Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Next Logical Step In American Revisionist History

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Aber View Post
    Whose Emancipation Proclamation didn't apply to slaves in Union states?
    Of course it didn't.
    Under the law, it couldn't.
    US presidents don't have authority to rule by decree. So, if you are trying to be critical of Lincoln, I would suggest a different argument.
    Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

    Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Savez View Post
      It sure seems that way. But I think its just a cover for progressives to get rid of any vestige of anti-Federalism more than racism. Just like in 1850s and 60s, they are using Black people to enforce their agenda. Then it was in the name of anti-slavery, now its in the name of anti-racism. Both are just covers. SJWs are modern day abolitionists. They are hypocritical to the extreme, some are radical, most are loons.
      Give me break! You are clearly a neo-confederate; as I recall you are one the people here that routinely denies that the Civil War was about slavery but rather, that it was about states' rights. I will remind that seven out of the nine states that originally seceded did so because of northern opposition to slavery. So, again as the guy that actually has a MA in history. The Civil War was all about slavery and the states that were trampling on states's rights were the slave owning states; see the "three fifths compromise" and the "fugitive slave law." The only revisionism that I see here is from people like you.

      The population of slaves would be counted as three-fifths in total when apportioning Representatives, as well as Presidential electors and taxes. The Three-Fifths Compromise was proposed by James Wilson and Roger Sherman, who were both delegates for the Constitutional Convention of 1787.
      Three Fifths Compromise - constitution | Laws.com
      https://constitution.laws.com/three-fifths-compromise
      The Fugitive Slave Law or Fugitive Slave Act was passed by the United States Congress on September 18, 1850, as part of the Compromise of 1850 between Southern slave-holding interests and Northern Free-Soilers. ... Abolitionists nicknamed it the "Bloodhound Law" for the dogs that were used to track down runaway slaves.
      Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 - Wikipedia
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugiti...ve_Act_of_1850
      Give me a fast ship and the wind at my back for I intend to sail in harms way! (John Paul Jones)

      Initiated Chief Petty Officer
      Hard core! Old School! Deal with it!

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Karri View Post
        I don't know or care what it is; you weren't there and you didn't do it. Perhaps your dad, your grandad, your mother or grandmother was; you weren't. Don't take credit.
        An good statement.......I wish life was this simple, unfortunately it isn't.
        "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Bass_Man86 View Post
          Give me break! You are clearly a neo-confederate; as I recall you are one the people here that routinely denies that the Civil War was about slavery but rather, that it was about states' rights. I will remind that seven out of the nine states that originally seceded did so because of northern opposition to slavery. So, again as the guy that actually has a MA in history. The Civil War was all about slavery and the states that were trampling on states's rights were the slave owning states; see the "three fifths compromise" and the "fugitive slave law." The only revisionism that I see here is from people like you.
          It WAS about states' rights, as you would know of you read any of Lincoln's writings. He was not anti-slavery at all, but was willing to do anything, including civil war, in order to force all states to bow to his authority, despite the Constitution which clearly places states' rights above that of the central government, originally created to provide admin services for the states while they went about their business.

          My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.
          Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

          Comment

          Latest Topics

          Collapse

          Working...
          X