You give me too much credit. lol (And sorry for calling you Betgo earlier).You are now deliberately nitpicking. You know what I wanted to say.
And Maryland wasn't innocent either.You don't think Mayland belonged to Marylanders, who couldn't find the clause in the Constitution whereby a President can conduct unilateral war against a State?
Yes, the troops would also have such rights, but who put them in harm's way? And on what legal basis? Not to dwell on the point of one man's peace protesters are another man's angry mob - Lincoln is not just going after mobs. The army arrests politicians and police.-rioted against the presence of the federal troops by organizing mobs that attacked the soldiers
I am not sure I would put that one on "Marylanders." Lincoln was later shot. The background, escape, and hiding of John Surrat is through Catholic institutions, and he ends up in the Papal States, where they did not turn him over to Pinkerton when he is found. This suggests Mr. Lincoln may have had deadly enemies beyond "Maryland." In my understanding, the Baltimore Plot did not result in an indictment, and alleged suspect is a barber from Corsica? Hmm.- attempted to organize an assassination attempt on Lincoln' life.
Also, learn proper grammar and syntax. The fact you don't comprehend that most blacks in your own country have issues towards slavery is pretty telling.I assume I am descended from slaves and I do not feel angry. Maybe that is unnatural, but who should I be angry with?
Is that first question rhetorical, or there an answer beyond they got here by boat. Weren't they slaves in Africa (mostly) held in coastal forts, sold in lots of hundreds? So, who made them slaves first? The other Africans.
For those who need to feel angry, I would recommend getting as much information as possible so as not misdirect the anger. Let's see, there were racist white southerners who stole their labor from 1776 to 1865, and there were racist white northerners who passed laws keeping the blacks out of almost everywhere there wasn't slavery, and the rich "abolitionists" used the slaves as a political wedge to justify eventually conquering the south - and left the freed slaves, the ones who didn't die in the resulting humanitarian disaster, right where they stood, without property or compensation amidst the racist white southerners.
As much as this has to do with black anger, I sense much has to do with white guilt - and trying to shove all of it on the south. It's very transparent. That's what I think drives so much of people not being able to admit there was nothing wrong with secession. The south must be blamed, or guess what? It's a national sin.
|Similar History Discussions||History Forum||Date|
|History of Wisdom Teeth Removal||General History|
|Confederate memorials and monuments, removal of||Current Events|
|Samuel Worcester/Indian Removal Act question||North American History|
|Does the removal of autocracy lead to a rise in nationalism||Philosophy / Sociology|