Washington & Lee to remove Confederate Flag

[Homebrew]

It's no wonder you resort to things like "haha" or "ok" when you lack facts to support your position that it was a war fought over slavery. Repeating nonsense your middle school history teacher told you without knowing what you're talking about isn't always enough. Your bias is blinding you. You believe the myth of Lincoln as a anti-slavery moral crusader rather than what he actually said and did. Everything I've said is an easily verifiable (or disprovable) fact if you're so inclined.

Haha.

OK. As long as you believe your bullshit, I guess it's fine. Carry on.

Speaking of BS...you've yet to address a single point brought up in this thread.

"Haha" "Nope"

[Hokie5150]

Why do I want to engage in a legalistic debate with necks who refuse to consider common sense.

Why are you pathologically incapable of addressing actual points that people make rather than throwing out strawman arguments?

[ip_law-hokie]

Why do I want to engage in a legalistic debate with necks who refuse to consider common sense.

Why are you pathologically incapable of addressing actual points that people make rather than throwing out strawman arguments?

I'm capable, just choose not to, neck.

[Marine Hokie]

No, most people just answer slavery because that's what they're told, in order to give the war a moral cause. Most people think Lincoln was some sort of anti-slavery activist and are completely unaware of the facts, or in the case of IP, just ignore them.
Just answering with "slavery" isn't any form of brevity. The one-word answer would be "secession".

I'm not about to say that I am a Civil War historian. But one of the Youtube comments (can't believe I read them) says:
"I had a leading Civil War historian explain the War like this to our class. Paraphrasing:
People who know nothing about the war say it was about slavery. People who know a fair bit realize that there were a multitude of issues that led to the War. People who have studied the War in detail realize that, yes, it really was about slavery."

Seems about right from my recollection. It seems as if all the other "multitude of issues" had a connection to slavery in some form or another, correct?

Which is why most people just answer: "slavery"

[Marine Hokie]

It's no wonder you resort to things like "haha" or "ok" when you lack facts to support your position that it was a war fought over slavery. Repeating nonsense your middle school history teacher told you without knowing what you're talking about isn't always enough. Your bias is blinding you. You believe the myth of Lincoln as a anti-slavery moral crusader rather than what he actually said and did. Everything I've said is an easily verifiable (or disprovable) fact if you're so inclined.

Haha.

OK. As long as you believe your bullshit, I guess it's fine. Carry on.

Speaking of BS...you've yet to address a single point brought up in this thread.

"Haha" "Nope"

"Ok."
"Neck"

[Hokie5150]

No, most people just answer slavery because that's what they're told, in order to give the war a moral cause. Most people think Lincoln was some sort of anti-slavery activist and are completely unaware of the facts, or in the case of IP, just ignore them.
Just answering with "slavery" isn't any form of brevity. The one-word answer would be "secession".

Answering "slavery" is the lazy way out...

[nolanvt]

It's no wonder you resort to things like "haha" or "ok" when you lack facts to support your position that it was a war fought over slavery. Repeating nonsense your middle school history teacher told you without knowing what you're talking about isn't always enough. Your bias is blinding you. You believe the myth of Lincoln as a anti-slavery moral crusader rather than what he actually said and did. Everything I've said is an easily verifiable (or disprovable) fact if you're so inclined.

Haha.

OK. As long as you believe your bullshit, I guess it's fine. Carry on.

Speaking of BS...you've yet to address a single point brought up in this thread.

Why do I want to engage in a legalistic debate with necks who refuse to consider common sense. You guys win: slavery had nothing to do with the war. everyone thinks that.

Who said slavery had nothing to do with it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RiverguyVT]

Good point. Non-seceding states were not invaded.
Delaware and Maryland were also slave states. If the war had been about slavery, one would think that they'd have been invaded too. As it were, Delaware was mostly left alone, and Maryland was occupied only for the purpose of prohibiting secession. Secessionists in Maryland were imprisoned, while slaveowners were not.

solid point.
perfect examples- Michigan, CT, RI, Mass.
Didn't secede. Didn't find themselves at war.

what about tax revenues derived from slave trade activity?
what about states that had laws essentially saying "no new slaves allowed" but simultaneously allowing for existing slaves to be "grandfathered in"?

Seems like if the war was due to "slavery" none of that would have been going on.

[ip_law-hokie]

It's no wonder you resort to things like "haha" or "ok" when you lack facts to support your position that it was a war fought over slavery. Repeating nonsense your middle school history teacher told you without knowing what you're talking about isn't always enough. Your bias is blinding you. You believe the myth of Lincoln as a anti-slavery moral crusader rather than what he actually said and did. Everything I've said is an easily verifiable (or disprovable) fact if you're so inclined.

Haha.

OK. As long as you believe your bullshit, I guess it's fine. Carry on.

Speaking of BS...you've yet to address a single point brought up in this thread.

Why do I want to engage in a legalistic debate with necks who refuse to consider common sense. You guys win: slavery had nothing to do with the war. everyone thinks that.

Who said slavery had nothing to do with it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That was a stretch. The South, I'm told, seceded, "over a multitude of issues." I'm also told that if the south had outlawed slavery and Fitty's great, great uncle had a hoo hoo instead of a wang, then the war would still have been fought and Fitty's great uncle buck would have been the first woman in combat.

[Marine Hokie]

That was a stretch. The South, I'm told, seceded, "over a multitude of issues."

You were told that by someone arguing in favor of your position.

I'm also told that if the south had outlawed slavery and Fitty's great, great uncle had a hoo hoo instead of a wang, then the war would still have been fought and Fitty's great uncle buck would have been the first woman in combat.

Do you feel that, if slavery had been outlawed in seceding states, the war would have never happened?

[ip_law-hokie]

That was a stretch. The South, I'm told, seceded, "over a multitude of issues."

You were told that by someone arguing in favor of your position.

I'm also told that if the south had outlawed slavery and Fitty's great, great uncle had a hoo hoo instead of a wang, then the war would still have been fought and Fitty's great uncle buck would have been the first woman in combat.

Do you feel that, if slavery had been outlawed in seceding states, the war would have never happened?

1. My bad: "Individual state governments seceded, each for their own reasons."

2. Your hypo is as silly as Fitty's Uncle Buck having a woo woo.

[SuwaneeTim820]

That was a stretch. The South, I'm told, seceded, "over a multitude of issues."

You were told that by someone arguing in favor of your position.

I'm also told that if the south had outlawed slavery and Fitty's great, great uncle had a hoo hoo instead of a wang, then the war would still have been fought and Fitty's great uncle buck would have been the first woman in combat.

Do you feel that, if slavery had been outlawed in seceding states, the war would have never happened?

1. My bad: "Individual state governments seceded, each for their own reasons."

2. Your hypo is as silly as Fitty's Uncle Buck having a woo woo.

Southern apologists and their revisionist history always crack me up. "95% of historians disagree with me? Historian smishtorian! AMIRITE?!" Reminds me of the hilarious global warming "debate."

[ip_law-hokie]

That was a stretch. The South, I'm told, seceded, "over a multitude of issues."

You were told that by someone arguing in favor of your position.

I'm also told that if the south had outlawed slavery and Fitty's great, great uncle had a hoo hoo instead of a wang, then the war would still have been fought and Fitty's great uncle buck would have been the first woman in combat.

Do you feel that, if slavery had been outlawed in seceding states, the war would have never happened?

1. My bad: "Individual state governments seceded, each for their own reasons."

2. Your hypo is as silly as Fitty's Uncle Buck having a woo woo.

Southern apologists and their revisionist history always crack me up. "95% of historians disagree with me? Historian smishtorian! AMIRITE?!" Reminds me of the hilarious global warming "debate."

It's cute seeing the silly necks dip and dodge with that heavy chip on their shoulder.

[Hokie5150]

That was a stretch. The South, I'm told, seceded, "over a multitude of issues."

You were told that by someone arguing in favor of your position.

I'm also told that if the south had outlawed slavery and Fitty's great, great uncle had a hoo hoo instead of a wang, then the war would still have been fought and Fitty's great uncle buck would have been the first woman in combat.

Do you feel that, if slavery had been outlawed in seceding states, the war would have never happened?

1. My bad: "Individual state governments seceded, each for their own reasons."

2. Your hypo is as silly as Fitty's Uncle Buck having a woo woo.

Southern apologists and their revisionist history always crack me up. "95% of historians disagree with me? Historian smishtorian! AMIRITE?!" Reminds me of the hilarious global warming "debate."

The contemporary position of slavery as the cause of the Civil War is revisionist in itself...

[SuwaneeTim820]

That was a stretch. The South, I'm told, seceded, "over a multitude of issues."

You were told that by someone arguing in favor of your position.

I'm also told that if the south had outlawed slavery and Fitty's great, great uncle had a hoo hoo instead of a wang, then the war would still have been fought and Fitty's great uncle buck would have been the first woman in combat.

Do you feel that, if slavery had been outlawed in seceding states, the war would have never happened?

1. My bad: "Individual state governments seceded, each for their own reasons."

2. Your hypo is as silly as Fitty's Uncle Buck having a woo woo.

Southern apologists and their revisionist history always crack me up. "95% of historians disagree with me? Historian smishtorian! AMIRITE?!" Reminds me of the hilarious global warming "debate."

The contemporary position of slavery as the cause of the Civil War is revisionist in itself...

Pretty much everyone who has devoted their life to studying the issue disagrees with you.

[HokieHighlander]

That's an interesting quote you have there Marine...I agree about the welfare state breaking up black families..but slavery DID break up the black family as well as created "light skin vs. dark skin" issue that still goes on till this day especially in black women...I know it's not related to the thread but we were talking about slavery and nvm

[HokieHighlander]

BTW Lincoln didn't give a crap about black folk; I don't care what Spielberg says

[Marine Hokie]

1. My bad: "Individual state governments seceded, each for their own reasons."

The actual quote is "Individual state governments seceded, each for their own reasons, some of which included slavery." It was a followup to my criticizing of you referring the the seceding states as one entity, leaving for one reason. Do you dispute my statement?

2. Your hypo is as silly as Fitty's Uncle Buck having a woo woo.

How so? Your position is that the war was over slavery. I'm asking whether you think that the war still would have happened if slavery had been outlawed in the seceding states.
Again, all slave states were not invaded, only the ones that seceded. Slaveowners were not arrested and imprisoned in Maryland along with those supporting secession. If the war was about slavery, why wasn't Delaware invaded as well? Why was Maryland only occupied for the purposes of keeping them from seceding, rather than to free the slaves? Why did Lincoln support slavery and enforce slavery laws? Why did Lincoln explicitly say that he wouldn't wage war over slavery, and would only use military force in the south to 1) enforce tariff collection and 2) to prevent secession.

As someone already been pointed out, you have yet to actually make an argument to support your position. Just saying that slavery is the reason for the war doesn't support itself.

[USN_Hokie]

That's an interesting quote you have there Marine...I agree about the welfare state breaking up black families..but slavery DID break up the black family as well as created "light skin vs. dark skin" issue that still goes on till this day especially in black women...I know it's not related to the thread but we were talking about slavery and nvm

Could you elaborate on this? I honestly don't know. I've heard the term "high yellow" - is this a derogatory term towards blacks with lighter skin?

[SuwaneeTim820]

It's cute seeing the silly necks dip and dodge with that heavy chip on their shoulder.

It's a very heavy chip, isn't it?

[Hokie5150]

BTW Lincoln didn't give a crap about black folk; I don't care what Spielberg says

He wasn't particularly fond of red people either...just sayin'

[ip_law-hokie]

1. My bad: "Individual state governments seceded, each for their own reasons."

The actual quote is "Individual state governments seceded, each for their own reasons, some of which included slavery." It was a followup to my criticizing of you referring the the seceding states as one entity, leaving for one reason. Do you dispute my statement?

2. Your hypo is as silly as Fitty's Uncle Buck having a woo woo.

How so? Your position is that the war was over slavery. I'm asking whether you think that the war still would have happened if slavery had been outlawed in the seceding states.
Again, all slave states were not invaded, only the ones that seceded. Slaveowners were not arrested and imprisoned in Maryland along with those supporting secession. If the war was about slavery, why wasn't Delaware invaded as well? Why was Maryland only occupied for the purposes of keeping them from seceding, rather than to free the slaves? Why did Lincoln support slavery and enforce slavery laws? Why did Lincoln explicitly say that he wouldn't wage war over slavery, and would only use military force in the south to 1) enforce tariff collection and 2) to prevent secession.

As someone already been pointed out, you have yet to actually make an argument to support your position. Just saying that slavery is the reason for the war doesn't support itself.

Yes I dispute your statement. What other issues were relevant to these individual southern states' in deciding to secede that were not related to slavery? Name one.

[Hokie5150]

That was a stretch. The South, I'm told, seceded, "over a multitude of issues."

You were told that by someone arguing in favor of your position.

I'm also told that if the south had outlawed slavery and Fitty's great, great uncle had a hoo hoo instead of a wang, then the war would still have been fought and Fitty's great uncle buck would have been the first woman in combat.

Do you feel that, if slavery had been outlawed in seceding states, the war would have never happened?

1. My bad: "Individual state governments seceded, each for their own reasons."

2. Your hypo is as silly as Fitty's Uncle Buck having a woo woo.

Southern apologists and their revisionist history always crack me up. "95% of historians disagree with me? Historian smishtorian! AMIRITE?!" Reminds me of the hilarious global warming "debate."

The contemporary position of slavery as the cause of the Civil War is revisionist in itself...

Pretty much everyone who has devoted their life to studying the issue disagrees with you.

So, you're saying the consensus among historians 50 years ago was that slavery was the cause of the Civil War?

[Marine Hokie]

I can see your confusion. Because you're biased in favor of one side, you assume that everyone who doesn't blindly follow along with you is biased in favor of the other side (CSA).

It's cute seeing the silly necks dip and dodge with that heavy chip on their shoulder.

It's a very heavy chip, isn't it?

[HokieHighlander]

Bill Duke did a documentary on this issue called "Dark Girls" that goes into great detail....Basically light skin is viewed as "prettier" as opposed to dark skin...Here's the trailer

Also, yall need to watch School Daze...its a spike lee joint so maybe that's why yall haven't watched it...

High yellow isn't a derogatory...its just what they call some people because you can be deemed as "less black" depending on your skin color because you haven't had to face the challenges that darker skinned blacks have had to face