It's a good read, but I ultimately disagree with his final conclusion: The war was about a principle, state sovereignty and the right of secession, that would destroy the United States; the example of that issue was the right to own slaves.
I would argue the inverse... the war for the South was about the protection of slavery, under the pretext of states' rights. Southern sympathizers use the 10th as the basis of the argument, ignoring of course Article IV. But if it was really about states' rights, why didn't the Nullification Crisis of 1832 lead to secession? In fact Calhoun resigned the VP in order to fight for the right of Nullification in the Senate. But no forts were taken, no arms were seized during that crisis.
I've posted bits of the Cornerstone Speech before, but I'll do it again because I believe it's the most powerful argument against the revisionism of the sympathizers of the Cause.. The speech was given by Alexander Stephens, the VP of the Confederacy. So he was in a good position to know and to provide the thought leadership on the Cause. Here are two quotes that I believe are instructive...
The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. .. and later.. Our new government is founded upon exactly [this] idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
This is no question for a Canadian to answer but I would hope I am not called a Nazi sympathizer for answering in this way.
It's crazy that you have to assert that into your opinion isn't it? If anyone even possibly perceives you as one you're toast.
You must mean 'insert' that into your opinion, and I don't think BS needed to whatsoever. When you speak with clarity and pragmatism, you don't need to state where you stand outright, as you are following logic, and your position is implicit. On the other hand, when doublespeak is your native tongue, it's a disclaimer worth providing.
No I meant assert. When I speak in a confident manner it's because I feel that based upon my experiences and observations. I fully believe that people have to watch what they say or at the very least provide a disclaimer in case others are offended. It's crazy one would have to back their opinion up by hoping they are not called a Nazi sympathizer. And on that note why the hell doesn't this website stop the capitalization of N when you type the word Nazi?
I believe that you feel that you need to walk on eggshells because you do not speak with an iota of clarity or pragmatism (in case my last comment wasn't direct enough). As a Jewish 'leftist'/progressive-type, I'd be just the kind of person you're insinuating BS would need to put this disclaimer on for. In spite of this, while reading his comment, I wasn't once thinking about it with any shock or horror, nor did BS' disclaimer have any impact on how I perceived what he wrote.
As for your autocorrect, have a word with your device's OS manufacturer and alter your settings if it so disturbs you.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
It's a good read, but I ultimately disagree with his final conclusion: The war was about a principle, state sovereignty and the right of secession, that would destroy the United States; the example of that issue was the right to own slaves.
I would argue the inverse... the war for the South was about the protection of slavery, under the pretext of states' rights. Southern sympathizers use the 10th as the basis of the argument, ignoring of course Article IV. But if it was really about states' rights, why didn't the Nullification Crisis of 1832 lead to secession? In fact Calhoun resigned the VP in order to fight for the right of Nullification in the Senate. But no forts were taken, no arms were seized during that crisis.
I've posted bits of the Cornerstone Speech before, but I'll do it again because I believe it's the most powerful argument against the revisionism of the sympathizers of the Cause.. The speech was given by Alexander Stephens, the VP of the Confederacy. So he was in a good position to know and to provide the thought leadership on the Cause. Here are two quotes that I believe are instructive...
The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. .. and later.. Our new government is founded upon exactly [this] idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
This is no question for a Canadian to answer but I would hope I am not called a Nazi sympathizer for answering in this way.
It's crazy that you have to assert that into your opinion isn't it? If anyone even possibly perceives you as one you're toast.
You must mean 'insert' that into your opinion, and I don't think BS needed to whatsoever. When you speak with clarity and pragmatism, you don't need to state where you stand outright, as you are following logic, and your position is implicit. On the other hand, when doublespeak is your native tongue, it's a disclaimer worth providing.
No I meant assert. When I speak in a confident manner it's because I feel that based upon my experiences and observations. I fully believe that people have to watch what they say or at the very least provide a disclaimer in case others are offended. It's crazy one would have to back their opinion up by hoping they are not called a Nazi sympathizer. And on that note why the hell doesn't this website stop the capitalization of N when you type the word Nazi?
I didn't have to back-up my opinion that way. I chose to in order to make fun of those who throw around the nazi word freely. I'm not concerned and need no disclaimer.
So, is it appropriate to throw around the nazi word to describe those who wear swastikas, use the nazi salute, and admire Hitler?
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
It's a good read, but I ultimately disagree with his final conclusion: The war was about a principle, state sovereignty and the right of secession, that would destroy the United States; the example of that issue was the right to own slaves.
I would argue the inverse... the war for the South was about the protection of slavery, under the pretext of states' rights. Southern sympathizers use the 10th as the basis of the argument, ignoring of course Article IV. But if it was really about states' rights, why didn't the Nullification Crisis of 1832 lead to secession? In fact Calhoun resigned the VP in order to fight for the right of Nullification in the Senate. But no forts were taken, no arms were seized during that crisis.
I've posted bits of the Cornerstone Speech before, but I'll do it again because I believe it's the most powerful argument against the revisionism of the sympathizers of the Cause.. The speech was given by Alexander Stephens, the VP of the Confederacy. So he was in a good position to know and to provide the thought leadership on the Cause. Here are two quotes that I believe are instructive...
The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. .. and later.. Our new government is founded upon exactly [this] idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
This is no question for a Canadian to answer but I would hope I am not called a Nazi sympathizer for answering in this way.
It's crazy that you have to assert that into your opinion isn't it? If anyone even possibly perceives you as one you're toast.
You must mean 'insert' that into your opinion, and I don't think BS needed to whatsoever. When you speak with clarity and pragmatism, you don't need to state where you stand outright, as you are following logic, and your position is implicit. On the other hand, when doublespeak is your native tongue, it's a disclaimer worth providing.
No I meant assert. When I speak in a confident manner it's because I feel that based upon my experiences and observations. I fully believe that people have to watch what they say or at the very least provide a disclaimer in case others are offended. It's crazy one would have to back their opinion up by hoping they are not called a Nazi sympathizer. And on that note why the hell doesn't this website stop the capitalization of N when you type the word Nazi?
I didn't have to back-up my opinion that way. I chose to in order to make fun of those who throw around the nazi word freely. I'm not concerned and need no disclaimer.
So, is it appropriate to throw around the nazi word to describe those who wear swastikas, use the nazi salute, and admire Hitler?
It's a good read, but I ultimately disagree with his final conclusion: The war was about a principle, state sovereignty and the right of secession, that would destroy the United States; the example of that issue was the right to own slaves.
I would argue the inverse... the war for the South was about the protection of slavery, under the pretext of states' rights. Southern sympathizers use the 10th as the basis of the argument, ignoring of course Article IV. But if it was really about states' rights, why didn't the Nullification Crisis of 1832 lead to secession? In fact Calhoun resigned the VP in order to fight for the right of Nullification in the Senate. But no forts were taken, no arms were seized during that crisis.
I've posted bits of the Cornerstone Speech before, but I'll do it again because I believe it's the most powerful argument against the revisionism of the sympathizers of the Cause.. The speech was given by Alexander Stephens, the VP of the Confederacy. So he was in a good position to know and to provide the thought leadership on the Cause. Here are two quotes that I believe are instructive...
The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. .. and later.. Our new government is founded upon exactly [this] idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
FYI...I completely agree with you on this @mrussel1 . On a separate note the only thing I would add (and maybe it's been written elsewhere but I have no time to go through all the posts) is that one of the main reasons reunification was able to take place after the civil war is that Lincoln was magnanimous in victory. Rightly or wrongly Lincoln understood that the only way "healing" could take place is by allowing the South to maintain some degree of nobility in defeat which included the honouring of confederate generals and soldiers. I put "healing" in quotes because you can imagine how this made those subjected to slavery feel and true "healing" didn't take place until 100 years after the end of the war and some would argue "healing" hasn't occurred at all. That being said would it be a trade that a newly freed slave and/or Union soldier would be willing to make during that time period? An end to slavery and a horrific war in exchange for a noble surrender and some retention of heritage for the defeated? I think most would have been ok with this outcome...at the time. Personally I am agnostic on confederate statutes...I see it as a states rights/local issue and I can see the argument on both sides. I see value in maintaining statues as a reminder of the potential of human ugliness so that history does not repeat itself...the gates of Auschwitz still stand for just this reason. I also recognize how a militant white supremacist fringe will try to claim these monuments as their own and use them to stir up a return to an uglier time. I guess the big question is where is the happy balance between these sentiments? Does this balance even need to be maintained at all? Has enough time passed that the former "South" can let go of these monuments because the need to "retain heritage for the defeated" is no longer necessary? This is no question for a Canadian to answer but I would hope I am not called a Nazi sympathizer for answering in this way. This whole topic really just drives me crazy because once again it seems like another issue being exploited by assholes "on both sides" to further their agendas instead of working towards "A more perfect union".
(Obama's best speech IMO...enjoy it because you probably won't see me link to one of his speeches ever again)
The South seceded to preserve slavery, as a sovereign nation they were invaded by the North. From the article brlux posted, first sentence "With a volley of artillery fired at Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor on
April 12, 1861, the South started a war that nearly destroyed the United
States in pursuit of a terrible cause." without any discussion of why that first volley of artillery was fired. The South were voluntary members of the Union and nothing prohibited them from secession. The South unsuccessfully attempted negotiation and compromise under the 10th amendment. The South seceded, legally separated from the Union and became a separate sovereign state. They instructed the North to remove all troops and military installations, the North refused. The South was now occupied territory, occupied militarily against their will by the North. Foreign military occupation was the first act of war, not the volley at Fort Sumter. Lincoln made the calculated decision (announced) that he would resupply Ft Sumter daring the South to attack or seize the US supply ship. Although Lincoln did not want war, he needed a reason to invade the South in order to get want he wanted more, Union preservation. The Confederates didn't wait for the supply ship to arrive and fired that first shot, the rest is history. Lincoln's decision to invade the South, a sovereign nation had nothing to do with ending slavery (see above) and everything to do with preserving the union. It was purely an economic decision, like most wars we start. Lets not act self righteous and pretend the North started and fought Civil War to end slavery!
The outrage and anger over statues is misdirected, here is some free advice, instead of taking down statues that honor dead soldiers maybe take down a bank or five.
I think I was pretty clear when I said that the North fought to preserve the Union, the South fought to preserve slavery.
Regarding the legality of it, that wasn't the debate at hand, but I think the legality was settled pretty clearly at a little courthouse close to me called Appomattox.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,682
I think we're underestimating the influence of economics in the Civil War and all that here but none of that nor even slavery is the issue today. Today it's about racism and jingoism.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Economics (of the time) can't really be separated from the issue of slavery, though.
Of this time or that? I mean of today. Most blatant slavery occurs in third world countries and subtle slavery in first world countires like the U.S.
But what I'm suggesting is that the subject at hand, today, is about racism and blind loyalty to ones geo/political background with little or no consideration for using reasoning or clear thinking.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Economics (of the time) can't really be separated from the issue of slavery, though.
Of this time or that? I mean of today. Most blatant slavery occurs in third world countries and subtle slavery in first world countires like the U.S.
But what I'm suggesting is that the subject at hand, today, is about racism and blind loyalty to ones geo/political background with little or no consideration for using reasoning or clear thinking.
The South seceded to preserve slavery, as a sovereign nation they were invaded by the North. From the article brlux posted, first sentence "With a volley of artillery fired at Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor on
April 12, 1861, the South started a war that nearly destroyed the United
States in pursuit of a terrible cause." without any discussion of why that first volley of artillery was fired. The South were voluntary members of the Union and nothing prohibited them from secession. The South unsuccessfully attempted negotiation and compromise under the 10th amendment. The South seceded, legally separated from the Union and became a separate sovereign state. They instructed the North to remove all troops and military installations, the North refused. The South was now occupied territory, occupied militarily against their will by the North. Foreign military occupation was the first act of war, not the volley at Fort Sumter. Lincoln made the calculated decision (announced) that he would resupply Ft Sumter daring the South to attack or seize the US supply ship. Although Lincoln did not want war, he needed a reason to invade the South in order to get want he wanted more, Union preservation. The Confederates didn't wait for the supply ship to arrive and fired that first shot, the rest is history. Lincoln's decision to invade the South, a sovereign nation had nothing to do with ending slavery (see above) and everything to do with preserving the union. It was purely an economic decision, like most wars we start. Lets not act self righteous and pretend the North started and fought Civil War to end slavery!
The outrage and anger over statues is misdirected, here is some free advice, instead of taking down statues that honor dead soldiers maybe take down a bank or five.
I dont see how the South had the right to leave. Its want like the Euopean Union, they had one government they agreed to join. I dont know of any part of a country that tries to leave without causing war. If they leave successfully history writes it as a revolution, if they fail its remembered as a civil war. I would agree with other parts of your statement, I dont think the North were noble freedom fighters some think. Black were mistreated there too.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,682
In Berlin they have holocaust museums and Hitler's bunker is noted where it used to be. They don't run from their past, which is way more horrible than the confederacy. Why should we? It's stands as a memory of what not to do and is a history lesson for our children. As fucked up as it was, we shouldn't erase our past.
In Berlin they have holocaust museums and Hitler's bunker is noted where it used to be. They don't run from their past, which is way more horrible than the confederacy. Why should we? It's stands as a memory of what not to do and is a history lesson for our children. As fucked up as it was, we shouldn't erase our past.
There's a difference... it's in a museum setting. Is there a statue of General Ludendorf or Goering up on a pedestal, in front of the state Parliament? Negative. Appropriate places would be like Gettysburg and Antietam or the Holocaust Museum.
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 35,689
What conclusions are drawn from this letter to Horace Greeley from Abe Lincoln about the Civil War?
Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.
Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.
I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through
the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or
assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do
not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any
inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not
now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable
in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference
to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.
As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not
meant to leave any one in doubt.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under
the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be
restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was."
If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they
could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with
them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they
could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with
them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the
Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If
I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would
do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves
I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving
others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and
the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the
Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not
believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less
whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the
cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing
more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when
shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they
shall appear to be true views.
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official
duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal
wish that all men every where could be free.
Yours,
A. Lincoln.
what I took from this was a man discharging his official duty the best way he knew how.
it did seem to contradict his personal views to a degree. as history shows , his actions officially wound up lineing up witth the personal views.
in short, he put the country first in his role as president and commander in chief.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
The South seceded to preserve slavery, as a sovereign nation they were invaded by the North. From the article brlux posted, first sentence "With a volley of artillery fired at Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor on
April 12, 1861, the South started a war that nearly destroyed the United
States in pursuit of a terrible cause." without any discussion of why that first volley of artillery was fired. The South were voluntary members of the Union and nothing prohibited them from secession. The South unsuccessfully attempted negotiation and compromise under the 10th amendment. The South seceded, legally separated from the Union and became a separate sovereign state. They instructed the North to remove all troops and military installations, the North refused. The South was now occupied territory, occupied militarily against their will by the North. Foreign military occupation was the first act of war, not the volley at Fort Sumter. Lincoln made the calculated decision (announced) that he would resupply Ft Sumter daring the South to attack or seize the US supply ship. Although Lincoln did not want war, he needed a reason to invade the South in order to get want he wanted more, Union preservation. The Confederates didn't wait for the supply ship to arrive and fired that first shot, the rest is history. Lincoln's decision to invade the South, a sovereign nation had nothing to do with ending slavery (see above) and everything to do with preserving the union. It was purely an economic decision, like most wars we start. Lets not act self righteous and pretend the North started and fought Civil War to end slavery!
The outrage and anger over statues is misdirected, here is some free advice, instead of taking down statues that honor dead soldiers maybe take down a bank or five.
I dont see how the South had the right to leave. Its want like the Euopean Union, they had one government they agreed to join. I dont know of any part of a country that tries to leave without causing war. If they leave successfully history writes it as a revolution, if they fail its remembered as a civil war. I would agree with other parts of your statement, I dont think the North were noble freedom fighters some think. Black were mistreated there too.
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,682
I still confused by the thread title. Is this about the confederacy erasing history. If so, what part of history are they erasing and why? Or is it history erasing the confederacy? But, no, that can't be. History doesn't do anything, it just is. I don't understand this thread title.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,682
I've been more than a little nonplussed by the ACLU for a number of years now. They've done great work in the past. They were hugely helpful and influential during the 60's civil rights era. The have been strong defenders of upholding the constitution (we're all in favor of that, right?) and yet for some time now they seem to be... I don't know... like defending someones right to yell "fire!" in a crowed theater that is not burning. Sorry to say, I've kind of had to back off my on support.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Can any American on here explain why that you will fight to the death to have the right to assemble but you will fight anyone who doesn't agree about taking a statue down?
I still confused by the thread title. Is this about the confederacy erasing history. If so, what part of history are they erasing and why? Or is it history erasing the confederacy? But, no, that can't be. History doesn't do anything, it just is. I don't understand this thread title.
Seriously? Insert comma after confederacy.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,682
I still confused by the thread title. Is this about the confederacy erasing history. If so, what part of history are they erasing and why? Or is it history erasing the confederacy? But, no, that can't be. History doesn't do anything, it just is. I don't understand this thread title.
Seriously? Insert comma after confederacy.
Is it really that much work to make the thread title say what it means? Or is it, "The Confederacy Erasing, History", i.e. a History of the Confederacy with erasers in hand.
Hey, not to worry. It's just my dumb sense of humor.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Or as we say in these parts, "The Confederacy: Erasing Erhnocentrism".
God damn, I hope our southern brothers and sister and northern brother and sister will someday learn to get along. That or set off a long line of nukes at the Mason Dixon line to form a no man's land and say fuck all, we're done with each other. The former would be so much more pleasant though.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Or as we say in these parts, "The Confederacy: Erasing Erhnocentrism".
God damn, I hope our southern brothers and sister and northern brother and sister will someday learn to get along. That or set off a long line of nukes at the Mason Dixon line to form a no man's land and say fuck all, we're done with each other. The former would be so much more pleasant though.
Fuck Texas. Give it back to Mexico. Better yet, let it secede and then be taken over by Mexico. Why pay to dispose?
Give me slaves or give me death! I'm suppose to believe that confederates were the only soldiers in the history of civilization that fought and died for owning slaves, that farmers chose death with slaves over life without.
Or as we say in these parts, "The Confederacy: Erasing Erhnocentrism".
God damn, I hope our southern brothers and sister and northern brother and sister will someday learn to get along. That or set off a long line of nukes at the Mason Dixon line to form a no man's land and say fuck all, we're done with each other. The former would be so much more pleasant though.
Fuck Texas. Give it back to Mexico. Better yet, let it secede and then be taken over by Mexico. Why pay to dispose?
Give me slaves or give me death! I'm suppose to believe that confederates were the only soldiers in the history of civilization that fought and died for owning slaves, that farmers chose death with slaves over life without.
I'm OK with this. ACLU defended Unite the Rights permit to peacefully assemble after it had been revoked. It was Unite the Right who fucked it all up by not actually following the permit and peacefully assembling.
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
Comments
As for your autocorrect, have a word with your device's OS manufacturer and alter your settings if it so disturbs you.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Regarding the legality of it, that wasn't the debate at hand, but I think the legality was settled pretty clearly at a little courthouse close to me called Appomattox.
But what I'm suggesting is that the subject at hand, today, is about racism and blind loyalty to ones geo/political background with little or no consideration for using reasoning or clear thinking.
I dont know of any part of a country that tries to leave without causing war. If they leave successfully history writes it as a revolution, if they fail its remembered as a civil war.
I would agree with other parts of your statement, I dont think the North were noble freedom fighters some think. Black were mistreated there too.
Appropriate places would be like Gettysburg and Antietam or the Holocaust Museum.
what I took from this was a man discharging his official duty the best way he knew how.
it did seem to contradict his personal views to a degree.
as history shows , his actions officially wound up lineing up witth the personal views.
in short, he put the country first in his role as president and commander in chief.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Thoughts?
Hey, not to worry. It's just my dumb sense of humor.
God damn, I hope our southern brothers and sister and northern brother and sister will someday learn to get along. That or set off a long line of nukes at the Mason Dixon line to form a no man's land and say fuck all, we're done with each other. The former would be so much more pleasant though.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
I'm suppose to believe that confederates were the only soldiers in the history of civilization that fought and died for owning slaves, that farmers chose death with slaves over life without.