Civil War Facts

[bripat9643]

As usual, just more bitter, emotive, ignorant nonsense from the headcase.

"From the beginning, some white colonists were uncomfortable with the notion of slavery. At the time of the American Revolution against the English Crown, Delaware (1776) and Virginia (1778) prohibited importation of African slaves; Vermont became the first of the 13 colonies to abolish slavery (1777); Rhode Island prohibited taking slaves from the colony (1778); and Pennsylvania began gradual emancipation in 1780.

The Maryland Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery and the Relief of Free Negroes and Others Unlawfully Held in Bondage was founded in 1789, the same year the former colonies replaced their Articles of Confederation with the new Constitution, "in order to form a more perfect union.""

Abolitionist Movement | Abolitionism

The abolitionist were always a very small minority of the population, perhaps 1% to 2%. .

Provide some proof of this "1% to 2%." Hurry up.

Abolitionism in the United States or Antislavery Movement in the United States

By 1838 the AASS claimed nearly 250,000 members and 1350 affiliated societies.​

In 1840 the population of the USA was about 20 million people.

250,000/20 million = 0.0125 1.25%

 

[Unkotare]

By the way, I looked up the definition of 'Unkotare.'

You're not going to Google your way out of ignorance. It is a colloquialism you won't find on the internet translators you spent all that time searching. Once again you demonstrate the danger of 'a little knowledge.'


Here's an internet dictionary for ya, stupid: little knowledge is a dangerous thing - Idioms - by the Free Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

That's just more Unkotare (dripping shit)

Wallow in your ignorance. It seems to be your forte.

 

[Unkotare]

The abolitionist were always a very small minority of the population, perhaps 1% to 2%. .

Provide some proof of this "1% to 2%." Hurry up.

Abolitionism in the United States or Antislavery Movement in the United States

By 1838 the AASS claimed nearly 250,000 members and 1350 affiliated societies.​

In 1840 the population of the USA was about 20 million people.

250,000/20 million = 0.0125 1.25%

"and 1350 affiliated societies"

You're too stupid to use your own data, which of course doesn't - and can't - include those sympathetic to the idea of abolishing slavery but not historically accounted for members of some specifically registered group. You'll have to take those percentages and shove them back up your ass where you got them.

 

[paperview]

Provide some proof of this "1% to 2%." Hurry up.

Abolitionism in the United States or Antislavery Movement in the United States

By 1838 the AASS claimed nearly 250,000 members and 1350 affiliated societies.​

In 1840 the population of the USA was about 20 million people.

250,000/20 million = 0.0125 1.25%

"and 1350 affiliated societies"

You're too stupid to use your own data, which of course doesn't - and can't - include those sympathetic to the idea of abolishing slavery but not historically accounted for members of some specifically registered group. You'll have to take those percentages and shove them back up your ass where you got them.

Heh. He does that a lot.

I'd also like to add, a number of Southern states also created laws barring anti-slavery books, pamphlets, organizations, or even speaking ill against the "peculiar institution" the majority in the South wanted to preserve and expand.

They would even put you in jail for speaking out against it, or printing abolitionist material. How's that for 1st Amendment rights for those "liberty loving" rebels?

Hell, the South even imposed a Gag order in Congress preventing people from even speaking about it on the floor of the House of Representatives.

You think that might have cut down on some of those otherwise outspoken abolitionists?

 

[paperview]

By 1838 the AASS claimed nearly 250,000 members and 1350 affiliated societies.​

In 1840 the population of the USA was about 20 million people.

250,000/20 million = 0.0125 1.25%

Actual figure is closer to 17 million.

Of which nearly 2.5 million were slaves.

Think those people were favor of an abolition movement?

 

[Jitss617]

1. The Northeast didn't win the war on liberalism, they won on industry, which they no longer have.

2. The Northeast didn't win the Civil war on poverty, The Northeast won the Civil War, on money and economics, TEXAS now as big as wall street, and will surpass it very shortly.

3. The Northeast didn't win the Civil war on political bullshit, the northeast won the civil war on Action, through repeated defeats and comebacks and sheer guts.

4. The Northeast didn't win the civil war by banning guns, they won the civil war by having more guns and larger flank.

5. The Northeast didn't win the civil war with Cowardism or Unfitness, they won the Civil by having more men in the military.

6. The Northeast didn't win the Civil War by having a 60 % high school drop out rate, and 40 % illiteracy rate, they won the civil war, by having more educated people, educated by the standards of the time, which they certainly do not have today.

7. The Northeast didn't win the civil war by laziness, but by having a low unemployment rate, or what would have been a low unemployment rate if such things were measured back then.

Today the south would win the civil war because today the south is where the industry and the economy is, and the weapons, and the military personnel, and the literacy is at.

Thank you.

While much of what you posted is true, you ignore the large population of semi-literate irish immigrants that had flooded the Northeast and were used as cannon fodder.

Also, to claim the south would win today is to assume that the war would be fought today. There is no slavery and no single issue to push for a seccession.

As a lifelong southerner, let me say I am proud to be an American and will do whatever it takes to remain one.

It was never based on slavery you num nuts

 

[JLW]

1. The Northeast didn't win the war on liberalism, they won on industry, which they no longer have.

2. The Northeast didn't win the Civil war on poverty, The Northeast won the Civil War, on money and economics, TEXAS is now as big as wall street, and will surpass it very shortly.

3. The Northeast didn't win the Civil war on political bullshit, the northeast won the civil war on Action, through repeated defeats and comebacks and sheer guts.

4. The Northeast didn't win the civil war by banning guns, they won the civil war by having more guns and larger flank.

5. The Northeast didn't win the civil war with Cowardism or Unfitness, they won the Civil by having more men in the military.

6. The Northeast didn't win the Civil War by having a 60 % high school drop out rate, and 40 % illiteracy rate, they won the civil war, by having more educated people, educated by the standards of the time, which they certainly do not have today.

7. The Northeast didn't win the civil war with laziness, but by having a low unemployment rate, or what would have been a low unemployment rate if such things were measured back then.

Today the south would win the civil war because today the south is where the industry and the economy is, and the weapons, and the military personnel, and the literacy is at.

Thank you.

I have news for you dumbass, no one would win in a civil war. Everyone loses.

 

[rightwinger]

More conservative fantasies of a Civil War

You had better be nice to us.....

 

[WinterBorn]

1. The Northeast didn't win the war on liberalism, they won on industry, which they no longer have.

2. The Northeast didn't win the Civil war on poverty, The Northeast won the Civil War, on money and economics, TEXAS now as big as wall street, and will surpass it very shortly.

3. The Northeast didn't win the Civil war on political bullshit, the northeast won the civil war on Action, through repeated defeats and comebacks and sheer guts.

4. The Northeast didn't win the civil war by banning guns, they won the civil war by having more guns and larger flank.

5. The Northeast didn't win the civil war with Cowardism or Unfitness, they won the Civil by having more men in the military.

6. The Northeast didn't win the Civil War by having a 60 % high school drop out rate, and 40 % illiteracy rate, they won the civil war, by having more educated people, educated by the standards of the time, which they certainly do not have today.

7. The Northeast didn't win the civil war by laziness, but by having a low unemployment rate, or what would have been a low unemployment rate if such things were measured back then.

Today the south would win the civil war because today the south is where the industry and the economy is, and the weapons, and the military personnel, and the literacy is at.

Thank you.

While much of what you posted is true, you ignore the large population of semi-literate irish immigrants that had flooded the Northeast and were used as cannon fodder.

Also, to claim the south would win today is to assume that the war would be fought today. There is no slavery and no single issue to push for a seccession.

As a lifelong southerner, let me say I am proud to be an American and will do whatever it takes to remain one.

It was never based on slavery you num nuts View attachment 300825

Oh, so it was about state's rights? Funny, the Vice-President of the confederacy said it was.

Also, the confederacy did not allow the states to determine whether or not slavery was allowed in their state. The required that all states entering the confederacy would allow slavery and cooperate with returning runaway slaves, now and in the future. So the confederacy did not allow state's rights. Why would you bitch about the lack of state's rights, and then join a nation that allowed less state's rights?

 

[Jitss617]

1. The Northeast didn't win the war on liberalism, they won on industry, which they no longer have.

2. The Northeast didn't win the Civil war on poverty, The Northeast won the Civil War, on money and economics, TEXAS now as big as wall street, and will surpass it very shortly.

3. The Northeast didn't win the Civil war on political bullshit, the northeast won the civil war on Action, through repeated defeats and comebacks and sheer guts.

4. The Northeast didn't win the civil war by banning guns, they won the civil war by having more guns and larger flank.

5. The Northeast didn't win the civil war with Cowardism or Unfitness, they won the Civil by having more men in the military.

6. The Northeast didn't win the Civil War by having a 60 % high school drop out rate, and 40 % illiteracy rate, they won the civil war, by having more educated people, educated by the standards of the time, which they certainly do not have today.

7. The Northeast didn't win the civil war by laziness, but by having a low unemployment rate, or what would have been a low unemployment rate if such things were measured back then.

Today the south would win the civil war because today the south is where the industry and the economy is, and the weapons, and the military personnel, and the literacy is at.

Thank you.

While much of what you posted is true, you ignore the large population of semi-literate irish immigrants that had flooded the Northeast and were used as cannon fodder.

Also, to claim the south would win today is to assume that the war would be fought today. There is no slavery and no single issue to push for a seccession.

As a lifelong southerner, let me say I am proud to be an American and will do whatever it takes to remain one.

It was never based on slavery you num nuts View attachment 300825

Oh, so it was about state's rights? Funny, the Vice-President of the confederacy said it was.

Also, the confederacy did not allow the states to determine whether or not slavery was allowed in their state. The required that all states entering the confederacy would allow slavery and cooperate with returning runaway slaves, now and in the future. So the confederacy did not allow state's rights. Why would you bitch about the lack of state's rights, and then join a nation that allowed less state's rights?

Stick to what you said sucka..

 

[evenflow1969]

1. The Northeast didn't win the war on liberalism, they won on industry, which they no longer have.

2. The Northeast didn't win the Civil war on poverty, The Northeast won the Civil War, on money and economics, TEXAS is now as big as wall street, and will surpass it very shortly.

3. The Northeast didn't win the Civil war on political bullshit, the northeast won the civil war on Action, through repeated defeats and comebacks and sheer guts.

4. The Northeast didn't win the civil war by banning guns, they won the civil war by having more guns and larger flank.

5. The Northeast didn't win the civil war with Cowardism or Unfitness, they won the Civil by having more men in the military.

6. The Northeast didn't win the Civil War by having a 60 % high school drop out rate, and 40 % illiteracy rate, they won the civil war, by having more educated people, educated by the standards of the time, which they certainly do not have today.

7. The Northeast didn't win the civil war with laziness, but by having a low unemployment rate, or what would have been a low unemployment rate if such things were measured back then.

Today the south would win the civil war because today the south is where the industry and the economy is, and the weapons, and the military personnel, and the literacy is at.

Thank you.

Where the industry,education and economies at? realy according to who exactly?

 

[mikegriffith1]

How about Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, and Indiana? These were not northeastern states.

The problem started when the seven Deep South states would not accept the results of a lawful election. They didn't even give Lincoln a chance to show how he would govern, even though the South still controlled the Senate and could block anything it didn't like, and even though the Republicans did not have an outright majority in the House.

 

[rightwinger]

How about Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, and Indiana? These were not northeastern states.

The problem started when the seven Deep South states would not accept the results of a lawful election. They didn't even give Lincoln a chance to show how he would govern, even though the South still controlled the Senate and could block anything it didn't like, and even though the Republicans did not have an outright majority in the House.

If the South had just accepted Lincoln there was little Lincoln could have done to end slavery. Best he could do was limit expansion into new states.
If left on its own, slavery would have been gradually phased out and slave owners would have been compensated for their loss of “property”

But the South panicked and started a war. A war that ended slavery in four years

 

[bripat9643]

How about Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, and Indiana? These were not northeastern states.

The problem started when the seven Deep South states would not accept the results of a lawful election. They didn't even give Lincoln a chance to show how he would govern, even though the South still controlled the Senate and could block anything it didn't like, and even though the Republicans did not have an outright majority in the House.

If the South had just accepted Lincoln there was little Lincoln could have done to end slavery. Best he could do was limit expansion into new states.
If left on its own, slavery would have been gradually phased out and slave owners would have been compensated for their loss of “property”

But the South panicked and started a war. A war that ended slavery in four years

Lincoln started the war, moron.

 

[rightwinger]

How about Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, and Indiana? These were not northeastern states.

The problem started when the seven Deep South states would not accept the results of a lawful election. They didn't even give Lincoln a chance to show how he would govern, even though the South still controlled the Senate and could block anything it didn't like, and even though the Republicans did not have an outright majority in the House.

If the South had just accepted Lincoln there was little Lincoln could have done to end slavery. Best he could do was limit expansion into new states.
If left on its own, slavery would have been gradually phased out and slave owners would have been compensated for their loss of “property”

But the South panicked and started a war. A war that ended slavery in four years

Lincoln started the war, moron.

Lincoln responded to an attack on Ft Sumter

Another blunder by the Confederacy

 

[Unkotare]

How about Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, and Indiana? These were not northeastern states.

The problem started when the seven Deep South states would not accept the results of a lawful election. They didn't even give Lincoln a chance to show how he would govern, even though the South still controlled the Senate and could block anything it didn't like, and even though the Republicans did not have an outright majority in the House.

If the South had just accepted Lincoln there was little Lincoln could have done to end slavery. Best he could do was limit expansion into new states.
If left on its own, slavery would have been gradually phased out and slave owners would have been compensated for their loss of “property”

But the South panicked and started a war. A war that ended slavery in four years

Lincoln started the war, moron.

Wrong, moron.

 

[bripat9643]

How about Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, and Indiana? These were not northeastern states.

The problem started when the seven Deep South states would not accept the results of a lawful election. They didn't even give Lincoln a chance to show how he would govern, even though the South still controlled the Senate and could block anything it didn't like, and even though the Republicans did not have an outright majority in the House.

If the South had just accepted Lincoln there was little Lincoln could have done to end slavery. Best he could do was limit expansion into new states.
If left on its own, slavery would have been gradually phased out and slave owners would have been compensated for their loss of “property”

But the South panicked and started a war. A war that ended slavery in four years

Lincoln started the war, moron.

Wrong, moron.

It's irrefutable that he started it. Who invaded Virginia?

 

[there4eyeM]

Virginia, and the 'South', was invaded by an emotion leading to illegal actions. These actions led to ruin for those seeking to renounce their obligations to the Perpetual Union. Thus, hundreds of thousands died and the economy of the South was transformed.
After the war, those highly placed persons most responsible for this disaster were not punished as they would have been in historically similar situations. This demonstrates a greatness of America that many overlook.

 

[bripat9643]

How about Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, and Indiana? These were not northeastern states.

The problem started when the seven Deep South states would not accept the results of a lawful election. They didn't even give Lincoln a chance to show how he would govern, even though the South still controlled the Senate and could block anything it didn't like, and even though the Republicans did not have an outright majority in the House.

If the South had just accepted Lincoln there was little Lincoln could have done to end slavery. Best he could do was limit expansion into new states.
If left on its own, slavery would have been gradually phased out and slave owners would have been compensated for their loss of “property”

But the South panicked and started a war. A war that ended slavery in four years

Lincoln started the war, moron.

Lincoln responded to an attack on Ft Sumter

Another blunder by the Confederacy

The Union was trespassing on the territory of South Carolina. Furthermore, Lincoln sent a resupply ship that intruded on the waters of South Carolina. There's no way that Lincoln had a right to occupy that fort and resupply it. He violated every tenant of international law by doing so.

 

[bripat9643]

Virginia, and the 'South', was invaded by an emotion leading to illegal actions. These actions led to ruin for those seeking to renounce their obligations to the Perpetual Union. Thus, hundreds of thousands died and the economy of the South was transformed.
After the war, those highly placed persons most responsible for this disaster were not punished as they would have been in historically similar situations. This demonstrates a greatness of America that many overlook.

ROFL! Utter horseshit. There were no illegal actions except on the part of Lincoln. Lincoln waged war on the Southern states and utterly destroyed them. The "highly placed persons" were not prosecuted because they would have been acquired. They did not commit treason, according to the definition in the Constitution. Lincoln did. What is "great" about waging war on your countrymen? That is the behavior of a scumbag and a tyrant.