Things that made you laugh today (Political Version)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Back

That may be the case but in general the North was anti-slavery and defended themselves from the pro-slavery secessionist south.

---

The North was about as anti-slavery as the dumbest Mick they could find to fight their war, it sold newspapers though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neveragain

The North was about as anti-slavery as the dumbest Mick they could find to fight their war, it sold newspapers though.

---

That is factually incorrect. Why do you think that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Back

That is factually incorrect. Why do you think that?

---

Because you can't enact the conscription act and call yourself anti-slavery at the same time.

The New York riots say so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neveragain

Because you can't enact the conscription act and call yourself anti-slavery at the same time.

---

Thats an interesting and obscure opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Back

Thats an interesting and obscure opinion.

---

It can't be that "obscure" of an opinion when, as Tyrant mentioned, the "opinion" of the New Yorker at the time was to hang blacks from street lamps in revolt over the conscription act.

You said these things didn't happen in the North.

lol backlash

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Back

This is absolutely incorrect. It came about through religion. It came about because good people did realize and know that keeping other human beings as slaves was wrong.

---

Are you talking about the movement? The executive order? Or the constitutional amendment? Two out of three of those came about as punishment/maneuvering against the South. It was a way to hamstring the South. It was a good thing to do, morally and strategically, but let's not act like the war was fought for the purpose of freeing slaves. Your average northerner did not feel strongly about abolition

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neveragain

It can't be that "obscure" of an opinion when, as Tyrant mentioned, the "opinion" of the New Yorker at the time was to hang blacks from street lamps in revolt over the conscription act.

You said these things didn't happen in the North.

---

Nowhere did I say the North was heaven for blacks at that time. But it sure was a hell of a lot better than the south for many reasons.

You aren't making any sense with your statements that jump from topic to topic. You seem to refuse to believe that the reason the North went to war with the South was over slavery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Back

Nowhere did I say the North was heaven for blacks at that time. But it sure was a hell of a lot better than the south for many reasons.

You aren't making any sense with your statements that jump from topic to topic. You seem to refuse to believe that the reason the North went to war with the South was over slavery.

---

The North went to war with the South to preserve the union. The South seceded from the North to preserve slavery. The average northerner gave 0 fucks about slavery.

Although to say that slavery was the sole reason for secession is a bit wrong. Was it at the root? Sure. The South felt it was being marginalized in the Senate and the House by having more free states than slave states, thereby decreasing the Southern elite's voice in the Governance of the nation.