God damn you're ing stupid
Here's a law that was enacted to celebrate the 100 year Civil War anniversary.
This is very important
So are street names.
Yes they are so important. I cant stop thinking about them
I didn't know you were from Alexandria. Cool.
This is important as well. Keep going
Oh, you're one of those nutjobs who think the Civil War wasn't about slavery.
Here's a tip: read the Southern states' declarations of secession and take note of what they all say their reason for seceding was - in their own words. It isn't "states' rights," it's slavery.
Hillary mopped the in' floor with Bernie's in' assPERIOD
I'm glad John Emoji post is now policing the forum to ensure we only discuss the important things.
Anyway, I didn't post that because I particularly care about that specific law. You can figure out the relevance on your own time.
No prob
I been to alexandria and its a very small and very old place
I doubt there are too many streets created post 1963.
Workers World Party organized rally that toppled Confederate statue in Durham
http://www.worldtribune.com/workers-...tue-in-durham/
Commies!
Fat commies teacher from North Carolina Central University is coming to her defense
“My student, Takiyah Thompson, was arrested this afternoon on NCCU’s campus during a press conference. At the same time that she was being arrested, the homes of her comrades were raided by the Durham County Sheriff’s Office. In this moment of Charlottesville, they are going to try and make an example of her, THE Black woman. She’s brave, but she is afraid.”
the Dred Scott decision was 7-2, any of the other 6 have statues?
well said its a bull excuse. personally i dont think statues should be removed ...as a history major takingvit down seems wrong to me ..
but I dont lose sleep over the removal of traitorous icons either. i just dont like the losers 2nd flag ...ill wipe my ass with the stars and bars and dear a white nationalist or confederate patriot to do to stop me ...
Last edited by Killakobe81; 08-18-2017 at 07:55 AM.
Revisionist history, that downplays slavery.
Arguing this, without acknowledging why the South wanted to press their "states" rights is a bit like saying it was "the alternator that started the car", without adding that someone was turning the key.
The South didn't give two s about "states rights", but cared a whole lot about keeping slavery. The South used federalism without hesitation when it suited them, e.g. Fugitive slave laws.
Yeah that just doesn't work CN.
They cared about slaves mostly because of economics. They used human beings as farm implements. If the North had relied heavily on slaves for economics what's to say they would not have done the same? They would have because THEy DID. Furthermore the largest insurrection took place in the North.
http://www.history.com/news/four-day...ty-draft-riots
Did living in the North make one morally superior? No.
The history seems to show whites from both sides seeing slavery as morally wrong but the South played the moral slippery slope because economics played a role. There were also people from both sides that saw blacks as stinking animals. Kind of like Thread still does.
No, just history. Sure slavery was the catalyst to Southern secession in most cases; but all states believed in secession as a due course of action if necessary. In the early part of the 19th century, it was actually New England states threatening to secede.
In Virginia's Declaration of Causes they make this point patently clear:
The people of Virginia…having declared that the powers granted under the said Cons ution were derived from the people of the United States, and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression; and the Federal Government, having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States.
Now, therefore, we, the people of Virginia, do declare and ordain that the Union between the State of Virginia and the other States under the Cons ution aforesaid, is hereby dissolved, and that the State of Virginia is in the full possession and exercise of all the rights of sovereignty which belong and appertain to a free and independent State. And they do further declare that the said Cons ution of the United States of America is no longer binding on any of the citizens of this State.
Most cases? In which cases was it not the catalyst? Give us a list.
They aren't all explicit as Mississipi.
Here's a tip: read the Southern states' declarations of secession and take note of what they all say their reason for seceding was - in their own words. It isn't "states' rights," it's slavery.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.aspIn the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
Our position is thoroughly identified with the ins ution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which cons utes 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 ins ution, 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.
That we do not overstate the dangers to our ins ution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
