Unite the Right

[Fife]

You can't see my smile? Looks like you got up on the trech side of the bed.

Anyway, a repeat "meh" for you, expert-lawyer/boogie-man-historian.

[DBTrek]

Well, that was a little better.
I hereby promote you to monarch of the turd peanut gallery.

[Okeefenokee]

Don't be disingenuous. It was about the states' rights to own slaves.

I'm not. It was about State's rights regardless of the context.

Read the Articles of Secession. Jesus.
The right to own slaves was featured prominently in various articles of secession written by the goddamn states themselves.
We don't have to guess at this shit, clown.

Read the the nullification crisis, Jesus.

Fucking disgenuous tards pretending we don't all know that you know damned well what it was about.

Pretending this shit started in 1861, just ignore everything that came before that. I thought you were better than that.

[DBTrek]

What can you say to illiterate gits other than "Learn how to read and comprehend"?

Shit is right there in black and white.
You can either read and comprehend or you can't.
If you can't, you may want to have a come-to-Jesus moment with yourself and ask why you can't.

[jediuser598]

Dyam, DB laying the smackdown.

[Okeefenokee]

https://www.civilwar.org/learn/primary- ... ing-states

The word slave appears 83 times.
The word tax - once.

This whole revisionist "It was about taxes, or self determination, or blah, blah, blah, derp" shit gets tiresome.
The motherfuckers wrote down why the fuck they were seceding in black and white.
There is no damn debate, there are only people who have read the sources and ignoramuses.

It wasn't about slavery, it was about overall power. The North held the power in more than political, they held infrastructure, as well as political. The South fought to keep slavery active since that was their bread and butter since they were able to produce nothing else by themselves alone (heaven forbid they produced anything not using slaves except hot air)

The North had a larger population, and also more electoral votes, because of this they were more likely going to vote for a new president, and get more power overall, which meant that the president was going to have the ability to abolish slavery. Since California asked to be part of the Union as a Free State, the South was going to be out manned, and out voted. So no, this was not about slavery overall, it was about political power to keep slavery intact.

The north got into the fight to keep the Union intact initially, it later became about slavery because it was a rally that they could fight for, or against.

Only idiots think it's only about slavery, it was, as it always will be, about political power... nothing more, nothing less.

This. Economic warfare, waged through the northern controlled legislature, for the purpose of subjugating the south and forcing a colonial yoke on them, modeled after the same treatment that had been received from Britain before 1776, and aimed squarely at the south from 1787 until it resulted in a second war in 1861.

DB knows it too.

[SilverEagle]

What can you say to illiterate gits other than "Learn how to read and comprehend"?

Shit is right there in black and white.
You can either read and comprehend or you can't.
If you can't, you may want to have a come-to-Jesus moment with yourself and ask why you can't.

Slavery is horrible and wrong. Nobody is arguing that. What I'm saying and what others are saying is the base cause was State's rights vs Central Federal Power rights. Two major things happened at the conclusion of the war.

1. Slavery was made illegal (A very positive thing).
2. The State had their ball hacked off and placed on the mantle of the Federal Government. (A very bad thing).

[DBTrek]

This. Economic warfare, waged through the northern controlled legislature, for the purpose of subjugating the south and forcing a colonial yoke on them, modeled after the same treatment that had been received from Britain before 1776, and aimed squarely at the south from 1787 until it resulted in a second war in 1861.

DB knows it too.

Starting a GoFundMe for Okee and The Conservative so they can go back in time and explain to the Southern legislatures that they don't actually know why they're seceeding from the North. Hopefully, under the direction of TC and Okee, the South will get its Articles of Secession right the second time around.


EDIT: Notice even with all their word-mincing, it's still about slavery. "It's about state's rights!" - Sure, specifically a state's right to own SLAVES per the Articles of Secession. "It was economic warfare" - Sure, against an economic model built upon the backs of SLAVES. Derp.

[apeman]

OK, trying to be reasonable here, I don't like tearing down monuments and statues like some crazed member of the Red Guard, but I would be open to a discussion about removing certain confederate monuments. A discussion. I could be convinced.* It is possible.

But no one can have that discussion. Even opening your mouth to get out, "OK, but where do we draw the line after that?" is enough to be denounced as a bigot.

So the crazed left could have a discussion, or could use mob force. I don't see anyone wanting to talk, so I assume that they want to use mob force.

I despise that.





*(though obviously not my call to make, calm down this yankee isnt trying to alter your culture)

[Speaker to Animals]

There is no discussion. Take your ISIS-like statue-destroying cultural genocide-loving shit the fuck back home.

Clear out.