Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Reconstruction began in 1863, the Civil War ended in 1865. No Southern State was allowed back into the Union until they agreed to reconstruction which included freeing the slaves.
LMAO!! Which is what I think about the Puerto Rican educational system if that is your understanding of the Civil War.
not more pathetic than your education for you to repeat the B.S. that the North invaded the South to free the slaves out of the goodness of their hearts.
Like the North cared about a few Africans in the South they were willing to go down and die for them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWiseWino
Evil should be put down like a rabid dog and the confederacy was evil incarnate.
oh yeah, because the North were so righteous and good. The Feds never stole lands, killed tribes and never started wars of aggression for imperialism....NEVER!!!! the Good Guys, right?....lol ....LMAO!!! better get a refund on your education.
Last edited by Hellion1999; 06-25-2015 at 06:44 PM..
Can't argue with this, you might as well throw in the towel Hellion1999. You've been talking in circles for the last 10 pages now, you keep recanting the same facts and dancing around and completely dodging the questions people are asking you. You keep doing that because you KNOW there is no right answer for these questions and you KNOW that your position has its blemishes, you're just unwilling to admit anything, it's like talking to a recording with you, we are getting the same answers no matter what we ask.
who is "WE"?.....you and the same folks that believe in the fairy tales fed to you by the crappy education system that the North invaded the South to "free the slaves" when in fact Lincoln and the North were willing to put slavery as a constitutional right for the states so the South would return and keep sending $$$$$ money from taxes and tariffs up North.
I think I answered all your questions with facts and logic but you want to paint everything black and white....one thing or the other.
It can't cross your mind that slavery was bad but also what Lincoln and the North did. I guess if you didn't support the North's actions then you must be PRO SLAVERY and EVIL. That is the silly narrative.
Last edited by Hellion1999; 06-25-2015 at 06:46 PM..
who is "WE"?.....you and the same folks that believe in the fairy tales fed to you by the crappy education system that the North invaded the South to "free the slaves" when in fact Lincoln and the North were willing to put slavery as a constitutional right for the states so the South would return and keep sending $$$$$ money from taxes and tariffs up North.
I think I answered all your questions with facts and logic but you want to paint everything black and white....one thing or the other.
It can't cross your mind that slavery was bad but also what Lincoln and the North did. I guess if you didn't support the North's actions then you must be PRO SLAVERY and EVIL. That is the silly narrative.
You realize no one is actually saying that, right? Just you....The North's focus was to not allow the country to be split up into two countries. The South wanted to leave the Union because they wanted to make sure slavery stayed intact because that was something that was losing interest in the Union and would have eventually been phased out in the country.
Unconstitutional? You have a Supreme Court decision backing that claim?
Supreme Court has a history of backing unconstitutional actions from Congress and Presidents, they are in bed with all of them.......just an example, what FDR did to the Japanese-Americans during WW2. That was supported by the corrupt S.C of the land and it doesn't take a H.S. graduate to figure out that was unconstitutional as hell!
I could be here all day with examples of the S.C. in how inconsistent they are in history.
You realize no one is actually saying that, right? Just you....The North's focus was to not allow the country to be split up into two countries. The South wanted to leave the Union because they wanted to make sure slavery stayed intact because that was something that was losing interest in the Union and would have eventually been phased out in the country.
DING, DING DING....Logic please enter Urbanlife's brain?
1) Why would the North cared what happens in the South? If Slavery in the South was losing interest in the North "allegedly", why the North passed the Corwin Amendment? It passed by the House and Senate, all NORTHERN VOTES and supported by outgoing President Buchanan and President Lincoln, 2 Presidents from the NORTH......Did they slipped that by at midnight in secret without the people in the North knowing?
2) Once again, you ignore the Corwin Amendment. I guess you called in sick the day they cover that in your school, if they ever cover it......that guaranteed slavery would be a constitutional right for the states in the constitution and the feds could never interfered with that. That is what Lincoln, the House and Senate who was controlled by the North offered the South and the South didn't want to return to the Union.
3) Can your little logic in your head tell you it was a lot more than slavery?...you repeat the fairy tales that the South wanted slavery stayed intact that's why they left but the North offered that in the constitution, all the South needed to do was return to the union and the States ratify it as the constitution demands and still the South wouldn't return.
If my boss offers me 10 million dollars to stay and I still leave the company, you can't say I left because of the lack of money......that is logic.
not more pathetic than your education for you to repeat the B.S. that the North invaded the South to free the slaves out of the goodness of their hearts.
Like the North cared about a few Africans in the South they were willing to go down and die for them.
oh yeah, because the North were so righteous and good. The Feds never stole lands, killed tribes and never started wars of aggression for imperialism....NEVER!!!! the Good Guys, right?....lol ....LMAO!!! better get a refund on your education.
Clearly you have me confused with another commentator, since I have never argued that the United States "invaded" - you do know that you cannot invade your own country - for any reason than other than to put down a rebellion that threatened the integrity of the union.
As for the north not caring about a "few" Africans, (if one can call 10% of the population a few), for the most part that is true, unfortunately your argument discounts the Radical Republicans, who were rather influential in the press (Horace Greeley, William Gannaway Brownlow, the military (See Benjamin Butler and John C. Freemont) the Congress (Thaddeus Stevens, John Bingham, Zachariah Chandler, and Charles Sumner) and even Lincoln's cabinet (Salmon Chase, james Speed and Edwin Stanton). Of course your argument completely disregards the influences of Fredrick Douglas and other prominent abolitionist.
One last thing, never, ever accuse this writer of being blind to the naked truth about the history of this country, United States ever.
Now, that I've gotten that out of the way, do you think that at some point you will base your arguments on facts, attempt to make objective and rational arguments supporting your position or just drop the really weak attempts to insult me?
Lincoln and the North basically told the SOUTH, WE will put in the constitution that slavery is a state's right and the state's can decide for how long they want to keep that institution and the FEDS couldn't interfered with that....it was passed by the house and senate easily and supported by Lincoln. (All Northern votes)
I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service....holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.
The South wanted to part of that. They left.......so any logic and common sense person will tell you it had to do a lot more than slavery by far.
Last edited by Hellion1999; 06-25-2015 at 07:28 PM..
Clearly you have me confused with another commentator, since I have never argued that the United States "invaded" - you do know that you cannot invade your own country - for any reason than other than to put down a rebellion that threatened the integrity of the union.
As for the north not caring about a "few" Africans, (if one can call 10% of the population a few), for the most part that is true, unfortunately your argument discounts the Radical Republicans, who were rather influential in the press (Horace Greeley, William Gannaway Brownlow, the military (See Benjamin Butler and John C. Freemont) the Congress (Thaddeus Stevens, John Bingham, Zachariah Chandler, and Charles Sumner) and even Lincoln's cabinet (Salmon Chase, james Speed and Edwin Stanton). Of course your argument completely disregards the influences of Fredrick Douglas and other prominent abolitionist.
One last thing, never, ever accuse this writer of being blind to the naked truth about the history of this country, United States ever.
Now, that I've gotten that out of the way, do you think that at some point you will base your arguments on facts, attempt to make objective and rational arguments supporting your position or just drop the really weak attempts to insult me?
thank you for getting that out for you way.....feel better now?
take a little history of the civil war, many properties and civilians were destroyed. The feds can invade and destroy property without due process, they have done it many times in history.
During the Civil War, the FEDS confiscated properties and put civilians in prison without due process, if that's not an invasion of your rights and property I don't know what is.
Yes, the Federal government has invaded homes and communities and burned it down, that is what happened during the Civil War and against the Natives.
Definition of Invasion:
Quote:
An invasion is a military offensive in which large parts of combatants of one geopoliticalentity aggressively enter territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of either conquering, liberating or re-establishing control or authority over a territory, forcing the partition of a country, altering the established government or gaining concessions from said government, or a combination thereof. An invasion can be the cause of a war, be a part of a larger strategy to end a war, or it can constitute an entire war in itself. Due to the large scale of the operations associated with invasions, they are usually strategic in planning and execution
hmmm sounds a lot like what the FEDS have done domestically and abroad.....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
