It wasn't a war fought to perpetuate slavery, it was a war fought to free the fucking slaves. Which it did, incidentally.
The Civil War has a much better racial connotation than say, the name Oregon or Oregon State.
SoFuckingIrritating.gif
When they came for the Robert E. Lee statues I said nothing. Because he was technically a traitor and a loser, so fuck him.
But this is just pants-on-head silly. The Civil War ushered in the single greatest piece of human rights advancement this country has seen. Are we no longer celebrating that?
Or could have just purchased the slaves and freed them without killing hundreds of thousands and forcing incompatible cultures to coexist in the same region.
It wasn't a war fought to perpetuate slavery, it was a war fought to free the fucking slaves. Which it did, incidentally.
The Civil War has a much better racial connotation than say, the name Oregon or Oregon State.
SoFuckingIrritating.gif
When they came for the Robert E. Lee statues I said nothing. Because he was technically a traitor and a loser, so fuck him.
But this is just pants-on-head silly. The Civil War ushered in the single greatest piece of human rights advancement this country has seen. Are we no longer celebrating that?
Or could have just purchased the slaves and freed them without killing hundreds of thousands and forcing incompatible cultures to coexist in the same region.
And the 1860s war was not actually a “civil” war but rather one of revolution. Civil wars are fought to take control of the established government control of a territory. This was succession to establish a new political system in a defined geographical area.
Calling it the civil war will remind everyone that it was democrats that were slavers and fought freeing them. That's why all of this is being erased. It's all about the dems hiding their past and present.
Calling it the civil war will remind everyone that it was democrats that were slavers and fought freeing them. That's why all of this is being erased. It's all about the dems hiding their past and present.
And the 1860s war was not actually a “civil” war but rather one of revolution. Civil wars are fought to take control of the established government control of a territory. This was succession to establish a new political system in a defined geographical area.
Not really. It was a Civilian War directly because some citizens were trying to leave and create their own State of Jefferson instead of staying in the Cascade Cabal. I think.
Calling it the civil war will remind everyone that it was democrats that were slavers and fought freeing them. That's why all of this is being erased. It's all about the dems hiding their past and present.
Was there a time before your pot cracked?
Dem lefty heard from. Only response is name calling.
Calling it the civil war will remind everyone that it was democrats that were slavers and fought freeing them. That's why all of this is being erased. It's all about the dems hiding their past and present.
Calling it the civil war will remind everyone that it was democrats that were slavers and fought freeing them. That's why all of this is being erased. It's all about the dems hiding their past and present.
Was there a time before your pot cracked?
Dem lefty heard from. Only response is name calling.
Not a joke, did Great Britain not end slavery in a similar manner avoiding an obviously generationally divisive war? I’m certain there are nuances to the differences between the US situation and theirs however an all out war was probably the worst possible solution to the problem of slavery in North America.
Not a joke, did Great Britain not end slavery in a similar manner avoiding an obviously generationally divisive war? I’m certain there are nuances to the differences between the US situation and theirs however an all out war was probably the worst possible solution to the problem of slavery in North America.
The issue was not that buying the slaves' freedom never occurred to anyone.
And "forcing incompatible cultures to coexist in the same region"?
Not a joke, did Great Britain not end slavery in a similar manner avoiding an obviously generationally divisive war? I’m certain there are nuances to the differences between the US situation and theirs however an all out war was probably the worst possible solution to the problem of slavery in North America.
The issue was not that buying the slaves' freedom never occurred to anyone.
And "forcing incompatible cultures to coexist in the same region"?
Yes, bring the former slaves to the north where there would have a been a far easier transition to normalcy given social milieu of the time.
Not a joke, did Great Britain not end slavery in a similar manner avoiding an obviously generationally divisive war? I’m certain there are nuances to the differences between the US situation and theirs however an all out war was probably the worst possible solution to the problem of slavery in North America.
The issue was not that buying the slaves' freedom never occurred to anyone.
And "forcing incompatible cultures to coexist in the same region"?
Yes, bring the former slaves to the north where there would have a been a far easier transition to normalcy given social milieu of the time.
Uhhhhhh, no. Have you read any mid-19th Century US History?
Not a joke, did Great Britain not end slavery in a similar manner avoiding an obviously generationally divisive war? I’m certain there are nuances to the differences between the US situation and theirs however an all out war was probably the worst possible solution to the problem of slavery in North America.
Way more than nuanced. The vast majority of slaves were not stationed on the British isles. But in colonies. Also, African slaves are only a slice of Great Britain’s slave history.
Not a joke, did Great Britain not end slavery in a similar manner avoiding an obviously generationally divisive war? I’m certain there are nuances to the differences between the US situation and theirs however an all out war was probably the worst possible solution to the problem of slavery in North America.
The issue was not that buying the slaves' freedom never occurred to anyone.
And "forcing incompatible cultures to coexist in the same region"?
Yes, bring the former slaves to the north where there would have a been a far easier transition to normalcy given social milieu of the time.
Not a joke, did Great Britain not end slavery in a similar manner avoiding an obviously generationally divisive war? I’m certain there are nuances to the differences between the US situation and theirs however an all out war was probably the worst possible solution to the problem of slavery in North America.
The issue was not that buying the slaves' freedom never occurred to anyone.
And "forcing incompatible cultures to coexist in the same region"?
Yes, bring the former slaves to the north where there would have a been a far easier transition to normalcy given social milieu of the time.
This is a great start, Hopefully UW examines is problematic iconography more too!
Purple should be eliminated as an acceptable representative color;
It was the color of European imperialistic Roman royalty (mostly White people) that participated in the subjugation and enslavement of millions of people around the modern world at the time. It promotes the ideology of the ruling class both as an ethno-centric state and classist rigid hierarchy so much so that even Queen Elizabeth the first (yet another white) outlawed anyone of her royal family from wearing purple during her rule.
This is enough of a problematic past, the color shouldnt be celebrated or cheered, it should be a reminder of the grim history of whites.
makes me sick
Dont even get me started on the European rape of native lands in the pursuit of gold.
The unpopularity of my position is not lost on me yet it is not devoid of serious scholarship on the issue. It stems from the evaluation of using a ground war to solve societal differences which have sewn the seeds of the turmoil which exists at present. It's not unreasonable to question whether Lincoln's war was the correct action to eliminate the obviously odious institution of slavery and its strong foothold in the southern (albeit it plantation owners were a very small minority of the southern population - not excusing it but it is not factual the a substantial number of them were slave-owners regardless of whether it was a supported position) institutions. A war on such scale should have been the last resort for the elimination of state approved slavery and the fact that the majority of all other countries ended slavery without a bloody conflict on this scale should be the only proof necessary to make one skeptical.
Comments
No wonder you suck in court!
And "forcing incompatible cultures to coexist in the same region"?
The comparative reference was the contemporaneous climate in the south.
Purple should be eliminated as an acceptable representative color;
It was the color of European imperialistic Roman royalty (mostly White people) that participated in the subjugation and enslavement of millions of people around the modern world at the time. It promotes the ideology of the ruling class both as an ethno-centric state and classist rigid hierarchy so much so that even Queen Elizabeth the first (yet another white) outlawed anyone of her royal family from wearing purple during her rule.
This is enough of a problematic past, the color shouldnt be celebrated or cheered, it should be a reminder of the grim history of whites.
makes me sick
Dont even get me started on the European rape of native lands in the pursuit of gold.