It doesn't matter what Lincoln had to say about it. The South started the war in order to rebel against the union into which they had entered---for the sake of preserving slavery against the incoming Republican-dominated government. That was THEIR motive, without which the war would never have STARTED. (Every violent criminal starts from motives of gain. Every victim defends from motives of self-preservation.)
The slaves from Africa were dehumanized, regimented, treated as cattle, and were forced to eat what they were allowed, and to follow the life of the plantation. Their original culture was essentially obliterated. The only culture that generations of slaves grew into was the American slave-holding culture. (Which the Democrats perpetuate into ballot-harvesting via Great Society dependency.)
Trump is now deporting violent slaves? I think you are blurring topics.
The correct analogy would be if you shoot at me (Fort Sumpter) and declare yourself immune from reprisal, you would be wrong. Moreover, you shoot at me as a pre-emptive act to escape the perceived impending abolition of slavery. Nothing worthy in it.
The cause of the South had nothing to do with Cherokees, so far as I am aware.
The union army was at a southern fort and backup was coming.
So I guess a correct analogy is, if I'm in your house and refuse to leave, and more of my friends start coming, and you start shooting, are you starting a war ..
Yeah you could be aware of more outside of prejudice, possibly.
Straight from the state of Oklahoma's government website:
The Union Army (not a "Union" army at that point, but only "the" national army) was at Fort Sumpter, a national fort, which was bombarded by South Carolina militia artillery in an act of rebellion. It fell and remained in Confederate hands until war's end.
The Fort was the "house" and it did not belong to the State of South Carolina. The South started the shooting.
If you cannot get your facts straight, you cannot get your thoughts straight.
And you are still glossing over their intent to preserve slavery against possible abolition by democratic government process. I find it very curious that people seek to defend the South by all these secondary issues and fail to face the fact that, for the South, it was all about the continuation of slavery.
It doesn't matter what Lincoln had to say about it. The South started the war in order to rebel against the union into which they had entered---for the sake of preserving slavery against the incoming Republican-dominated government. That was THEIR motive, without which the war would never have STARTED. (Every violent criminal starts from motives of gain. Every victim defends from motives of self-preservation.)
As for Jews being solely responsible for the trade, here is a more realistic view. https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/jews-and-the-african-slave-trade/ You are relying on bogus history. Essentially, EVERYONE was involved in the trade.
The slaves from Africa were dehumanized, regimented, treated as cattle, and were forced to eat what they were allowed, and to follow the life of the plantation. Their original culture was essentially obliterated. The only culture that generations of slaves grew into was the American slave-holding culture. (Which the Democrats perpetuate into ballot-harvesting via Great Society dependency.)
Trump is now deporting violent slaves? I think you are blurring topics.
If I come into your house, refuse to leave, and you shoot at me, are you starting a war...
Why were the Cherokee Indians the last to surrender....
Abe created the issue Trump is fixing.
The correct analogy would be if you shoot at me (Fort Sumpter) and declare yourself immune from reprisal, you would be wrong. Moreover, you shoot at me as a pre-emptive act to escape the perceived impending abolition of slavery. Nothing worthy in it.
The cause of the South had nothing to do with Cherokees, so far as I am aware.
The union army was at a southern fort and backup was coming.
So I guess a correct analogy is, if I'm in your house and refuse to leave, and more of my friends start coming, and you start shooting, are you starting a war ..
Yeah you could be aware of more outside of prejudice, possibly.
Straight from the state of Oklahoma's government website:
https://oksenate.gov/education/senate-artwork/surrender-general-stand-watie#:~:text=Stand%20Watie%20was%20the%20only,born%20in%20Georgia%20in%201806.
Just for some unbiased reading. I know what I see out of it but.
https://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/education/failures.htm
The Union Army (not a "Union" army at that point, but only "the" national army) was at Fort Sumpter, a national fort, which was bombarded by South Carolina militia artillery in an act of rebellion. It fell and remained in Confederate hands until war's end.
The Fort was the "house" and it did not belong to the State of South Carolina. The South started the shooting.
If you cannot get your facts straight, you cannot get your thoughts straight.
And you are still glossing over their intent to preserve slavery against possible abolition by democratic government process. I find it very curious that people seek to defend the South by all these secondary issues and fail to face the fact that, for the South, it was all about the continuation of slavery.