Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Yeah ok. The civil war wasn't about slavery. Which is why the south tried to secede after Lincoln's election. Nope. Nothing to do with slavery at all.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.
Idiot.[
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.
He has never heard of the term, abolitionist candidate Lincoln..Idiot.[
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.
You don't even know who started the war.
the left is still crapping their diapers over events that happened about 150 years ago, yet no one seeks revenge over Coke changing it's recipe in 1986.He has never heard of the term, abolitionist candidate Lincoln..Idiot.[
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.
You don't even know who started the war.
[
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.
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.
But it seems no one Southern here will agree the South wanted to keep slavery and fought to do so. They pretend the subject doesn't exist while deflecting furiously.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.
Boy. Texas school board approved history books, I assume?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.
That is part of the long cultivated "Lost Cause" myth.But it seems no one Southern here will agree the South wanted to keep slavery and fought to do so. They pretend that subject doesn't exist while deflecting furiously.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.
That is part of the long cultivated "Lost Cause" myth.But it seems no one Southern here will agree the South wanted to keep slavery and fought to do so. They pretend that subject doesn't exist while deflecting furiously.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.
Slavery was the status quo that the South sought to maintain by seceding, in the wake of Lincoln's election....For the 8 millionth time, the CW was not about slavery...
Not really....The idea is absurd...
...The media is telling another of it's whopper lies.
Only on this planet.The contribution of slavery to the casus belli and the evolution of motives is well documented and accepted as established fact.
One of the very rare occasions on which we agree, but, what the hell...Only on this planet.The contribution of slavery to the casus belli and the evolution of motives is well documented and accepted as established fact.
Slavery was the status quo that the South sought to maintain by seceding, in the wake of Lincoln's election.
Never said otherwise.Slavery was the status quo that the South sought to maintain by seceding, in the wake of Lincoln's election.
Lincoln was not on the ballot in 10 states..
The fight was over states rights, slavery was just the cause used..
As a panel of historians emphasized in 2011, "while slavery and its various and multifaceted discontents were the primary cause of disunion, it was disunion itself that sparked the war."
Never said otherwise.Slavery was the status quo that the South sought to maintain by seceding, in the wake of Lincoln's election.
Lincoln was not on the ballot in 10 states..
The fight was over states rights, slavery was just the cause used..
As a panel of historians emphasized in 2011, "while slavery and its various and multifaceted discontents were the primary cause of disunion, it was disunion itself that sparked the war."
What I said was that slavery was an underlying cause, and that that underlying cause became a primary motivating factor, as the war progressed and the populist opinion on the subject evolved.
Well, if you want to go down that route, actually it was about preserving Federal property.So then you admit the civil war was not about slavery, but about states rights..
