Posted on 11/21/2001 11:54:19 AM PST by shuckmaster
Edited on 05/11/2004 5:33:22 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
COLUMBIA, Mo. (AP) -- Police at the University of Missouri have arrested a student suspected of destroying a Confederate flag in a dorm room.
Dave Sierpina, 18, of Aurora, Ill., was arrested on suspicion of second-degree burglary and property damage.
(Excerpt) Read more at stltoday.com ...
SW has selective memory on a lot of things. LOL
Just like today and the servants of public officials?
No, you keep saying we said the union fought to free the slaves. Post #256 is an example. Learn to read.
the damnyankees fought to keep the southland poor,subserviant and under the damnyankee boot heel. no other reason is as important to damnyankee elitists as $$$$$$$$ AND personal power.
The secessionists were the ultimate tyrannists, they seceded to keep people enslaved to them and to reap the filthy lucre from it.
they certainly cared NOTHING for the plight of the slaves in dixie OR damnyankeeland.
The Radical Republicans did. Remember John Brown?
once again, do you UNDERSTAND the difference in reasoned response and just posting un-thinking bunk?
Unthinking bunk is your specialty.
Get out of your fantasyland, you lost, get over it. LOL
i would think you south-haters would welcome our departure!
Nope. We need somewhere to ship all our old people. All those Ensure sipping, grocery store griping, turn signal forgetting, doing-25-in-a-50-zone driving old folks are part of a grand plot to continue punishing you for the rebellion.
the radical republicans in 1861 numbered in the few thousands. it was only after the damnyankees conquered the south that the mass of northerners became RRs.
one noted African American professor from Grambling University says that you couldn't have found 10,000 people in the whole nation who cared a damn about ending slavery and FEW who would have fought even a skirmish over slavery.
from the northern perspective, the WBTS was just about POWER & $$$$$$$$$. all the whitewash in the world will not cover up that TRUTH!
for dixie liberty,sw
those you're welcome to!
when southron liberty comes, let's make a deal. = we send you all the socialists/nere-do-wells/liberals/socialists/etc and we'll take all the "snowbirds"- then we'll all be happy!
for dixie liberty,sw
I like the South. You Civil War whiners are a minority in the South and are sore losers and can't let go of your defeats. I enjoy proving your opinions silly.
frankly, most southrons i know would think you only semi-literate in the history of the WBTS,based on your obvious/simplistic/un-knowledgeable responses.
we aren't sore losers-any more than the nations still subject to russian domination are sore losers because they continue to desire freedom.
the LUST for LIBERTY is a positive and GOOD thing.
for TRUTH & dixie,sw
Oh boy, I bet you guys are a barrel of laughs when you get together.
...would think you only semi-literate in the history of the WBTS,based on your obvious/simplistic/un-knowledgeable responses.
You're posting a lot of words but not saying anything.
we aren't sore losers-any more than the nations still subject to russian domination are sore losers because they continue to desire freedom.
At least they're doing something about it. Instead of whining to me every day, why don't you do something about it?
the LUST for LIBERTY is a positive and GOOD thing.
Men of action change the world. Uneducated namecalling malcontents are just background noise.
for dixie,sw
Make up your mind. First you call America tyrannical, then you say it's a free republic. Which is it?
it's the hatefilled,racebaiting,anti-semitic,arrogant,anti-gun,pro abortion,ignorant,south-hating, extremist, mean-spirited, liberal damnyankees who are TYRANTS & DAMNFOOLS.
for dixie,sw
Then you shouldn't have seceded.
it's the hatefilled,racebaiting,anti-semitic,arrogant,anti-gun,pro abortion,ignorant,south-hating, extremist, mean-spirited, liberal damnyankees who are TYRANTS & DAMNFOOLS.
Like Ted Turner and Bill Clinton? Two of the most influencial liberals in America, two southerners?
I don't care who owned slaves and who didn't own slaves individually. I've never made claims of who owned slaves and who didn't own slaves individually, North or South. You can't judge the group by just looking at an individual just the same as you can't judge an individual by just looking at the actions of a group. The fact is that the Southern states plainly said they seceded because of the perceived hostility of Lincoln to slavery as stated in most if not all of their Declarations of Secession. The abolitionists hailed mainly in the North with the Radical Republicans being the main agent of change in this nation's stance on slavery. That's all that matters to me. These two facts make me glad that the North won the Civil War not to mention the extreme importance of preserving the union.
This implies acceptance of the proposition that slavery was wrong.
A person's knowledge of right versus wrong is worthless if that person isn't willing to admit facts to assess who is right and who is wrong.
I think that we can all agree on that. I also believe that we can agree that Grant did own at least one slave in Missouri whom Grant manumitted before he emigrated to Illinois.
I don't care if he did or not. Grant fought for duty and preservation of the union, as Lincoln said.
His wife maintained a few slaves, and at least one until December 1862.
I don't care who owned slaves and who didn't. The fact is the South seceded to preserve slavery as stated in most if not all of their Declarations ofd Secession.
In Julia Grant's Memoires, Mrs. Grant says that her slave girl ran away from her near Cincinnati around Christmas, 1862.
I don't care who owned slaves and who didn't. The fact is the South seceded to preserve slavery as stated in most if not all of their Declarations ofd Secession.
In a footnote to that work, John Y. Simon states that it is at least possible that the Dent/Grant slaves were emancipated by the XIII Amendment, although he cannot tell for sure.
I don't care. The fact is the South seceded to preserve slavery as stated in most if not all of their Declarations of Secession.
As for REL, I e-mailed Emory Thomas, University of Georgia and author of a sympathetic but not idolatrous Lee biography. He says that Lee owned slaves (left to him by his mother) at least as late as 1846 (REL, pg, 72) or 1852 (REL, pg. 173). On his emancipation of all his slaves in January, 1863, Lee hired two of his servants (Perry and George) and paid them $8.20 a month. (Lee in a letter to his wife, 8 FEB 63).
I don't care who owned slaves and who didn't. The fact is the South seceded to preserve slavery as stated in most if not all of their Declarations ofd Secession.
Hope this helps dampen the acrimony. Respectfully, D J White
Not a chance. LOL Men who are so hateful that they dig 140 years into the past, and then live in the past, to hate a group of people in the present are never going to be the type that you can lessen the acrimony with. Thanks for trying anyway, even with your bias. :^)
No offense, but nowhere on any thread have I ever argued about, or given a hoot about, who owned slaves and who didn't individually. We went to war as two groups The Northern group sought to preserve the union and then abolish slavery as a fringe benefit of war. The Southern group sought to dissolve America to preserve slavery as cleary stated in most if not all of their Declarations of Secession. The circumstances of individuals, who were products of their times, doesn't matter to me. Most Northern soldiers didn't fight to abolish slavery individually, most Southern soldiers didn't fight to preserve slavery individually. To assess right versus wrong between two groups, you have to look at the actions of the groups not the circumstances of individuals.
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.