Lonestar_logic
Republic of Texas
- May 13, 2009
- 24,539
- 2,233
- 205
The North didn't go to war to stop slavery.States rights to own slaves.Kay, Mr. Lost Causer. You've convinced yourself with cherry picks and lunacy.
We know the foundation from the Constitutional Convention forward, to things like the Missouri Compromise, the Nullification Crisis, the Compromise of 1850, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the 1852 SC Convention, Bleeding Kansas, the Dred Scott decision, the John Brown Affair, the threatened expansion of slavery in other territories... and every other fucking detail that led up to the Civil War...and what was the basis.
The rest of the world knows it to.
Go fly your rebel flag, dress up in gray and play slavemaster proud scout for all I care.
You do your fellow conservatives proud to hold up the banner of owning a race of human beings as farm animals.
Raise the flag high and give it your best to bellow for your white supremacist fellows!
States rights.
The North also owned slaves so to think they went to war to stop slavery is just plain stupid. But go ahead, stay stuck on stupid.
More stupid.
The South *did* go to war to preserve, protect and defend it though.
What was the North's reason for going to war?
By the way, I'm glad you admitting the war wasn't purely about slavery.