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 was an army representing the union, taking over the fort.
I sure don't know why those Cherokees fought longer than everyone else for whites to own slaves.
You can think, or you can not think, that is up to you.
Edit: one thing is for sure, we wouldn't have a central bank messing everything up in the whole world if States kept their rights, and Abe lost. States were united, but like their own countries then.
And, luckily, it looks like we're getting back to that.
South Carolina had ceded the site of Fort Sumter in 1836. It was a construction by the federal government for the U.S. Army, which removed from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter on 26 December 1860. There they bunkered until South Carolina opened a 34-hour artillery barrage on 12 April 1861. The forces at the Fort surrendered the following day and evacuated. So, your framing of events is completely upside down.
What did the Cherokees know about anything? Do you suppose ordinary Ukrainians were fighting in order to continue prosecuting genocide against Donbas Russians? Once a fight begins, people choose sides. I suppose the Confederate side used the same propaganda you are repeating: that it had nothing to do with slavery and that the Union meant only to destroy and depredate.
I mentioned that my great-great-grandfather fought on the Union side from Illinois and that he saw the issue as slavery. I did not also mention that my family came to America, landing in Georgia. Once they saw the profusion and degradation of slavery, they departed for Illinois, deeming the slave environment to be exceedingly poisonous to raising Christian children.
The outcome of the Civil War was independent of a central bank, which didn't come along until much later.
Much that has been assumed by the federal government, will, I hope, be dissolved into nothing. But not by any civil war, nor will those former conditions be restored. Trump is assuring that civil rights will not be transgressed on a state-by-state basis (think abrogations of the 2nd Amendment). States will not be able to ignore immigration law as though it were optional. A federal union will prevail.
As far as a federal union prevailing, I believe it took about 180 years to mess up the American experiment, 1913 was not the start, it was a result.. and I think we disagree on this but, I feel Abe was a tool for them.
Hopefully after the world has been cleansed of the very established global power as we've been living through, due to the size and scope of our federal government, we can learn and make it another 180.
I also know my grandmother, not my great grandmother, my mom's mom, was full blooded Cherokee. Hell you can go down south and collect stories hundreds of miles apart, it'll almost be just like pasting an excerpt.
Yes, my point was without Abe, the eventual central bank would not have existed.
I'll also argue that the slaves were in poverty regarding food, clothes, sanitation, and were illiterate, until they were sold. They probably helped the south due to a better life... Weird to hear, I suppose.. .. just my take, anyway.
Ironically without Abe I doubt we'd have had the IRS become the machine it is, ensuring everyone be a slave today. But hey, that was abolished..
It's a long subject, Irish, black sharecroppers, black slave owners, some slaves in the south not being treated nicely, but I believe that would be the exception, not the rule, again, it is the victors that write the history books. And they say different than old family stories, I can promise you that.
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.
It was an army representing the union, taking over the fort.
I sure don't know why those Cherokees fought longer than everyone else for whites to own slaves.
You can think, or you can not think, that is up to you.
Edit: one thing is for sure, we wouldn't have a central bank messing everything up in the whole world if States kept their rights, and Abe lost. States were united, but like their own countries then.
And, luckily, it looks like we're getting back to that.
South Carolina had ceded the site of Fort Sumter in 1836. It was a construction by the federal government for the U.S. Army, which removed from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter on 26 December 1860. There they bunkered until South Carolina opened a 34-hour artillery barrage on 12 April 1861. The forces at the Fort surrendered the following day and evacuated. So, your framing of events is completely upside down.
What did the Cherokees know about anything? Do you suppose ordinary Ukrainians were fighting in order to continue prosecuting genocide against Donbas Russians? Once a fight begins, people choose sides. I suppose the Confederate side used the same propaganda you are repeating: that it had nothing to do with slavery and that the Union meant only to destroy and depredate.
I mentioned that my great-great-grandfather fought on the Union side from Illinois and that he saw the issue as slavery. I did not also mention that my family came to America, landing in Georgia. Once they saw the profusion and degradation of slavery, they departed for Illinois, deeming the slave environment to be exceedingly poisonous to raising Christian children.
The outcome of the Civil War was independent of a central bank, which didn't come along until much later.
Much that has been assumed by the federal government, will, I hope, be dissolved into nothing. But not by any civil war, nor will those former conditions be restored. Trump is assuring that civil rights will not be transgressed on a state-by-state basis (think abrogations of the 2nd Amendment). States will not be able to ignore immigration law as though it were optional. A federal union will prevail.
As far as a federal union prevailing, I believe it took about 180 years to mess up the American experiment, 1913 was not the start, it was a result.. and I think we disagree on this but, I feel Abe was a tool for them.
Hopefully after the world has been cleansed of the very established global power as we've been living through, due to the size and scope of our federal government, we can learn and make it another 180.
I know victors write the history books.
I also know my grandmother, not my great grandmother, my mom's mom, was full blooded Cherokee. Hell you can go down south and collect stories hundreds of miles apart, it'll almost be just like pasting an excerpt.
Yes, my point was without Abe, the eventual central bank would not have existed.
I'll also argue that the slaves were in poverty regarding food, clothes, sanitation, and were illiterate, until they were sold. They probably helped the south due to a better life... Weird to hear, I suppose.. .. just my take, anyway.
Ironically without Abe I doubt we'd have had the IRS become the machine it is, ensuring everyone be a slave today. But hey, that was abolished..
It's a long subject, Irish, black sharecroppers, black slave owners, some slaves in the south not being treated nicely, but I believe that would be the exception, not the rule, again, it is the victors that write the history books. And they say different than old family stories, I can promise you that.