Quote from: RustingFloor on October 19, 2014, 09:30:19 PM

Quote from: Dustin xBasedGod on October 19, 2014, 09:14:24 PM

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2011/12/02/black-college-student-wins-fight-to-display-confederate-flag-in-dorm-room/

srs tho, they exist

And I'm sure this is so widespread.

To most people, the flag is still a symbol of slavery.

The war was fought over the issue of slavery. I'm sure Kinder's gonna see this comment and make up some revisionist shit about states' rights or some shit.

The war was fought over slavery. Southerners were afraid the big mean northerners were going to take away their "property".

maggots who try to make it about states' rights are forgetting that the right in question was fracking slavery.

If you're PROUD of that war? PROUD of that history? You're a fracking piece of shit.

Except it wasn't all about slavery. Slave owners were a VERY small minority in the south that barely made a dent in the population; on top of which there were whites as slaves and blacks as slave owners.

Slavery ONLY became an issue when Lincoln brought it up for the sole purpose of wanting to win the war. His initial plan was to send them all to Liberia. Talk about the so called Great Emancipator, huh?

If it was all about slavery, then why was it that there states, such as Maryland, that were part of the Union and still had slaves? Because it wasn't fracking about slavery. It was about the polar opposites of the industrial north and agriculture south. Because the north was far more prosperous, they tried to increase southern taxes, something they could not afford

As I stated earlier, why not view the American and British flags as a symbol of slavery? They endorsed slavery for many decades/centuries

Stop talking out of your ass. The abolitionist movement was growing huge in the North and Southerners were afraid the growing political influence of the movement. Lincoln was elected without winning a single southern state, and that pushed them over the edge.

Fuck off with your revisionist history bullshit.

Quote from: Kinder on October 19, 2014, 09:42:57 PM

Quote from: RustingFloor on October 19, 2014, 09:30:19 PM

Quote from: Dustin xBasedGod on October 19, 2014, 09:14:24 PM

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2011/12/02/black-college-student-wins-fight-to-display-confederate-flag-in-dorm-room/

srs tho, they exist

And I'm sure this is so widespread.

To most people, the flag is still a symbol of slavery.

The war was fought over the issue of slavery. I'm sure Kinder's gonna see this comment and make up some revisionist shit about states' rights or some shit.

The war was fought over slavery. Southerners were afraid the big mean northerners were going to take away their "property".

maggots who try to make it about states' rights are forgetting that the right in question was fracking slavery.

If you're PROUD of that war? PROUD of that history? You're a fracking piece of shit.

Except it wasn't all about slavery. Slave owners were a VERY small minority in the south that barely made a dent in the population; on top of which there were whites as slaves and blacks as slave owners.

Slavery ONLY became an issue when Lincoln brought it up for the sole purpose of wanting to win the war. His initial plan was to send them all to Liberia. Talk about the so called Great Emancipator, huh?

If it was all about slavery, then why was it that there states, such as Maryland, that were part of the Union and still had slaves? Because it wasn't fracking about slavery. It was about the polar opposites of the industrial north and agriculture south. Because the north was far more prosperous, they tried to increase southern taxes, something they could not afford

As I stated earlier, why not view the American and British flags as a symbol of slavery? They endorsed slavery for many decades/centuries

Stop talking out of your ass. The abolitionist movement was growing huge in the North and Southerners were afraid the growing political influence of the movement. Lincoln was elected without winning a single southern state, and that pushed them over the edge.

frack off with your revisionist history bullshit.

Holy shit you've been brainwashed, have you?

I used to think exactly like you. But guess what? I grew up, went online, and did independent research form various sources whose only purpose was to tell the truth. It's not revisionist history when it's what happened

I've spent years educating myself about this, but it's really common sense. Who actually believe the government would go out of their way to help someone?

http://www.northcarolinahistory.org/commentary/357/entry

They didn't do it to help anyone. I'm not delusional enough to think the North fought to end slavery, they fought to hold the Union together. But the South? They were fighting to maintain slavery, so I have absolutely no respect for sympathizers.

more debunking

http://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths-about-why-the-south-seceded/2011/01/03/ABHr6jD_story.html

Quote from: RustingFloor on October 19, 2014, 10:27:12 PM

more debunking

http://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths-about-why-the-south-seceded/2011/01/03/ABHr6jD_story.html

>washington post
>not being left-wing

At the time this article was written, it was owned by Rupert Murdoch, one of the most powerful right-wingers on the planet.

Do you even awareness?

Quote from: RustingFloor on October 19, 2014, 10:34:24 PM

Quote from: Kinder on October 19, 2014, 10:32:17 PM

Quote from: RustingFloor on October 19, 2014, 10:27:12 PM

more debunking

http://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths-about-why-the-south-seceded/2011/01/03/ABHr6jD_story.html

>washington post
>not being left-wing

At the time this article was written, it was owned by Rupert Murdoch, one of the most powerful right-wingers on the planet.

Do you even awareness?

Doesn't mean anything. It's still a left-wing influenced source

I suggest, then, reading the content of the article.