[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;38894365]Civil war was about state's rights, not rights to slaves.[/QUOTE]
I understand that. And one of the key issues in state rights was the legality of slavery.
[editline]19th December 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;38894428]We understand it and we're pissed about it, but the fuck we gonna do? All I can do for the moment is send angry letters and emails to local politicians that won't get read.[/QUOTE]
I wonder if they'll add rail attachments to the new AWB.
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;38894473]I understand that. And one of the key issues in state rights was the legality of slavery.
[editline]19th December 2012[/editline]
I wonder if they'll add rail attachments to the new AWB.[/QUOTE] slavery had literally nothing to do with the civil war. It was 100% about states rights
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;38894473]I understand that. And one of the key issues in state rights was the legality of slavery.[/QUOTE]
I'm not well versed on the issue but IIRC, it was mostly about Lincoln being elected, and he was pro-slavery or neutral-slavery in his running platform. Only reason he was against it in the end was because most of the north had no use for slave anymore and he could use slavery as more justification for the war.
If anything, the civil war is proof why it's important to have a well armed civilian populous. Biggest reason the South kicked ass on the battlefield was because most of them had prior experience with rifles, and the north didn't.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;38894558]I'm not well versed on the issue but IIRC, it was mostly about Lincoln being elected, and he was pro-slavery or neutral-slavery in his running platform. Only reason he was against it in the end was because most of the north had no use for slave anymore and he could use slavery as more justification for the war.
If anything, the civil war is proof why it's important to have a well armed civilian populous. Biggest reason the South kicked ass on the battlefield was because most of them had prior experience with rifles, and the north didn't.[/QUOTE]
I thought that it was mainly Lee having a great instinct on when to counter attack.
That is why they won a lot of battles early war, right?
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;38894598]I thought that it was mainly Lee having a great instinct on when to counter attack.
That is why they won a lot of battles early war, right?[/QUOTE]
It certainly helped that most of the South's infantry had prior experience with hunting, where as most of the North didn't.
Lincoln was pro slavery and owned slaves himself, the entire reason he abolished slavery was to take a moral high ground so the north would forever be remembered as the "good guys"
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;38894547]slavery had literally nothing to do with the civil war. It was 100% about states rights[/QUOTE]
The states rights to own slaves, which falls under states rights. Technically both are true. Several states reasons for secessions mention the issue of slavery, Texas doing so 21 times.
Slavery was a big part of the south even during war. Slaves were used for labor and you could even be exempt from conscription if you owned a certain amount of slaves.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;38894214]The csa had planned to abolish slavery and importation of new slaves was already banned under the confederate constitution
don't believe the twisted history you learned in high school[/QUOTE]
I can't find a source on the abolition statement but their constitution did indeed stop the importation.
The reason the South out preformed the North in the Early Stages of the war was because a majority of Military officers at the time were southerners, and many, like Lee and Jackson, returned to their states to fight for them. It's actually quite interesting because while army commanders went back to states the vast majority of Navy officers did not. From the research I did on the subject for a paper recently it seems the Navy at the time had a greater sense of Nationalism... Also interesting is that the majority of the 50,000 regular US Army soldiers stood with the Union.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;38894657]Lincoln was pro slavery and owned slaves himself, the entire reason he abolished slavery was to take a moral high ground so the north would forever be remembered as the "good guys"[/QUOTE]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it his wife that owned slaves?
[editline]19th December 2012[/editline]
I'm just finding it odd, since if you look at his record as a congressmen, he was totally anti slavery.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;38894639]It certainly helped that most of the South's infantry had prior experience with hunting, where as most of the North didn't.[/QUOTE]
Yes and no... this helps an Army if all other factors are equal. But when the North can put 2 million men into the War when you can only produce 1 million, and at the same time establish a blockade that cripples whatever economy you have, which is mostly built on Cotton, not even textiles just raw cotton. It's really no contest.
[editline]19th December 2012[/editline]
Anyway anyone ever heard of Remsport Mfg.? They are the only AR lowers I can find... and I can't seem to find any info on them at all.
And the reason why they won most of the early battles, counter attack charges, was also kind of why they couldn't hold out.
Sending your men to charge a lot kinda gets them killed.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;38894547]slavery had literally nothing to do with the civil war. It was 100% about states rights[/QUOTE]
are you high
For fucks sake, this isn't about the civil war. This is about now, our 2nd amendment is on the line and now is not the fucking time to be arguing over who would've freed the slaves and what could've been done different.y
Anyway, once I get my musket, I'm gonna modify it into an assault weapon. I already got the bayonet lug, I just need to figure out how to change a few details without totally screwing up the stock.
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;38894700]Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it his wife that owned slaves?[/QUOTE]
Part of marriage is that your property becomes your spouse's property. While (to my knowledge) Lincoln never bought any himself, his wife brought them into the marriage.
I remember reading that he came from a slave owning family too but it was uncited
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;38894657]Lincoln was pro slavery and owned slaves himself, the entire reason he abolished slavery was to take a moral high ground so the north would forever be remembered as the "good guys"[/QUOTE]
Lincoln was arguing against slavery for decades. He never owned slaves and came from a very anti-slavery background, religiously and in terms of upbringing. I'd say it was a more important issue than making the geographical north look like the good guys.
I guess I'll see you guys in Peshawar.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;38894834]Part of marriage is that your property becomes your spouse's property. While (to my knowledge) Lincoln never bought any himself, his wife brought them into the marriage.
I remember reading that he came from a slave owning family too but it was uncited[/QUOTE]
His wife's family was pro slavery and owned a lot of them. Lincoln's family was actually kinda neutral on the thing, leaning towards against it. I remember reading that they moved to a state with laws against it.
[QUOTE=Skullivan21;38894750]Yes and no... this helps an Army if all other factors are equal. But when the North can put 2 million men into the War when you can only produce 1 million, and at the same time establish a blockade that cripples whatever economy you have, which is mostly built on Cotton, not even textiles just raw cotton. It's really no contest.
[editline]19th December 2012[/editline]
Anyway anyone ever heard of Remsport Mfg.? They are the only AR lowers I can find... and I can't seem to find any info on them at all.[/QUOTE] I've heard pretty neutral reviews, they supposedly neither fail nor succeed at any one point
[QUOTE=Skullivan21;38894750]Yes and no... this helps an Army if all other factors are equal. But when the North can put 2 million men into the War when you can only produce 1 million, and at the same time establish a blockade that cripples whatever economy you have, which is mostly built on Cotton, not even textiles just raw cotton. It's really no contest.
[editline]19th December 2012[/editline]
Anyway anyone ever heard of Remsport Mfg.? They are the only AR lowers I can find... and I can't seem to find any info on them at all.[/QUOTE]
yeah, sadly skill is irrelevant when your enemy cripples your economy, burns your cities to the ground, and uses soviet style human wave tactics.
It's an OEM which is why you can't find much on them. Supposedly they make really damn good 1911 frames though so there's that
I really hope this AWB doesn't go through, I really wanted to get an AK-12 next year.
I would suggest that everyone get an email out to your State Senators, Reps, and Gov about not supporting a new AWB, and also get friends and family to do the same. If we, the Gun Owning Community, can shout load enough we should be able to, at the least, make it harder to get these idiotic laws through.
[editline]19th December 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;38894901]yeah, sadly skill is irrelevant when your enemy cripples your economy, burns your cities to the ground, and uses soviet style human wave tactics.[/QUOTE]
William Tecumseh Sherman... he is one of my Military Icons. Love to read about his March through the South.
I wanted to get my own AR-15 and a Glock 20. Also fuck my uncle, he gets on my last damn nerves. He thinks there is absolutely no reason to have more than 10 rounds in a gun at any time. Also he's an AMD fan boy. I can't explain to him that 30 rounders work for competition shooting, fun at the range like mag dumps, and that they are great for any type of "Oh shit" moment where shit goes down.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;38894901]yeah, sadly skill is irrelevant when your enemy cripples your economy, burns your cities to the ground, and uses soviet style human wave tactics.[/QUOTE]
I gotta disagree on this. It's kinda oversimplifying things. The city burning wasn't until the late war march through Georgia, and the bigger issue is that the south hardly even had an economy that was anything but raw resources. If denying them trade by sea to two countries can affect it that much, it wasn't like it was going to succeed in the first place.
[QUOTE=Skullivan21;38894957]
William Tecumseh Sherman... he is one of my Military Icons. Love to read about his March through the South.[/QUOTE]
as a Georgia-born-Southerner, I don't like to read about Sherman's march :(
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;38894884]I've heard pretty neutral reviews, they supposedly neither fail nor succeed at any one point[/QUOTE]
Thanks, I did some more digging on other forums and the few, very few, who have them seem to like them. I may jump on it since I can't find anything else.
I love Sherman. He didn't give a fuck about Slavery. He just believed in a United America and did whatever he could to see it through.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;38895006]as a Georgia-born-Southerner, I don't like to read about Sherman's march :([/QUOTE]
IMO, he revolutionized warfare by going after production capability and not just manpower, I mean the Civil War in general is a testing bed for things like Trench Warfare. And I think Sherman is like our Rommel, or Patton to be more politically correct, in that he kinda did something not many Generals thought of doing at the time.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;38895006]as a Georgia-born-Southerner, I don't like to read about Sherman's march :([/QUOTE]
The union army is powered by Dixie tears.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
