Dude

Jump to: navigation, search

We are on RW 3.0. Rule of thumb, don't edit debates that haven't been active for a while. Cheers.

ТyTalk.00:27, 10 March 2011

Also, you can edit pages if you feel like it. This is a wiki, if your edits are crap I have teh magic rollback button.

ТyTalk.17:50, 10 March 2011

Same with you (rolls eyes).

Just don't be like this guy and I'm sure everything will work out just fine.

ТyTalk.17:57, 10 March 2011

Really?

ТyTalk.19:33, 10 March 2011

Yes, the Confederacy was founded over states' rights and NOT racism.

Before this gets out of hand, I need to at least try to adjust your goat levels.

Hopefully this works, or I will be forced to demolish your fervently held beliefs using facts, which takes longer.

Picon small.pngAcer Blue19:45, 10 March 2011

The Confederates' formal reason for secession was to preserve states' rights, but by far the biggest reason they wanted the states' rights was to preserve slavery.

Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX20:09, 10 March 2011

I am saying the CSA, the government and country was not racist. I know that most Confederates were racist, but so was most Northerners.

Also, Dishonest Abe didn't care about slavery.

Ceiling cat.jpg W A R N I N G

You are not logged in. Your IP address will be recorded in this page's edit history, and will be visible to anyone. See our privacy policy for further information. To protect your privacy, please log in or create an account

Please note that all contributions to RationalWiki are considered to be released under the CC-BY-SA 3.0, or any later version (see RationalWiki:Copyrights for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource.
Do not submit copyrighted work unless you have permission.

Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)
Your changes will be visible immediately.

Please note:

Yeah, it was about states' rights to protect slave owners rights. "All right, what author passes for an "historian" in your school..." Thomas DiLorenzo, no doubt.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)21:44, 10 March 2011
 

Zinn is a bona fide historian, LX, however much you disagree with him. He is a revisionist, not a negationist or a denialist.

Picon small.pngAcer Blue22:09, 10 March 2011

In some cases, he is. But the above was merely a reference to his belief that Lincoln cared little about slavery.

Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX22:23, 10 March 2011
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support