Well Its Gay Pride Month... Again

I wonder what they are going to do with all of that unsold merchandise? Maybe donate it to charities in non-English speaking countries.

 

Only 4 more days of this bullshit!

 

The only slaves freed by the Emancipation Proclamation were those behind Confederate lines. In Union held territory they were still slaves; in fact, the Union Army would return runaway slave to their masters! Many abolitionists, in both America and England, saw the Emancipation Proclamation as merely an attempt to disrupt Southern agriculture and industry. Slavery wasn't abolished until passage of the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution in 1865! Today the Emancipation Proclamation would be called an Executive Order!

 

Lincoln passed the emancipation act only to keep England from backing the south otherwise the south would have won.

 

Once, minorities tried to prove to mainstream society that they too were normal and deserving of respect and inclusion. It worked for the Irish, Italians, and Jews. It sort of worked for the Blacks, though there has been some backsliding. The Mexicans and other Hispanics have been knocked back aways by recent illegal immigrants and are having to start over again. However, the LGBTQ folks are still digging themselves a hole and can't stop! Instead of following the well-trod and proven path of others they have opted for the excesses of a Roman ogre, a circus side show of freaks and degenerates. They are NOT deserving of respect. I know that there are "normal" people that are gay, but you never see them showing their junk in so-called Pride Parades, and that's the way it should be.

 

what a laugh - Lincoln could finally pull out the Emancipation Proclamation because it wouldn't affect the outcome of the war - the Union was taking apart the South piece by piece at that time >>> Gettysburg was started by starving barefoot Rebel soldiers looting the town - hardly an army that was going to win a war .....

the English cotton profiteers had abandoned the South by 1863 - knowing they had wasted their $$$$ financing the start of the war .....

 

"If the British had recognized the South and intervened in either of those periods - but most significantly in the immediate aftermath of Second Bull Run when Northern morale was at its lowest - it is quite likely that Northern public opinion would have turned against the war.

The British did not need a massive invasion or a large army to bring that about: they could have simply used the Royal Navy to break the Union blockade of Southern ports. That naval blockade did as much as the actual battles in the field to ultimately doom the CSA, by strangling Southern trade and gradually wrecking the South’s economy. So removal of the blockade would have been a major contribution to strengthening the South’s hand in the war and thus its staying power.

Couple that with the British putting their naval superiority to good use by blockading and raiding Northern ports, and it is difficult to imagine a scenario in which Northern public opinion would have remained steadfast in support of continuing the war.

So yes, if the British had interfered in the US Civil War on the South’s side, it is likely that the South would have won."

There is always the what if in history

 

"Lee surrendered, I didn't"

 

well the Middle East does have some good aspects