Violence at Neo Nazi protest.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
that ultimately depends on your perspective. they were certainly terrorists from the POV of the english. the main difference being that their rebellion succeeded where as the confederates failed.

i'm not really sympathetic to the confederates, either. but my main beef with them was that they were fighting to continue the practice of slavery.

Lol, this conversation has the potential to just be labeled are more defending of racists or nazis but...most confederate soldiers didn't own slaves. Did you also know there was a draft? Some were forced to fight. A lot were poor.

Again, not defending slavery or anything else. I shouldn't need to say that cuz nothing I said implied it, but on this board? I gotta.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
that ultimately depends on your perspective. they were certainly terrorists from the POV of the english. the main difference being that their rebellion succeeded where as the confederates failed.

i'm not really sympathetic to the confederates, either. but my main beef with them was that they were fighting to continue the practice of slavery.

If the English want to call the Founding Fathers terrorist, that's cool. I'm not English. I'm American and the Founding Fathers weren't domestic terrorist 👆

Still weird of you to make that association though in regards to the Fathers and Confederates. Weird. Very weird.

Originally posted by Surtur
Most confederate soldiers didn't own slaves.

When you look at that period in time it wasn't just about slavery, it was about the belief system that a great majority of people had in regards to blacks being less when whites.

Folks didn't have to own a slave to be racist, look around today no slaves and plenty of racists. And this was the pervasive mindset of the south.

Originally posted by Surtur
Lol, this conversation has the potential to just be labeled are more defending of racists or nazis but...most confederate soldiers didn't own slaves. Did you also know there was a draft? Some were forced to fight. A lot were poor.

Again, not defending slavery or anything else. I shouldn't need to say that cuz nothing I said implied it, but on this board? I gotta.

Originally posted by Robtard
If the English want to call the Founding Fathers terrorist, that's cool. I'm not English. I'm American and the Founding Fathers weren't domestic terrorist 👆

Still weird of you to make that association though in regards to the Fathers and Confederates. Weird. Very weird.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese

i'm trying to be somewhat objective, as opposed to falling back on national loyalty. if i were to take your approach, then if i were born and raised in the south (i wasn't) i should consider the confederates freedom fighters trying to fight for southern autonomy. IIRC states were originally supposed to be able to secede if they saw fit to do so.

If Southerners (or anyone) want to consider Confederates "freedom fighters", that's fine. There is a saying "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." Reagan did an address on the matter.

But really, the Confederacy were Domestic Terrorist. America won, time those clinging to the past deal with it.

the way you are using the term essentially removes any moral implications, to me.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
the way you are using the term essentially removes any moral implications, to me.

it might help if you imagine that the confederates were muslem.

i can't. if they were muslim you guys wouldn't be working so hard to demonize them.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
i can't. if they were muslim you guys wouldn't be working so hard to demonize them.

nice strawman non-retort. i accept your concession.

Originally posted by snowdragon
When you look at that period in time it wasn't just about slavery, it was about the belief system that a great majority of people had in regards to blacks being less when whites.

Folks didn't have to own a slave to be racist, look around today no slaves and plenty of racists. And this was the pervasive mindset of the south.

I know, but there is this misconception that like...everyone had slaves in the South.

Less than 10% owned slaved, and some of these people who were drafted had never been more than a mile or two from their homes in their entire lives.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
nice strawman non-retort. i accept your concession.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
nice strawman non-retort. i accept your concession.

Oh the fierce irony.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
lol. how old are you?

old enough to know when someone can't argue against a point and thus needs to defer to casual dismissal via silly fallacy games. 👆

Honestly, I have no problem with the Confederacy. The Civil War wasn't a fight of abolitionists vs slave proprietors. It was fought because the tax money of Southern slavery wasn't being properly redistributed to the federal government. It's not like the North were humanitarian freedom fighters. A lot of Union members were draftees who didn't want to be there, as shown by the New York Draft Riots. The Emancipation Proclamation was not a human rights declaration, but just Lincoln's last resort to destabilize the Southern economy, which is why it came 2 years after the war started. So it's not like the Civil War was good liberators vs evil enslavers. It was more like the American Revolution, tax collectors vs tax evaders. Slavery just happened to be the source of tax revenue in question.

you didn't make a serious point, you just inferred i was Islamophobic or something like that.

so i responded in kind.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Honestly, I have no problem with the Confederacy. The Civil War wasn't a fight of abolitionists vs slave proprietors. It was fought because the tax money of Southern slavery wasn't being properly redistributed to the federal government. It's not like the North were humanitarian freedom fighters. A lot of Union members were draftees who didn't want to be there, as shown by the New York Draft Riots. The Emancipation Proclamation was not a human rights declaration, but just Lincoln's last resort to destabilize the Southern economy, which is why it came 2 years after the war started. So it's not like the Civil War was good liberators vs evil enslavers. It was more like the American Revolution, tax collectors vs tax evaders. Slavery just happened to be the source of tax revenue in question.

Yep, people forget that Lincoln said if there was a way to keep the country together without abolishing slavery he would have.

the north wasn't fighting to end slavery, they were fighting to keep the union together.

the south was very much fighting for slavery, among other things. but slavery was the most notable cultural and economic divide between the two sides.

Originally posted by Robtard
Jaden brought up a good point early on, why isn't this car attack and murder labelled "terrorism" when we've seen other similar vehicle attacks labelled as such.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
the north wasn't fighting to end slavery, they were fighting to keep the union together.

the south was very much fighting for slavery, among other things. but slavery was the most notable cultural and economic divide between the two sides.

Actually that is a Lie. There was a Large Group that were against Slavery. They were called Abolitionists. You need to stop reading Leftist Revised History...aka Lies.

Ok, good and drunk now.

Lets kill all the *Insert group here*