Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Media Matters)   The Party of Lincoln? "We can debate about what side was right or wrong, or, you know, whether it was an invasion or a rebellion"   (mediamatters.org) divider line
    More: Facepalm, Washington Times' Charles Hurt, American Civil War, Robert E. Lee, Media Matters, Slavery in the United States, Civil war, only slaves, slaves  
•       •       •

1823 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Jun 2020 at 3:19 PM (8 days ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



107 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2020-06-25 2:49:10 PM  
"It's -- it's a convenient thing to say the whole thing was about slavery, and yes, it was about the economic differences between the north and the south, but it wasn't -- it's such an oversimplification to simply say oh, it's about a bunch of white people in the South wanting slaves, and a bunch of people in the North wanting abolition. Bullcrap ... the vast, vast majority of people who died and fought for the South in the Civil War didn't have slaves."

Also, vote Republican, because Lincoln freed the slaves!!!  Get off of the Demoncrap plantation!!!

/Gosh, it's almost like they don't really believe that they're the party of Lincoln...
 
2020-06-25 3:00:10 PM  
Traitors should be shot and never honored. it does not matter if the traitors fighting and killing Americans owned salves or not, the traitors were fighting to keep slavery.
 
2020-06-25 3:03:00 PM  
Ooooh, boy. I haven't heard the "invasion" claim in a long time.

"Bullcrap ... the vast, vast majority of people who died and fought for the South in the Civil War didn't have slaves." Yeah, and that was one reason the CSA collapsed--people suddenly realized it. People who didn't own slaves fought to preserve slavery because:

1) they hoped to own slaves some day;
2) they got to rent slaves;
3) no matter how poor, uneducated, stupid, or toothless a white man was, he could feel better than the smartest slave.

Here's a book on how proslavery rhetoric worked. Written by the wife of a FARKer.
 
2020-06-25 3:08:16 PM  
Losers don't get to write history
 
2020-06-25 3:09:34 PM  

eurotrader: Traitors should be shot and never honored. it does not matter if the traitors fighting and killing Americans owned salves or not, the traitors were fighting to keep slavery.


Technically, none of the American soldiers fighting in the Middle East own oil companies, but...
 
2020-06-25 3:12:48 PM  
No, there is no debate.   The secessionists wanted slavery because they refused to adjust their economy to industrialization.
 
2020-06-25 3:13:48 PM  
It's not like they were the least bit subtle:

What security have you for your own safety if every man of vile temper, of low instincts, of base purpose, can find in his own heart a higher law than that which is the rule of society, the Constitution, and the Bible? These higher-law preachers should be tarred and feathered, and whipped by those they have thus instigated. This, my friends, is what was called in good old revolutionary times, Lynch Law. It is sometimes the very best law, because it deals summary justice upon those who would otherwise escape from all other kinds of punishment.
Speech in New York, 1858.
Why, then, in the absence of all control over the subject of African slavery, are you agitated in relation to it? With Pharisaical pretension it is sometimes said it is a moral obligation to agitate, and I suppose they are going through a sort of vicarious repentance for other men's sins... Who gave them a right to decide that it is a sin? By what standard do they measure it? Not the Constitution; the Constitution recognizes the property in many forms, and imposes obligations in connection with that recognition. Not the Bible; that justifies it. Not the good of society; for if they go where it exists, they find that society recognizes it as good...
Speech in Boston (11 October 1858).

Whether by the House or by the People, if an Abolitionist be chosen President of the United States, you will have presented to you the question of whether you will permit the government to pass into the hands of your avowed and implacable enemies... such a result would be a species of revolution by which the purposes of the Government would be destroyed and the observance of its mere forms entitled to no respect. In that event, in such manner as should be most expedient, I should deem it your duty to provide for your safely outside the Union of those who have shown the will, and would have acquired the power, to deprive you of your birthright and reduce you to worse than the Colonial dependence of your fathers.
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature (16 November 1858)

We recognize the fact of the inferiority stamped upon that race of men by the Creator, and from the cradle to the grave, our Government, as a civil institution, marks that inferiority.
Reply in the Senate to William H. Seward (29 February 1860), Senate Chamber, U.S. Capitol. As quoted in The Papers of Jefferson Davis, Volume 6, pp. 277-84. Transcribed from the Congressional Globe, 36th Congress, 1st Session, pp. 916-18.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jeffers​o​n_Davis
 
2020-06-25 3:15:27 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Losers don't get to write history


Well, they're not supposed to, but in this case, they did.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning​_​School

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Ca​u​se_of_the_Confederacy

/It wasn't an accurate account of history, but they wrote quite a lot of it.
 
2020-06-25 3:22:10 PM  
Some folks just REALLY miss being able to own other human beings.
 
2020-06-25 3:22:45 PM  
It's -- it's a convenient thing to say the whole thing was about slavery, and yes, it was about the economic differences between the north and the south, but it wasn't -- it's such an oversimplification to simply say oh, it's about a bunch of white people in the South wanting slaves, and a bunch of people in the North wanting abolition.

FFS, it doesn't matter if the whole thing was about slavery.  It was part of the thing and that's all that matters.
 
2020-06-25 3:23:35 PM  
Wonder how long it's going to take before this thread hears from the "blacks were the first slave owners" in this thread...
 
2020-06-25 3:23:39 PM  
Before Civil War: Slavery
After Civil War: No slavery, KKK, Jim Crow, Segregation, Sharecropping, poll taxes, lynching ....
 
2020-06-25 3:24:28 PM  
I've read the Articles of Succession.  It's all White Power and keeping Black people as slaves.  They told us what they were fighting for, why shouldn't I believe them?
 
2020-06-25 3:24:29 PM  
The southern states tried to illegally secede because they were terrified having to free their slaves.  The southern states formed militias and attacked American troops at Fort Sumpter igniting a war.

That's it.  That's all there is to it.
 
2020-06-25 3:25:58 PM  
One of the things that riled post WW1 Germans up was obsessing about how if the last trench battle was fought differently, Germany would have won and everything would have just been hunky dory.
 
2020-06-25 3:26:03 PM  

LL316: It's -- it's a convenient thing to say the whole thing was about slavery, and yes, it was about the economic differences between the north and the south, but it wasn't -- it's such an oversimplification to simply say oh, it's about a bunch of white people in the South wanting slaves, and a bunch of people in the North wanting abolition.

FFS, it doesn't matter if the whole thing was about slavery.  It was part of the thing and that's all that matters.


Most of the white people in the South didn't own slaves and were routinely screwed over by the slave owners, since slaves could do any job. Slave owners locked out the poor white people.
 
2020-06-25 3:26:18 PM  

HighOnCraic: It's not like they were the least bit subtle:

What security have you for your own safety if every man of vile temper, of low instincts, of base purpose, can find in his own heart a higher law than that which is the rule of society, the Constitution, and the Bible? These higher-law preachers should be tarred and feathered, and whipped by those they have thus instigated. This, my friends, is what was called in good old revolutionary times, Lynch Law. It is sometimes the very best law, because it deals summary justice upon those who would otherwise escape from all other kinds of punishment.
Speech in New York, 1858.
Why, then, in the absence of all control over the subject of African slavery, are you agitated in relation to it? With Pharisaical pretension it is sometimes said it is a moral obligation to agitate, and I suppose they are going through a sort of vicarious repentance for other men's sins... Who gave them a right to decide that it is a sin? By what standard do they measure it? Not the Constitution; the Constitution recognizes the property in many forms, and imposes obligations in connection with that recognition. Not the Bible; that justifies it. Not the good of society; for if they go where it exists, they find that society recognizes it as good...
Speech in Boston (11 October 1858).

Whether by the House or by the People, if an Abolitionist be chosen President of the United States, you will have presented to you the question of whether you will permit the government to pass into the hands of your avowed and implacable enemies... such a result would be a species of revolution by which the purposes of the Government would be destroyed and the observance of its mere forms entitled to no respect. In that event, in such manner as should be most expedient, I should deem it your duty to provide for your safely outside the Union of those who have shown the will, and would have acquired the power, to deprive you of your birthright and reduce you to worse than the ...


You really don't need to post these quotes by a known traitor and racist.
 
2020-06-25 3:26:58 PM  
No. This isn't a debate. Take your consolation trophies and crawl into the dustbin of history. You lost before, you're losing now, you'll always be losers.
 
2020-06-25 3:27:18 PM  

RyogaM: I've read the Articles of Secession .  It's all White Power and keeping Black people as slaves.  They told us what they were fighting for, why shouldn't I believe them?


Every f'n time.
 
2020-06-25 3:28:12 PM  

Nadie_AZ: Before Civil War: Slavery
After Civil War: No slavery, KKK, Jim Crow, Segregation, Sharecropping, poll taxes, lynching ....


Same kind of people who were resistant to sweeping, positive social change then are resistant to it now.

They're called conservatives.
 
2020-06-25 3:28:48 PM  
Why is that guy using a picture of Matthew Perry to identify himself?
 
2020-06-25 3:28:52 PM  

RyogaM: I've read the Articles of Succession.  It's all White Power and keeping Black people as slaves.  They told us what they were fighting for, why shouldn't I believe them?


If you want to start punching holes in walls, go ahead and read up on some of the Confederate people we have military bases named after.  They're evil even compared to others of the same era.
 
2020-06-25 3:29:01 PM  

HighOnCraic: "It's -- it's a convenient thing to say the whole thing was about slavery, and yes, it was about the economic differences between the north and the south, but it wasn't -- it's such an oversimplification to simply say oh, it's about a bunch of white people in the South wanting slaves, and a bunch of people in the North wanting abolition. Bullcrap ... the vast, vast majority of people who died and fought for the South in the Civil War didn't have slaves."

Also, vote Republican, because Lincoln freed the slaves!!!  Get off of the Demoncrap plantation!!!

/Gosh, it's almost like they don't really believe that they're the party of Lincoln...


"OUR CANNONFODDER DIDN'T EVEN OWNED SLAVES! PWNED!
 
2020-06-25 3:29:09 PM  
The only crack I ever smoked was my cousin's!
 
2020-06-25 3:29:24 PM  

Clarence Brown: Ooooh, boy. I haven't heard the "invasion" claim in a long time.

"Bullcrap ... the vast, vast majority of people who died and fought for the South in the Civil War didn't have slaves." Yeah, and that was one reason the CSA collapsed--people suddenly realized it. People who didn't own slaves fought to preserve slavery because:

1) they hoped to own slaves some day;
2) they got to rent slaves;
3) no matter how poor, uneducated, stupid, or toothless a white man was, he could feel better than the smartest slave.

Here's a book on how proslavery rhetoric worked. Written by the wife of a FARKer.


the new paradigm is trickle down defenders.  they're in their station because of all their tax money going to support Shaqueefa in the projects and once they rooftop-vote that money back in their pocket, by Lord it will be *their* boot on the neck of the working man.
 
2020-06-25 3:29:42 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-06-25 3:30:16 PM  

Nadie_AZ: Before Civil War: Slavery
After Civil War: No slavery, KKK, Jim Crow, Segregation, Sharecropping, poll taxes, lynching ....


Just because the north had a lot of racists doesn't mean the war wasn't about slavery.  You can be racist and anti slavery.  Lots of northerners were in the send them back to africa camp and the "dey took our jerbs" camp.
 
2020-06-25 3:30:44 PM  
FTA: ... the vast, vast majority of people who died and fought for the South in the Civil War didn't have slaves."


Yup. And they got suckered by those that did.


It's a tale as old as time...

Old Guy: Hey, Young Guy! Go fight (and probably die) for *insert bullshiat reasons designed to rile up the young man*, okay?

Young Guy: *riled up and pretty ignorant* Okay!
 
2020-06-25 3:31:13 PM  
Every state's article of declaration specifically stated that keeping slavery was their prime reason for secession, except TX.

TX basically said "we've got three options, and the other two lead us to being conquered by either Mexico or the CSA, so we'll side with the CSA for self preservation. We
 
2020-06-25 3:33:12 PM  

Nadie_AZ: Before Civil War: Slavery
After Civil War: No slavery, KKK, Jim Crow, Segregation, Sharecropping, poll taxes, lynching ....


The way the "Redeemers" blatantly ignored the Constitution (in the name of states' rights) after the end of Reconstruction and the way the alleged opposition party ignored what was going are two of the biggest tragedies in American history.  Sure, the war wasn't about slavery--just look at how great the local governments treated black people after the troops finally left!  Oh, wait...
 
2020-06-25 3:33:16 PM  
...of course, nobody knows who Robert E. Lee was.


Yes, there are only about 5,000 biographies written about the man.  We know so little about him.
 
2020-06-25 3:33:36 PM  
While we might be able to debate about how many people who fought for the South really got up in the morning and said "I'm gonna kill some soldiers do people can own other people.", the fact of the matter is that slavery was the linchpin for the secession, and there was NO "invasion". Some people might have felt that there were other "states' rights" being threatened, but the straw the broke the camel's back was slavery, and pretending like it was anything else is bullshiat. But nowhere near the level of bullshiat that calling it an "invasion" is. Holy fark, the lengths some people will go to defend traitors to their country.
 
2020-06-25 3:34:04 PM  
We can debate about what side was right or wrong

The people waging unlawful war over their privilege to own people was wrong

or, you know, whether it was an invasion or a rebellion

It was a rebellion.  The invasion that followed was in response to that rebellion.


/Southerner
//Was indoctrinated into "Lost Cause Mythology" from the first day of History class.
/// Thanks FSM I went to a decent college that knocked some into me.
 
2020-06-25 3:34:24 PM  

Don't Troll Me Bro!: Every state's article of declaration specifically stated that keeping slavery was their prime reason for secession, except TX.

TX basically said "we've got three options, and the other two lead us to being conquered by either Mexico or the CSA, so we'll side with the CSA for self preservation. We...


...done goofed and consequences will never be the same.
 
2020-06-25 3:35:37 PM  
A few statisticals for you:

-Lincoln ran on a 3rd party ticket in 1864. He wasn't a Republican when he died
-Ulysses S Grant owned slaves
-The first serious consideration of American secession was by the states of New England during the war of 1812

History is complicated.
 
2020-06-25 3:35:39 PM  

Clarence Brown: Ooooh, boy. I haven't heard the "invasion" claim in a long time.

"Bullcrap ... the vast, vast majority of people who died and fought for the South in the Civil War didn't have slaves." Yeah, and that was one reason the CSA collapsed--people suddenly realized it. People who didn't own slaves fought to preserve slavery because:

1) they hoped to own slaves some day;
2) they got to rent slaves;
3) no matter how poor, uneducated, stupid, or toothless a white man was, he could feel better than the smartest slave.

Here's a book on how proslavery rhetoric worked. Written by the wife of a FARKer.


That's not the glowing endorsement you think it is.
 
2020-06-25 3:36:28 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Losers don't get to write history


Someone should tell that to Texas.
 
2020-06-25 3:36:54 PM  

Tyrone Slothrop: Clarence Brown: Ooooh, boy. I haven't heard the "invasion" claim in a long time.

"Bullcrap ... the vast, vast majority of people who died and fought for the South in the Civil War didn't have slaves." Yeah, and that was one reason the CSA collapsed--people suddenly realized it. People who didn't own slaves fought to preserve slavery because:

1) they hoped to own slaves some day;
2) they got to rent slaves;
3) no matter how poor, uneducated, stupid, or toothless a white man was, he could feel better than the smartest slave.

Here's a book on how proslavery rhetoric worked. Written by the wife of a FARKer.

That's not the glowing endorsement you think it is.


But how do her teeth look?
 
2020-06-25 3:40:17 PM  

HighOnCraic: Nadie_AZ: Before Civil War: Slavery
After Civil War: No slavery, KKK, Jim Crow, Segregation, Sharecropping, poll taxes, lynching ....

The way the "Redeemers" blatantly ignored the Constitution (in the name of states' rights) after the end of Reconstruction and the way the alleged opposition party ignored what was going are two of the biggest tragedies in American history.  Sure, the war wasn't about slavery--just look at how great the local governments treated black people after the troops finally left!  Oh, wait...



The Compromise of 1877: Hayes gets the White House IF all the Federal troops are pulled out of the (former) CSA, and they can go back to oppressing the "melanin-enriched."
 
2020-06-25 3:42:38 PM  

Snapper Carr: We can debate about what side was right or wrong

The people waging unlawful war over their privilege to own people was wrong

or, you know, whether it was an invasion or a rebellion

It was a rebellion.  The invasion that followed was in response to that rebellion.


/Southerner
//Was indoctrinated into "Lost Cause Mythology" from the first day of History class.
/// Thanks FSM I went to a decent college that knocked some into me.


What invasion? Jefferson, Lee and their traitorous ilk of racist dickwads never made their own country. They made a big pillow fort, claimed NO GURLZ and started issuing "laws." The territory they built their big pillow fort on remained the United States.

As we proved, with fire and blood. We can prove so again anytime it becomes necessary.
 
2020-06-25 3:43:19 PM  
The best thing treason lover Charlie Hurt could do is to go fark himself with Gorka's head.
 
2020-06-25 3:44:52 PM  

Shaggy_C: A few statisticals for you:

-Lincoln ran on a 3rd party ticket in 1864. He wasn't a Republican when he died
-Ulysses S Grant owned slaves
-The first serious consideration of American secession was by the states of New England during the war of 1812

History is complicated.


Gee, before you tossed out three random facts I was convinced that human history progressed simply and logically.
Thanks for the heads up!
 
2020-06-25 3:46:49 PM  

give me doughnuts: HighOnCraic: Nadie_AZ: Before Civil War: Slavery
After Civil War: No slavery, KKK, Jim Crow, Segregation, Sharecropping, poll taxes, lynching ....

The way the "Redeemers" blatantly ignored the Constitution (in the name of states' rights) after the end of Reconstruction and the way the alleged opposition party ignored what was going are two of the biggest tragedies in American history.  Sure, the war wasn't about slavery--just look at how great the local governments treated black people after the troops finally left!  Oh, wait...


The Compromise of 1877: Hayes gets the White House IF all the Federal troops are pulled out of the (former) CSA, and they can go back to oppressing the "melanin-enriched."


In fairness, some of his fellow Republicans told Hayes that his compromise was a very bad thing.  There wasn't enough passion to actually do anything to reverse what was happening, but they sure as heck felt bad about it.
 
2020-06-25 3:52:50 PM  

Clarence Brown: Ooooh, boy. I haven't heard the "invasion" claim in a long time.

"Bullcrap ... the vast, vast majority of people who died and fought for the South in the Civil War didn't have slaves." Yeah, and that was one reason the CSA collapsed--people suddenly realized it.


Also, the claim that "the vast majority of Confederate soldiers didn't even own slaves" isn't even true.

Even more revealing was their attachment to slavery. Among the enlistees in 1861, slightly more than one in ten owned slaves personally. This compared favorably to the Confederacy as a whole, in which one in every twenty white persons owned slaves. Yet more than one in every four volunteers that first year lived with parents who were slaveholders. Combining those soldiers who owned slaves with those soldiers who lived with slaveholding family members, the proportion rose to 36 percent. That contrasted starkly with the 24.9 percent, or one in every four households, that owned slaves in the South, based on the 1860 census. Thus, volunteers in 1861 were 42 percent more likely to own slaves themselves or to live with family members who owned slaves than the general population.

The attachment to slavery, though, was even more powerful. One in every ten volunteers in 1861 did not own slaves themselves but lived in households headed by non family members who did. This figure, combined with the 36 percent who owned or whose family members owned slaves, indicated that almost one of every two 1861 recruits lived with slaveholders.

...

More than half the officers in 1861 owned slaves, and none of them lived with family members who were slaveholders. Their substantial median combined wealth ($5,600) and average combined wealth ($8,979) mirrored that high proportion of slave ownership. By comparison, only one in twelve enlisted men owned slaves, but when those who lived with family slave owners were included, the ratio exceeded one in three. That was 40 percent above the tally for all households in the Old South. With the inclusion of those who resided in nonfamily slaveholding households, the direct exposure to bondage among enlisted personnel was four of every nine. Enlisted men owned less wealth, with combined levels of $1,125 for the median and $7,079 for the average, but those numbers indicated a fairly comfortable standard of living. Proportionately, far more officers were likely to be professionals in civil life, and their age difference, about four years older than enlisted men, reflected their greater accumulated wealth.
 
2020-06-25 3:53:52 PM  
Well, there WERE some invasions...

The Gettysburg campaign was a military invasion of Pennsylvania by the main Confederate army under General Robert E. Lee in summer 1863. The Union won a decisive victory at Gettysburg, July 1-3, with heavy casualties on both sides. Lee managed to escape back to Virginia with most of his army. It was a turning point in the American Civil War, with Lee increasingly pushed back toward Richmond until his surrender in April 1865. After his victory in the Battle of Chancellorsville, Lee's Army of Northern Virginia moved north for a massive raid designed to obtain desperately needed supplies, to undermine civilian morale in the North, and to encourage anti-war elements.

The Maryland campaign-or Antietam campaign-occurred September 4-20, 1862, during the American Civil WarConfederate Gen. Robert E. Lee's first invasion of the North was repulsed by the Army of the Potomac under Maj. Gen. George B. McClellan, who moved to intercept Lee and his Army of Northern Virginia and eventually attacked it near Sharpsburg, Maryland. The resulting Battle of Antietam was the bloodiest single-day battle in American history.
Following his victory in the northern Virginia campaign, Lee moved north with 55,000 men through the Shenandoah Valley starting on September 4, 1862. His objective was to resupply his army outside of the war-torn Virginia theater and to damage Northern morale in anticipation of the November elections. He undertook the risky maneuver of splitting his army so that he could continue north into Maryland while simultaneously capturing the Federal garrison and arsenal at Harpers Ferry.

/But I don't think that's what he was referring to...
 
2020-06-25 3:55:57 PM  
Debate?
We had a war.

Decided shiat.

And the losers surrendered.

If they want another war, it will be kill them all and take all their shiat time.
No exceptions, no excuses.
Nazis, Confederates, doesn't matter.
You break terms of surrender, you die.

Them's the rules.
 
2020-06-25 3:58:05 PM  

special20: HighOnCraic: It's not like they were the least bit subtle:

What security have you for your own safety if every man of vile temper, of low instincts, of base purpose, can find in his own heart a higher law than that which is the rule of society, the Constitution, and the Bible? These higher-law preachers should be tarred and feathered, and whipped by those they have thus instigated. This, my friends, is what was called in good old revolutionary times, Lynch Law. It is sometimes the very best law, because it deals summary justice upon those who would otherwise escape from all other kinds of punishment.
Speech in New York, 1858.
Why, then, in the absence of all control over the subject of African slavery, are you agitated in relation to it? With Pharisaical pretension it is sometimes said it is a moral obligation to agitate, and I suppose they are going through a sort of vicarious repentance for other men's sins... Who gave them a right to decide that it is a sin? By what standard do they measure it? Not the Constitution; the Constitution recognizes the property in many forms, and imposes obligations in connection with that recognition. Not the Bible; that justifies it. Not the good of society; for if they go where it exists, they find that society recognizes it as good...
Speech in Boston (11 October 1858).

Whether by the House or by the People, if an Abolitionist be chosen President of the United States, you will have presented to you the question of whether you will permit the government to pass into the hands of your avowed and implacable enemies... such a result would be a species of revolution by which the purposes of the Government would be destroyed and the observance of its mere forms entitled to no respect. In that event, in such manner as should be most expedient, I should deem it your duty to provide for your safely outside the Union of those who have shown the will, and would have acquired the power, to deprive you of your birthright and reduce you to worse than the ...

You really don't need to post these quotes by a known traitor and racist.


If that were the standard we'd never have threads about Trump's tweets either.

....actually I have no problem with that. Carry on.
 
2020-06-25 3:58:54 PM  
In the vast majority of all wars ever, the people actually fighting and dying aren't the ones reaping the benefits of winning.  How many soldiers in the countless wars for land do you think even owned land, much less got any share of new land being conquered?  How many every directly fought for the hand of a lovely queen?  Even a war for independence is really just a war to transfer ownership of the country from one privileged group to another, where the overwhelming majority of soldiers are not part of either group.

Soldiers fight for their tribe, because tribalism works.  Sick farks throughout history have exploited this human nature to their immense benefit.  Countless people have fought and died for someone else's cause because someone told them the other guys were evil, or coming to take their land and kill their families, or any number of other bullshiat excuses that boils down to, "they are the other."

Southern soldiers fought for their state/confederacy, Nazis fought for Germany, Roman soldiers fought for Rome, crusaders fought for their religion, peasants fought for their lords. War never changes.
 
2020-06-25 3:58:57 PM  
"(I)ts foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man"

Alexander Stephens, VP of the CSA, Known Traitor, Scumbag
 
2020-06-25 3:59:28 PM  

vudukungfu: Debate?
We had a war.

Decided shiat.

And the losers surrendered.

If they want another war, it will be kill them all and take all their shiat time.
No exceptions, no excuses.
Nazis, Confederates, doesn't matter.
You break terms of surrender, you die.

Them's the rules.


"Kill them all and take their shiat" time?

The Nazis did that in WWII. In fact, the Confederates did that to the various African nations from which their slaves came. I guess you were all for it because they won the war, right? Winners should feel free to commit genocide and war crimes whenever, wherever, because winning. Thanks for sharing your ethos, I feel we all learned something today.
 
Displayed 50 of 107 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter




In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.