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

[Asclepias]

[
LOL- now you are qualifying- before you said no slaves were freed by the Emancipation Proclamation- despite the actual fact that millions of slaves were in fact freed prior the ratification of the 13th Amendment.

.

Lincoln saying the slaves were free did not free them. It was just words he said applied to a foreign country.!!

Since you guys lost and Black people can legally do anything you can, it sounds like his words worked right?

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Well... the EP was a strategic military tactic that enabled the North to win the Civil War and by doing so, allowed the United States Congress to change the Constitution and outlaw slavery to free all slaves in America.

But the EP didn't actually "free" a single slave.

The EP was mainly a PR stunt to keep england and france from helping the south. Lincoln also hoped the EP would cause the slaves to rise up and kill their owners meaning women and children since the men were off fighting. Lincoln truly was a cold-blooded monster.

 

[Asclepias]

Well... the EP was a strategic military tactic that enabled the North to win the Civil War and by doing so, allowed the United States Congress to change the Constitution and outlaw slavery to free all slaves in America.

But the EP didn't actually "free" a single slave.

The EP was mainly a PR stunt to keep england and france from helping the south. Lincoln also hoped the EP would cause the slaves to rise up and kill their owners meaning women and children since the men were off fighting. Lincoln truly was a cold-blooded monster.

Nat Turner is my hero. Lincoln did a good thing by encouraging slaves to rise up and kill off all whites trying to own them.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Yet he did. Lincoln also signed the law in 1862 that gave freedom to all the slaves in D.C.

It was Union territory all the time.
And the Union controlled those areas defeated by force of arms.

And yes, the slaves were freed.

Part of the deal with being allowed into the Union as a new state was on the condition West Virginia emancipate their slaves.

You are clueless on the Constitution and history. I seriously doubt there were many slaves in D.C. but it's not a state so there is the statutory difference. The president could abolish slavery in DC, just as many other states had done... any state could have voted to abolish slavery and be a free state. If they did and you wanted to have and keep slaves, you'd have to take them elsewhere.

No... the slaves WEREN'T freed... and we can keep repeating these lines to each other like 7-year-olds if you like, you're not going to bully me. Because Lincoln issued a piece of paper that said slaves in the South were free, did not mean the slave owners in the South rushed out to unchain their slaves! If that's what you think... you must be about 7 years old..

Hmmm yes- I can keep repeating the facts- and you of course can keep trying to ignore the facts- because that is what you Confederate Revisionists do.

• As I have pointed out- slaves were immediately freed by the Emancipation Proclamation in specific regions held by Federal troops.
  
• As I have pointed out- the majority of slaves were freed from legal slavery as Federal troops liberated rebel territories.
• And slaves escaping their slave masters were immediately freed once they escaped to any territory held by Federal troops.

Millions of slaves were eventually freed by the Emancipation Proclamation- an amazing accomplishment from one single act.

Reciting bullet points you've been taught by your United States textbooks is not impressing me. NO ONE was freed by the EP! It took the 13th Amendment to end Slavery in America.... that IS a FACT!

You're simply wrong.

From my link.


More than a year after the proclamation took effect Lincoln declared that clearly no harm had been done by it.

"On the contrary, it shows a gain of quite a hundred and thirty thousand soldiers, seamen, and laborers. These are palpable facts, about which, as facts, there can be no cavilling. We have the men; and we could not have had them without the measure.

And now let any Union man who complains of the measure, test himself by writing down in one line that he is for subduing the rebellion by force of arms; and in the next, that he is for taking these hundred and thirty thousand men from the Union side, and placing them where they would be but for the measure he condemns. If he can not face his case so stated, it is only because he cannot face the truth."

I am NOT wrong... You aren't actually reciting Lincoln responding to the argument we are debating. This is essentially his rationale for his actions which were indeed Constitutionally questionable....then and now. It's equivalent to Bush's case for war in Iraq. He is finding the moral high ground and establishing it as the rationale for 600k dead soldiers and a nation torn apart by a brutal and bloody uncivil war.

You're in a corner with this one and trying to use the semantical limbo to slide out.
The hundreds of thousands of slaves that joined the union were and remained free. To suggest otherwise is silly as is your comparison with Bush.

 

[Asclepias]

You are clueless on the Constitution and history. I seriously doubt there were many slaves in D.C. but it's not a state so there is the statutory difference. The president could abolish slavery in DC, just as many other states had done... any state could have voted to abolish slavery and be a free state. If they did and you wanted to have and keep slaves, you'd have to take them elsewhere.

No... the slaves WEREN'T freed... and we can keep repeating these lines to each other like 7-year-olds if you like, you're not going to bully me. Because Lincoln issued a piece of paper that said slaves in the South were free, did not mean the slave owners in the South rushed out to unchain their slaves! If that's what you think... you must be about 7 years old..

Hmmm yes- I can keep repeating the facts- and you of course can keep trying to ignore the facts- because that is what you Confederate Revisionists do.

• As I have pointed out- slaves were immediately freed by the Emancipation Proclamation in specific regions held by Federal troops.
  
• As I have pointed out- the majority of slaves were freed from legal slavery as Federal troops liberated rebel territories.
• And slaves escaping their slave masters were immediately freed once they escaped to any territory held by Federal troops.

Millions of slaves were eventually freed by the Emancipation Proclamation- an amazing accomplishment from one single act.

Reciting bullet points you've been taught by your United States textbooks is not impressing me. NO ONE was freed by the EP! It took the 13th Amendment to end Slavery in America.... that IS a FACT!

You're simply wrong.

From my link.


More than a year after the proclamation took effect Lincoln declared that clearly no harm had been done by it.

"On the contrary, it shows a gain of quite a hundred and thirty thousand soldiers, seamen, and laborers. These are palpable facts, about which, as facts, there can be no cavilling. We have the men; and we could not have had them without the measure.

And now let any Union man who complains of the measure, test himself by writing down in one line that he is for subduing the rebellion by force of arms; and in the next, that he is for taking these hundred and thirty thousand men from the Union side, and placing them where they would be but for the measure he condemns. If he can not face his case so stated, it is only because he cannot face the truth."

I am NOT wrong... You aren't actually reciting Lincoln responding to the argument we are debating. This is essentially his rationale for his actions which were indeed Constitutionally questionable....then and now. It's equivalent to Bush's case for war in Iraq. He is finding the moral high ground and establishing it as the rationale for 600k dead soldiers and a nation torn apart by a brutal and bloody uncivil war.

You're in a corner with this one and trying to use the semantical limbo to slide out.
The hundreds of thousands of slaves that joined the union were and remained free. To suggest otherwise is silly.

These are the same former slaves that turned the tide against the traitors giving them a double helping of humiliation.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Wrong.

The proclamation declared "that all persons held as slaves" within the rebellious states "are, and henceforward shall be free."

Slavery is still legal. Read the 13th amendment you just used as proof.

...all persons held as slaves within the rebellious states are, and henceforward shall be free...

Translation: All persons held as slaves in enemy territory we don't control are free!

Okay... Boss Proclamation: "All American political prisoners held abroad are and henceforward shall be free!" Yay me... I just freed every American political prisoner in the World! Go write history books about me and build monuments to me! Put my picture on your pennies!

The north held enemy territory. You sound silly as usual.

And the EP did not apply to slaves in northern-held territory.

As those states were not in rebellion. The EP was used to weaken the ability of those in rebellion to continue. It worked.

 

[Syriusly]

I can see the aspect of it disrespecting your ancestors...but if it weren't for the South, there would be very few blacks in this country,

Who told you that? Blacks have been in this country before Columbus ever made it here. Blacks came here with Columbus as well.

But the onslaught of blacks began with the slave traders. Honestly, you could be in Africa right now if it hadn't been for the slave trade.

That would be fine if I was in Africa as it is a beautiful place I plan on revisiting and eventually dying in but thats not really a certainty that I would be. Like I said before there was already a population of Blacks here in the US before Columbus even arrived.

Hmmmm okay I have got to hear this theory- what were the 'blacks' here in the United States before Columbus 'discovered' the Americas?

Its not a theory. Its a fact. Columbus even mentioned it himself. Also there is a nation inside the US borders that won back some of their land from the US and is recognized by the UN as its own country.

About the Official Empire Washitaw de Dugdahmoundyah

Here is the UN charter.

Full text of AFFIDAVIT OF NATIONALITY washita sovereign nation nis 21 593.pdf PDFy mirror

You aren't trying to be serious are you?

You have listed someone's website- and someone's 'affidavit'- neither is proof of anything. Nothing there about the UN recognizing anything.

 

[Boss]

Wrong.

The proclamation declared "that all persons held as slaves" within the rebellious states "are, and henceforward shall be free."

Slavery is still legal. Read the 13th amendment you just used as proof.

...all persons held as slaves within the rebellious states are, and henceforward shall be free...

Translation: All persons held as slaves in enemy territory we don't control are free!

Okay... Boss Proclamation: "All American political prisoners held abroad are and henceforward shall be free!" Yay me... I just freed every American political prisoner in the World! Go write history books about me and build monuments to me! Put my picture on your pennies!

The north held enemy territory. You sound silly as usual.

And the EP did not apply to slaves in northern-held territory.

Yes actually it did.

The map will speak for itself. The striped areas are all under authority and control of the CSA as of Jan.1, 1863. As such, they constitute an "enemy of state at time of war" and are subject to provisions under war powers of the US. But that means absolutely nothing in terms of reality... it's merely words on a piece of paper. You cannot "free" what you have no control of. The EP can't be applied because there is no authority there to enforce it. It's equal to passing a law that Iran can't build nukes.

The IMPORTANT part is the darker areas. This is part of the Confederacy but it had already been captured and had come under control of the Union before EP. Therefore, the slave owners there are not "enemies of state" anymore, they are citizens with Constitutional rights again. You cannot take their property. THIS is also why no slaves were freed in Northern slave states.

Now... there are a few "exception" areas... the circled areas on the map are places where "slaves" were primarily used to load ships and barges. This was a very small and insignificant number of slaves who were pretty much displaced by war when the US naval forces took the ports. Same applied to the barges along the Mississippi. Most of the owners of these slaves had already abandoned them and fled for their lives.

As for what happened from there in terms of lands captured by the North... it was very a confusing and controversial period with many various things happening that we never learned about in history class. In some cases, slaves were 'liberated' and allowed to just 'go free' with the shirt on their backs... sometimes they were impressed into service of the US Army... sometimes they were shipped off to what amounted to refugee camps where most of them starved to death in 1864, as supplies of food and medicine had to be rationed... soldiers always came first.

 

[Syriusly]

Yet he did. Lincoln also signed the law in 1862 that gave freedom to all the slaves in D.C.

It was Union territory all the time.
And the Union controlled those areas defeated by force of arms.

And yes, the slaves were freed.

Part of the deal with being allowed into the Union as a new state was on the condition West Virginia emancipate their slaves.

You are clueless on the Constitution and history. I seriously doubt there were many slaves in D.C. but it's not a state so there is the statutory difference. The president could abolish slavery in DC, just as many other states had done... any state could have voted to abolish slavery and be a free state. If they did and you wanted to have and keep slaves, you'd have to take them elsewhere.

No... the slaves WEREN'T freed... and we can keep repeating these lines to each other like 7-year-olds if you like, you're not going to bully me. Because Lincoln issued a piece of paper that said slaves in the South were free, did not mean the slave owners in the South rushed out to unchain their slaves! If that's what you think... you must be about 7 years old..

Hmmm yes- I can keep repeating the facts- and you of course can keep trying to ignore the facts- because that is what you Confederate Revisionists do.

• As I have pointed out- slaves were immediately freed by the Emancipation Proclamation in specific regions held by Federal troops.
  
• As I have pointed out- the majority of slaves were freed from legal slavery as Federal troops liberated rebel territories.
• And slaves escaping their slave masters were immediately freed once they escaped to any territory held by Federal troops.

Millions of slaves were eventually freed by the Emancipation Proclamation- an amazing accomplishment from one single act.

Reciting bullet points you've been taught by your United States textbooks is not impressing me. NO ONE was freed by the EP! It took the 13th Amendment to end Slavery in America.... that IS a FACT!

You're simply wrong.

From my link.


More than a year after the proclamation took effect Lincoln declared that clearly no harm had been done by it.

"On the contrary, it shows a gain of quite a hundred and thirty thousand soldiers, seamen, and laborers. These are palpable facts, about which, as facts, there can be no cavilling. We have the men; and we could not have had them without the measure.

And now let any Union man who complains of the measure, test himself by writing down in one line that he is for subduing the rebellion by force of arms; and in the next, that he is for taking these hundred and thirty thousand men from the Union side, and placing them where they would be but for the measure he condemns. If he can not face his case so stated, it is only because he cannot face the truth."

I am NOT wrong... You aren't actually reciting Lincoln responding to the argument we are debating. This is essentially his rationale for his actions which were indeed Constitutionally questionable....then and now. .

Now you are admitting that his actions were 'Constitutionally questionable' rather than declaring them unconstitutional?

You are making progress.

 

[Asclepias]

Who told you that? Blacks have been in this country before Columbus ever made it here. Blacks came here with Columbus as well.

But the onslaught of blacks began with the slave traders. Honestly, you could be in Africa right now if it hadn't been for the slave trade.

That would be fine if I was in Africa as it is a beautiful place I plan on revisiting and eventually dying in but thats not really a certainty that I would be. Like I said before there was already a population of Blacks here in the US before Columbus even arrived.

Hmmmm okay I have got to hear this theory- what were the 'blacks' here in the United States before Columbus 'discovered' the Americas?

Its not a theory. Its a fact. Columbus even mentioned it himself. Also there is a nation inside the US borders that won back some of their land from the US and is recognized by the UN as its own country.

About the Official Empire Washitaw de Dugdahmoundyah

Here is the UN charter.

Full text of AFFIDAVIT OF NATIONALITY washita sovereign nation nis 21 593.pdf PDFy mirror

You aren't trying to be serious are you?

You have listed someone's website- and someone's 'affidavit'- neither is proof of anything. Nothing there about the UN recognizing anything.

Actually I am quite serious. I just noted that every single link I had to the UN charter has been deleted. Thats odd.

 

[Asclepias]

Wrong.

The proclamation declared "that all persons held as slaves" within the rebellious states "are, and henceforward shall be free."

Slavery is still legal. Read the 13th amendment you just used as proof.

...all persons held as slaves within the rebellious states are, and henceforward shall be free...

Translation: All persons held as slaves in enemy territory we don't control are free!

Okay... Boss Proclamation: "All American political prisoners held abroad are and henceforward shall be free!" Yay me... I just freed every American political prisoner in the World! Go write history books about me and build monuments to me! Put my picture on your pennies!

The north held enemy territory. You sound silly as usual.

And the EP did not apply to slaves in northern-held territory.

Yes actually it did.

The map will speak for itself. The striped areas are all under authority and control of the CSA as of Jan.1, 1863. As such, they constitute an "enemy of state at time of war" and are subject to provisions under war powers of the US. But that means absolutely nothing in terms of reality... it's merely words on a piece of paper. You cannot "free" what you have no control of. The EP can't be applied because there is no authority there to enforce it. It's equal to passing a law that Iran can't build nukes.

The IMPORTANT part is the darker areas. This is part of the Confederacy but it had already been captured and had come under control of the Union before EP. Therefore, the slave owners there are not "enemies of state" anymore, they are citizens with Constitutional rights again. You cannot take their property. THIS is also why no slaves were freed in Northern slave states.

Now... there are a few "exception" areas... the circled areas on the map are places where "slaves" were primarily used to load ships and barges. This was a very small and insignificant number of slaves who were pretty much displaced by war when the US naval forces took the ports. Same applied to the barges along the Mississippi. Most of the owners of these slaves had already abandoned them and fled for their lives.

As for what happened from there in terms of lands captured by the North... it was very a confusing and controversial period with many various things happening that we never learned about in history class. In some cases, slaves were 'liberated' and allowed to just 'go free' with the shirt on their backs... sometimes they were impressed into service of the US Army... sometimes they were shipped off to what amounted to refugee camps where most of them starved to death in 1864, as supplies of food and medicine had to be rationed... soldiers always came first.

Oh. I see. You resorted to semantics to pretend the EP didnt free anyone. After the Union beat the traitor confederates asses, the slaves were freed every place they won.

 

[Syriusly]

Wrong.

The proclamation declared "that all persons held as slaves" within the rebellious states "are, and henceforward shall be free."

Slavery is still legal. Read the 13th amendment you just used as proof.

...all persons held as slaves within the rebellious states are, and henceforward shall be free...

Translation: All persons held as slaves in enemy territory we don't control are free!

Okay... Boss Proclamation: "All American political prisoners held abroad are and henceforward shall be free!" Yay me... I just freed every American political prisoner in the World! Go write history books about me and build monuments to me! Put my picture on your pennies!

Translation: Boss just doesn't want to admit that the Emancipation Proclamation resulted in the freedom of millions of American slaves.

Well... the EP was a strategic military tactic that enabled the North to win the Civil War and by doing so, allowed the United States Congress to change the Constitution and outlaw slavery to free all slaves in America.

But the EP didn't actually "free" a single slave.

Clearly the Emancipation did actually free millions of slaves by the end of the war.

 

[Asclepias]

Wrong.

The proclamation declared "that all persons held as slaves" within the rebellious states "are, and henceforward shall be free."

Slavery is still legal. Read the 13th amendment you just used as proof.

...all persons held as slaves within the rebellious states are, and henceforward shall be free...

Translation: All persons held as slaves in enemy territory we don't control are free!

Okay... Boss Proclamation: "All American political prisoners held abroad are and henceforward shall be free!" Yay me... I just freed every American political prisoner in the World! Go write history books about me and build monuments to me! Put my picture on your pennies!

Translation: Boss just doesn't want to admit that the Emancipation Proclamation resulted in the freedom of millions of American slaves.

Well... the EP was a strategic military tactic that enabled the North to win the Civil War and by doing so, allowed the United States Congress to change the Constitution and outlaw slavery to free all slaves in America.

But the EP didn't actually "free" a single slave.

Clearly the Emancipation did actually free millions of slaves by the end of the war.

He was taking consolation in the fact that technically the slaves were not freed until the Union forceably freed them from the traitors that lost the war.

 

[Boss]

Wrong.

The proclamation declared "that all persons held as slaves" within the rebellious states "are, and henceforward shall be free."

Slavery is still legal. Read the 13th amendment you just used as proof.

...all persons held as slaves within the rebellious states are, and henceforward shall be free...

Translation: All persons held as slaves in enemy territory we don't control are free!

Okay... Boss Proclamation: "All American political prisoners held abroad are and henceforward shall be free!" Yay me... I just freed every American political prisoner in the World! Go write history books about me and build monuments to me! Put my picture on your pennies!

The north held enemy territory. You sound silly as usual.

And the EP did not apply to slaves in northern-held territory.

As those states were not in rebellion. The EP was used to weaken the ability of those in rebellion to continue. It worked.

Exactly what I've been saying... all those states were in rebellion, they had declared independence from the US and felt no inclination to abide by a proclamation from a US president. The EP was totally worthless in terms of freeing anyone. It didn't free slaves in the North or areas of the South under Northern control... that's what I've said from the start and what I will continue to say.

It's Constitutionality rests in the powers of the president as commander-in-chief of the military against insurrectionists. However, that implies they are no longer US citizens with Constitutional protections under the 4th Amendment.

Lincoln actually exploited a loophole to his advantage. While insisting southern citizens were always and forever US citizens and never anything else... he utilized a provision reserved for non-citizens... enemies of state... those who do not have citizenship protections under the constitution. He established that on the basis of the CSA declaring their independence while maintaining they didn't exist as an entity. He had his cake and ate it too, so to speak.

 

[Asclepias]

Wrong.

The proclamation declared "that all persons held as slaves" within the rebellious states "are, and henceforward shall be free."

Slavery is still legal. Read the 13th amendment you just used as proof.

...all persons held as slaves within the rebellious states are, and henceforward shall be free...

Translation: All persons held as slaves in enemy territory we don't control are free!

Okay... Boss Proclamation: "All American political prisoners held abroad are and henceforward shall be free!" Yay me... I just freed every American political prisoner in the World! Go write history books about me and build monuments to me! Put my picture on your pennies!

The north held enemy territory. You sound silly as usual.

And the EP did not apply to slaves in northern-held territory.

As those states were not in rebellion. The EP was used to weaken the ability of those in rebellion to continue. It worked.

Exactly what I've been saying... all those states were in rebellion, they had declared independence from the US and felt no inclination to abide by a proclamation from a US president. The EP was totally worthless in terms of freeing anyone. It didn't free slaves in the North or areas of the South under Northern control... that's what I've said from the start and what I will continue to say.

It's Constitutionality rests in the powers of the president as commander-in-chief of the military against insurrectionists. However, that implies they are no longer US citizens with Constitutional protections under the 4th Amendment.

Lincoln actually exploited a loophole to his advantage. While insisting southern citizens were always and forever US citizens and never anything else... he utilized a provision reserved for non-citizens... enemies of state... those who do not have citizenship protections under the constitution. He established that on the basis of the CSA declaring their independence while maintaining they didn't exist as an entity. He had his cake and ate it too, so to speak.

Tough shit. The losers in the south still lost and slaves were freed. Everything else is just a big pout.

 

[Syriusly]

But the onslaught of blacks began with the slave traders. Honestly, you could be in Africa right now if it hadn't been for the slave trade.

That would be fine if I was in Africa as it is a beautiful place I plan on revisiting and eventually dying in but thats not really a certainty that I would be. Like I said before there was already a population of Blacks here in the US before Columbus even arrived.

Hmmmm okay I have got to hear this theory- what were the 'blacks' here in the United States before Columbus 'discovered' the Americas?

Its not a theory. Its a fact. Columbus even mentioned it himself. Also there is a nation inside the US borders that won back some of their land from the US and is recognized by the UN as its own country.

About the Official Empire Washitaw de Dugdahmoundyah

Here is the UN charter.

Full text of AFFIDAVIT OF NATIONALITY washita sovereign nation nis 21 593.pdf PDFy mirror

You aren't trying to be serious are you?

You have listed someone's website- and someone's 'affidavit'- neither is proof of anything. Nothing there about the UN recognizing anything.

Actually I am quite serious. I just noted that every single link I had to the UN charter has been deleted. Thats odd.

Even the Affidavit you provided specifically states that she is not of African descent.

I am NOT Negro, Black Colored or African-American or etc.

 

[Asclepias]

That would be fine if I was in Africa as it is a beautiful place I plan on revisiting and eventually dying in but thats not really a certainty that I would be. Like I said before there was already a population of Blacks here in the US before Columbus even arrived.

Hmmmm okay I have got to hear this theory- what were the 'blacks' here in the United States before Columbus 'discovered' the Americas?

Its not a theory. Its a fact. Columbus even mentioned it himself. Also there is a nation inside the US borders that won back some of their land from the US and is recognized by the UN as its own country.

About the Official Empire Washitaw de Dugdahmoundyah

Here is the UN charter.

Full text of AFFIDAVIT OF NATIONALITY washita sovereign nation nis 21 593.pdf PDFy mirror

You aren't trying to be serious are you?

You have listed someone's website- and someone's 'affidavit'- neither is proof of anything. Nothing there about the UN recognizing anything.

Actually I am quite serious. I just noted that every single link I had to the UN charter has been deleted. Thats odd.

Even the Affidavit you provided specifically states that she is not of African descent.

I am NOT Negro, Black Colored or African-American or etc.

Youre missing the point she is not accepting labels. She never said she wasnt African. She said African-american. Of course she claims her African roots.

 

[Syriusly]

Wrong.

The proclamation declared "that all persons held as slaves" within the rebellious states "are, and henceforward shall be free."

Slavery is still legal. Read the 13th amendment you just used as proof.

...all persons held as slaves within the rebellious states are, and henceforward shall be free...

Translation: All persons held as slaves in enemy territory we don't control are free!

Okay... Boss Proclamation: "All American political prisoners held abroad are and henceforward shall be free!" Yay me... I just freed every American political prisoner in the World! Go write history books about me and build monuments to me! Put my picture on your pennies!

The north held enemy territory. You sound silly as usual.

And the EP did not apply to slaves in northern-held territory.

As those states were not in rebellion. The EP was used to weaken the ability of those in rebellion to continue. It worked.

Exactly what I've been saying... all those states were in rebellion, they had declared independence from the US and felt no inclination to abide by a proclamation from a US president. The EP was totally worthless in terms of freeing anyone. It didn't free slaves in the North or areas of the South under Northern control... that's what I've said from the start and what I will continue to say..

You keep saying that- even though your own map says otherwise.

And all of the areas that the Emancipation Proclamation applied to- the striped areas- had those slaves liberated prior to the ratification of the 13th Amendment.

 

[Boss]

Tough shit. The losers in the south still lost and slaves were freed. Everything else is just a big pout.

Again... I am extremely grateful for the emancipation of slaves, I explained that in an earlier post... I would not be here if slavery had continued much longer. Scroll back and have a read if you dare.

But the emancipation and freedom for slaves came with the ratification of the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution. Lincoln didn't live to see that day, unfortunately.

 

[Syriusly]

Hmmmm okay I have got to hear this theory- what were the 'blacks' here in the United States before Columbus 'discovered' the Americas?

Its not a theory. Its a fact. Columbus even mentioned it himself. Also there is a nation inside the US borders that won back some of their land from the US and is recognized by the UN as its own country.

About the Official Empire Washitaw de Dugdahmoundyah

Here is the UN charter.

Full text of AFFIDAVIT OF NATIONALITY washita sovereign nation nis 21 593.pdf PDFy mirror

You aren't trying to be serious are you?

You have listed someone's website- and someone's 'affidavit'- neither is proof of anything. Nothing there about the UN recognizing anything.

Actually I am quite serious. I just noted that every single link I had to the UN charter has been deleted. Thats odd.

Even the Affidavit you provided specifically states that she is not of African descent.

I am NOT Negro, Black Colored or African-American or etc.

Youre missing the point she is not accepting labels. She never said she wasnt African. She said African-american. Of course she claims her African roots.

I skimmed that mass of craziness- something about the tribes of Canaan......