War Of Northern Aggression

[Star]

.
A couple of months ago the new president of the NRA got Southern racists all riled up by calling the Civil War "The War Of Northern Aggression" etc. Now, the Lincoln Memorial has been vandalized, we don't yet know who the vandals are or if there is a connection to the President of the NRA's racist and historically inaccurate comments and the Lincoln Memorial vandals but...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQWIsOgwlZ4"]New NRA President Calls Civil War 'Northern Aggression' - YouTube[/ame]
​

And then-----and then this nutball called President Obama "the fake President"...

.

 

[GHook93]

Lincoln is HIGHLY regarded by both the left and the right, Republican and Democrat, liberal and conservative, both parties try to claim him as their own (even though he was a Republican). When Americans from all over the political spectrum list the best Presidents of all time, Lincoln is usually a top 3 candidate!

Your weak argument is just that weak!

 

[NightFox]

we don't yet know who the vandals are or if there is a connection to the President of the NRA's racist and historically inaccurate comments and the Lincoln Memorial vandals but...

......that will not inhibit you in the least from attempting to transform correlation into causation in order to feed your own confirmation bias.

 

[Katzndogz]

There's a connection to vandals who are no respecter of persons. Perhaps by a black kid who doesn't like all those dead white presidents.

 

[Avatar4321]

Forgive me but what racist and historically inaccurate comments did he make?

 

[BlindBoo]

Forgive me but what racist and historically inaccurate comments did he make?

That the Civil War was started by some Yankee General?

 

[Avatar4321]

Forgive me but what racist and historically inaccurate comments did he make?

That the Civil War was started by some Yankee General?

That is racist now?

Did I miss where the dictionary changed the definition of the word?

 

[bripat9643]

Forgive me but what racist and historically inaccurate comments did he make?

That the Civil War was started by some Yankee General?

Lincoln started it. He sent an army to invade Virginia

 

[bodecea]

Forgive me but what racist and historically inaccurate comments did he make?

That the Civil War was started by some Yankee General?

Lincoln started it. He sent an army to invade Virginia

Let's see...who fired on who first?

 

[legaleagle_45]

Forgive me but what racist and historically inaccurate comments did he make?

That the Civil War was started by some Yankee General?

Lincoln started it. He sent an army to invade Virginia

Most historians agree that the start of the Civil War can be traced to April 12, 1861, at 4:30 a.m., when Confederate batteries opened fire on Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor, South Carolina.

 

[Big Black Dog]

Must be a slow news day...

 

[bripat9643]

That the Civil War was started by some Yankee General?

Lincoln started it. He sent an army to invade Virginia

Let's see...who fired on who first?

That doesn't determine who started the war. You're allowed to fire on foreign invaders who are occupying your territory.

 

[bripat9643]

That the Civil War was started by some Yankee General?

Lincoln started it. He sent an army to invade Virginia

Most historians agree that the start of the Civil War can be traced to April 12, 1861, at 4:30 a.m., when Confederate batteries opened fire on Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor, South Carolina.

Most historians are Lincoln sycophants on the government payroll. They get paid to say that the federal government is justified in invading sovereign states.

 

[BlindBoo]

Forgive me but what racist and historically inaccurate comments did he make?

That the Civil War was started by some Yankee General?

Lincoln started it. He sent an army to invade Virginia

The South started it by seceding and occupying Federal Forts after the election of 1860 but before Lincoln's inauguration. Then after the inauguration South Carolina attacked Federal troops in Ft. Sumter.

 

[g5000]

The North was gaining electoral power at the federal level, which meant slavery's days were doomed. Slavery was going to be abolished by federal legislation. The South could not abide that. King Cotton depended entirely on slavery, and the entire Southern economy depended on King Cotton. No single industry has ever exceeded the footprint cotton had as an export in the 19th and early 20th century. We were like the Saudi Arabia of cotton on the world stage. And since picking cotton was ****** work, there was no way the South was going to give up slavery without a fight.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.

Slavery was quite diminished at the time the Constitution was ratified, but had exponentially exploded by 1860 with the rise of King Cotton. There were 650,000 slaves in the South at Ratification. That climbed to 4 million by the time the Civil War broke out.

To put the North's position into perspective, you would have to imagine the US Constitution was ratified in 1944. Imagine our nation had just gotten started in your own grandfather's lifetime.

Instead of hearing tales of his fighting in WWII, I might have instead heard my grandfather telling me tales of fighting in the American Revolution.

That's just how young our Republic was when the South chose to break from the United States. We were that new.

All of the monarchies of Europe were hoping our experiment in democracy would fail. The whole world was watching for us to crash and burn. France had followed our example and was still spasming horribly, 70 years later.

We were it. We were the one and only. It was absolutely vital that our system of government "could long endure", that we stayed in one piece. We must ensure "that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

 

[legaleagle_45]

Lincoln started it. He sent an army to invade Virginia

Most historians agree that the start of the Civil War can be traced to April 12, 1861, at 4:30 a.m., when Confederate batteries opened fire on Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor, South Carolina.

Most historians are Lincoln sycophants on the government payroll. They get paid to say that the federal government is justified in invading sovereign states.

LOL... Pretty sure that Fort Sumter was a federal installation continuously occupied by federal troops prior to the secession of South Carolina, thus technically not an "invasion".

 

[bripat9643]

That the Civil War was started by some Yankee General?

Lincoln started it. He sent an army to invade Virginia

The South started it by seceding and occupying Federal Forts after the election of 1860 but before Lincoln's inauguration. Then after the inauguration South Carolina attacked Federal troops in Ft. Sumter.

Secession isn't an act of war. Forts within the boundaries of South Carolina were not federal territory. They were Carolina territory. The federal government committed an act of war when it declined to evacuate them when asked to do so.

This stupid argument has been posted in the forum at least 1000 times and has been shot down every time. But, hey, what else can the Lincoln sycophants use to justify blatant acts of war committed by their savior?

 

[Pete7469]

Forgive me but what racist and historically inaccurate comments did he make?

That the Civil War was started by some Yankee General?

That is racist now?

Did I miss where the dictionary changed the definition of the word?

You should be well aware that in the "minds" of the moonbat left, they have license to change the meaning of words at will.

Since they soooo "educated" and all.

 

[bripat9643]

Most historians agree that the start of the Civil War can be traced to April 12, 1861, at 4:30 a.m., when Confederate batteries opened fire on Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor, South Carolina.

Most historians are Lincoln sycophants on the government payroll. They get paid to say that the federal government is justified in invading sovereign states.

LOL... Pretty sure that Fort Sumter was a federal installation continuously occupied by federal troops prior to the secession of South Carolina, thus technically not an "invasion".

Wrong, dipstick. The minute SC seceded, the federal government was occupying sovereign foreign territory. The federal government has been "occupying" Subic Bay in the Philippines since WW II. Does that make it U.S, territory?

 

[BlindBoo]

Lincoln started it. He sent an army to invade Virginia

Most historians agree that the start of the Civil War can be traced to April 12, 1861, at 4:30 a.m., when Confederate batteries opened fire on Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor, South Carolina.

Most historians are Lincoln sycophants on the government payroll. They get paid to say that the federal government is justified in invading sovereign states.

There is no provision for individual States to secede from the union. The people of the South have been paying for the mistake made by the Southern Elite ever since. Hell their way of life might have been preserved until the 20th century if they hadn't been so stupid.