Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
iam90sbaby

Real conservatives asking real questions

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Or, more appropriately, if you make an assertion that something is "fact" then it's YOUR duty to provide those facts to back it up.  The onus is on you, not the reader.

I am not about to discuss US history with somebody who has not studied it. I didn’t understand that this was not common knowledge. I’m sorry don’t take it personally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Baker Boy said:

I am not about to discuss US history with somebody when studied it. I’m sorry don’t take it personally

Uhm...you don't have to discuss US History like you're giving a dissertation.  I'm asking you for the reference(s) to YOUR assertion that the South were superior fighters.  YOU made that assertion as fact.  I'm just asking you for the links.  :dunno:

So if you don't want to provide those references then we can only assume that you don't have them because they don't exist, otherwise you would have them.  Again, the onus is on the one asserting something as fact (that would be YOU). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Uhm...you don't have to discuss US History like you're giving a dissertation.  I'm asking you for the reference(s) to YOUR assertion that the South were superior fighters.  YOU made that assertion as fact.  I'm just asking you for the links.  :dunno:

So if you don't want to provide those references then we can only assume that you don't have them because they don't exist, otherwise you would have them.  Again, the onus is on the one asserting something as fact (that would be YOU). 

Sorry, I thought this was common knowledge. I m not your teacher and I don’t care what you believe. Common sense would ask why did it take so long for the North to beat the South. The North had all the manufacturing and the money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Baker Boy said:

Sorry, I thought this was common knowledge. I m not your teacher and I don’t care what you believe. Common sense would ask why did it take so long for the North to beat the South. The North had all the manufacturing and the money.

Uhm..no, it's not common knowledge.  I'm just asking you to back up your assertion.  That's standard practice.  Again, the onus is on you - the one making the assertion-as-fact - to provide backup, not the other way around.  I'm not here to prove your assertion, it's your job to prove it.  With sources or links.

Cmon, man.  Are you new to posting on the internet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Union had 2 millions soldiers the South had 750k back when wars were still fought with boots on the ground. You don’t nearly win the war when you are outmanned 2:1 unless you are the superior soldiers. 

Also the war was about state rights, not slavery. Slavery was just one component of a more complex issue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Uhm..no, it's not common knowledge.  I'm just asking you to back up your assertion.  That's standard practice.  Again, the onus is on you - the one making the assertion-as-fact - to provide backup, not the other way around.  I'm not here to prove your assertion, it's your job to prove it.  With sources or links.

Cmon, man.  Are you new to posting on the internet?

Bull crap when did Worms or Wiff ever give a link. I am telling you what I learned, you don’t have to believe me but I’m sure not going to argue about it.
Do you really believe the north beat the south because they were superior fighters Or any of the other bull crap that 90s wrote? Or was it because they had most of the manufacturing in the money?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Baker Boy said:

Bull crap when did Worms or Wiff ever give a link. I am telling you what I learned, you don’t have to believe me but I’m sure not going to argue about it.
Do you really believe the north beat the south because they were superior fighters Or any of the other bull crap that 90s wrote? Or was it because they had most of the manufacturing in the money?

Actually, I'm not believing anything at the moment because I seriously don't know, which is why I asked you to provide links.   Yours was the only post I saw, I must have missed 90s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Actually, I'm not believing anything at the moment because I seriously don't know, which is why I asked you to provide links.   Yours was the only post I saw, I must have missed 90s.

I don’t have a link, I studied the Civil War In college as my “fun” courses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The south did have home field advantage for the most part, right? Not a big civil war guy. I hate that war, even more than WW1. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2.1 million — Number of Northerners mobilized to fight for the Union army

880,000 — Number of Southerners mobilized for the Confederacy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×