Yes, Lance. That's possible, but only marginally. And I'm not torn inside for whatever it is I am.
Lance and his confederate flag phobia, lol
Lance has a confederate flag phobia? Whats up with that? Does not make any sense. Sounds like a conspiracy theory to this poster. Right Lance?
Lance is an establishment globalist, and as such, he supports the oppressive corporate-driven agenda of the left.
Anyway, on the Civil war issue. When I was a kid, in 1890 or whenever, we were told the Civil War was about slavery.
Then the lefties revisionists told us it wasn't about slavery at all, Lincoln wanted to keep the oppressive Federal government in place, and used slavery as an excuse. Lincoln bad.
However, perhaps now that particular leftie explanation has gone done the memory hole - and now the Civil War was about slavery, after all.
Forget that "it was about federalism" nonsense. Never happened.
Would someone please name a war that didn't focus on money or monetary gain in some part? I just cannot think of one. As the conventional wisdom says "follow the money".
OH, by the way, If the Civil War was all about freeing the slaves then why did open hostilities begin in 1861 and yet Lincoln did not make a proclamation freeing the slaves until 1863 when the tide of popular opinion was turning against the North?
"Most of these monuments were erected forty or fifty years into reconstruction with the intent to bolster Jim Crow."
More accurately: Most of these monuments were erected by Democrats forty or fifty years into reconstruction with the intent to bolster the Democratic party's Jim Crow laws.
Take them down! Why cherish Democratic party icons?
LOL. Nice try, mainememe. Only the Trump-humpers buy that "party of Lincoln" malarkey.
Rebecca, none of the southern states supported Lincoln, they knew he thought the country couldn't endure, half slave, half free, so they decided to leave the union before he tried to do something about it.
Jasper, I'm glad you LOLed, it was supposed to be funny, if also accurate.
@Rebecca: "Would someone please name a war that didn't focus on money or monetary gain in some part? I just cannot think of one. As the conventional wisdom says "follow the money"."
What financially do we have to gain from the war in Afghanistan? No oil there.
Big pharm would like to retain it's influence over big opium farms. I hear there's money in them thar poppies.
Mainemom, I agree, the South did NOT support Lincoln at all. It was the loss of support from people in the North who were seeing their Sons coming home in pieces that was of concern to Lincoln. The loss of Northern support was of concern politically and the use of Slavery played well in 1863 to bolster that support. Slavery was a much discussed issue in the North and it had its supporters and its detractors (hence the underground railroad) What I point out is the obvious axiom "Money speaks louder than words".
There is always another point of view and usually the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
Mainememe, you misunderstood my LOL. I wasn't laughing at your post. I was laughing at you. Sorry for the confusion.
Lance taking on Mainemom is like a man with no arms challenging a professional boxer to a match.
Liberals like Lance are not aware that Democrats support drug production and the use of the US military to acquire mineral wealth. Liberals are not aware they are useful idiots.
War has always been about resources and control. Alongside the supposed surprise discovery of Afghanistan’s $1 trillion wealth of untapped minerals, the Taliban had successfully eradicated the opium crop in the Golden Crescent before the US invasion. Now, more than 90% of the world’s heroin comes from the war torn country.
As reported by Global Research:
“Immediately following the October 2001 invasion, opium markets were restored…By early 2002, the opium price (in dollars/kg) was almost 10 times higher than in 2000. In 2001, under the Taliban opiate production stood at 185 tons, increasing to 3400 tons in 2002 under the US sponsored puppet regime of President Hamid Karzai.”
After more than twelve years of military occupation, Afghanistan’s opium trade isn’t just sustaining, it’s thriving more than ever before. According to a recent report from the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, 2013 saw opium production surge to record highs:
“The harvest this May resulted in 5,500 metric tons of opium, 49 percent higher than last year and more than the combined output of the rest of the world.”
Google: ‘United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime’s 2014 Afghan Opium Survey’
And you get the pdf report on opium production in Afghanistan.
I've always been of the opinion that the Dred Scott decision by the Supreme Court lead directly to the Civil War, since it eliminated the possibility of any further compromises on the issue of slavery. The decision meant simply that any slave owner could recover any runaway slave from any locality in the nation, and the local government and constabulary were compelled to assist and bear the costs of doing so. (Kinda like ICE in a sanctuary city today). Thus any state's right to be a free state was eliminated. Not one voice of protest from the south. Abolitionists in the north suddenly found themselves in a nation where the only way to eliminate slavery locally was to eliminate it entirely - the issue was instantly nationalized.
The Civil War was about slavery, because state's rights were already gone, killed by the Dred Scott decision.