Fact -When the Civil War started, Lincoln asked Robert E Lee to lead all Union troops

Anne and Margot said:
Treason isn't,jay walking
Click to expand...

I know. All I'm saying is the decision as to how to proceed after the war was made at the time, long before you and I were born. I think trying to rewrite history long after the fact just because some people are uncomfortable with the reality is a very bad idea. Whether anyone likes it or not Robert E. Lee was an important figure in American history.
 
Havana Moon said:
Sorry but that just wrong, in fact several Northern states discussed seceding in 1812. It wasn't until the war was over that the Union decided that secession was not allowed. In fact, with true irony, the Northern states kicked the secession states out and then insisted they petition for reentry.

Click to expand...

The idea of a perpetual union has a long history:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_Union

Yes other factions in the US had at times tried to secede, but that hardly justifies it. In practice states almost never allow unilateral independence by a federal unit. Stop listening to lost cause propaganda that you probably picked up with all your white nationalist youtubing you old fart.

Also, yes, in the initial aftermath of the war the union did put conditions on "reentry", but in 1869 in Texas v. White the supreme court declare that Texas had always legally been a part of the union and that any declarations to the contrary were illegal and not in effect:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White

And that's been the law of the land ever since. The constitution forbids withdrawal from the union, in order to withdraw you would need a constitutional amendment.
 
Guille said:
I know. All I'm saying is the decision as to how to proceed after the war was made at the time, long before you and I were born. I think trying to rewrite history long after the fact just because some people are uncomfortable with the reality is a very bad idea. Whether anyone likes it or not Robert E. Lee was an important figure in American history.
Click to expand...

Robert E Lee turned on his country,that was treason,then and it's still treason now.
 
Havana Moon said:
The British abolished slavery throughout the empire in 1833, they would have ensured that the South would have done the same. The Brits also paid huge compensation to slave traders, if Lincoln had. Done the same then there would have been no war.
Click to expand...

Are you retarded? Lincoln would've been glad to settle the issue on a compensated end of slavery. In practice he was willing to let them do much more, he offered to amend the constitution to protect slavery as long as the union would stay together. After the south declared independence out of pure stubborness and lost the war, obviously, the north was not at all in a forgiving mood and there was no chance that they'd give the plantation owners compensation.

It was the south who was stubborn, refused a compensated end of slavery, a continuation of slavery, or anything.
 
Guille said:
I know. All I'm saying is the decision as to how to proceed after the war was made at the time, long before you and I were born. I think trying to rewrite history long after the fact just because some people are uncomfortable with the reality is a very bad idea. Whether anyone likes it or not Robert E. Lee was an important figure in American history.
Click to expand...

Only to the traitors.
 
White privilege is real said:
The idea of a perpetual union has a long history:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_Union

Yes other factions in the US had at times tried to secede, but that hardly justifies it. In practice states almost never allow unilateral independence by a federal unit. Stop listening to lost cause propaganda that you probably picked up with all your white nationalist youtubing you old fart.

Also, yes, in the initial aftermath of the war the union did put conditions on "reentry", but in 1869 in Texas v. White the supreme court declare that Texas had always legally been a part of the union and that any declarations to the contrary were illegal and not in effect:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White

And that's been the law of the land ever since. The constitution forbids withdrawal from the union, in order to withdraw you would need a constitutional amendment.
Click to expand...

:truestory:

"congress shall have the power to quell insurrections" from conus.
 
White privilege is real said:
Are you retarded? Lincoln would've been glad to settle the issue on a compensated end of slavery. In practice he was willing to let them do much more, he offered to amend the constitution to protect slavery as long as the union would stay together. After the south declared independence out of pure stubborness and lost the war, obviously, the north was not at all in a forgiving mood and there was no chance that they'd give the plantation owners compensation.

It was the south who was stubborn, refused a compensated end of slavery, a continuation of slavery, or anything.
Click to expand...

:truestory:^
 
White privilege is real said:
Furthermore, Lincoln did not at the time have the constitutional authority to force those four states to abolish slavery.
Click to expand...

HAHAHA. Lincoln also didn't have authority to throw thousands of northern war critics in jail or to shut down hundreds of northern newspapers that opposed the war. But he did both. Booth go one thing right - lincoln was a tyrant. THINK
 
Havana Moon said:
The British abolished slavery throughout the empire in 1833, they would have ensured that the South would have done the same. The Brits also paid huge compensation to slave traders, if Lincoln had. Done the same then there would have been no war.
Click to expand...

Are you retarded? Lincoln would've been glad to settle the issue on a compensated end of slavery. In practice he was willing to let them do much more, he offered to amend the constitution to protect slavery as long as the union would stay together. After the south declared independence out of pure stubborness and lost the war, obviously, the north was not at all in a forgiving mood and there was no chance that they'd give the plantation owners compensation.

It was the south who was stubborn, refused a compensated end of slavery, a continuation of slavery, or anything.
 
White privilege is real said:
The idea of a perpetual union has a long history:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_Union

Yes other factions in the US had at times tried to secede, but that hardly justifies it. In practice states almost never allow unilateral independence by a federal unit. Stop listening to lost cause propaganda that you probably picked up with all your white nationalist youtubing you old fart.

Also, yes, in the initial aftermath of the war the union did put conditions on "reentry", but in 1869 in Texas v. White the supreme court declare that Texas had always legally been a part of the union and that any declarations to the contrary were illegal and not in effect:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White

And that's been the law of the land ever since. The constitution forbids withdrawal from the union, in order to withdraw you would need a constitutional amendment.
Click to expand...

Yes, and that was not the case before the war, so kindly stop putting the cart before the horse!!
 
White privilege is real said:
Are you retarded? Lincoln would've been glad to settle the issue on a compensated end of slavery. In practice he was willing to let them do much more, he offered to amend the constitution to protect slavery as long as the union would stay together. After the south declared independence out of pure stubborness and lost the war, obviously, the north was not at all in a forgiving mood and there was no chance that they'd give the plantation owners compensation.

It was the south who was stubborn, refused a compensated end of slavery, a continuation of slavery, or anything.
Click to expand...

They didn't trust the North and I can't really blame them. They were stiffed for taxes to pay for Northern industrialisation and didn't believe their promises. The South should have joined forces with the Brits, used their expertise to industrialise and then freed the slaves.

I wonder how many people know that Karl Marx was an avid supporter of the Union, no doubt seeing an opportunity for revolution.
 
Havana Moon said:
They didn't trust the North and I can't really blame them. They were stiffed for taxes to pay for Northern industrialisation and didn't believe their promises. The Brits should have joined forces with the South, used their expertise to industrialise and then freed the slaves.
Click to expand...

I don't think that would have been anywhere near as easy as you think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top