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

[Syriusly]

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]

The North did not go to war over slavery- but the South did.

And in the end- Lincoln realized that freeing the slaves would preserve the Union- which resulted in both the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment.

 

[JoeB131]

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 know, when you have a racist caricature of the FLOTUS as your avi, it's hard to take you "I'm not a racist rants seriously.

It wasn't that they had slaves in so much as they fought to CONTINUE slavery, and after they were thoroughly whooped, they fought to keep blacks as second class citizens. Then they try to act like they did nothing wrong.

 

[bodecea]

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.

The North...pre-war...never told the South they couldn't keep slaves.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

The failed revisionist history concerning this subject propagated by many on the right is telling and consistent with the fact that racists do find refuge among the ranks of republicans and conservatives.

 

[bodecea]

Treason....we frown on that around here.

 

[Politico]

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.

It already is feminized. Have you not seen these manchild Milleninials walking around on the streets?

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Treason....we frown on that around here.

Or re-elect them President.

 

[007]

Treason....we frown on that around here.

No, not really, or Bathhouse Barry would have been impeached by now.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

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.

So the union was fighting to end slavery?? Then why did they have FOUR SLAVE STATES of their own.???

 

[ShootSpeeders]

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

You can't think. No one disputes the south approved of slavery. But the north did too since they also had legal slavery throughout the war.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

"

The failed revisionist history concerning this subject propagated by many on the right is telling and consistent with the fact that racists do find refuge among the ranks of republicans and conservatives.

HAHAHA. The board notes you evaded the issue and instead called the other side racist. Thanks for admitting you have nothing.

 

[bodecea]

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.

It already is feminized. Have you not seen these manchild Milleninials walking around on the streets?

No. You must hang out in interesting places.

 

[Freewill]

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.

Those four states did not go into rebellion and start a war of aggression over slavery. Those four states didn't start a war over slavery that cost more American lives then all wars before or since.

Now here is a question for you, since the war was started over the slavery issue, whether you want to call it states rights or not it was still all about slavery why should the rebel battle flag be flown in any form on public land? Other then being brave men who were willing to charge into canister fire to protect the rich democrat southern aristocrat's way of live what is there to be proud about?

 

[ChrisL]

Again, I have to ask, because I got no response to this the last time I asked .. . . what is different about the American flag or any other flag for that matter? I cannot think of ONE country that has not committed an atrocity or two under their flags. Flags are symbols. They mean different things to different people. You cannot just tell people that "this is what the flag stands for." Ummm, no, that is what the flag stands for to you, and that doesn't mean that is what it means to someone else!

 

[FJO]

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.

The thirteen original colonies wanted to secede from their country - willing to fight against their their fellows citizens, even family - in order to preserve what they perceived to be their right not to pay taxes.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[

Those four states did not go into rebellion and start a war of aggression over slavery. Those four states didn't start a war over slavery that cost more American lives then all wars before or since.

No one started a war over slavery since both sides practiced wide-spread slavery. The north started the war but it was not over slavery.

 

[Silhouette]

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

It's the democratic party's plan to get black votes...you know...so when they get elected they can tell their black consituents that they don't have a say in their Christian beliefs opposing gay marriage.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Look, this is about nothing but designating 'victim status' OKA: 'I'm SPECIAL and you're not, so you owe me...' status on the Left's respective constituents.

That way, anything anyone says about any of those constituencies, PROVES their SPECIAL STATUS AS VICTIM and the speaker is branded a HATER, A RACIST, HOMOPHOBE, BIGOT or what have you.

It's a lie... as is EVERY THING THE LEFT STANDS UPON.

And that is because the Ideological Left is the means by which EVIL is advanced Politically.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Oh man I'm glad the OP told me its not about Slavery because his saying so means so much to everyone

 

[Harry Dresden]

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.

It already is feminized. Have you not seen these manchild Milleninials walking around on the streets?

what happened political?....did a bunch of "millennials" teabag you in front of the girls?...you blame them for a lot of your ills....just wonderin...