Why so much hate for the Confederacy.? It can't be about slavery.

[ShootSpeeders]

There were four UNION STATES, KY MD MO DE, that had legal slavery during the civil war. Those 4 states had a combined total of 400,000 slaves.!! Yes, the south had 3.6 million slaves but the point remains that both sides had slave states .

For the 8 millionth time, the CW was not about slavery. The idea is absurd. The media is telling another of it's whopper lies.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

"Why so much hate for the Confederacy.? It can't be about slavery."

It's not...

Like every other Leftist notion, it's about cultural subversion.

 

[cnm]

Resentment at being held back, maybe?

What the U.S. would be like without the South

http://www.washingtonpost.com

"Minus the South, the rest of the U.S. probably would be more like Canada or Australia or Britain or New Zealand — more secular, more socially liberal, more moderate in the tone of its politics and somewhat more generous in social policy," writes Michael Lind. "And it would not be as centralized as France or as social democratic as Sweden."​

 

[Moonglow]

There were four UNION STATES, KY MD MO DE, that had legal slavery during the civil war. Those 4 states had a combined total of 400,000 slaves.!! Yes, the south had 3.6 million slaves but the point remains that both sides had slave states .

For the 8 millionth time, the CW was not about slavery. The idea is absurd. The media is telling another of it's whopper lies.

You guys need to shave , brush you'ins teeth and bath, besides that, we can stand the overalls...

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Resentment at being held back, maybe?

What the U.S. would be like without the South

http://www.washingtonpost.com

"Minus the South, the rest of the U.S. probably would be more like Canada or Australia or Britain or New Zealand — more secular, more socially liberal, more moderate in the tone of its politics and somewhat more generous in social policy," writes Michael Lind. "And it would not be as centralized as France or as social democratic as Sweden."​

So you're saying that without the South... the US would be today, completely Feminized?

WOW~ So, CNN FINALLY gets one right... . No doubt that the next report was that Pigs obtained flight and Hell is encrusted in a solid block of ice.

 

[J.E.D]

Yes, it was about slavery. The confederacy wanted to secede from the union - willing to fight against their own country, fellow citizens, even family - in order preserve what they percieved as their right to keep slaves.

 

[Mr. H.]

The Leftist mind does not operate on facts, but blind emotion.

Since 2008, we have managed to conveniently flush down the shitter a significant portion of our National heritage.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Why so much hate for the Confederacy.? It can't be about slavery.

It's not. It's about guilt, and the frenzied desire of the Democrats to rid themselves of themselves of the past.

 

[Moonglow]

Why so much hate for the Confederacy.? It can't be about slavery.

It's not. It's about guilt, and the frenzied desire of the Democrats to rid themselves of themselves of the past.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Yes, it was about slavery. The confederacy wanted to secede from the union - willing to fight against their own country, fellow citizens, even family - in order preserve what they percieved as their right to keep slaves.

Hey moron, can't you read??? How can it be about slavery when both sides practiced slavery???? Think, you miserable america-hating wretch.

 

[cnm]

Because one side wanted to extend slavery to the new territories and maintain it and the other wanted to let the practice die out?

 

[J.E.D]

Yes, it was about slavery. The confederacy wanted to secede from the union - willing to fight against their own country, fellow citizens, even family - in order preserve what they percieved as their right to keep slaves.

Hey moron, can't you read??? How can it be about slavery when both sides practiced slavery???? Think, you miserable america-hating wretch.

Hey, dipshit. One side fought to keep slaves. If the Union hadn't told the Confederacy that they couldn't keep slaves, then the civil war would not have occured. Think, you inhuman shit stain.

 

[cnm]

I love the way these revisionists ignore the explicit statements of Southern politicians and documents of the time.

It's as though they never existed in the past and there are no records of them in the present.

 

[Missourian]

Hey, dipshit. One side fought to keep slaves. If the Union hadn't told the Confederacy that they couldn't keep slaves, then the civil war would not have occured. Think, you inhuman shit stain.

You need to go back to the 8th grade for remedial American History.

Not only did the North NOT tell the South they couldn't keep slaves until HALFWAY THOUGH THE WAR...the Emancipation Proclamation ONLY FREED SLAVES IN THE SOUTH, it expressly did NOT free all slaves.

If you don't believe me, go upstairs and ask your mom.

 

[cnm]

So is that supposed to mean the South didn't go to war to maintain the right of states to assert the inferiority of the black man?

 

[Desperado]

Why so much hate for the Confederacy.? It can't be about slavery.
It is not hate for the Confederacy nor is it about slavery
The hate we are seeing from the liberals is not for the Confederacy it is for white heritage.
They can not get away with saying that they hate whites but they can get away with saying they hate southern heritage.
Very Simple

 

[cnm]

I like the way you conflate Southern heritage with white heritage. Personally I'd have thought a lot of Southern heritage was black heritage.

 

[Missourian]

So is that supposed to mean the South didn't go to war to maintain the right of states to assert the inferiority of the black man?

It means the North in general didn't give a damn about ending slavery. The North hated the South and the South hated the North...just like today.

Lincoln was anti slavery...but did you ever hear WHY he didn't free all the slaves?

His own words..."I would do it if I were not afraid that half the [Northern] officers would fling down their arms and three more states would rise."

[link]

 

[cnm]

But he wanted slavery to expire of its own accord, while the South wanted to maintain and extend slavery to the new territories. The South based their secession on maintaining slavery. Their politicians said it and the documents state it.

This is in all the histories. Sure, Lincoln was prepared to compromise to keep the border states.

Oh, ok, maybe not the revised Southern histories, but all the reality based ones.

I note you avoid saying why the South went to war.

 

[Syriusly]

There were four UNION STATES, KY MD MO DE, that had legal slavery during the civil war. Those 4 states had a combined total of 400,000 slaves.!! Yes, the south had 3.6 million slaves but the point remains that both sides had slave states .

For the 8 millionth time, the CW was not about slavery. The idea is absurd. The media is telling another of it's whopper lies.

Why all of your love for the slave owning South?