CDZ A Very Interesting Video of the South as 'Other'

[iamwhatiseem]

Maybe by the year 2500 humanity will get it together.

No, I believe humanity is actually entering into a regressive era on a number of levels.
Take the United States, as far as I am concerned up until the late 70's America from day one was an outstanding progressive nation. And by progressive, I mean true to the word...not the the term it is used for today.
America was in a constant improving mode, shedding off all manner of wrong doing and unfairness and replacing it with a type of inclusiveness and diversity other nations only wish they had.
In almost every thing you can think of, America was improving itself to become "a more perfect union".
Not so much now.

 

[BlackSand]

...
Not so much now.

That's the product of diversity ...

.

 

[Syriusly]

[
3. Lincoln and numerous other Union leaders stated repeatedly that they were not fighting to end slavery, so no, they did not invade the South for that purpose and that was the start of the Civil War..

Apparently rebels firing on the U.S. Army troops at Fort Sumter doesn't qualify as the start of the Civil War for Jimmie......

The North didn't go to war to protect slavery- but the South seceded specifically to protect slavery.
The South went to war to protect State's rights- state's right to own slaves.

 

[Syriusly]

Nah, too many references to slavery in the individual state's articles of secessions and in quotes from southern supremesists like alexander stephens.

1. What some urban leaders thought about slavery and their own personal thoughts about why the South seceded is not the full picture and do not speak for all Southerners. These word smiths did not pick up their rifles and go fight, they sat behind their desks and tried to rally the troops with what they personally thought was important.

2. The phrase "slave states" was synonymous with "Southern states" at that time and was the phrase most often hurled at Southerners and put in use. Using it does not prove that the secession was due to slavery. "Slave States" was simply a descriptive phrase for that block of states.

3. Lincoln and numerous other Union leaders stated repeatedly that they were not fighting to end slavery, so no, they did not invade the South for that purpose and that was the start of the Civil War.

4. Nothing supports the idea that the North fought the initial years of the war to end slavery at all, and after the Emancipation Proclamation it was used to try to boost moral and harm the still rebelling territories and justified not returning slaves to their owners in captured rebel territory, which prior to that the union forces were bound by law to do. Since this motivation was adopted so late into the war it could not have possibly been among the initiating causes of that war.

Sure some farm boy someplace was duped into defending Tennesseeians, bit it almost has to be because of low literacy rates.

Lol, such a dismissive and condescending remark. Do you really think you are being either objective or impartial at all?

It is nice though the revisionists are sorta saying slavery is bad and are distancing themselves from it. Maybe by the year 2500 humanity will get it together.

ROFLMAO, the proponents of the idea that slavery was the cause of the Civil War are the revisionists, bubba, but I and others are simply trying to set the history back to its true narrative.

Lincoln and the Union Army did not invade the South, at the time the Union moved soldiers into Fort Sumter the Civil War had not commenced. That said, the bombardment of the Fort by Southern Forces, and the responding return fire by the Union Soldiers began the Civil War.

States Rights was the euphemism, and the Right to own slaves was the major component of that claim.

If Guam voted to be independent, would you support Trump using military forces to keep them in the Union?

Guam is not a state. Not one of the United States.

If Guam voted to be a State- would you support Guam's statehood?