Seriously. Mater.


http://news.yahoo.com/charleston-confederate-statue-graffiti-black-lives-matter-184427816.html

Literacy matters, too.

Yeah, when you're making fun of someone who was writing in a hurry with a spray can and YOU can't even fix a far more obvious typo on a computer screen, your point is a tad bit diminished...

What about whitl lives?

Well at least heeheehee can spell heeheehee. But that's about it.

What does "mater" mean?

Black people don't want to know how to spell or read or write. They'll be accused of acting white by their homies.

Charleston won't let go of the civil war, they act like it happened yesterday, they still don't like Yankees and they don't seem to want to let go of the black/white line

blacks won't let go of slavery, they act like it happened yesterday, they still don't like Confederates and they don't seem to want to let go of the black/white line

We can debate the black/white/hispanic/asian/ thing forever. The fact of the matter is black lives certainly don't matter to other blacks, much the same as Arabic lives don't matter to other Arabs. If we see it clearly today we have to speak these two truths: "No nigger, we don't accept your idiot culture" and "No sand nigger, we don't accept you at all" Thank you for your time and consideration, and have a nice day.

The U.S. Civil War was not about slavery, and there were black soldiers fighting for the C.S.A.

It is a shame that the heritage of this country is being wiped out to serve the interests of a few.

Read Your History Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The U.S. Civil War was not about slavery

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
(deep breath)
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Attachments:

William Tecumseh Sherman is correct. it was over trade tariffs imposed by the north, that the South could not pay.

Slavery was a hot topic for the day, but was not what started the Civil War.
It's too bad, so many people leave public school with this impression.

Lincoln used the emancipation proclamation as a strategy to rattle the South .. It was given in the midst of the War, not afterwards.

6pKEm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Slavery was a hot topic for the day, but was not
> what started the Civil War.

LOL.

So it's just a coincidence that Confederate VP Stephen's Cornerstone Address said slavery was the immediate cause of secession. And Jefferson Davis' "Gathering Storm" speech where he advocated secession if an abolitionist were elected President. Or the Declaration of Causes of Seceding States, which mentions slavery 82 times.

It was about slavery. It was about a bunch of bumpkins who picked a fight with their moral, technological, and intellectual betters and got their asses handed to them as a result. But keep dishing up your bullshit about how it wasn't about slaves. Nobody but the mouthbreathers with their TV dials spot welded to Fox "News" are buying.

> William Tecumseh Sherman is correct. it was over trade tariffs imposed by the
> north, that the South could not pay.
> Slavery was a hot topic for the day, but was not what started the Civil War.

Hot topic for the day? The expansion of slavery into U.S. territories was a dominant issue in American politics since the Missouri Compromise in 1820. People literally fought over this for 40 years before the war broke out. Saying the war was about slavery might be an oversimplification, but saying it was about tariffs "imposed by the north" is nonsense. The biggest causes was the issue of slavery's expansion into the new states and the south's insistence on states rights to nullify federal law.

Apparently, Black lives don't matter to educators.

Read Your History Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The U.S. Civil War was not about slavery, and
> there were black soldiers fighting for the C.S.A.
>
> It is a shame that the heritage of this country is
> being wiped out to serve the interests of a few.

The majority of the coloreds to which you refer were slaves of soldiers who accompanied their masters into the field.

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-07-06/news/bs-ed-gettysburg-20130706_1_slavery-constitutional-convention-secession


Tariffs, not slavery, precipitated the American Civil War
July 06, 2013

Arthur Hirsch's recent article about the Battle of Gettysburg reveals a disturbing ignorance of the political dynamics that brought this nation to a war that 150 years later remains the most cataclysmic event in our history ("A defining day relived," July 2).

It accepts the shallow but unchallenged premise that the Civil War occurred because slavery was practiced in the South, and that righteous resolve to abolish the institution left the U.S. with no option other than a resort to arms. This is a myopic view with which many historical facts simply cannot be reconciled.

The war resulted from causes unrelated to slavery and abolition. It was entirely a consequence of the Southern states' secession, which occurred despite the undeniable fact that the slave states could not have hoped for better protection of slavery than that afforded by the U. S. Constitution — provided they remained in the Union.

Both Lincoln and the slaveholders well knew in 1860 that a constitutional amendment ending slavery would never be mathematically feasible. But Lincoln further understood that the South was gravitating toward secession as the remedy for a different grievance altogether: The egregiously inequitable effects of a U. S. protective tariff that provided 90 percent of federal revenue.

Foreign governments retaliated for it with tariffs of their own, and payment of those overseas levies represented the cost to Americans of their U. S. government. Southerners were generating two-thirds of U. S. exports, and also bearing two-thirds of the retaliatory tariffs abroad.

The result was that that the 18.5 percent of America's citizens who lived in the South were saddled with three times their proportionate share of the federal government's costs.

Campaigning At New York's Cooper Union, Lincoln, arguing for unlimited federal control of slavery in America's territories, seduced his audience with research disclosing how 21 of the 39 Signers of the Constitution, by joining elsewhere in various other acts of legislation that awarded this territorial authority to the U. S. government, revealed that delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention included a clear majority whose intent had in fact been that this authority be granted to the federal government.

But in 1860, the overriding issue of the day was not slavery in the territories: it was secession. And when addressed in this latter context, Lincoln's same research undeniably proves there had been majority intent among delegates to the 1787 Convention that each state was to retain a permanent right of exit. Ten of Lincoln's foregoing 21 Signers represented slave states. Absent a retained secession option, not one of them would have signed a Constitution that empowered the U. S. to prohibit territorial slavery. Alone, the Northwest Territory represented the potential in 1787 for five new non-slave states, which would promptly have reduced the Old South to just one-third of eighteen total states: and the Constitution they were crafting was to permit any amendment that was opposed by only one-quarter of the states — including one that could abolish slavery if six more non-slave states were thereafter admitted. Lincoln could not have failed to recognize that the Signers had been in agreement upon a right to secede, without which no constitution would have gelled at all. Accordingly, secession remained in 1860 a right both legal and honorable.

In the face of all these considerations, Lincoln could have proposed a Southern slave emancipation reciprocated by sweeping federal fiscal reform that would replace the protective tariff with a nationwide income tax. Instead, Lincoln's remedy was the catastrophic one that denied Southerners their exit by military force: which represented exercise of a federal authority conspicuously absent from the all-inclusive list of powers granted by the Constitution to the U. S. government. Such a transformative quid-pro-quo may or may not have proven achievable. But in as much as it was not even attempted, no Gettysburg visitor should ever be led to believe that the Civil War objective of the U.S. was anything other than preservation of its protective tariff in the Old South.

http://www.etymonline.com/cw/economics.htm

North, South, History of tension over tarriffs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariffs_in_United_States_history

>But in 1860, the overriding issue of the day was not slavery in the territories: it was secession.

Yeah. Secession over slavery.

Now take your weak-ass shitty editorial out of here.

FFX SD has to have good spin control to keep lid on this
Attachments:

I'm very confused now. According to several of the historians over in the Colonel Sanders thread, the Civil War began and also ended over fried chicken.

mXU7y Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tariffs, not slavery, precipitated the American
> Civil War

There's no way a person can read the Declarations of Causes issued by southern states and think the war was about anything
other than slavery and the south's fear that slavery would be banned in new states (thus weakening them in Congress).

From the preamble of Mississippi's declaration:

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution
of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.
Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the
largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth.
These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the
tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none
but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These
products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at
slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has
been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of
reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but
submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of
the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our
ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution,
a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption
of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known
Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.

The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South
of more than half the vast territory acquired from France. "




and from the declaration issued by Georgia:

"The people of Georgia having dissolved their political
connection with the Government of the United States of
America, present to their confederates and the world the
causes which have led to the separation. For the last
ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of
complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States
with reference to the subject of African slavery. "

Slavery would have died out on its' own as it did in England, without a Civil War.
It was not a Civil War, it was a war of Northern Agression.

LOL, and who were the traitorous bastards who fired the first shots? Those inbred southern yokels, that's who. The North only aggressed after those traitors started shooting. And eventually, they put the south down so bad, they unconditionally surrendered. Instead of thanking the North for not hanging the lot of those losing, traitorous scumsuckers, those mouthbreathers keep getting all uppity about "the south rising again." Apparently we're going to have to clone Sherman and teach them another lesson.

I really only have two regrets in life. The first is that Rome ran out of lions before it ran out of Christians. The other is that Lincoln didn't say "don't let the door hit your ass on the way out" when the South seceded. Having the United States of Jebusland as a buffer between us and Mexico would have really allowed the North to prosper. Just keep the inbreds down south, turning it into the American version of the Taliban, and we wouldn't have to deal with those money sucking red states anymore. Still probably have to go smack them around every few decades to keep them in their place, but it'd be worth it to not have to deal with their inbred stupidity.

Fuck the south.

the inbred, no stinkin women allowed, south will rise again to have slavery mentality is what keeps the republican party going, they count on those votes

4ukjp Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Slavery would have died out on its' own as it did
> in England, without a Civil War.

Enslavement of Africans was almost non-existent on the isle of Great Britain.

Southern faggots are such hilarious bitch ass revisionists. You lost. You lost. You lost.

Scratch that. You didn't even lose. People who were lied to by big plantation owners to go out and fight for a false ideology lost. You were born 100 years after that, and still choose to go with the traitorous losers side. You lose. You lose. Ha ha ha ha ha

You lose.



As if the federalist abolitionist and extremely constitutional liberal Republicans of 1861 have anything to do with the dimwitted, anti-federalist, voter id law passing, extreme constitutional conservative Republicans of today. You must be a special kind of stupid to not realize that between the 19th century and 21st century, there was something called the 20th century.

If the GOP wants to start being the party that supports platforms of liberalism like the Republicans of 1861, I'd welcome that.

Till then, enjoy sucking our northern cocks you loser southern pieces of shit traitors.

Why don't you try to secede again.

The South got it's revenge alright. Look at Chicago, Gary, Cleveland, Detroit, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Newark, New York, and Boston. All the Blacks that the North freed came to the North for free handouts.

These are all very dirty cities, all run by Democrats, flooded with Blacks from the South. Rusty and broken, these cities literally smell, like Dons-Jons stink.

Baltimore is a Democrat-run Hellhole, where the Blacks are actually in charge. And Baltimore is one of the most dangerous, thuggish, and downright dirty place to live.

And the last poster wants to talk about the North winning! Ha!!!!!

I bet it wasn't even a nigger who defaced Jeff Davis's memorial. I bet it was some liberal white punk.