Posted on 09/07/2010 12:43:35 PM PDT by gjmerits
Not nearly as badly as the fact that, once you started a war you got your asses kicked sticks in yours. You've been whining about it ever since.
I guess I should have just accused you of being a moron, but, you already knew that.
In a divorce, taking one of the cars ain't "stealing", but you guys keep telling that lie, to push your phony beef.
The south was never going to let the United States keep it’s forts, lighthouses, armories, etc, were they?
Oh, hell no, no more than the infant United States let the British keep New York, Boston, and West Point.
Or can you think of a reason why the North, now a separate country, should consider itself "entitled" to keep the forts?
Why should they keep forts in the South? Mints? Post Offices?
Come on, spit it out.
Meanwhile, the Southerners offered a settlement along the lines of the Treaty of Paris of 1783, including Treasury debt.
They did not attempt to "screw" the North -- you just want that claim as a live issue, a fig leaf, to justify what was done to the South: arson, pillaging, destruction, mass murder and red war.
Conquest, in other words, to slake the Northern appetite for gorging itself on the country's wealth, to the exclusion of the other sections (except for corrupt Chicago).
And that is the essence of it, and no amount of revisionism is going to change it. But you know what they say - “Whatever gets you though the night”.
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.