|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]
|
 |
|
Author
|
Topic: Accidental digression on left-right (Read 6574 times)
|
Sargon
*Many bubbles*
 Offline
Posts: 129
|
Women didn't have a right to vote before the 50s no?
Linoln also didn't give women the right to vote. So he is sexist and his monuments should be removed.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sargon
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 129
|
They said the war was not about slavery, it was about not joining the north. The slavery thing was a side effect.
But the US did oppress women when they tried to get the right to vote... so I don't think Lincoln was a Feminist.
Edit: Notice how you try to find the right reason why to remove those statues... like, you have a hidden reasoning.
Not all the German soldiers who fought in WW2 were responsible for Hitler's crimes as well.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: November 16, 2017, 06:54:46 pm by Sargon »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sargon
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 129
|
How do you know what was his main agenda?
So just because he inherited a sexist country he is not responsible?
What if the south inherited a country with slavery? Maybe it's not their responsibility to free them? Maybe it wasn't there agenda?
As I said, not every southern was also supporting slavery. As not every German solider who fought in WW2 was supporting the death camps?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sargon
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 129
|
I am not sure how you know all of this.
They didn't have the internet back then.
The war with the south might have been about slavery, it might have also not.
How do you know what people knew what people thought?
You will have to find written evidence for that, and I suspect it will only be for the leaders anyway, if you find anything.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 3874
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
The war with the south might have been about slavery, it might have also not.
How do you know what people knew what people thought?
By looking at what they wrote about it at the time.
An examination of the Confederate constitution, the various declarations of secessions, and many other writings, strongly establish it.
For example
http://www.civil-war.net/pages/mississippi_declaration.asp <- this one is really direct about it, whooooeee.
http://www.civil-war.net/pages/georgia_declaration.asp
Those two get down to the whole slavery thing right away. This next one beats around the bush a little, but when it gets down to it, all of the procedural matters stem from the issue of slavery - it's all 'we would never have joined up with the other states if it weren't that we were promised we could keep doing slavery'.
http://www.civil-war.net/pages/southcarolina_declaration.asp
In particular, see the section starting, 'The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows:'
Texas doesn't get as wordy, but it basically whines about slavery not being allowed to expand (calling it southerners not being allowed to live and work elsewhere, ignoring the possibility of simply not bringing slaves), though they do have the only other complaint, that of insufficient border security vs Mexico and the Indians:
http://www.civil-war.net/pages/texas_declaration.asp
The site I found those on doesn't have the others as far as I can tell, so I'll stop there.
So yeah, the leaders were all about the slavery. And they weren't even dressing it up all that hard in anything else. The regular citizens didn't have much of anything else to be fighting over either, except for Texas. Of course, Texas didn't get any better border security out of seceding, so…
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]
|
|
|
|
|
