The Civil War

[there4eyeM]

[/QUOTE]
"American blood was shed on American soil."
[/QUOTE]
Uh...that is open to question. What actually happened may have been closer to the "Gulf of Tonkin incident" or the Iraq invasion, in that, shall we call them exaggerations, served as an excuse for obscure intentions. Or, as some see it, lies were told so that objectives could be attained.
[/QUOTE]

If they were stupid enough to get played into throwing the first punch, they still threw it.
[/QUOTE]
"...Polk, who campaigned that Texas should be “re-annexed” and that the Oregon Territory should be “re-occupied.” Polk also had his eyes on California, New Mexico and the rest of what is today the U.S. Southwest. When his offer to purchase those lands was rejected, he instigated a fight by moving troops into a disputed zone between the Rio Grande and Nueces River that both countries had previously recognized as part of the Mexican state of Coahuila." Mexican-American War

 

[Unkotare]

"American blood was shed on American soil."
[/QUOTE]
Uh...that is open to question. What actually happened may have been closer to the "Gulf of Tonkin incident" or the Iraq invasion, in that, shall we call them exaggerations, served as an excuse for obscure intentions. Or, as some see it, lies were told so that objectives could be attained.
[/QUOTE]

If they were stupid enough to get played into throwing the first punch, they still threw it.
[/QUOTE]
"...Polk, who campaigned that Texas should be “re-annexed” and that the Oregon Territory should be “re-occupied.” Polk also had his eyes on California, New Mexico and the rest of what is today the U.S. Southwest. When his offer to purchase those lands was rejected, he instigated a fight by moving troops into a disputed zone between the Rio Grande and Nueces River that both countries had previously recognized as part of the Mexican state of Coahuila." Mexican-American War
[/QUOTE]

And if Mexico (still butt-hurt at losing Texas to independence) had claimed the border was at the Colorado River, would you still be trying so hard to play advocate?

 

[there4eyeM]

"American blood was shed on American soil."

Uh...that is open to question. What actually happened may have been closer to the "Gulf of Tonkin incident" or the Iraq invasion, in that, shall we call them exaggerations, served as an excuse for obscure intentions. Or, as some see it, lies were told so that objectives could be attained.
[/QUOTE]

If they were stupid enough to get played into throwing the first punch, they still threw it.
[/QUOTE]
"...Polk, who campaigned that Texas should be “re-annexed” and that the Oregon Territory should be “re-occupied.” Polk also had his eyes on California, New Mexico and the rest of what is today the U.S. Southwest. When his offer to purchase those lands was rejected, he instigated a fight by moving troops into a disputed zone between the Rio Grande and Nueces River that both countries had previously recognized as part of the Mexican state of Coahuila." Mexican-American War
[/QUOTE]

And if Mexico (still butt-hurt at losing Texas to independence) had claimed the border was at the Colorado River, would you still be trying so hard to play advocate?
[/QUOTE]
" both countries had previously recognized as part of the Mexican state "
Presenting historical fact is advocating what?

 

[Unkotare]

"American blood was shed on American soil."

Uh...that is open to question. What actually happened may have been closer to the "Gulf of Tonkin incident" or the Iraq invasion, in that, shall we call them exaggerations, served as an excuse for obscure intentions. Or, as some see it, lies were told so that objectives could be attained.

If they were stupid enough to get played into throwing the first punch, they still threw it.
[/QUOTE]
"...Polk, who campaigned that Texas should be “re-annexed” and that the Oregon Territory should be “re-occupied.” Polk also had his eyes on California, New Mexico and the rest of what is today the U.S. Southwest. When his offer to purchase those lands was rejected, he instigated a fight by moving troops into a disputed zone between the Rio Grande and Nueces River that both countries had previously recognized as part of the Mexican state of Coahuila." Mexican-American War
[/QUOTE]

And if Mexico (still butt-hurt at losing Texas to independence) had claimed the border was at the Colorado River, would you still be trying so hard to play advocate?
[/QUOTE]
" both countries had previously recognized as part of the Mexican state "
Presenting historical fact is advocating what?
[/QUOTE]

Texas won the right to determine where the border was when they won their independence. You seem to be advocating on behalf of Mexico as victim when they were only victim of their own stupidity, if anything.

 

[there4eyeM]

"American blood was shed on American soil."

Uh...that is open to question. What actually happened may have been closer to the "Gulf of Tonkin incident" or the Iraq invasion, in that, shall we call them exaggerations, served as an excuse for obscure intentions. Or, as some see it, lies were told so that objectives could be attained.

If they were stupid enough to get played into throwing the first punch, they still threw it.

"...Polk, who campaigned that Texas should be “re-annexed” and that the Oregon Territory should be “re-occupied.” Polk also had his eyes on California, New Mexico and the rest of what is today the U.S. Southwest. When his offer to purchase those lands was rejected, he instigated a fight by moving troops into a disputed zone between the Rio Grande and Nueces River that both countries had previously recognized as part of the Mexican state of Coahuila." Mexican-American War
[/QUOTE]

And if Mexico (still butt-hurt at losing Texas to independence) had claimed the border was at the Colorado River, would you still be trying so hard to play advocate?
[/QUOTE]
" both countries had previously recognized as part of the Mexican state "
Presenting historical fact is advocating what?
[/QUOTE]

Texas won the right to determine where the border was when they won their independence. You seem to be advocating on behalf of Mexico as victim when they were only victim of their own stupidity, if anything.
[/QUOTE]
Not at all. It is very surprising you interpret it this way.

 

[Unkotare]

"American blood was shed on American soil."

Uh...that is open to question. What actually happened may have been closer to the "Gulf of Tonkin incident" or the Iraq invasion, in that, shall we call them exaggerations, served as an excuse for obscure intentions. Or, as some see it, lies were told so that objectives could be attained.

If they were stupid enough to get played into throwing the first punch, they still threw it.

"...Polk, who campaigned that Texas should be “re-annexed” and that the Oregon Territory should be “re-occupied.” Polk also had his eyes on California, New Mexico and the rest of what is today the U.S. Southwest. When his offer to purchase those lands was rejected, he instigated a fight by moving troops into a disputed zone between the Rio Grande and Nueces River that both countries had previously recognized as part of the Mexican state of Coahuila." Mexican-American War

And if Mexico (still butt-hurt at losing Texas to independence) had claimed the border was at the Colorado River, would you still be trying so hard to play advocate?
[/QUOTE]
" both countries had previously recognized as part of the Mexican state "
Presenting historical fact is advocating what?
[/QUOTE]

Texas won the right to determine where the border was when they won their independence. You seem to be advocating on behalf of Mexico as victim when they were only victim of their own stupidity, if anything.
[/QUOTE]
Not at all. It is very surprising you interpret it this way.
[/QUOTE]

Your loyalties are evident.

 

[harmonica]

The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?

..you prove you don't know shit about Civil War or WW2 history

 

[there4eyeM]

"American blood was shed on American soil."

Uh...that is open to question. What actually happened may have been closer to the "Gulf of Tonkin incident" or the Iraq invasion, in that, shall we call them exaggerations, served as an excuse for obscure intentions. Or, as some see it, lies were told so that objectives could be attained.

If they were stupid enough to get played into throwing the first punch, they still threw it.

"...Polk, who campaigned that Texas should be “re-annexed” and that the Oregon Territory should be “re-occupied.” Polk also had his eyes on California, New Mexico and the rest of what is today the U.S. Southwest. When his offer to purchase those lands was rejected, he instigated a fight by moving troops into a disputed zone between the Rio Grande and Nueces River that both countries had previously recognized as part of the Mexican state of Coahuila." Mexican-American War

And if Mexico (still butt-hurt at losing Texas to independence) had claimed the border was at the Colorado River, would you still be trying so hard to play advocate?

" both countries had previously recognized as part of the Mexican state "
Presenting historical fact is advocating what?
[/QUOTE]

Texas won the right to determine where the border was when they won their independence. You seem to be advocating on behalf of Mexico as victim when they were only victim of their own stupidity, if anything.
[/QUOTE]
Not at all. It is very surprising you interpret it this way.
[/QUOTE]

Your loyalties are evident.
[/QUOTE]
Your reasoning is not.

 

[Meathead]

Slavery was one of the main causes of the civil war. However, it was not the sole one.

Name a specific other one please?

Tariffs. The agrarian South wanted to sell its produce on the world markets. The North, which was building its own textile industry wanted the cotton which was much in demand, especially Britain.

If you have any interests in history educate yourself:

Protective Tariffs: The Primary Cause of the Civil War

Many Americans do not fully understand the causes of the Civil War.

www.marottaonmoney.com

Tariffs weren't mentioned once:

The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States

The Declaration of Causes made by Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas.

www.battlefields.org

Read it again cupcake.

 

[bripat9643]

Wrong again. That's Union propaganda. The federal government has been brainwashing turds like you for 150 years to swallow that horseshit,

It's obvious, Primrose, that you don't like the facts, but have nothing to challenge them:

Lincoln deployed U.S. troops on U.S. soil to suppress a regional rebellion, in strict compliance with his Oath of Office.​

​

No nation on earth ever recognized a sovereign nation calling itself "The Confederate States of America."​

Nope. Itwasn't U.S. soil after the Confederate states seceded. It doesn't matter how many times you lie about it. That's just a fact.

 

[bripat9643]

No they weren't, shit for brains. You're spouting Union propaganda that was jammed into your skull in a federally funded brainwashing mill.

Sorry, Daffodil, but the irrefutable facts won't change no matter how pissy your tantrum:

1) All states in which Lincoln deployed United States troops to preserve the union were part of the United States.​

Lincoln was elected President of the nation that then consisted of the 33 states and 10 organized territories.​

​

​

Lie.​

​

2) There was no other sovereign nation involved.

​

Lie.​

​

 

[bripat9643]

Mexico is not part of the United States,

A huge chunk of the US used to belong to Mexico.

Bought and paid for.

Mmmmmmmmm... Mexico might disagree.

.......

They can disagree all they want, it doesn’t change the fact.

Well, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ended the Mexican-American War in 1848, ceded about half a million square miles of Mexican Territory to the US. The Gadsden Purchase, in 1853, only paid for 30,000 square miles. We got 460,000 square miles for free by force of arms.

I'm not saying we give it back, but ... legally speaking ... I think we have to cede the point that it wasn't bought and paid for.

"For free"? Mexico started the war, and signed the treaty that ended it.

Well .... you say that...

Thornton Affair

"American blood was shed on American soil."

Uh...that is open to question. What actually happened may have been closer to the "Gulf of Tonkin incident" or the Iraq invasion, in that, shall we call them exaggerations, served as an excuse for obscure intentions. Or, as some see it, lies were told so that objectives could be attained.

If they were stupid enough to get played into throwing the first punch, they still threw it.

Wrong.

 

[bripat9643]

...
Lincoln killed 850,000 people......

Idiotic, ignorant LIE.

Irrefutable fact.

 

[bripat9643]

Learn how to use the quote feature, retard.

 

[bripat9643]

Mexico is not part of the United States,

A huge chunk of the US used to belong to Mexico.

Bought and paid for.

Mmmmmmmmm... Mexico might disagree.

.......

They can disagree all they want, it doesn’t change the fact.

Well, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ended the Mexican-American War in 1848, ceded about half a million square miles of Mexican Territory to the US. The Gadsden Purchase, in 1853, only paid for 30,000 square miles. We got 460,000 square miles for free by force of arms.

I'm not saying we give it back, but ... legally speaking ... I think we have to cede the point that it wasn't bought and paid for.

"For free"? Mexico started the war, and signed the treaty that ended it.

How did Mexico start the war?

 

[Jets]

Stating the cause of the Civil War was slavery is an oversimplification.

Stating the cause of the Civil War was not slavery is fallacious.

 

[gipper]

Stating the cause of the Civil War was slavery is an oversimplification.

Stating the cause of the Civil War was not slavery is fallacious.

Well we know Abe wanted to ensconce slavery into the Constitution, if the South didn’t secede. We also know he intended to war on the South if they refused to abide by federal laws, like the recently passed Morrill Tariff that was passed without any southern votes. He made all this perfectly clear in his first inaugural speech.

He then set up events at Ft Sumter to invade the South. So, what can we conclude from this? There wouldn’t have been a war had Abe not invaded to impose the tariff. So from the aggressor’s point of view, the war wasn’t about slavery. It was about money.

 

[schmidlap]

Nope. Itwasn't U.S. soil after the Confederate states seceded. It doesn't matter how many times you lie about it. That's just a fact.

You are clearly desperate, and have nothing to offer to support your pretense. The documented truth prevails.

Lincoln was legitimately elected President of the United States in 1860, of all 33 states.

He told the traitors who rejected the United States Constitution "You have no oath registered in Heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to preserve, protect and defend it.”

No sovereignty on earth ever recognized a self-proclaimed entity fancying itself "The Confederate States of America."

You can rage against that reality, but cannot refute it.

 

[Unkotare]

.... Itwasn't U.S. soil after the Confederate states seceded. .....

WRONG. Any bunch of scumbag fucking criminals can claim whatever they want, but that does not change AMERICAN sovereignty.

 

[Unkotare]

...
Lincoln killed 850,000 people......

Idiotic, ignorant LIE.

Irrefutable fact.

Idiotic lie from a fucking loser playing the apologist to rebel dogs who were as anti-American as YOU are now, loser.