Damn this page moves fast. Now people are finally getting that's the civil war wasn't such a black and white cause. It was the morally grey issues of the time that caused said war to begin with and Slavery was the thing that political leaders capitalized on to gain sympathy for their causes and the war itself. Just like today with how Bush gained sympathy to invade Iraq; they used a hot button topic like Slavery (WMDS) to gain political sympathy for their goals of invading Iraq or in the case of the civil war the South. After the north went back in to Ft. Sumter ie South Carolina's property at the time since technically Ft. Sumter was theirs and not the Northern states after they seceded from the Union. In a sense, I could understand why the south attacked Ft. Sumter from a defensive and strategic standpoint that would've made great defensive measures for the city and a sea port for the ships.
I am going to say yes and no to that since once they left the union it was no longer tax payers property, as they had no contract to put the fort up in their states any longer.
What is a "yankee lover" and what does that have to do with me having an "agenda." So far I have rejected nothing but unproven anecdotal evidence with hard historical fact.
So I am still waiting to find out what my "agenda" is? :2wave:
Or are you just going to deflect and make up more nonsense?
Not really, I haven't heard of that here in Houston! My dad married a Liberal catholic woman and I am atheist..... I heard the n------ lover thing on tv sometimes watching old movies but not that much anymore.