re: An American badass didn't give a f**k 160 years ago today...

Frick him

frick him

It’s because of him that we have a Harris/Walz ticket

quote:

---

A gotdamn traitor from Tennessee didn't give a f**k 160 years ago today...

---

FIFY

There is a reason the town outside of Knoxville, that used to be called Campbell's Station, is now known as Farragut.

quote:

---

Not much different than the war of nato aggression

---

I guess the history books just erased the story of NATO invading Mother Russia.

quote:

---

If the Civil War was about "states rights" and not slavery, as asserted by so many confused Southerners, which "states rights" specifically was the Civil War about?

---

The civilized North was basically using white slavery. Paying pennies to the Irish escaping famine to work their factories and all the dirty dangerous jobs. The North got greedy with their tariffs. War is always about money and who can profit.

quote:

---

It was both. The yanks invaded to terminate the secession.

---

Well, the Yanks were right. Keeping the union together resulted in the greatest nation on earth.

Kinda like when you don’t let your child play with matches because it’s best for everyone involved.

quote:

---

If the Civil War was about "states rights" and not slavery, as asserted by so many confused Southerners, which "states rights" specifically was the Civil War about?

---

The ensuing history of the US pretty much states, unequivocally, that the war was not about slavery or states' rights but was, instead, the same war they have all been about, money and power. Neither slavery, which had a small but loud opposition (considering the majority of people in the south did not have a say in the matter) nor the glorified state's rights meant anything to the majority of people....again, most of the people in the south did not have a say in the matter and at best more than half in any state had a say in the matter....women and slaves could not vote remember. What did matter, to a very small number of white men, is power and money, as it always has and always will. That was the issue...who would have the power and the most money. It is insulting to suggest slavery could have lead to such passion when more than half the country did not have a say in the matter and at least half of those who did either supported slavery or did not care one way or the other. It is equally insulting to suggest it was state's rights, again, more than half the country did not have a say and better than half of those who did couldn't care less. It was all about money and power. Its a child's fairy tale to suggest any other motivation when the writings and data from the era from those, again, who had a say in the matter, indicate exactly what the issue was....money and power.

There were roughly 2,236,000 people in the United States eligible to vote in 1860. That was about 7% of the total population. Lincoln won about 40% of the popular vote and was not anti-slavery, he was anti- expansionist. The idea that enough Americans were concerned with slavery to end it is ludicrous. Its equally ludicrous to suggest enough Americans gave a tinkers dam about state rights. Money and power...yes, enough people jockeying for either or both would gladly sacrifice millions or lives....they have done it numerous times throughout the history of our species....

Never trust someone who identifies as a Rear Admiral.

Lincoln's child match play prevention enforcement program cost about 500,000 lives.