Wars, genocide, reparations, religion, etc (split from recruiting forum)

[Govolsman98]

.

 

[Weezer]

You can tell yourself that there wooly mammoth.

lol It's history. You can see it the way you choose, but I'm fairly certain my viewpoint is reasonably accurate. If the North went to war to end slavery, why did Lincoln wait a year and a half to issue the Emancipation Proclamation? And why did it only end slavery in states that were "in rebellion"? The North went to war to end secession, not slavery.

 

[Jackcrevol]

lol It's history. You can see it the way you choose, but I'm fairly certain my viewpoint is reasonably accurate. If the North went to war to end slavery, why did Lincoln wait a year and a half to issue the Emancipation Proclamation? And why did it only end slavery in states that were "in rebellion"? The North went to war to end secession, not slavery.

Ok, you keep living in the past man.

I'm gonna go dip my toes in the Pacific.

 

[Weezer]

Ok, you keep living in the past man.

I'm gonna go dip my toes in the Pacific.

So, you have no legitimate argument to support your stance. Got it.

 

[Christian Lowe]

So, you have no legitimate argument to support your stance. Got it.

The left doesn’t need arguments. They support speech laws and censorship so you can’t argue with their beliefs in the first place. No need to bother with things like facts.

 

[Jackcrevol]

lol It's history. You can see it the way you choose, but I'm fairly certain my viewpoint is reasonably accurate. If the North went to war to end slavery, why did Lincoln wait a year and a half to issue the Emancipation Proclamation? And why did it only end slavery in states that were "in rebellion"? The North went to war to end secession, not slavery.

Think about it however you like man. Doesnt matter, could be one of those things, could be them all. No matter, Federal Govt won and we are better for it. Truth js reality, slavery was evil. And we snuffed it out. You can say whatever you like to defend your viewpoint, ultimately it comes back to human rights, history of racist laws, back water mind set. Everything else is just diversion from the main point. South wanted to keep living in a world where humans were treated as objects, based on race. North didnt, and werent going to stand for it.

that's really it, isnt it? Hope the Federal
Govt preserves Yetis so youll learn to appreciate that they do for you morans.

 

[drvenner]

My country lost. But now I live in the U.S. and that is my country for now.

OK. You're lucky you're allowed to be a citizen since the US is a consolation prize for you.

 

[PEPPERJAX]

WTF

 

[drvenner]

My country lost. But now I live in the U.S. and that is my country for now.

Lemme guess. The Civil War was not about slavery at all. It was about state rights.

 

[drvenner]

Truth is the money and the power in the state have never been in East Tennessee. The money and the power decide which side. Personally, me and my kins at the time view was that we were invaded in violation of the Constitution. The first state to vote to secede from the Union was Massachusetts (in the early 1800's) and they were not invaded. I believe that the New Hampshire house recently voted for secession.
The War of Northern Aggression was purely about economics. The industrial north could not allow competition with Europe over the South's agricultural products. Slavery was a wrong and vile just as abortion is today, but is wasn't the root cause of that war.

LOL, I cannot let this go. The War of Northern Aggression? I love how everyone claims how wrong slavery is and still states that it was granted with an illegal invasion. How else was it going to be abolished? It eventually would have, but how much longer would it have endured? Way too long, IMO.

 

[Weezer]

Think about it however you like man. Doesnt matter, could be one of those things, could be them all. No matter, Federal Govt won and we are better for it. Truth js reality, slavery was evil. And we snuffed it out. You can say whatever you like to defend your viewpoint, ultimately it comes back to human rights, history of racist laws, back water mind set. Everything else is just diversion from the main point. South wanted to keep living in a world where humans were treated as objects, based on race. North didnt, and werent going to stand for it.

that's really it, isnt it? Hope the Federal
Govt preserves Yetis so youll learn to appreciate that they do for you morans.

We are better for slavery ending, but we are not better for the federal government winning. Not sure what tangent you're off on, but the Civil War did not end "racist laws" in the North or the South. Both were still extremely racist. Your viewpoint on history is extremely off, probably because of your communist leanings. The North did not see blacks as "equals". They just had no need for slavery like the agricultural South did. You're attempting to assign nobility where it doesn't belong.

 

[EasternVol]

East Tennessee is my country, and they remained loyal to the union even as they were dragged away selfishly by the rest of the state. But YMMV.

Most in ET were with the union but it was far from unanimous.

 

[Weezer]

Lemme guess. The Civil War was not about slavery at all. It was about state rights.

It was about both for the South. For the North, it was about preserving the Union through any means necessary.

 

[Weezer]

@hog88

You should share your views on the evils of Lincoln with @Jackcrevol .

 

[GoBigOrange86]

It was about both for the South. For the North, it was about preserving the Union through any means necessary.

A “state’s right” to keep people in bondage.

 

[EasternVol]

There was no correct narrative for slavery. It was abhorrent, and evil. North did what it had to do, and we are better off for it. I understand embracing history, else how can we learn for the future. Because history does repeat itself.

But talking about this versus that. There isnt. Its simply good versus evil, and good won. End of lesson. Next.

It wasn't a case of the north doing what they had to do. They as a whole were fine with slavery in the south and many there profited from it. The north waged war for economic reasons rather than idealistic ones. Remember that the party of Lincoln was also the party of robber barons and wage slavery.

 

[rikberry31]

Prior to the civil war, “THE United States” was to“THESE United States.” That war fundamentally ended states’ autonomy and has snowballed into the plethora of federal overreach and irreconcilable differences between the way california and the north want to be governed and the southeast and other regions.

Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus and arrested political dissidents in Maryland. Sherman’s total war would be seen as crimes against humanity today, and he did it to his own people. Slavery had to be ended, of course, but the Union didn’t care much about it. They simply used it as a means to an end that’s doomed the country slowly ever since.

All excellent points. The war fundamentally changed this country. It swung the balance of power to the federal government and it's still swinging. Slavery was already dying and becoming economically less lucrative. The sharecropping system that replaced it was much better for the landowner. Essentially Lincoln didn't free the slave he just made them free. The north painted the South as racist and morally inferior and they continue to do so to this day. They used that "high ground" to justify their aggression and rights violations and they still are.

 

[rikberry31]

OK. You're lucky you're allowed to be a citizen since the US is a consolation prize for you.

Me and mine have more than paid for our right to be citizens. The hereafter is the only place that I will be allowed to be a citizen, didn't earn it.

 

[drvenner]

It was about both for the South. For the North, it was about preserving the Union through any means necessary.

I agree with this to a degree. It was definitely also about preserving the Union. However, abolishing slavery was not an afterthought. It was a goal, if not the primary goal. The South viewed the abolishment of slavery as economic genocide and they were likely fairly right about that, but that does not mean that they should have fought to maintain that status quo.

 

[EasternVol]

Think about it however you like man. Doesnt matter, could be one of those things, could be them all. No matter, Federal Govt won and we are better for it. Truth js reality, slavery was evil. And we snuffed it out. You can say whatever you like to defend your viewpoint, ultimately it comes back to human rights, history of racist laws, back water mind set. Everything else is just diversion from the main point. South wanted to keep living in a world where humans were treated as objects, based on race. North didnt, and werent going to stand for it.

that's really it, isnt it? Hope the Federal
Govt preserves Yetis so youll learn to appreciate that they do for you morans.

Cool story. Is that why Lincoln and many in the north said blacks weren't equal to whites, didn't want to live with them, and wanted to send them off to Africa or elsewhere? The same bunch was trying to eliminate the Cheyenne and similar groups purely because of their race. Yeah, they were real humanists.

 

[hog88]

@hog88

You should share your views on the evils of Lincoln with @Jackcrevol .

What's the use? I read their posts and there is no changing their indoctrinated minds.

 

[PEPPERJAX]

The good news is that All of the Lord's children regardless of the color of our skin can sit down at Wendy's together and enjoy a good ole "Dave's Double" together now. This long perplexing debate has been solved brethren.

 

[rikberry31]

Lemme guess. The Civil War was not about slavery at all. It was about state rights.

No that was as much of a rallying cry for the South as slavery was for the north. It was about culture and economics more than anything else. South Carolina wasn't the first state to secede, it was Massachusetts. When the economics of doing so stared them in the face, they thought better of it. The north would have been seriously economically damaged had the South been allowed to break away. The north would have been put on equal footing with other foreign nations in bidding for the exports of the South, namely cotton. This would have really hammered the northern economy. So the war was largely about money.
The war was also a clash on cultures and ideas on governance. The northern tendency was for a top down brand of governing, stronger central governments like Europe. (there was much European immigration to the north in the 17th century) The Southern idea tended to be more bottom up, much more self governing like the original colonies. The South was not going to willingly submit to a northern brand of governance. Sherman himself said the important thing was not conquering the South but destroying the Southern way of life, and he wasn't talking about slavery.

 

[Christian Lowe]

Me and mine have more than paid for our right to be citizens. The hereafter is the only place that I will be allowed to be a citizen, didn't earn it.

I hate that argument. My family has been here since the 1740’s and I’m “lucky I’m allowed to live here” because I’m critical of the government and direction of my country. Yet it’s the same people that say **** like that who argue that immigration crackdowns are racist and they have as much a right to be here as anyone else. It’s asinine.

 

[dalton_vol]

This country is like a brain dead patient. It's over, done, but the body just hasn't figured it out yet. Every pillar this country was founded upon has been destroyed or at least badly compromised. No, America will never be united again. The US will fall.

It's definitely on the downward spiral