The Official "RIU History" Thread

[Antidisestablishmentarian]

but they are basically southern states..maybe lincoln was trying to ease them into?

is washington dc northern or southern?

They were Union states. They did not secede and were allowed to keep their slaves. I think he didn't want them freed there so that those four states would not secede as well. It would have been horrible timing, with Union forces making headway into the southern states and having recently taken Tenessee.

My statement was Lincoln freed no slaves in the U.S. He freed them in a foreign country(CSA). That statement is correct. Even though the Union had taken Tenessee, it was still a CSA state, but was occupied by Union forces. The CSA would have tried eventually(once the war turned in their favor, which it never did) to take it back. Thankfully, the Union kept making gains and eventually the Confederates surrendered. Now we have no more legal slavery.

Unfortunately, slavery continues to this day in America and there are more slaves in the world now, than in the entire 300+ years of the African slave trade. It's sad, really.

 

[schuylaar]

They were Union states. They did not secede and were allowed to keep their slaves. I think he didn't want them freed there so that those four states would not secede as well. It would have been horrible timing, with Union forces making headway into the southern states and having recently taken Tenessee.

My statement was Lincoln freed no slaves in the U.S. He freed them in a foreign country(CSA). That statement is correct. Even though the Union had taken Tenessee, it was still a CSA state, but was occupied by Union forces. The CSA would have tried eventually(once the war turned in their favor, which it never did) to take it back. Thankfully, the Union kept making gains and eventually the Confederates surrendered. Now we have no more legal slavery.

Unfortunately, slavery continues to this day in America and there are more slaves in the world now, than in the entire 300+ years of the African slave trade. It's sad, really.

you can change this..have you looked at bernie sanders' platform? let's not think left or right (or north and south).

look at the person and what he's saying.

you know how passionate you are and want to make a difference?..you can..it's still possible in the country.

look at harrekin and how he raves 'free market'..soci-capi is all it is.

don't be afraid of 'ism's'.

 

[schuylaar]

They were Union states. They did not secede and were allowed to keep their slaves. I think he didn't want them freed there so that those four states would not secede as well. It would have been horrible timing, with Union forces making headway into the southern states and having recently taken Tenessee.

My statement was Lincoln freed no slaves in the U.S. He freed them in a foreign country(CSA). That statement is correct. Even though the Union had taken Tenessee, it was still a CSA state, but was occupied by Union forces. The CSA would have tried eventually(once the war turned in their favor, which it never did) to take it back. Thankfully, the Union kept making gains and eventually the Confederates surrendered. Now we have no more legal slavery.

Unfortunately, slavery continues to this day in America and there are more slaves in the world now, than in the entire 300+ years of the African slave trade. It's sad, really.

did you get a chance to read this?:

https://www.rollitup.org/t/from-the-web.873151/

this is the best i've seen which describes what has happened in the US.

 

[Antidisestablishmentarian]

you can change this..have you looked at bernie sanders' platform? let's not think left or right (or north and south).

look at the person and what he's saying.

you know how passionate you are and want to make a difference?..you can..it's still possible in the country.

look at harrekin and how he raves 'free market'..soci-capi is all it is.

don't be afraid of 'ism's'.

Um..... What? This is a post about history. I was correcting a perception of history.

As for changing the present slavery, I already donate to a few organizations that are currently trying to end slavery worldwide.

 

[Antidisestablishmentarian]

did you get a chance to read this?:

https://www.rollitup.org/t/from-the-web.873151/

this is the best i've seen which describes what has happened in the US.

Yes I read that thread. Not sure what it has to do with the emancipation proclamation only freeing slaves in a foreign country though...

As for who to vote for in the primaries... I have not decided. It's way too early and I'm sure there will be a few more candidates entering the race.

As for Bernie, if he wins, he will be 75 when he takes office. Who will be vp? That is just as important a question as it was in 08 with McCain. And boy was it important then....

 

[schuylaar]

Yes I read that thread. Not sure what it has to do with the emancipation proclamation only freeing slaves in a foreign country though...

As for who to vote for in the primaries... I have not decided. It's way too early and I'm sure there will be a few more candidates entering the race.

As for Bernie, if he wins, he will be 75 when he takes office. Who will be vp? That is just as important a question as it was in 08 with McCain. And boy was it important then....

the first step is he would have to win the primary to announce a vp..no one announce's vp until then..it's against protocol.

ronald reagan was 72 when he took office in 1980; life expectancy had been fined tuned since then..many will say they were happy with reagan's 8.

the question is..if you had a choice (once you look at platform) would you vote for hillbill or bernie?..you see, it's all about getting hillbill away from the 'anointing'..the right can participate in this..it's sooooooo easy!

you re-register as an independent (or dem) and you vote in the primary.

his vp will be elizabeth warren.

 

[Antidisestablishmentarian]

the first step is he would have to win the primary to announce a vp..no one announce's vp until then..it's against protocol.

ronald reagan was 72 when he took office in 1980; life expectancy had been fined tuned since then..many will say they were happy with reagan's 8.

the question is..if you had a choice (once you look at platform) would you vote for hillbill or bernie?..you see, it's all about getting hillbill away from the 'anointing'..the right can participate in this..it's sooooooo easy!

you re-register as an independent (or dem) and you vote in the primary.

his vp will be elizabeth warren.

I'm already a registered independent.

And I told you, I don't know who my vote is going to. I know it's not going to a legacy candidate though. So no Bushes or Clintons for me.

My vote will honestly not mean much to anyone but me. This is Texas, the GOP candidate has an extremely high chance of taking the electoral votes here. Virtually 100%.

If I had to decide right this second, I'm writing in Gary Johnson.

 

[schuylaar]

I'm already a registered independent.

And I told you, I don't know who my vote is going to. I know it's not going to a legacy candidate though. So no Bushes or Clintons for me.

My vote will honestly not mean much to anyone but me. This is Texas, the GOP candidate has an extremely high chance of taking the electoral votes here. Virtually 100%.

If I had to decide right this second, I'm writing in Gary Johnson.

may we debate this? what is his appeal?

EDIT: i just looked up his platform..i can see why you like him.

 

[potroastV2]

There were two States that were not aligned with either the Union or the Confederacy and they were Missouri and Kentucky.

Missouri and Kentucky were not Union states, and they did not secede and join the Confederacy.

 

[TBoneJack]

There were two States that were not aligned with either the Union or the Confederacy and they were Missouri and Kentucky.

Missouri and Kentucky were not Union states, and they did not secede and join the Confederacy.

And did you know that even California was fiercely divided during the civil war? Amazing that it went that far west.

Were there even slaves in California? I wouldn't think so, but IDK.

 

[schuylaar]

And did you know that even California was fiercely divided during the civil war? Amazing that it went that far west.

Were there even slaves in California? I wouldn't think so, but IDK.

my ex-husband was the civil war expert..his family served then as well as revolutionary.

 

[UncleBuck]

Nope. My problem is the perception is not reality. Perception: emancipation proclamation freed all the slaves. Reality: just slaves in the CSA were freed and none were freed in the Union states.

States that had slaves AFTER the civil war:

Maryland, Missouri, Delaware, and Kentucky. All were Union states.

all of them below the mason dixn line, too.

you must be dumber than a bag of cocks if you think we can't see that your only true intent here is to express how much you dislike lincoln while trying to hide your white power sentiments.

 

[UncleBuck]

They were Union states.

The Mason–Dixon line...represents the cultural border between the Southern United States and the Northern United States.

The CSA would have tried eventually(once the war turned in their favor....)

just pathetic.

 

[UncleBuck]

And did you know that even California was fiercely divided during the civil war? Amazing that it went that far west.

Were there even slaves in California? I wouldn't think so, but IDK.

if you bothered to check the link i posted, murdoch, you would see that there weren't.

but, you are content to be dumb it appears.

 

[schuylaar]

all of them below the mason dixn line, too.

you must be dumber than a bag of cocks if you think we can't see that your only true intent here is to express how much you dislike lincoln while trying to hide your white power sentiments.

personally, i don't remember texas as being s confederate state..like i said..my ex was the civil war buff..big time.

 

[TBoneJack]

if you bothered to check the link i posted, murdoch, you would see that there weren't.

but, you are content to be dumb it appears.

What was your link, needle dick? I'll read it.

 

[UncleBuck]

personally, i don't remember texas as being s confederate state..like i said..my ex was the civil war buff..big time.

texas was hugely confederate.

this is the state that antidis is so proud of...

 

[UncleBuck]

What was your link, needle dick? I'll read it.

no, my link was not about smal penises. so you're probably not all that interested.

 

[TBoneJack]

no, my link was not about smal penises. so you're probably not all that interested.

No, I'm not interested in your "smal" penis.

 

[schuylaar]

texas was hugely confederate.

this is the state that antidis is so proud of...

if i read correctly is seems like that was all the civil war was about..the right to hold others as slaves specifically negro.

how do you think that would have worked out if things went the other way?

does anyone think that would still be in play..how could it? i mean slavery had to be on it's way out due to the industrial revolution latter half 1860's+.