You know that's on the list of racist terms, right?I’m talking high brow topics. There will obviously be plenty that lack the intelligence to understand.
You know that's on the list of racist terms, right?I’m talking high brow topics. There will obviously be plenty that lack the intelligence to understand.
How do you figure? The people of the CSA were people of the USA and had been taxed abusively which was the chief complaint leading to secession. The tariffs of the time, the principal source of federal income, had been designed solely for the benefit of northern factory owners. Arguing that the seceding states did not then not at a hypothetical future time own a stake in federal property that they contributed to paying for is analogous with arguing in a divorce one partner is entitled to everything and the other nothingThe people of the United States collectively paid for that; it belonged to The United States. It never belonged to the people of the CSA. There is not a legitimate scenario where the CSA was within their rights to fire on Fort Sumter. The US had a right to occupy their own facility, and they had a right to re-supply it. I'd say they even had a right to include arms, ammo and troops as part of re-supplying, even though the US had agreed only to resupply food and non-military supplies. They have a right to defend their property.
That shot on Ft Sumter was the first act of aggression that began the war. Of course there are many books written from the side of those aggressors that cherry pick facts to justify what happened. The crux of the war was indeed about slavery. The southern aristocracy exploited poor people and their own pride, prejudice and fear, to gaslight them into fighting to preserve their aristocracy.
They paid the taxes, yes. They had a stake in it yes. Only *a* stake. The property belonged to the United States. At no time after becoming federal property did Fort Sumter become part of South Carolina, which seceded. No US federal lands should ever have been considered part of CSA.How do you figure? The people of the CSA were people of the USA and had been taxed abusively which was the chief complaint leading to secession. The tariffs of the time, the principal source of federal income, had been designed solely for the benefit of northern factory owners. Arguing that the seceding states did not then not at a hypothetical future time own a stake in federal property that they contributed to paying for is analogous with arguing in a divorce one partner is entitled to everything and the other nothing
Likewise they also had a stake in similar properties in the North.They paid the taxes, yes. They had a stake in it yes. Only *a* stake. The property belonged to the United States. At no time after becoming federal property did Fort Sumter become part of South Carolina, which seceded. No US federal lands should ever have been considered part of CSA.
^^^^^THIS^^^^^They paid the taxes, yes. They had a stake in it yes. Only *a* stake. The property belonged to the United States. At no time after becoming federal property did Fort Sumter become part of South Carolina, which seceded. No US federal lands should ever have been considered part of CSA.
IndyDave, at no point did any state that before/after they seceded, have any such stake in similar federal properties in the North, it was FEDERAL PROPERTY.Likewise they also had a stake in similar properties in the North.
The people of the United States collectively paid for that; it belonged to The United States. It never belonged to the people of the CSA. There is not a legitimate scenario where the CSA was within their rights to fire on Fort Sumter. The US had a right to occupy their own facility, and they had a right to re-supply it. I'd say they even had a right to include arms, ammo and troops as part of re-supplying, even though the US had agreed only to resupply food and non-military supplies. They have a right to defend their property.
That shot on Ft Sumter was the first act of aggression that began the war. Of course there are many books written from the side of those aggressors that cherry pick facts to justify what happened. The crux of the war was indeed about slavery. The southern aristocracy exploited poor people and their own pride, prejudice and fear, to gaslight them into fighting to preserve their aristocracy.
That belonged to the United States of America, not the Confederate States of America. The CSA had no legitimate claim to US property.Likewise they also had a stake in similar properties in the North.
That's what ideologues say when they're trying to defend the indefensible. Stephens was an idiot.The aggressor is not the first to fire a gun. The aggressor is the first to cause need for firing of the gun.
No. Well. Not that Lincoln was not a tyrannical piece of ****. But I think you're giving him way too much credit. The reason the US did not give up slavery without war was that the Southern Aristocracy did not want to give it up. It was like apple pie. Who in their right mind would give up apple pie?Slavery ended in numerous countries without a war.
600,000+ dead in the war of Northern aggression? I lay that right on the head of that tyrannical piece of **** called Lincoln.
This gave the Left the ability to further the idea that all of the right, including Republicans, are thugs, terrorists and white nationalists. The fringe has said that for years. Now the idea has gone mainstream. The barbed wire and fencing and troops around DC are all just political theater to show people that it's there to prevent Republicans from killing democrats.I’m not sure how all of you feel but in my eyes this deal at the capital set us the A2 back , it made us look bad and got nothing accomplished what so ever. And now the left will alway have this to use against us. I sure wish it would have just been a peaceful protest and let them see we are better then Antifa and BLM.
Sure. Pretty much the ideologues.Many would (and do) disagree.
It took the focus off the BLM/Antifia crowd at a time when there was some ground being gained before the Capitol incident.This gave the Left the ability to further the idea that all of the right, including Republicans, are thugs, terrorists and white nationalists. The fringe has said that for years. Now the idea has gone mainstream. The barbed wire and fencing and troops around DC are all just political theater to show people that it's there to prevent Republicans from killing democrats.
The conservative-leaning social-media network Parler referred violent content from its platform to the FBI more than 50 times in the weeks before the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol, the company said Thursday, following criticism that it failed to adequately police threats ahead of the deadly attack.
Parler Says It Informed FBI of Violent Content Before Capitol Riot
The conservative-leaning social-media network is telling a House committee it has been unfairly targeted by big tech companies.www.wsj.com
The FBI ignoring tips.....sounds about right.
Not to worry - the government already has information.An app that requires your drivers license, giving information to the government...
hard pass.