Posted on 06/20/2015 4:45:20 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
Ummm Roof was clearly a racist. I don’t see how you can rationally dispute that.
thank you
I don’t know if they were or not.
EXACTLY RIGHT.
EXACTLY
The Stars and Bars was not a factor in Sandy Hook, Aurora, or Arizona.
Oh, whites were killed.
Never mind. Somehow, the NAACP and Dolezal so deserve each other.
“But even psychos need a motivation to push them over the edge and for Dylann Roof it was race”.
With a very big assist from psychotic drugs, the common denominator in the last 10 or so mass shootings in the United States.
So, are you calling manc a liberal or a “south basher”? LOL
They’ve been trying to get the flag taken down for ages. They boycotted under the guidance of Kwesi Mfume, and it was moved from the dome in 2000, and placed at the memorial to the Confederate dead. There is also a monument to African-Americans, and fallen law enforcement officers on the grounds. When the flag was initially raised over the State Capital Building, “Fritz” Hollings (Democrat) was Governor.
So should we let the poor lad go? Given that it was the drugs that did it and he wasn't responsible for his actions?
He was very much responsible for his actions. He knew the way drugs affected him and didn’t care. If it was up to me he would already be swinging from the nearest tree.
“that slavery existed under the Confederacy for only four years, but it existed under the United States’ Stars and Stripes for almost ninety years.”
True, but the United Stats’ Stars and Stripes was used to free the slaves from the Confederacy’s slavers. Blacks were property to the Confederacy, while they were full humans to the United States’ Stars and Stripes.
Nothing funny about this
Pricks like you are whistling past the graveyard
Always have been
“Blacks were property to the Confederacy, while they were full humans to the United States’ Stars and Stripes.”
Bullsh!t. Read some American history. And read the Emancipation Proclamation, and tell me just who that “document” freed. Did it free or even apply to slaves in states or territories that were either loyal to the Union or under Union control? NO!!! For instance, it did not apply to parts of Louisiana — a Confederate state — that were under Union control. If your argument is that the Union fought the CW to free the slaves, then why didn’t the Emancipation Proclamation apply to ALL of Louisiana? Why did it not apply to Kentucky? Or Maryland? Or Delaware? (All three of those states had slaves at the time of the Emancipation Proclamation.)
Read some real history, not the fiction trotted out in today’s government-run schools.
Another thing. Read up on the background of the “3/5 Compromise,” that recognized slaves as only 3/5 of a person.
Northern states did not want to count slaves as ANYTHING when it came to apportionment of representatives in Congress, whereas Southern states wanted to count them 100% for the purposes of representation.
Yes, it was political gamesmanship, but if Northern states wanted to recognize the slaves as people, and not property, wouldn’t they have recognized them as 100% persons? No, because Northern states feared that if slaves were counted for the purpose of determining the number of representatives in Congress, Northern states would not dominate Congress. Hence, the 3/5 Compromise.
Actually it is pricks like you that promote idiotic strawmen who aren’t funny. And I don’t whistle.
I can’t say if sagar’s argument is that the union fought the WBTS to free the slaves but most people correctly know that Lincoln’s actions were in response to acts perpetrated by the south and that the union went to war to preserve the union.
The Emancipation Proclamation only applied to areas not controlled by union forces because Lincoln knew that it COULDN’T apply to the free states. He rightly knew that he didn’t have the authority to do that - it would take amending the Constitution to accomplish that.
The concept of the 3/5ths rule originated with a proposal to only count slaves as 3/5ths of a person when it came to a population head-count to determine each states tax obligations. The southerners howled - they considered them no more than cattle and didn’t want them to be counted at all. That proposal failed.
The issue of representation came during the ratification of the Constitution and yes, the south demanded that slaves be counted at full value even though they were not allowed any self-determination. The 3/5ths compromise gave the south an unfair advantage in congress that lasted through to the WBTS.
“Yes, it was political gamesmanship, but if Northern states wanted to recognize the slaves as people, and not property, wouldn’t they have recognized them as 100% persons?” It was the south who didn’t recognize them as anything other than property. The north DIDN’T dominate Congress.
How convenient that the EVIL of confederacy, especially the slave holders, is being explained away by the lack of inclusion within the non-slave holding Union.
Here is my stance on the SLAVERS — the confederacy idiots were doing the bidding for their plantation masters so that they could continue to own human beings as property. They were no different from ISIS. The slave owners needed mass killing, but unfortunately the poor confederates (that did not own a mule, let alone humans) died like idiots. I think I am clear.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.