focus - their founding document makes that clear.

It's normal in war for there to be 'real reasons' for the leaders, and the reasons given to the people to get their support, and this war seems to fit that.
Click to expand...

The problem with your argument is that the modern pro-CSA crowd claims that slavery was a weak appeal to most southerners, who largely couldn't afford to own slaves. That's why they invented the term "states rights" and obsess over tariffs. Let's get our arguments straight, people!

Personally, I always focus more on the CSA starting an unnecessary war that kill over 400k Americans and 250k Confederates, than on the issue of slavery. Patriotism is a timeless concept, and, in America, our basic principles are regarded as much the same.
 
Threedee said:
The problem with your argument is that the modern pro-CSA crowd claims that slavery was a weak appeal to most southerners, who largely couldn't afford to own slaves. That's why they invented the term "states rights" and obsess over tariffs. Let's get our arguments straight, people!

Personally, I always focus more on the CSA starting an unnecessary war that kill over 400k Americans and 250k Confederates, than on the issue of slavery. Patriotism is a timeless concept, and, in America, our basic principles are regarded as much the same.
Click to expand...

I am not pro or con anything from the history of the damned us gov. . marlon dairy represents the unlawful district of the whore which you serve. marlon barry is your monument. he represents you. you must honor a hero of your damned us gov. should you not ? you spout about the holy virtue of the damned us gov. continually. I think it is perfect. a man could not make this shit up. marion barry; glorified in the unlawful district of the whore. perfect. that is all i'm gonna say about that.
 
iewitness said:
I am not pro or con anything from the history of the damned us gov. . marlon dairy represents the unlawful district of the whore which you serve. marlon barry is your monument. he represents you. you must honor a hero of your damned us gov. should you not ? you spout about the holy virtue of the damned us gov. continually. I think it is perfect. a man could not make this shit up. marion barry; glorified in the unlawful district of the whore. perfect. that is all i'm gonna say about that.
Click to expand...

Seems you are saying America is the Biblical ,Whore of Babylon!
 
iewitness said:
I am not pro or con anything from the history of the damned us gov. . marlon dairy represents the unlawful district of the whore which you serve. marlon barry is your monument. he represents you. you must honor a hero of your damned us gov. should you not ? you spout about the holy virtue of the damned us gov. continually. I think it is perfect. a man could not make this shit up. marion barry; glorified in the unlawful district of the whore. perfect. that is all i'm gonna say about that.
Click to expand...

As I said earlier, Marion Barry > Robert E. Lee
 
Threedee said:
The problem with your argument is that the modern pro-CSA crowd claims that slavery was a weak appeal to most southerners, who largely couldn't afford to own slaves. That's why they invented the term "states rights" and obsess over tariffs. Let's get our arguments straight, people!

Personally, I always focus more on the CSA starting an unnecessary war that kill over 400k Americans and 250k Confederates, than on the issue of slavery. Patriotism is a timeless concept, and, in America, our basic principles are regarded as much the same.
Click to expand...

Sure, the "modern pro-CSA" crowd says that, because slavery is no longer a popular cause. The issue isn't how many people owned slaves - it's the superior role of the white race, which slavery maintained that was popular then. A problem with your argument is that the south feels they had good cause, and the blame lies on the north - it's why their name for the war is the 'war of northern aggression'. Point out the casualties and they agree that was bad - and the north is to blame.
 
iewitness said:
that worthless piece of shithead crackhead reprobate embarrassed me and I have nothing to do with the damned unlawful district of the whore where he led the people to their own damnation. he is a disgrace to all humankind. you can shove your Barack's Zombie Apocalypse army zombie ass opinion up your ass on the end of a burning stick. fuck you punk. if you had enough sense to know what was good for yourself; you would keep your damned mouth shut. do not give your idiot opinion to me. please.
Click to expand...

Well, there's some mindless gibberish, as you would expect from a trump supporter, ignored.
 
Craig234 said:
Sure, the "modern pro-CSA" crowd says that, because slavery is no longer a popular cause. The issue isn't how many people owned slaves - it's the superior role of the white race, which slavery maintained that was popular then. A problem with your argument is that the south feels they had good cause, and the blame lies on the north - it's why their name for the war is the 'war of northern aggression'. Point out the casualties and they agree that was bad - and the north is to blame.
Click to expand...

That's because southerners are liars and idiots. They started the war, so it is a blatant lie to say "war of northern aggression." Since they argue that Lincoln tricked them into attacking, they should call it the "war of southern stupidity." Furthermore, they were a failed and degenerate society that, while incapable of being shown "right" on the battlefield, still got a sizable fraction of what it deserved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top