Would that be because the Union overran and subjugated the Confederacy? After all, the victor writes the history, right? That's why the War of Union Aggression was all about 'slavery', right? Because talking about any of the grievances cited by the seceding States would detract from that egregious lie, wouldn't it? Let's take a little trip down (real) Memory Lane:

From Georgia:
"They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war. Our people, still attached to the Union from habit and national traditions, and averse to change, hoped that time, reason, and argument would bring, if not redress, at least exemption from further insults, injuries, and dangers. Recent events have fully dissipated all such hopes and demonstrated the necessity of separation."

From The Great State of Texas:
"By the disloyalty of the Northern States and their citizens and the imbecility of the Federal Government, infamous combinations of incendiaries and outlaws have been permitted in those States and the common territory of Kansas to trample upon the federal laws, to war upon the lives and property of Southern citizens in that territory, and finally, by violence and mob law, to usurp the possession of the same as exclusively the property of the Northern States.

The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refuse reimbursement therefor, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas.

These and other wrongs we have patiently borne in the vain hope that a returning sense of justice and humanity would induce a different course of administration."

There's more, but I think that about covers it.

How would know, we exchange trite insults to one another.

Just because agree with you doesn't mean I am poster child for invincible ignorance...indeed, I say so little that....and yet apparently you throw shit at me like a monkey.

What's a Encyclopedia Britannica? Is that where you get your information from? LOL.

Being from the north you don't offer any objective rebuttals. From my perspective, being only a 3rd generation American, anyone south of the Mason/Dixon line should be remembered as a traitor (veteran or not), I don't care what changed after the war or when. I visit the south frequently and all I see are stars and bars, if you're flying that piece of "potty wipe" you're a traitor....and most people up North would agree with me, unless you're talking to people who are not natives.

I didn't start the argument, the south did. You lost, get over it. You clowns voted for a Yankee car salesman, talk about, invincible ignorance, hahahahahahahahahaha...ad infinitum.

"How would know, we exchange trite insults to one another."

"Just because agree with you doesn't mean I am poster child for invincible ignorance...indeed, I say so little that....and yet apparently you throw shit at me like a monkey."

You claim that you are a third generation American? Don't you think it's time you learned to speak English?
You are such a stupid little pissant. You accuse others of throwing shit like a monkey, and yet you expose your ignorance and your stupidity with every post. You have no idea what the Constitution says, or what the SCOTUS has ruled, you have no idea how to look it up to find out for yourself, and yet you think you are qualified to offer an opinion. Opinions are like assholes, pissant. Yours stinks worse than most, because it reeks of dumbass.

By the way, Dumbass Boy; you asked about Encyclopaedia Britannica.


The Encyclopædia Britannica (Latin for "British Encyclopaedia"), published by Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., is a general knowledge English-language encyclopaedia. It is written by about 100 full-time editors and more than 4,000 contributors, who have included 110 Nobel Prize winners and five American presidents. It has been published since 1788.
Where do you get your information? Salon and Mother Jones?
Go play in traffic and stop interrupting your betters.

How old are you: 12?

The first amendment, if you have bothered to look that up, allows: what?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I'll say whatever I want, and if you want to change a few of my rights: get to work. In lieu of that, you invincible ignoramus, you better brush up on the constitution.

I didn't ask about E.B. it's out of date as soon as it's printed. Who gives a flying f__k about it.