It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
— www.nationalcenter.org...
I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
Originally posted by inforeal
reply to post by NeoConfederate
It is amazing how you speak from the perspective of slave owners, and have little consideration of the perspective of SLAVES!
You may think you are right, but that’s your version of history, others differ from yours.
Like the fact that the south would enslave free black people when they went in Pennsylvania, and sent them back to the wonderful south as slaves.
Black men wanted to fight on the side of the union because they knew where their interest was, and had no affection for the south as you so perversely say.
Also your wonderful south murdered black troops when they were captured, so please don’t give us that crap about the great wonderful south that even black peple loved.
Originally posted by davidgrouchy
But for some reason a hundred and fifty years after the Civil War
it is still ok for northerners to call southerners 'racist.'
It is still ok to blame southerners for being impoverished.
Originally posted by davidgrouchy
And it is still ok to cook up incendiary polls to make us look bad.
Originally posted by Juston
Serious question davidgrouchy, and I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just a bit curious as to how you came to that assumption. Do you mean specifically in regards to the picture you posted? Or in general?
Originally posted by DarkKnight76
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
Ok answer me this. If it wasn't about slavery, then why didn't the 20% of Southerners that actually owned slaves, just give all their slaves freedom? The South was no better than republicans/democrats today. So many Southerners who weren't slave owners were fighting to defend a very small majorities right to do so, just like today how a very small majority of lying politicians have you thinking that the what's in the best interest of the top 2% is what's best for you, as they are bending you over.
because they weren't as powerful in the gov't senate due to low numbers of voting constituents versus the north.
Originally posted by DarkKnight76
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
Ok answer me this. If it wasn't about slavery, then why didn't the 20% of Southerners that actually owned slaves, just give all their slaves freedom? The South was no better than republicans/democrats today. So many Southerners who weren't slave owners were fighting to defend a very small majorities right to do so, just like today how a very small majority of lying politicians have you thinking that the what's in the best interest of the top 2% is what's best for you, as they are bending you over.
I am all for insurrection, obviously, or I wouldn't be here. But to say the Revolution and Civil War were the same is doing a disservice to both. As far as I remember every Southern state had representation in Congress, where as no American colonies had representation in the British Parliament.
Are you saying that the South blew up the Union because they didn't like taxes? If that were the case why hasn't every subsequent generation revolted as well?