Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The elected government of Virginia DURING the war remained in Richmond. The self appointed and unelected bunch that fashioned themselves the government of Virginia had no authority.Oh. You mean a puppet govt. did that after the fact. The fact is that the southern states had to meet a bunch of conditions to get all of their political rights back.
No, idiot, I'm talking about the legal government of Virginia DURING the war, NOT AFTER. Can you READ? That is the government that consented to West Virginia's becoming its own state BEFORE West Virginia was accepted by Congress, NOT AFTER.
Lord Almighty.
Yeah tell that to the slaves.. how one treats their slaves is irrelevant...
Not if you consider GIs mocking you when shells didn't go off by yelling "Made in Czechoslovakia!" at you, or everything from fuel pumps for tanks to guidance systems for V-1/V-2 rockets being monkey-wrenched by the slave laborers "cost effective".Those are death camps, moron. Slave owners had a legal obligation to see to the welfare of their slaves, the Nazis did not. Slaves in the U.S. were treated much like domesticated animals are nowadays - slaves in Nazi death camps were treated worse than any domesticated animal and worse than most wild animals.
death camps were slave labor and it was cost effective. how one treats their slaves is irrelevant to the facts. but, do you know the cost of invading nations, rounding up Jews and other undesirables, and shipping them all over Europe with armed guards cost?
Haven't figured out whether your grasp of history or economics is more atrocious.....Both are epically horrible.
Yeah tell that to the slaves.. how one treats their slaves is irrelevant...
I would but my family never owned any. Plus no one related my family was a White Conservative Southerner or a German Nazi Fuck or a Soviet Prick
It's not nonsense, it's the reality, any state that even attempted such a folly would be declared a martial law area and the leaders arrested and imprisoned.
Address the issue. Why is it ok for the original 13 colonies to secede from England but wrong for say, Florida or Wisconsin to secede from the USA.?
The relationship between the Colonies and Great Britain was one of non-equals, not unlike a slave/master relationship. No contract so configured could be binding.
When a state enters the Union, however, it enters into a contract among equals. Not only is an equal relationship forged between the new state and the other states, but so too between the people of the new state and all the citizens of all the other states as well.
This contract between and among the equal states is consequently permanent:
When Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States.
Texas v. White
Address the issue. Why is it ok for the original 13 colonies to secede from England but wrong for say, Florida or Wisconsin to secede from the USA.?
The relationship between the Colonies and Great Britain was one of non-equals, not unlike a slave/master relationship. No contract so configured could be binding.
When a state enters the Union, however, it enters into a contract among equals. Not only is an equal relationship forged between the new state and the other states, but so too between the people of the new state and all the citizens of all the other states as well.
This contract between and among the equal states is consequently permanent:
When Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States.
Texas v. White
Some of the Founders likened to slavery, again The Declaratory Act & The Intolerable Acts. However one phrases it, the war of 1776 was not one of secession.
Definitely not.
The Industrial Revolution made slavery not cost effective.
Quite true. A slave cost $60,000-$80,000 in today's money. Then you have to feed, clothe, house, and provide the basic essentials of living and medical care for them for life. It's cheaper just to hire an emplyee, pay them a wage, and let them sort those issues out for themselves.
Not quite. The invention of the cotton gin made large scale plantation operations a profitable activity. Save for that, slavery might well have petered out. However, in order to harvest that much cotton required a considerable workforce and that made slavery viable. It was the decision to restrict slavery from expanding into new states thus preventing cotton farming to grow which put the south over the edge. Ultimately, it wasn't about liberty. It was about money.
Address the issue. Why is it ok for the original 13 colonies to secede from England but wrong for say, Florida or Wisconsin to secede from the USA.?
The relationship between the Colonies and Great Britain was one of non-equals, not unlike a slave/master relationship. No contract so configured could be binding.
When a state enters the Union, however, it enters into a contract among equals. Not only is an equal relationship forged between the new state and the other states, but so too between the people of the new state and all the citizens of all the other states as well.
This contract between and among the equal states is consequently permanent:
When Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States.
Texas v. White
Some of the Founders likened to slavery, again The Declaratory Act & The Intolerable Acts. However one phrases it, the war of 1776 was not one of secession.
[
You'll hear no argument from me saying that slavery was a good thing. It was wrong. But your's is a specious argument. Five Union states still had slavery. Washington D.C. had slavery until 1862. U.S. Grant was a slaveholder and didn't free his until 8 months after the war and the 13th Amendment made him. Lincoln said in his inaugural address that he had no intention of ending slavery where it already existed and that those who nominated and elected him knew he had said that and had never recanted it.
[
You'll hear no argument from me saying that slavery was a good thing. It was wrong. But your's is a specious argument. Five Union states still had slavery. Washington D.C. had slavery until 1862. U.S. Grant was a slaveholder and didn't free his until 8 months after the war and the 13th Amendment made him. Lincoln said in his inaugural address that he had no intention of ending slavery where it already existed and that those who nominated and elected him knew he had said that and had never recanted it.
Everything you say is true and it's amazing how americans have been brainwashed into thinking the CW was started to free the slaves!!! How could that be when the North's capital had slavery?
Midway thru the war, lincoln started to play up the slavery angle to keep the french and british from entering the war on the side of the south. But for liberals to say lincoln started the war to free the slaves is absurd.
To say Lincoln started the war to free the slaves is absurd.
To say slavery wasn't the major dividing issue that led to the war is also absurd.
[
You'll hear no argument from me saying that slavery was a good thing. It was wrong. But your's is a specious argument. Five Union states still had slavery. Washington D.C. had slavery until 1862. U.S. Grant was a slaveholder and didn't free his until 8 months after the war and the 13th Amendment made him. Lincoln said in his inaugural address that he had no intention of ending slavery where it already existed and that those who nominated and elected him knew he had said that and had never recanted it.
Everything you say is true and it's amazing how americans have been brainwashed into thinking the CW was started to free the slaves!!! How could that be when the North's capital had slavery?
Midway thru the war, lincoln started to play up the slavery angle to keep the french and british from entering the war on the side of the south. But for liberals to say lincoln started the war to free the slaves is absurd.
[
That's exactly what was happening. Railroad subsidies were a big part of it too.
When Lincoln entered the political scene in 1832 in Illinois, he immediately started campaigning for taxing to subsidize internal improvements in the state. His own law partner, William Herndon, called it "reckless and unwise". The Illinois legislature appropriated $12 million to build roads, canals, and railroads. By the end of the decade, none of the projects were completed, the state had a load of debt and an empty treasury, and it took the state years to recover.
Illinois amended its state constitution in 1848 to prohibit tax dollars from being spent on any kind of private enterprise. When Lincoln hit the national political stage, he started doing it all over again.
Lincoln didn't start the civil war, and it was over slavery, specifically the question of slavery in the western states.
[
You'll hear no argument from me saying that slavery was a good thing. It was wrong. But your's is a specious argument. Five Union states still had slavery. Washington D.C. had slavery until 1862. U.S. Grant was a slaveholder and didn't free his until 8 months after the war and the 13th Amendment made him. Lincoln said in his inaugural address that he had no intention of ending slavery where it already existed and that those who nominated and elected him knew he had said that and had never recanted it.
Everything you say is true and it's amazing how americans have been brainwashed into thinking the CW was started to free the slaves!!! How could that be when the North's capital had slavery?
Midway thru the war, lincoln started to play up the slavery angle to keep the french and british from entering the war on the side of the south. But for liberals to say lincoln started the war to free the slaves is absurd.
To say Lincoln started the war to free the slaves is absurd.
To say slavery wasn't the major dividing issue that led to the war is also absurd.
Lincoln didn't start the civil war, and it was over slavery, specifically the question of slavery in the western states.
Lincoln was a racist who wanted to send blacks back to Africa.
. Did I pretty much just say that you moron?Everything you say is true and it's amazing how americans have been brainwashed into thinking the CW was started to free the slaves!!! How could that be when the North's capital had slavery?
Midway thru the war, lincoln started to play up the slavery angle to keep the french and british from entering the war on the side of the south. But for liberals to say lincoln started the war to free the slaves is absurd.
To say Lincoln started the war to free the slaves is absurd.
To say slavery wasn't the major dividing issue that led to the war is also absurd.
I guess that's why Lincoln said in his First Inaugura Address:
"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them..."
Oh, wait!
