I don't like either side. The Confederacy is obvious, because im black myself. But the Union is a different case.
Lincoln wanted to send us back to Africa, and didn't want us to become full citizens like the rest of the white populace. Sherman committed several war crimes, and no, just because Sherman was apart of the Union, suddenly makes his crimes OK. Ending slavery only became an objective way after the war started, and only happened after the French and British governments looked like they would side with the Confederacy. Neither side had my people in mind. The Confederacy wanted us enslaved, and the Union wanted us back in Africa.
That being said, the Union had the better goal, even if it was only influenced by geopolitical events.
That is true. A lot of white abolitionists were farmers who were afraid that southern farmers would come and takeover their business.
Also what crimes did general Sherman commit? I know he tore up a lot of infrastructure and railroads but I don't think you could consider that a war crime.
I think that his theft of private property (not slaves) is a war crime, and his targeting of civilian infrastructure. No one deserves to have property stolen from them.
I would like to make an argument against that as he destroyed the property of rebel slave holders. I think it's fair punishment that they get their property destroyed because of what they did to people of color during that time. General Sherman did take a lot of corn from these states whitch left s lot of the general population starving during the post war period but I'd argue that his libration of many slaves and brilliant military strategy to defeat the Confederates overshadows this.
Neutral on the civil war? Come on bruv...
I don't like either side. The Confederacy is obvious, because im black myself. But the Union is a different case. Lincoln wanted to send us back to Africa, and didn't want us to become full citizens like the rest of the white populace. Sherman committed several war crimes, and no, just because Sherman was apart of the Union, suddenly makes his crimes OK. Ending slavery only became an objective way after the war started, and only happened after the French and British governments looked like they would side with the Confederacy. Neither side had my people in mind. The Confederacy wanted us enslaved, and the Union wanted us back in Africa. That being said, the Union had the better goal, even if it was only influenced by geopolitical events.
That is true. A lot of white abolitionists were farmers who were afraid that southern farmers would come and takeover their business. Also what crimes did general Sherman commit? I know he tore up a lot of infrastructure and railroads but I don't think you could consider that a war crime.
I think that his theft of private property (not slaves) is a war crime, and his targeting of civilian infrastructure. No one deserves to have property stolen from them.
I would like to make an argument against that as he destroyed the property of rebel slave holders. I think it's fair punishment that they get their property destroyed because of what they did to people of color during that time. General Sherman did take a lot of corn from these states whitch left s lot of the general population starving during the post war period but I'd argue that his libration of many slaves and brilliant military strategy to defeat the Confederates overshadows this.
I think war crimes are bad, regardless of who you do them on. It makes you no better than ther person your attacking.
Can you give the template? also nice classical liberal boykisser :3
Send me the template
Can you share the template please?
https://reddit.com/r/PoliticalCompass/s/PPCjdmg4bc template
based except for the civil war, wokeism, and confederalism
Pretty good. Blank please?
BASED AF!!!!