Secession had everything to do with two things. One, the south felt the federal goverment was unjustly taxing the south. The truth was, the south had a smaller population and that population WAS the richest in the nation. The second is the cotton gin, when it was created the slave boom went through the roof. It did increase slaves from 2 million to over 4 million in a couple of years.
It's the U.S. govt, the south is government property, secession was no different than stealing.
Stonewall demonstrates leadership at its finest. He is a great example to any warrior of affection, communication and being a standard bearer. I wrote an article about this video and how it relates to your family.
@mustwinder accurate. Stonewall was a great man,and a great leader.Its a shame that the North won and dictated history and propaganda to lie about the south.
@Mathew1985AZ “Every man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late...It means the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern schoolteachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision..."
@mustwinder -- From what I have read, which I admit is nowhere near the entirety of available sources as I am a legal historian, not a military historian, but the portrayal is quite accurate herein. Thomas Jackson was a highly talented officer, and a very respected man with a well-known reliance upon his faith. The loss of Jackson was not just a tragedy for the South, but for the nation as a whole.
@StonewallJackson26 -- by 1805, every state in the North had established the abolition of slavery. By 1861, most slaveowners had been Southerners for generations, and could not have purchased a slave north of Maryland for over fifty years. Slave markets were moving further south and west as the bulk of slaveowners did. As I said, it's a shame your good points get buried under the blatantly false ones.
@rebelyell1205 slavery had nothing to do with 600,000 dead men. The establishment of the first transcontinental railway ,the destruction of the farmers economy,and destruction of political ties to europe were all the doing of the damned north and their hypocracy and tyrant.
Schools, especially some liberal universities have become gulags for indoctrination and brainwashing. The evidence that exists, that in some measure sympathizes with the South is NEVER presented in schools and never will be. Because that teacher will be deemed a racist and a menace to society.
@StonewallJackson26 -- hmm...this contradicts my own experience in universities in three different states (in 3 different regions of the US) and one foreign country.
@StonewallJackson26 -- I'm not going to reply to all your posts, it's getting a bit much as you devolved into personal attacks. Clearly, I cannot convince you to do further research to correct your misapprehensions. That said, I think "morons like you" needs a short rebuttal. I have a PhD in 19th century American history, & have no doubt read more proper history than you ever shall. The shame is that you make some good points, but others are so blatanly false as to detract from what is good.
@rebelyell1205 You are out of your league here buddy. Anything you say, I can refute, anything you claim, I can rebut. History is a profession, but as I said most professionals learn most material through independent studying. History classes, especially in public schools have been perverted to meet a socialist curriculum that indoctrinates and drowns out any further debate about the War.
The Civil War was a Class struggle. Rich Southerners profited from Slavery for generations and New England textile mills profited mightily from cheap cotton. When the war broke out, it was the POOR who fought on both sides. Boys that had nothing to do with the issue of Slavery. Meanwhile the Republicans of the North grew fat with war profits and the rich Southern slave profiteers were never exposed to battle. This is just another example of the poor getting fucked over by the rich.
Needless to say there were also white slaves and indentured servants. You didn't have to be black to be a Slave. Slavery in the South was the remnants of an age old institution that wasn't growing by any means. In fact, no more than 10% of all Southerners at any one time in American history owned a Slave. By 1855, the percentage was getting lower and lower. One Southern State where Slavery was becoming more scarce was Virginia. Although many WEALTHY deep south plantations still flourished .
Graduating from a particular college does not make you a better historian. What you learn of history, you learn by yourself. College and school just sparks an interest in history, but in class discussions and lectures only scratch the surface of most historical conflicts. I have sat through many College level History courses and I have met many instructors that don't know shit.
@StonewallJackson26 -- Actually, graduating with a degree (or graduate degree) in history does make you a better historian -- in fact, it was what makes you a historian, just like graduating from medical school makes you a better doctor (or you know, a doctor at all). History is a rigorous academic field, not just a hobby. If your understanding of history is taken as "knowing shit," I'll credit your instructors did know history. No educated historian argues slavery was rapidly dying out.
@rebelyell1205 Learning medicine, in not like learning history. In fact most of what you learn of medicine comes in independent study. But nonetheless your comparison of the two is ridiculous. I have met many graduates from college that couldn't tell me when the War of 1812 started. I am sorry, but going to any college doesn't automatically qualify you to be a historian. Regardless of how many slaves there were out the outbreak of the Civil War, the Industrial Revolution was inevitable.
@StonewallJackson26 -- Historian is a profession, just like medicine. It has an educational process that you denigrate by your comments. Going to "any" college may not, but earning a degree in history is certainly the start to becoming a professional historian. Note the use of the term "professional" not hobbyist.
@rebelyell1205 You are way out of your league. I have so much to say on this issue that it wouldn't be appropriate to post it on message boards. History can be a profession, but even "professionals" i.e. professors have to follow a certain curriculum that not only meets the requirements of a curriculum, but are also in tuned with political correctness. When I left schools I was a strong advocate for what the Government did in the 1860's. But after researching thoroughly my opinions have changed
@StonewallJackson26 -- My "league" is PhD and university lecturer, how about yours? I'm intimately familiar with how university history departments work. The syllabus I follow is my own. It's this little thing called academic freedom. Presented correctly, one can cover any topic that is appropriately academic. Your research has not been thorough if you've not read authors like Stampp and Genovese (for a start). As I said, they are the classics. Try it out, you might like proper history.
@rebelyell1205 universities tend to be pretty biased in my opinion.Most historians are taught to overlook the biggest issue when it comes to history and war. The issue historians often overlook is economy.If Universities were accurate in teaching history they would call the "civil war" the "Northern War Of Aggression",and "The southern war for independance". The war is often praised as a war to end slavery,but it had nothing to do with slavery.Lincoln was a biggot,and a tyrant and hypocrite.
@rebelyell1205 " No educated historian argues that Slavery was dying out." That is an overtly false statement. Consider that every European country had abolished Slavery and was rapidly industrializing their economic markets, their military and their infrastructure. It is safe to say that an agrarian based region of the World like that South would not have been able to keep up militarily or economically. Slavery was obsolete. But as i said earlier, apprenticeship is something totally different.
cont. They lived as apprentices because it was a struggle for many Black Americans to assimilate right away into society. Education had never been stressed in most African cultures. Even before the Civil War, as I said earlier, the importation of Slaves had become illegal.
@StonewallJackson26 -- Importing slaves became illegal in 1808, as soon as the Constitution's provisions allowed. Yet, the number of slaves in the US continued to grow until 1863 (the only known instance of an hereditary slave population being self-perpetuating). How does this reflect that slavery was dying out? Your own evidentiary statements contradict your conclusion.
The entire conflict has been distorted with liberal propaganda and centrist agenda. Slavery was an antiquated institution by 1861 and the Industrial Revolution was just kicking in. Slavery wouldn't have made it through the winter and even with secession. Who's to say that North America wouldn't be better off with independent American federations? The system we have now is obviously failing and the Federal Government is in the process of collapsing due to the amount of strain that is put on it.
@StonewallJackson26 -- Slavery was growing in 1861; though the percentage of slaveowners was decreasing, the number of slaves was increasing. It was not an antiquated system & there is no evidence that slavery would not have adapted to a more modern economic circumstance had it survived. Your statement that it would not have survived the "winter" is blatantly false. The war was fought to preserve said institution - no Southerner would have fought so long & so nobly for a dying institution.
@rebelyell1205 You are completely wrong. Slavery was phase 9 by 1861. Most countries had already adopted a industrial based economic system. Whether the South won or lost, Slavery would have ended, seeing in that industrializing is necessary to build a war machine that could have defended their newly won independence. I have never heard one person say that Slavery was growing in the 1860's. Even the importation of Slaves was illegal by then. You are just wrong.
@StonewallJackson26 -- I'm interested in your sources. Realities in other nations do not necessarily reflect slavery's place in the Southern U.S. economy. I can recommend several books, written by professional historians, that discuss slavery's growth and economic vitality in the 1850s, leading to the secession crisis of 1860-1. You might begin with Kenneth Stampp's Peculiar Institution and Eugene Genovese's Political Economy of Slavery, as they are the most pertinent major works.
@rebelyell1205 Actually I read a lot of Stephen Sears and Shelby Foote, who give a very in depth look at life before, during and after the conflict. I feel quite confident that these men do their homework.
@StonewallJackson26 Stephen Sears is not a trained historian. Similarly, Shelby Foote is not a trained historian -- to my knowledge, he never graduated from UNC. Yes, they've done their homework & the works are accurate insofar as they go, but from what I can find, concentrate upon the war proper & not upon the events preceding the war, nor upon the economic history of the antebellum period. Read the books I recommended, both are classics within the field & are proper academic histories.
@rebelyell1205 I wouldn't consider reading anything that is trying to convey that Slavery was growing in the 1850's because it isn't logical. The US had enemies before the Civil War and most of Europe had already industrialized. Slavery was becoming economically useless and field work was being replaced by machines.
However if you are talking about apprenticeship that is something totally different. Many Blacks even after Slavery was abolished lived with white families as apprentices.
@StonewallJackson26 Good way to become educated -- refusing to even consider or read any actual research done that contradicts your supposedly "logical" point (by the way, what logic is there in arguing that the South fought a bloody, expensive, and long war over slavery if it was so rapidly dying?). Those two works are the classics of any history course dealing with the antebellum period, and the authors are widely recognized as being experts in the relevant field. Consider reading them.
Do they teach about the discrepancy in the Emancipation Proclamation, where the 3 Pro Union Slave States were allowed to keep their Slaves even after the bill was issued? Do they teach about the Tariff of 1832, that benefited the Northern states because it abolished the Cotton Trade overseas and forced the South to strictly do business with the North, at a price of the North's choosing? How do you think all of the wealth was created in New England..... textile mills.
The Federal Government lied and manipulated the conflict into something it wasn't. They demonized Southerners and wrote horrible things about them in history books. Do they ever tell you in 6th or 7th grade that less than 5% of all Southerners owned Slaves? Do they ever tell you that the bloodless Sumter was an independent act of just 500 South Carolineans that fired on a fort that had no right to be there in the first place.? Do they teach you about Gen. McDowell's unwanted invasion of VA?
Which is most probably why the Lord took His servant Home. We oft times fail to understand what the war between the states did to not only the country but to individual families. It really was brother against brother.
Stonewall had a younger sister that he deeply loved. Her loyalty was to the Union. She never spoke to her brother again.
@71superbee3 You know what I always thought. I wonder what Robert E. Lee was thinking while he was being asked to command an Army that would be unleashed on his own home? I wouldn't have been surprised if Lee was offended by the conversation. Of all commanders, the Federal Government chooses a Virginian to lean an invasion against Virginia. Is it just me, or does that strike you as a bit arrogant?
In the mid nineteenth century, people still saw their respective state as their "country". It's next to impossible to expect someone like Lee to wage war on his own "country". Lee saw it as his duty to defend Virginia.
@StonewallJackson26 Not at all arrogant. Lee was chosen because he was the best thought to be the best general in the nation at the time......period. He was also hand picked and highly recommended by Winfield Scott, who was considered the greatest General at the time, but well past his prime to participate in the war.
Lee was a West Point graduate and wore Union blue when he was asked to serve. I feel what made his decision easier was that Virginia the day before we was asked, seceeded.
Secession had everything to do with two things. One, the south felt the federal goverment was unjustly taxing the south. The truth was, the south had a smaller population and that population WAS the richest in the nation. The second is the cotton gin, when it was created the slave boom went through the roof. It did increase slaves from 2 million to over 4 million in a couple of years.
It's the U.S. govt, the south is government property, secession was no different than stealing.
mrceebees14 2 months ago
Stonewall demonstrates leadership at its finest. He is a great example to any warrior of affection, communication and being a standard bearer. I wrote an article about this video and how it relates to your family.
warriormensite 6 months ago
at his grave you can feel his power in Lexington Va...!!!
schimmelfennig1863 7 months ago
@mustwinder accurate. Stonewall was a great man,and a great leader.Its a shame that the North won and dictated history and propaganda to lie about the south.
Mathew1985AZ 8 months ago
@Mathew1985AZ “Every man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late...It means the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern schoolteachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision..."
Maj. Gen Patrick R. Cleburne
AUG351 2 months ago
Hard to believe that this guy was the bad guy from avatar. Great actor. This movie sucked though. Gettysburgh was a lot better.
halea41 10 months ago
Leonidas Grand-Grand-Grand-...-Grandson
Xelowsky 10 months ago
@mustwinder -- From what I have read, which I admit is nowhere near the entirety of available sources as I am a legal historian, not a military historian, but the portrayal is quite accurate herein. Thomas Jackson was a highly talented officer, and a very respected man with a well-known reliance upon his faith. The loss of Jackson was not just a tragedy for the South, but for the nation as a whole.
rebelyell1205 1 year ago 2
@StonewallJackson26 -- by 1805, every state in the North had established the abolition of slavery. By 1861, most slaveowners had been Southerners for generations, and could not have purchased a slave north of Maryland for over fifty years. Slave markets were moving further south and west as the bulk of slaveowners did. As I said, it's a shame your good points get buried under the blatantly false ones.
rebelyell1205 1 year ago
@rebelyell1205 slavery had nothing to do with 600,000 dead men. The establishment of the first transcontinental railway ,the destruction of the farmers economy,and destruction of political ties to europe were all the doing of the damned north and their hypocracy and tyrant.
Mathew1985AZ 8 months ago 6
@Mathew1985AZ 6% of the south owned slaves yet 65% fought for states rights
GRB01 6 months ago 3
Schools, especially some liberal universities have become gulags for indoctrination and brainwashing. The evidence that exists, that in some measure sympathizes with the South is NEVER presented in schools and never will be. Because that teacher will be deemed a racist and a menace to society.
StonewallJackson26 1 year ago
@StonewallJackson26 -- hmm...this contradicts my own experience in universities in three different states (in 3 different regions of the US) and one foreign country.
rebelyell1205 1 year ago
@StonewallJackson26 Of course you then agree that the us did not save eurupe during ww2;)
Remman 10 months ago
@StonewallJackson26 -- I'm not going to reply to all your posts, it's getting a bit much as you devolved into personal attacks. Clearly, I cannot convince you to do further research to correct your misapprehensions. That said, I think "morons like you" needs a short rebuttal. I have a PhD in 19th century American history, & have no doubt read more proper history than you ever shall. The shame is that you make some good points, but others are so blatanly false as to detract from what is good.
rebelyell1205 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rebelyell1205 You are out of your league here buddy. Anything you say, I can refute, anything you claim, I can rebut. History is a profession, but as I said most professionals learn most material through independent studying. History classes, especially in public schools have been perverted to meet a socialist curriculum that indoctrinates and drowns out any further debate about the War.
StonewallJackson26 1 year ago
The Civil War was a Class struggle. Rich Southerners profited from Slavery for generations and New England textile mills profited mightily from cheap cotton. When the war broke out, it was the POOR who fought on both sides. Boys that had nothing to do with the issue of Slavery. Meanwhile the Republicans of the North grew fat with war profits and the rich Southern slave profiteers were never exposed to battle. This is just another example of the poor getting fucked over by the rich.
StonewallJackson26 1 year ago
Needless to say there were also white slaves and indentured servants. You didn't have to be black to be a Slave. Slavery in the South was the remnants of an age old institution that wasn't growing by any means. In fact, no more than 10% of all Southerners at any one time in American history owned a Slave. By 1855, the percentage was getting lower and lower. One Southern State where Slavery was becoming more scarce was Virginia. Although many WEALTHY deep south plantations still flourished .
StonewallJackson26 1 year ago
Graduating from a particular college does not make you a better historian. What you learn of history, you learn by yourself. College and school just sparks an interest in history, but in class discussions and lectures only scratch the surface of most historical conflicts. I have sat through many College level History courses and I have met many instructors that don't know shit.
StonewallJackson26 1 year ago
@StonewallJackson26 -- Actually, graduating with a degree (or graduate degree) in history does make you a better historian -- in fact, it was what makes you a historian, just like graduating from medical school makes you a better doctor (or you know, a doctor at all). History is a rigorous academic field, not just a hobby. If your understanding of history is taken as "knowing shit," I'll credit your instructors did know history. No educated historian argues slavery was rapidly dying out.
rebelyell1205 1 year ago
@rebelyell1205 Learning medicine, in not like learning history. In fact most of what you learn of medicine comes in independent study. But nonetheless your comparison of the two is ridiculous. I have met many graduates from college that couldn't tell me when the War of 1812 started. I am sorry, but going to any college doesn't automatically qualify you to be a historian. Regardless of how many slaves there were out the outbreak of the Civil War, the Industrial Revolution was inevitable.
StonewallJackson26 1 year ago
@StonewallJackson26 -- Historian is a profession, just like medicine. It has an educational process that you denigrate by your comments. Going to "any" college may not, but earning a degree in history is certainly the start to becoming a professional historian. Note the use of the term "professional" not hobbyist.
rebelyell1205 1 year ago
@rebelyell1205 You are way out of your league. I have so much to say on this issue that it wouldn't be appropriate to post it on message boards. History can be a profession, but even "professionals" i.e. professors have to follow a certain curriculum that not only meets the requirements of a curriculum, but are also in tuned with political correctness. When I left schools I was a strong advocate for what the Government did in the 1860's. But after researching thoroughly my opinions have changed
StonewallJackson26 1 year ago
@StonewallJackson26 -- My "league" is PhD and university lecturer, how about yours? I'm intimately familiar with how university history departments work. The syllabus I follow is my own. It's this little thing called academic freedom. Presented correctly, one can cover any topic that is appropriately academic. Your research has not been thorough if you've not read authors like Stampp and Genovese (for a start). As I said, they are the classics. Try it out, you might like proper history.
rebelyell1205 1 year ago
@rebelyell1205 universities tend to be pretty biased in my opinion.Most historians are taught to overlook the biggest issue when it comes to history and war. The issue historians often overlook is economy.If Universities were accurate in teaching history they would call the "civil war" the "Northern War Of Aggression",and "The southern war for independance". The war is often praised as a war to end slavery,but it had nothing to do with slavery.Lincoln was a biggot,and a tyrant and hypocrite.
Mathew1985AZ 8 months ago 8
@rebelyell1205 " No educated historian argues that Slavery was dying out." That is an overtly false statement. Consider that every European country had abolished Slavery and was rapidly industrializing their economic markets, their military and their infrastructure. It is safe to say that an agrarian based region of the World like that South would not have been able to keep up militarily or economically. Slavery was obsolete. But as i said earlier, apprenticeship is something totally different.
StonewallJackson26 1 year ago
cont. They lived as apprentices because it was a struggle for many Black Americans to assimilate right away into society. Education had never been stressed in most African cultures. Even before the Civil War, as I said earlier, the importation of Slaves had become illegal.
StonewallJackson26 1 year ago
@StonewallJackson26 -- Importing slaves became illegal in 1808, as soon as the Constitution's provisions allowed. Yet, the number of slaves in the US continued to grow until 1863 (the only known instance of an hereditary slave population being self-perpetuating). How does this reflect that slavery was dying out? Your own evidentiary statements contradict your conclusion.
rebelyell1205 1 year ago
The entire conflict has been distorted with liberal propaganda and centrist agenda. Slavery was an antiquated institution by 1861 and the Industrial Revolution was just kicking in. Slavery wouldn't have made it through the winter and even with secession. Who's to say that North America wouldn't be better off with independent American federations? The system we have now is obviously failing and the Federal Government is in the process of collapsing due to the amount of strain that is put on it.
StonewallJackson26 1 year ago
@StonewallJackson26 -- Slavery was growing in 1861; though the percentage of slaveowners was decreasing, the number of slaves was increasing. It was not an antiquated system & there is no evidence that slavery would not have adapted to a more modern economic circumstance had it survived. Your statement that it would not have survived the "winter" is blatantly false. The war was fought to preserve said institution - no Southerner would have fought so long & so nobly for a dying institution.
rebelyell1205 1 year ago
@rebelyell1205 You are completely wrong. Slavery was phase 9 by 1861. Most countries had already adopted a industrial based economic system. Whether the South won or lost, Slavery would have ended, seeing in that industrializing is necessary to build a war machine that could have defended their newly won independence. I have never heard one person say that Slavery was growing in the 1860's. Even the importation of Slaves was illegal by then. You are just wrong.
StonewallJackson26 1 year ago
@StonewallJackson26 -- I'm interested in your sources. Realities in other nations do not necessarily reflect slavery's place in the Southern U.S. economy. I can recommend several books, written by professional historians, that discuss slavery's growth and economic vitality in the 1850s, leading to the secession crisis of 1860-1. You might begin with Kenneth Stampp's Peculiar Institution and Eugene Genovese's Political Economy of Slavery, as they are the most pertinent major works.
rebelyell1205 1 year ago
@rebelyell1205 Actually I read a lot of Stephen Sears and Shelby Foote, who give a very in depth look at life before, during and after the conflict. I feel quite confident that these men do their homework.
StonewallJackson26 1 year ago
@StonewallJackson26 Stephen Sears is not a trained historian. Similarly, Shelby Foote is not a trained historian -- to my knowledge, he never graduated from UNC. Yes, they've done their homework & the works are accurate insofar as they go, but from what I can find, concentrate upon the war proper & not upon the events preceding the war, nor upon the economic history of the antebellum period. Read the books I recommended, both are classics within the field & are proper academic histories.
rebelyell1205 1 year ago
@rebelyell1205 I wouldn't consider reading anything that is trying to convey that Slavery was growing in the 1850's because it isn't logical. The US had enemies before the Civil War and most of Europe had already industrialized. Slavery was becoming economically useless and field work was being replaced by machines.
However if you are talking about apprenticeship that is something totally different. Many Blacks even after Slavery was abolished lived with white families as apprentices.
StonewallJackson26 1 year ago
@StonewallJackson26 Good way to become educated -- refusing to even consider or read any actual research done that contradicts your supposedly "logical" point (by the way, what logic is there in arguing that the South fought a bloody, expensive, and long war over slavery if it was so rapidly dying?). Those two works are the classics of any history course dealing with the antebellum period, and the authors are widely recognized as being experts in the relevant field. Consider reading them.
rebelyell1205 1 year ago
Do they teach about the discrepancy in the Emancipation Proclamation, where the 3 Pro Union Slave States were allowed to keep their Slaves even after the bill was issued? Do they teach about the Tariff of 1832, that benefited the Northern states because it abolished the Cotton Trade overseas and forced the South to strictly do business with the North, at a price of the North's choosing? How do you think all of the wealth was created in New England..... textile mills.
StonewallJackson26 1 year ago
The Federal Government lied and manipulated the conflict into something it wasn't. They demonized Southerners and wrote horrible things about them in history books. Do they ever tell you in 6th or 7th grade that less than 5% of all Southerners owned Slaves? Do they ever tell you that the bloodless Sumter was an independent act of just 500 South Carolineans that fired on a fort that had no right to be there in the first place.? Do they teach you about Gen. McDowell's unwanted invasion of VA?
StonewallJackson26 1 year ago
Which is most probably why the Lord took His servant Home. We oft times fail to understand what the war between the states did to not only the country but to individual families. It really was brother against brother.
Stonewall had a younger sister that he deeply loved. Her loyalty was to the Union. She never spoke to her brother again.
71superbee3 1 year ago 7
@71superbee3 damn... this is sad.
silencedknight 1 year ago
@71superbee3 You know what I always thought. I wonder what Robert E. Lee was thinking while he was being asked to command an Army that would be unleashed on his own home? I wouldn't have been surprised if Lee was offended by the conversation. Of all commanders, the Federal Government chooses a Virginian to lean an invasion against Virginia. Is it just me, or does that strike you as a bit arrogant?
StonewallJackson26 1 year ago 3
@StonewallJackson26
In the mid nineteenth century, people still saw their respective state as their "country". It's next to impossible to expect someone like Lee to wage war on his own "country". Lee saw it as his duty to defend Virginia.
71superbee3 2 months ago
@StonewallJackson26 Not at all arrogant. Lee was chosen because he was the best thought to be the best general in the nation at the time......period. He was also hand picked and highly recommended by Winfield Scott, who was considered the greatest General at the time, but well past his prime to participate in the war.
Lee was a West Point graduate and wore Union blue when he was asked to serve. I feel what made his decision easier was that Virginia the day before we was asked, seceeded.
mrceebees14 2 months ago
@StonewallJackson26 I think you make an interesting point. Perhaps he was indeed offended. And yes, it certainly seems arrogant to me too.
FatBird11 1 month ago
@71superbee3 And in all proper reason, god didn't have anything to do with it.
Remman 10 months ago
@71superbee3 thank you for putting this video up. I found it extremely awesome
sebass12346 3 months ago
Stonewall is one of my heroes! If he hadn't have died, the South would have had a much greater chance of winning. The STATE is sovreign.
redeemedbytheblood01 1 year ago
so inspirational,I could go for some killing yankees right about now,shit they got it coming for 150 years of insults to us Great Southern ppl
BorderCityBandit 1 year ago