The issue is less about who deserves the credit for winning the war and who paid the COSTS of the war And it obviously rubs people the wrong way to say that the people who suffered least were best placed to make an objective judgment of how to pursue justice
-
-
I quite often say the South didn't suffer nearly enough in the aftermath of the US Civil War but the goal, in and of itself, isn't suffering The point isn't how many slaveowners lived or died, it's that the former slaves *never got their forty acres and a mule*
-
The point is to give the liberated slaves the forty acres and a mule they were promised, or whatever they actually need to thrive in safety and comfort after the war And since this will, of course, be very expensive, the cost should be taken out of the ass of their oppressors
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
I don't think anyone is saying that here.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Nobody is saying that. You are purposely diluting your original argument while still defending it. You are also purposely twisting arguments against it. I do hope that’s not just to farm likes over the deaths of WW2 but I’m done with it.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
There’s quite a difference between “best of all worlds” and “getting of easy” though.
-
Nah it was pretty easy
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.