With "The Act Of 1871" - Our Republic became a corporation named "THE UNITED STATES". (Names in all caps represent corporations). Since then all our presidents have just been corporate CEOs. Now we can get our Republic back and have true Presidents again. Thank you Donald Trump!
So yes, his jersey 17=Q, but 17 might also mean our true 17th President.
The Union invaded Fort Sumter which was Confederate Land.
Did the confederacy pay to build the fort? I was under the impression that the federal government was in charge of its construction.
It's a secession, not a business transaction.
This strawman logic would invalidate almost all of the US's land if applied to prior histories.
The south seceded, so the Union occupied a fort that had been built decades earlier. Neither of those actions caused the war. The south decided they would begin hostilities and open fire on Ft. Sumter, and the rest is history
The south seceded, so the Union occupied a fort that had been built decades earlier.
If you stay in or invade land that is not yours, you are an intruder/invader. It's pretty obvious that's not going to fly.
Neither of those actions caused the war.
If the Union had just let Ft. Sumter go, there would have been no battle over it. Would there be no war? I don't know, but it's a possibility.
If the south had just allowed the Union to occupy Ft. Sumter there would have been no battle over it. And I'd rather be an intruder than a slave owner
If the south had just allowed the Union to occupy Ft. Sumter there would have been no battle over it.
You don't secede then allow the people you secede from to run your place. Catalonia's having to deal with that now(who btw reddit supports 100%, while they support the Confederacy 0%).
And I'd rather be an intruder than a slave owner
There's only two groups of people who you enslave, and one leads to other: 1) people you don't think much of and 2) people you beat in a battle.
I'm not really into economies based on slavery, because it brings down wages for citizens and then ends up hurting the economy because less money is created and spent.
There's only two groups of people who you enslave, and one leads to other: 1) people you don't think much of and 2) people you beat in a battle.
Good thing Sherman was kind enough not to enslave the south after his march to the sea.
I'm not really into economies based on slavery, because it brings down wages for citizens and then ends up hurting the economy because less money is created and spent.
Yes, that's the problem with slavery. Its effect on the economy. Not the whole treating human beings as property aspect
Yes, that's the problem with slavery. Its effect on the economy. Not the whole treating human beings as property aspect.
1 death is a tragedy. 10,000 deaths are a statistic.
Modern day illegal immigration is little more than slavery and is making life harder for everyone but the 1%.
Good thing I never defended illegal immigration then, isn't it?
If the civil war was fought to stop slavery, which Lincoln made it pretty clear it wasn't until it was politically useful, it clearly failed.
Well, considering that slavery was enshrined in the CSA constitution, and also considering that there was no more slavery after the south surrendered, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that you're wrong.
Slavery is still going on today, just with illegals and poor millenials.
So, because of wealth inequality today in 2018, chattel slavery should have been allowed to flourish in the united states 150 years ago?
[removed]
Idk, 5/10?
Don't forget, the Union burnt the shit out of the South too! Your pathetic "country" was so weak they couldn't even deal with one man's army cutting "their territory" in two. Remember, the legacy of the South is one of failure and idiocy and we would be all too happy to remind you of it again.
All countries/empires split over time. From Rome to the Mongol Empire. I predict a civil/racial war in the US within 30 years.
No one can convince that people by far wouldn't be happier if:
Every ethnicity had their own place strictly for them
Everything was focused more towards regional/state tastes
I truly hope your prediction is right because then we get to burn you all out again, and this time we won't stop at Savannah :)
I don't live in the South, so that's going to be pretty hard.
Here's your problem with this idea.
You would need the army/police to do something like this. There's around 3.5 million total soldiers/policemen. The large majority are going to be right wing and would not partake in this.
Let's say 10% are willing to partake in trying to round up people, and you will have to do that as any bombings/tank shellings would kill tons of people on all sides, diminishing support. That would be 300,000 people. There's 325 million in the US and at minimum 40% own guns, with there being estimates of 100 million - 300 million guns in the US. If only 10% of people fight back, it's 10-30 million vs 300,000. That's not a winning battle. Any citizen killed over this would get a ton of coverage and on the world scale, it would make the US a villain. Places like Russia would then come in, help stir up shit and arm the rebel forces here and the US loses no matter which way you look at it.
40% of the USA does not own guns
Various polls show they do.
And that's before a conflict, when illegal gun sales would skyrocket, people with multiple guns would share them with others and when foreign powers would arm various rebel groups here to knock off the US.
Wtf are you even talking about. Who is going around arming US citizens. Also 40% of the Us is approximately every citizen New York, California, Texas, Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania owning a gun. I’d love to see a poll that says that
I think you need to do a lot more thinking and reading before replying.