- Joined
- Jun 11, 2011
- Messages
- 31,089
- Reaction score
- 4,384
- Location
- The greatest city on Earth
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Are we Trivial Pursuit: Special Y'all Edition?
Redneck/Hillybilly/Hick Edition.
Are we Trivial Pursuit: Special Y'all Edition?
And, there were statewide votes, either in the form of a referendum, or special elections for conentions. Why is that so hard for some folks figure out?
What I will do, however, prove that all 11 Confederate states and 3 border states had state wide referendums on secession.
Its not hard at all. What is hard to take is you pontificating about the civil war era as it you actually know something when your credibility has been trashed and smashed, crushed and flushed, and destroyed beyond any semblance of recognition.
You LIED. Pure and simple.
Redneck/Hillybilly/Hick Edition.
you have no idea how much I approve of your hypocrisy.....
I already have...yeah, still waiting for you to condemn the use of the word "nigger".
1. Not a big dealDon't misquote me. I did not say that it was #1,,,,,,just one of FIVE, which were all equally important to the average Southerner.
The other four reasons being: (1) the tariff (2) location of the trans-continental railroad (3) states rights and organization of the western territories and perhaps the single-most important and immediate cause of Secession (4) the election of Abraham Lincoln.
1. Not a big deal
2. Not a big deal.
3. States' right to own slaves and which western territories could have slavery.
4. Because they were afraid Lincoln would stop the expansion of slavery.
Slavery was #1. Most of the other issues revolved around slavery.
I already have...
what does my condemning of a term have to do with your bigotry?... are you going to stop being a bigot if i condemn a term?... I'm thinking no...what say you?
The abolition of slavery was not a part of Lincoln's platform. The Republican Party in 1860, simply wanted to stop the expansion of the institution into the western territories.states' rights....to own slaves????
and why was the election of Lincoln such a problem? slavery.
I am not bigoted against poor whites. My family was lower-middle class for the longest time.
However, I am against white racists. And yes, I call them hicks, hillbillies, white-trash, and other derogatory names. But this is due to their beliefs, not who they are.
If you honestly believe that the tariff and the ralroad were "not big deals" then perhaps you should do a bit of research. I suggest starting with some of the writings/speeches of John C. Calhoun and Henry Clay.1. Not a big deal
2. Not a big deal.
3. States' right to own slaves and which western territories could have slavery.
4. Because they were afraid Lincoln would stop the expansion of slavery.
Slavery was #1. Most of the other issues revolved around slavery.
what do you call black racists?
The abolition of slavery was not a part of Lincoln's platform. The Republican Party in 1860, simply wanted to stop the expansion of the institution into the western territories.
The question isn't what you don't call them. It's what DO you call them?what do I call black racists? certainly not "niggers".
do you call black racists, "niggers"?
No, the CSA attempted to send diplomats to Washington to negotiate a peaceful separation, but they were turned away. This was followed shortly by the Union Declaring War on the Confederate States. Or are you going to deny both of these facts as well.did the CSA negotiate with Lincoln to preserve the Union...but keep slavery?
The question isn't what you don't call them. It's what DO you call them?
No, you're more the Trivial Pursuit: Special Truth Dodgers Edition kinda guy.Are we Trivial Pursuit: Special Y'all Edition?
No, the CSA attempted to send diplomats to Washington to negotiate a peaceful separation, but they were turned away. This was followed shortly by the Union Declaring War on the Confederate States....
No, I call them assholes.I call black racists "racist mother ****ers".
what do YOU call black racists? "niggers"?????????
Actually, the fort being occupied was the agressive act.who began hostilities?
Dixy did, when they launched an unprovoked attack against Federal property, Ft. Sumter.
Wrong again. We've already been down this road, but likely due to thread tardation syndrome, it seems you've made a U-turn somewhere. :shrug:who began hostilities?
Dixy did, when they launched an unprovoked attack against Federal property, Ft. Sumter.
Wrong again. We've already been down this road, but likely due to thread tardation syndrome, it seems you've made a U-turn somewhere. :shrug:
I think our side is looking at this the wrong way. We are trying to look at the whole truth which makes each side look bad but quite possibly makes the north look a little worse. Maybe we should all just try to make history fit our ideology like the other side and then this thread can just close since we'll all "be right" no matter what.Wrong again. We've already been down this road, but likely due to thread tardation syndrome, it seems you've made a U-turn somewhere. :shrug:
Keep repeating that, it may come true. It probably won't, but it just might if you really really believe it in your heart.you are lying. the South started hostilities with the unprovoked attack upon Ft. Sumter, after the CSA demanded its surrender.