Got Mlk?

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

They could far more easily have "won" all of that without fighting.

To be honest it wasn't possible. It wasn't possible cuz the real issue was taxation and spending that favored the North.

 

[RjThoughts]

They could far more easily have "won" all of that without fighting.

No, don't tell him that. He studied the Civil War, and that means he was NEVER taught that

 

[cjh]

Celebrating losing a war? Kind of dumb

Vicksburg ignored the 4th of July until sometime in the 80s or 90s.

 

[RjThoughts]

Vicksburg ignored the 4th of July until sometime in the 80s or 90s.

My father's family never celebrates Columbus Day, believe it shows the ignorance by Americans of history. They know Columbus never set foot on US soil, and if he had, he would not have been the first European.

 

[KingOrfeo]

To be honest it wasn't possible. It wasn't possible cuz the real issue was taxation and spending that favored the North.

So? If the Southern states had abolished slavery on their own, then, even without giving freed blacks the vote, they would have had more House votes and they could've used that to tackle tax policy.

 

[cjh]

To be honest it wasn't possible. It wasn't possible cuz the real issue was taxation and spending that favored the North.

Yes it was. As the people of Mississippi explained:

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

So? If the Southern states had abolished slavery on their own, then, even without giving freed blacks the vote, they would have had more House votes and they could've used that to tackle tax policy.

No, dear. Dred Scott said they weren't citizens, and had no rights.

But thanks for playing A MIND IS A TERRIBLE THANG TO WASTE ON A LIBERAL.

 

[RjThoughts]

No, dear. Dred Scott said they weren't citizens, and had no rights.

But thanks for playing A MIND IS A TERRIBLE THANG TO WASTE ON A LIBERAL.

That was in 1857. You don't know if pressured, the Congress could have enacted laws giving blacks rights.

Sorry, but thank YOU for playing with a jaundiced view on things.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

That was in 1857. You don't know if pressured, the Congress could have enacted laws giving blacks rights.

Sorry, but thank YOU for playing with a jaundiced view on things.

Do your homework.

 

[KingOrfeo]

No, dear. Dred Scott said they weren't citizens, and had no rights.

It doesn't matter. As "free Persons," they would be counted for apportionment purposes under the Constitution; free blacks in both the South and the North always were, regardless of whether they could vote or suffered other legal disabilities.

 

[RjThoughts]

Do your homework.

You're the expert. Prove my theory incorrect. Oh that's right. You can't, since you're Southern and are afraid to give those of color - Black, Brown, Olive - are equal or even better than you!

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[RjThoughts]

He's never heard of the 13th 14th and 15th Amendments. probably doesn't know they were opposed by Democrats as well.

Back then Democrats were what Republicans are now, and vise-versa.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

He's never heard of the 13th 14th and 15th Amendments. probably doesn't know they were opposed by Democrats as well.

One of the curiosities of historical research is how history perfessers avoid the facts. Twenty years ago, when I was active as a Civil War researcher, the real fund of knowledge and discoveries came from a network of archivists, park rangers, writers, and amateurs...perfessers were generally clueless and restricted to the PC reservation.

One of the peculiarities of the South is, outsiders cannot easily access people, artifacts, or documents held by individuals unless youre family. We call these stubborn old ladies, Granny Grunt. But if youre real family she'll often hike her dress and invite you in.

 

[badbabysitter]

One of the curiosities of historical research is how history perfessers avoid the facts. Twenty years ago, when I was active as a Civil War researcher, the real fund of knowledge and discoveries came from a network of archivists, park rangers, writers, and amateurs...perfessers were generally clueless and restricted to the PC reservation.

One of the peculiarities of the South is, outsiders cannot easily access people, artifacts, or documents held by individuals unless youre family. We call these stubborn old ladies, Granny Grunt. But if youre real family she'll often hike her dress and invite you in.

so that's your reasearch.. tea time with granny?


jesus christ

where did you get your degree.. that back of a Denny's?

you havent proven a single solitary one of your claims.. and we're supposed to accept as fact a story you tell us

a fucking story

you've told us shit that would have appeared on front page news across the nation before, but somehow magically didnt

yet, somehow we're to believe your " academic tea time with granny" is somehow irrefutable without a shred to back your claims

go back to kindergarten grampa.. the teacher at least will pretend to agree with you