Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Tenn. Governor Bill Lee says he regrets wearing Confederate uniform
wvlt.tv ^ | Feb 21, 2019 | AP

Posted on 02/21/2019 8:07:55 PM PST by Berlin_Freeper

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-90 next last
To: Sybeck1

He’s a Christian and a conservative and SJWs have targeted anime for their next invasion. They found pictures of him hugging and kissing women at conventions. They would ask for a selfie with him and he would kiss them on the cheek. They were perfectly fine with it, but the SJWs said it was #metoo level. He made the mistake of apologizing, which was taken as an admission of guilt, and he was thus fired from the show for which he was doing voices. He was also barred from major conventions, so he has effectively been cut off from his main sources of income.


61 posted on 02/22/2019 2:35:53 PM PST by Rastus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan; wardaddy

“Why is the Governor willing to buy into a lying narrative; one which actively promotes hatred between the races? (Because that is what is in play!) Why?!”

Cowardice is the answer.


62 posted on 02/22/2019 2:53:52 PM PST by Pelham (Secure Voter ID. Mexico has it, because unlike us they take voting seriously)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Berlin_Freeper

The fraternity’s founders listed Robert E. Lee’s chivalry and gentlemanly conduct as an inspiration. His holding up under military and political duress, in keeping with his choice not to serve the US Army and invade his own State.

Rather puzzling the demonrats who are screaming about “State’s Rights” in California, seeking to secede from the US to uphold their stated goals of independence, cultural and political Leftism/Marxism, are the Same Lefties who are trying to remove the cultural memory of the long past, in which State’s Rights featured dramatically (for reasons that most now would say are equally onerous). To ERASE history— in spite of the fact that many of Southern heritage have served the USA honorably and notably, helping achieve the country’s rise to a superpower and free people from Tyranny of world socialism, euro-monarchism, and world marxism by any other name. Devoted their lives and many lost them on the battlefield, to do so— with bravery and gallantry. Leadership of the World people forget. Names like George C. Marshall (VMI/Direct Commission to 2nd Lieut. US Army 1902), George S. Patton, Jr. (VMI/West Point, who was g-grandson of John Mercer Patton VA governor, and his g-g-grandmother was daughter of Hugh Mercer, his g-g-g-grandfather, and the Hero of the Revolutionary War Battle of Trenton, after the Crossing of the Delaware ). Both General Marshall and General Patton were Kappa Alpha.

What are they going to do— remove the ENTIRE US History of our great leaders and Generals....and sanitize the History to what? The majority suicided spawn of Karl Marx (who was a pig of person, sponging off his wealthy industrialist pal, Engels, without whom Marx would have remained in obscurity as yet another plaigerist copy cat of Hegel)?

For that IS the goal of all this— the destruction of the history huge success of the US in overcoming worldwide cynicism as the Great Experiment of Republican representative democracy, and thus the pinnacle of Western Civilization. To convert us to mud hut tribalists and neo socialist of the 8th Century.

Southern Gentlemen. Gentlemen of any persuasion these days is highly unusual. And God d@%n these absolute self righteous nobodies who have done nothing but, deconstruct, because it is so easy for morons.


63 posted on 02/22/2019 4:48:12 PM PST by John S Mosby (Sic Semper Tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TChad; Moonman62; PeaRidge; central_va; rockrr; Pelham
TChad quoting Lincoln: A well known Confederate leader agreed with Lincoln: Of course, that was before Lost Cause mythology took over Southern imaginations.
64 posted on 02/23/2019 11:49:09 AM PST by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

Lincoln’s first inaugural address makes it clear that the approaching war would be about preservation of the Union and nothing else.

The second inaugural address was revisionist history which victors always do.

The fact is war was only brought against states that left the Union.

I’m an admirer of Lincoln and Grant. The Lost Cause is baloney.


65 posted on 02/24/2019 9:00:50 AM PST by Moonman62 (Facts are racist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
Moonman62: "The second inaugural address was revisionist history which victors always do."

Secessionists themselves said it was all about slavery.
When war started at Fort Sumter that was not about slavery, but rather Confederate "integrity".
Almost immediately slavery became an issue, in the form of "contraband of war" and new Union laws to protect Confederate fugitive slaves.

By the time of Lincoln's preliminary Emancipation Proclamation in September 1862, slavery was very much at issue, second only to Union.

Nothing "revisionist" about that, those are simply the facts.

66 posted on 02/25/2019 2:55:27 AM PST by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Berlin_Freeper

Oh, NOES, an Old South party? What did it do, dignify both women and men with such things as chivalry, good manners, modesty and decency???

Lee is a miserable b*st*rd.


67 posted on 02/25/2019 3:08:52 AM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Modern feminism: ALL MEN BAD!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

By the time of Lincoln’s preliminary Emancipation Proclamation in September 1862, slavery was very much at issue, second only to Union.

...

Exactly.

For many years leading up to the war, slavery was the number one issue. Once the rebel states left the Union, preservation of the Union became the number one issue and slavery was second. As Lincoln stated in his first inaugural address, the impending war would be about the preservation of the Union and nothing else.

By the time of his second inaugural, victory was all but assured along with the preservation of the Union, so now slavery would be the number one issue again. Lincoln revised history for political reasons.

At no point was war waged against a state for being a slave state. Only states that left the Union had war waged against them. That’s a fact. The war was about preservation of the Union. That’s a fact.

Let’s suppose a rebel state wanted to end its hostilities with the Union during the war, which of these two actions would have worked? Ending slavery and remaining separate, or keeping slavery and rejoining the Union?


68 posted on 02/25/2019 5:35:48 AM PST by Moonman62 (Facts are racist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
Moonman62: "Exactly."

So apparently we agree, but you want to put a harder edge and sharper point on it?
I don't think that's necessary.

Moonman62: "For many years leading up to the war, slavery was the number one issue.
Once the rebel states left the Union, preservation of the Union became the number one issue and slavery was second."

You're good so far.
Slavery was not the issue at Fort Sumter in April 1861.
For Lincoln it was supplying & protecting Union troops, for Davis it was protecting Confederate "integrity" from a Union "assail".

Moonman62: "As Lincoln stated in his first inaugural address, the impending war would be about the preservation of the Union and nothing else."

Now you're starting to derail.
In fact, Lincoln said nothing of the sort in his First Inaugural.
What he said instead was he would not assail Confederates and they could have no war unless they themselves started it.

Moonman62: "By the time of his second inaugural, victory was all but assured along with the preservation of the Union, so now slavery would be the number one issue again.
Lincoln revised history for political reasons."

Total nonsense.
Union was always the number one issue.
Why was the Union spit apart?
Over slavery.

Why is that a difficult idea to get your mind around?
Slavery was the main reason for secession and slavery became an issue in the first weeks after Fort Sumter in the form of "Contraband of War".
Soon enough Contraband became Emancipation and then 13th Amendment.
So there was no time during the war when slavery was not an important issue.
Why would you claim otherwise?

Moonman62: "Only states that left the Union had war waged against them.
That’s a fact.
The war was about preservation of the Union.
That’s a fact."

Sure, and the sun rises in the East, sets in the West, why are you telling me this?
Slavery was the main reason for secession and abolition became the war's major objective, necessary because Unionists believed without abolition the South would soon rise to fight again.

None of this is mysterious, difficult or even controversial.
Note again my quote in post #64 from famous CSA Gen. Morgan.
Nobody at the time was confused about these things.

So why are you?

Moonman62: "Let’s suppose a rebel state wanted to end its hostilities with the Union during the war, which of these two actions would have worked?
Ending slavery and remaining separate, or keeping slavery and rejoining the Union?"

Well... there was a peace conference at Hampton Roads in early 1865 where these matters were discussed.
Lincoln offered Confederates compensated emancipation and they refused.
They also refused to offer slaves emancipation in return for military service until way too late.

So there's no denying that protecting slavery was always important for Confederates and abolition by war's end just as important for the Union.

And your problem with that is what, exactly?

69 posted on 02/26/2019 4:26:39 AM PST by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

The Civil War was about preservation of the Union and nothing else.


70 posted on 02/26/2019 5:23:51 AM PST by Moonman62 (Facts are racist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

Lincoln’s first inaugural address:

Fellow-Citizens of the United States:

In compliance with a custom as old as the Government itself, I appear before you to address you briefly and to take in your presence the oath prescribed by the Constitution of the United States to be taken by the President “before he enters on the execution of this office.”

I do not consider it necessary at present for me to discuss those matters of administration about which there is no special anxiety or excitement.

Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that—

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.

Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:

Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.

I now reiterate these sentiments, and in doing so I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible that the property, peace, and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming Administration. I add, too, that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause—as cheerfully to one section as to another.

There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:

No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution—to this provision as much as to any other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause “shall be delivered up” their oaths are unanimous. Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not with nearly equal unanimity frame and pass a law by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath?

There is some difference of opinion whether this clause should be enforced by national or by State authority, but surely that difference is not a very material one. If the slave is to be surrendered, it can be of but little consequence to him or to others by which authority it is done. And should anyone in any case be content that his oath shall go unkept on a merely unsubstantial controversy as to how it shall be kept?

Again: In any law upon this subject ought not all the safeguards of liberty known in civilized and humane jurisprudence to be introduced, so that a free man be not in any case surrendered as a slave? And might it not be well at the same time to provide by law for the enforcement of that clause in the Constitution which guarantees that “the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States”?

I take the official oath to-day with no mental reservations and with no purpose to construe the Constitution or laws by any hypercritical rules; and while I do not choose now to specify particular acts of Congress as proper to be enforced, I do suggest that it will be much safer for all, both in official and private stations, to conform to and abide by all those acts which stand unrepealed than to violate any of them trusting to find impunity in having them held to be unconstitutional.

It is seventy-two years since the first inauguration of a President under our National Constitution. During that period fifteen different and greatly distinguished citizens have in succession administered the executive branch of the Government. They have conducted it through many perils, and generally with great success. Yet, with all this scope of precedent, I now enter upon the same task for the brief constitutional term of four years under great and peculiar difficulty. A disruption of the Federal Union, heretofore only menaced, is now formidably attempted.

I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.

Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it—break it, so to speak—but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?

Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was “to form a more perfect Union.”

But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.

It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.

I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part, and I shall perform it so far as practicable unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself.

In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere. Where hostility to the United States in any interior locality shall be so great and universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the Government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating and so nearly impracticable withal that I deem it better to forego for the time the uses of such offices.

The mails, unless repelled, will continue to be furnished in all parts of the Union. So far as possible the people everywhere shall have that sense of perfect security which is most favorable to calm thought and reflection. The course here indicated will be followed unless current events and experience shall show a modification or change to be proper, and in every case and exigency my best discretion will be exercised, according to circumstances actually existing and with a view and a hope of a peaceful solution of the national troubles and the restoration of fraternal sympathies and affections.

That there are persons in one section or another who seek to destroy the Union at all events and are glad of any pretext to do it I will neither affirm nor deny; but if there be such, I need address no word to them. To those, however, who really love the Union may I not speak?

Before entering upon so grave a matter as the destruction of our national fabric, with all its benefits, its memories, and its hopes, would it not be wise to ascertain precisely why we do it? Will you hazard so desperate a step while there is any possibility that any portion of the ills you fly from have no real existence? Will you, while the certain ills you fly to are greater than all the real ones you fly from, will you risk the commission of so fearful a mistake?

All profess to be content in the Union if all constitutional rights can be maintained. Is it true, then, that any right plainly written in the Constitution has been denied? I think not. Happily, the human mind is so constituted that no party can reach to the audacity of doing this. Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the Constitution has ever been denied. If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might in a moral point of view justify revolution; certainly would if such right were a vital one. But such is not our case. All the vital rights of minorities and of individuals are so plainly assured to them by affirmations and negations, guaranties and prohibitions, in the Constitution that controversies never arise concerning them. But no organic law can ever be framed with a provision specifically applicable to every question which may occur in practical administration. No foresight can anticipate nor any document of reasonable length contain express provisions for all possible questions. Shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by national or by State authority? The Constitution does not expressly say. May Congress prohibit slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. Must Congress protect slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say.

From questions of this class spring all our constitutional controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and minorities. If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the Government must cease. There is no other alternative, for continuing the Government is acquiescence on one side or the other. If a minority in such case will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which in turn will divide and ruin them, for a minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such minority. For instance, why may not any portion of a new confederacy a year or two hence arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of the present Union now claim to secede from it? All who cherish disunion sentiments are now being educated to the exact temper of doing this.

Is there such perfect identity of interests among the States to compose a new union as to produce harmony only and prevent renewed secession?

Plainly the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it does of necessity fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible. The rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left.

I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes.

One section of our country believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute. The fugitive-slave clause of the Constitution and the law for the suppression of the foreign slave trade are each as well enforced, perhaps, as any law can ever be in a community where the moral sense of the people imperfectly supports the law itself. The great body of the people abide by the dry legal obligation in both cases, and a few break over in each. This, I think, can not be perfectly cured, and it would be worse in both cases after the separation of the sections than before. The foreign slave trade, now imperfectly suppressed, would be ultimately revived without restriction in one section, while fugitive slaves, now only partially surrendered, would not be surrendered at all by the other.

Physically speaking, we can not separate. We can not remove our respective sections from each other nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other, but the different parts of our country can not do this. They can not but remain face to face, and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory after separation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends? Suppose you go to war, you can not fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old questions, as to terms of intercourse, are again upon you.

This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. I can not be ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having the National Constitution amended. While I make no recommendation of amendments, I fully recognize the rightful authority of the people over the whole subject, to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself; and I should, under existing circumstances, favor rather than oppose a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it. I will venture to add that to me the convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions originated by others, not especially chosen for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such as they would wish to either accept or refuse. I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.

The Chief Magistrate derives all his authority from the people, and they have referred none upon him to fix terms for the separation of the States. The people themselves can do this if also they choose, but the Executive as such has nothing to do with it. His duty is to administer the present Government as it came to his hands and to transmit it unimpaired by him to his successor.

Why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? Is there any better or equal hope in the world? In our present differences, is either party without faith of being in the right? If the Almighty Ruler of Nations, with His eternal truth and justice, be on your side of the North, or on yours of the South, that truth and that justice will surely prevail by the judgment of this great tribunal of the American people.

By the frame of the Government under which we live this same people have wisely given their public servants but little power for mischief, and have with equal wisdom provided for the return of that little to their own hands at very short intervals. While the people retain their virtue and vigilance no Administration by any extreme of wickedness or folly can very seriously injure the Government in the short space of four years.

My countrymen, one and all, think calmly and well upon this whole subject. Nothing valuable can be lost by taking time. If there be an object to hurry any of you in hot haste to a step which you would never take deliberately, that object will be frustrated by taking time; but no good object can be frustrated by it. Such of you as are now dissatisfied still have the old Constitution unimpaired, and, on the sensitive point, the laws of your own framing under it; while the new Administration will have no immediate power, if it would, to change either. If it were admitted that you who are dissatisfied hold the right side in the dispute, there still is no single good reason for precipitate action. Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him who has never yet forsaken this favored land are still competent to adjust in the best way all our present difficulty.

In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to “preserve, protect, and defend it.”

I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.


71 posted on 02/26/2019 5:33:56 AM PST by Moonman62 (Facts are racist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
Moonman62: "The Civil War was about preservation of the Union and nothing else."

Complete rubbish.
No Confederate during the war was confused in the least about the fact that slavery itself was on the line.
Just as CSA Gen. Morgan said in 1862:

So which are you, a fool or a liar?
72 posted on 02/26/2019 5:45:39 AM PST by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

The Civil War was about preservation of the Union and nothing else.


73 posted on 02/26/2019 5:46:44 AM PST by Moonman62 (Facts are racist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
FRiend, there was no need for you to post Lincoln's entire First Inaugural here, I've read it many times.
It says what I reported, it does not say what you mischaracterized.

You could simply have admitted that and saved a lot of internet electrons the need to do their things.

74 posted on 02/26/2019 5:48:53 AM PST by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

The Civil War was about preservation of the Union and nothing else.


75 posted on 02/26/2019 5:51:16 AM PST by Moonman62 (Facts are racist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

The Union only waged war against states that left the Union.

There were slave states in the Union.

Those are the facts.


76 posted on 02/26/2019 5:52:44 AM PST by Moonman62 (Facts are racist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
Moonman62: "The Civil War was about preservation of the Union and nothing else."

So which are you, according to Morgan, a fool or a liar?

77 posted on 02/26/2019 5:52:58 AM PST by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
Moonman62: "The Union only waged war against states that left the Union.
There were slave states in the Union."

The Union only waged war against Confederate states that first declared war on the United States, May 6, 1861.
Why did those states secede? To protect slavery.
What was a major Union war aim? To abolish slavery.

So I ask again, why are you confused about it?

78 posted on 02/26/2019 5:57:36 AM PST by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

The Civil War was about preservation of the Union and nothing else.


79 posted on 02/26/2019 6:06:05 AM PST by Moonman62 (Facts are racist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

Except slavery, of course, just as many said at the time.


80 posted on 02/26/2019 4:03:25 PM PST by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-90 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson