TX schools will now teach that Civil War was all about slavery!!!

[Fentoine Lum]

First, moron, the Confederacy was no more a separate country than your house is a separate country just because you say so.

Second, moron, there is no constitutional provision or mechanism for a state to secede from the Union. To claim there is some right to do so is absurd.

Now, you want to renounce your own citizenship? Fine. Do it. But to make the cretinous statement that Lincoln made slaves of us all is laughable.

His was one of the dumbest posts I’ve seen in awhile. Yet, you find it “interesting”.

Third, if I may, ya lost, grow the fuck up and move on.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

suggest you read the articles of secession by the various traitor states. Secession was indeed all about slavery in the traitors own words.

Let's drill that in again for the thick of skull:


In the secessionists' own words.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

suggest you read the articles of secession by the various traitor states. Secession was indeed all about slavery in the traitors own words.

i thought we were talking about the norths reasons for the war?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Third, if I may, ya lost, grow the fuck up and move on.

i'm curious about a supposed mindset of the northerners views on this............do you believe that because the north won the civil war, that the founders writings and the constitution is no longer in effect?

 

[katzgar]

well this was a big pile of horseshit. Lincoln himself said he didn't give a fuck about the slaves at first. just more history revisionism.

Lincoln to support black suffrage in his final public address.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

i'm curious about a supposed mindset of the northerners views on this............do you believe that because the north won the civil war, that the founders writings and the constitution is no longer in effect?

a) Not sure how you got there from anything I've posted
b) I do not worship the founders nor the constitution
c) Not a "northerner"
d) Not sure how you got to "c" either

 

[Fentoine Lum]

Lincoln to support black suffrage in his final public address.

Not early on, he was indifferent as was stated by another poster.

 

[katzgar]

i thought we were talking about the norths reasons for the war?

Texas isnt in the north is it

 

[katzgar]

Not early on, he was indifferent as was stated by another poster.

you are redundant

 

[SmarterthanYou]

a) Not sure how you got there from anything I've posted
b) I do not worship the founders nor the constitution
c) Not a "northerner"
d) Not sure how you got to "c" either

then consider it just a general question to the general population. you made it sound like you were a northerner and that you won..........sorry for making that assumption

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Texas isnt in the north is it

what does that have to do with it? I asked you about the norths reasons for the war......not if texas was in the north

 

[jimmymccready]

1. Slavery was a central cause of the War, and any who say 'no' can be dismissed outright.

2. Lincoln was able to keep those states in the union despite slavery. He would have done the same for the other slave states as well as long as they (1) recognized federal law in the South; (2) federal property in the South; and (3) did not take their slaves into the Territories.

3. Grant never owned a slave; to say he did is to be wrong. His wife did own slaves.

4. General Scott offered command of the Union armies to Lee, not Lincoln.

5. Slavery was the root cause for the symptoms of sectionalism and states' right

well this was a big pile of horseshit. Lincoln himself said he didn't give a fuck about the slaves at first. just more history revisionism.

Your assertion is false. Your comment about Lincoln is a misstatement. Your conclusion is inaccurate.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

1. Slavery was a central cause of the War, and any who say 'no' can be dismissed outright.

2. Lincoln was able to keep those states in the union despite slavery. He would have done the same for the other slave states as well as long as they (1) recognized federal law in the South; (2) federal property in the South; and (3) did not take their slaves into the Territories.

3. Grant never owned a slave; to say he did is to be wrong. His wife did own slaves.

4. General Scott offered command of the Union armies to Lee, not Lincoln.

5. Slavery was the root cause for the symptoms of sectionalism and states' right

Your assertion is false. Your comment about Lincoln is a misstatement. Your conclusion is inaccurate.

your knowledge of history is overshadowed by a baby with shit in it's diaper. stop drinking the koolaid and following your brainwashers.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

you are redundant

We have slow posters, takes a lot of repetition.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

then consider it just a general question to the general population. you made it sound like you were a northerner and that you won..........sorry for making that assumption

Born and raised in a slave state. One that didn't recognize the end of the war via marauders, gangs and bandits who carried on once it was ostensibly "over".

 

[katzgar]

what does that have to do with it? I asked you about the norths reasons for the war......not if texas was in the north

Try and focus on the topic at hand and quit going off in the bushes

 

[jimmymccready]

No legal documents exist that Grant ever bought a slave under the law.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

This is preposterous lying from liberals

1. There were 4 UNION states (ky md de mo) that lincoln let practice slavery throughout the war. 300,000 black slaves combined in those states

2. There were many UNION generals that were slave owners throughout the war. Grant himself owned a slave and his wife owned a bunch of them.

3. When the war started Lincoln asked slave-owner Robert E Lee to be commander of all UNION troops

Congrats TDK. For proving your the biggest idiot on the board.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

No legal documents exist that Grant ever bought a slave under the law.

He didn’t. His wife was given slaves by her father as a wedding gift. Grant freed them.

 

[Text Drivers are Killers]

In Texas v. White, the United States Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional

HAHAHA. Courts are not allowed to rewrite the constitution, you ignoramus. Show us where the constitution says anything about secession.