# Confederate constitution legalized slavery



## Ravi

Remember that when the nutters try to claim that the Civil War wasn't about slavery.


----------



## whitehall

The Confederacy only existed for a couple of years in American history but it gives low information idiots a target for hatred. The Confederacy never funded a slave ship or captured a Negro in Africa. The sad truth about the 200 years of international slavery is that the ensign that flew off slave ships wasn't the Confederate battle flag that mostly inner city northern idiots grew up hating. The flag that flew from the stern of slave ships was the British union jack and the French and Spanish flags and the Stars and Stripes. The industrial revolution would have put slavery out of business but the inept Lincoln administration couldn't wait. Innocent Southern people who had nothing to do with slavery died because Lincoln hired a drunk and a maniac to kill civilians.


----------



## regent

whitehall said:


> The Confederacy only existed for a couple of years in American history but it gives low information idiots a target for hatred. The Confederacy never funded a slave ship or captured a Negro in Africa. The sad truth about the 200 years of international slavery is that the ensign that flew off slave ships wasn't the Confederate battle flag that mostly inner city northern idiots grew up hating. The flag that flew from the stern of slave ships was the British union jack and the French and Spanish flags and the Stars and Stripes. The industrial revolution would have put slavery out of business but the inept Lincoln administration couldn't wait. Innocent Southern people who had nothing to do with slavery died because Lincoln hired a drunk and a maniac to kill civilians.







So did the Confederate states Of America make a provision in their new Constitution that states can leave the CSA if unhappy or The CSA government makes a law they don't like?


----------



## JWBooth

Ravi said:


> Remember that when the nutters try to claim that the Civil War wasn't about slavery.


Oddly enough, Abraham Lincoln sought to enshrine slavery into the US Constitution with his tacit support for the Corwin Amendment. Said amendment would have made the institution permanent.
The Confederate Constitution barred importation of slaves, it recognised slaves as property, but unlike Corwin it did not prevent the elimination of the institution at some future date.


----------



## gallantwarrior

regent said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederacy only existed for a couple of years in American history but it gives low information idiots a target for hatred. The Confederacy never funded a slave ship or captured a Negro in Africa. The sad truth about the 200 years of international slavery is that the ensign that flew off slave ships wasn't the Confederate battle flag that mostly inner city northern idiots grew up hating. The flag that flew from the stern of slave ships was the British union jack and the French and Spanish flags and the Stars and Stripes. The industrial revolution would have put slavery out of business but the inept Lincoln administration couldn't wait. Innocent Southern people who had nothing to do with slavery died because Lincoln hired a drunk and a maniac to kill civilians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So did the Confederate states Of America make a provision in their new Constitution that states can leave the CSA if unhappy or The CSA government makes a law they don't like?
Click to expand...

Where exactly do the Confederate States of America exist?  I'm still trying to find their location on this continent, but to no avail.


----------



## hortysir

JWBooth said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that when the nutters try to claim that the Civil War wasn't about slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> Oddly enough, Abraham Lincoln sought to enshrine slavery into the US Constitution with his tacit support for the Corwin Amendment. Said amendment would have made the institution permanent.
> The Confederate Constitution barred importation of slaves, it recognised slaves as property, but unlike Corwin it did not prevent the elimination of the institution at some future date.
Click to expand...

Thank you.


Hope all you Abe-worshipers remember that when you try saying Lincoln cared about slavery


----------



## hjmick

EXECUTIVE MANSTON,

WASHINGTON, Aug. 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:

DEAR SIR: I have just read yours of the 19th, addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements or assumptions of fact which I may know to be erroneous, I do not now and here controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here argue against them. If there be perceptible in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing," as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time save Slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy Slavery, I do not agree with them. *My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy Slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.* What I do about Slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save this Union, and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views. I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty, and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men, everywhere, could be free. Yours,

A. LINCOLN.

A LETTER FROM PRESIDENT LINCOLN. - Reply to Horace Greeley. Slavery and the Union The Restoration of the Union the Paramount Object. - NYTimes.com


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

Ravi said:


> Remember that when the nutters try to claim that the Civil War wasn't about slavery.



We're all well aware of what the Democratic Party did to brown people and the war they started over it.


----------



## whitehall

regent said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederacy only existed for a couple of years in American history but it gives low information idiots a target for hatred. The Confederacy never funded a slave ship or captured a Negro in Africa. The sad truth about the 200 years of international slavery is that the ensign that flew off slave ships wasn't the Confederate battle flag that mostly inner city northern idiots grew up hating. The flag that flew from the stern of slave ships was the British union jack and the French and Spanish flags and the Stars and Stripes. The industrial revolution would have put slavery out of business but the inept Lincoln administration couldn't wait. Innocent Southern people who had nothing to do with slavery died because Lincoln hired a drunk and a maniac to kill civilians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So did the Confederate states Of America make a provision in their new Constitution that states can leave the CSA if unhappy or The CSA government makes a law they don't like?
Click to expand...



The dirty secret is that the Lincoln administration could have made compensation for the border states for a couple of years and avoided the most incredible carnage in history but Lincoln appointed ass-holes made a series of bad decisions. It wasn't about slavery or state's rights. It was about stupid political confrontation that was based on emotion.


----------



## Toro

Ravi said:


> Remember that when the nutters try to claim that the Civil War wasn't about slavery.



If you don't have the individual liberty to own human beings of another color, is anyone really free?


----------



## Ravi

Toro said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that when the nutters try to claim that the Civil War wasn't about slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't have the individual liberty to own human beings of another color, is anyone really free?
Click to expand...

Of course not. The south would have eventually started breeding farms. Much cheaper than importing.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Ravi said:


> Remember that when the nutters try to claim that the Civil War wasn't about slavery.



Not like the US Constitution is any better putting blacks at two-thirds that of whites (also legalizing slavery,) and denying women the vote.


----------



## paperview

whitehall said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederacy only existed for a couple of years in American history but it gives low information idiots a target for hatred. The Confederacy never funded a slave ship or captured a Negro in Africa. The sad truth about the 200 years of international slavery is that the ensign that flew off slave ships wasn't the Confederate battle flag that mostly inner city northern idiots grew up hating. The flag that flew from the stern of slave ships was the British union jack and the French and Spanish flags and the Stars and Stripes. The industrial revolution would have put slavery out of business but the inept Lincoln administration couldn't wait. Innocent Southern people who had nothing to do with slavery died because Lincoln hired a drunk and a maniac to kill civilians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So did the Confederate states Of America make a provision in their new Constitution that states can leave the CSA if unhappy or The CSA government makes a law they don't like?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The dirty secret is that the Lincoln administration could have made compensation for the border states for a couple of years and avoided the most incredible carnage in history but Lincoln appointed ass-holes made a series of bad decisions. It wasn't about slavery or state's rights. It was about stupid political confrontation that was based on emotion.
Click to expand...

Lincoln *tried* that.  The border states would have none of it.

These were states that were not nearly as vested in slavery as the deep South, and they wanted none of it.

They were tied intensely to their "peculiar institution" and weren't about to give up their human property.


----------



## paperview

To wit:

"Historian John Hope Franklin wrote of President Lincoln :

"In the fall of 1861 he attempted an experiment with compensated emancipation in Delaware. He interested his friends there and urged them to propose it to the Delaware legislature.

*He went so far as to write a draft of the bill, which provided for gradual emancipation, and another which provided that the federal government would share the expenses of compensating masters for their slaves. Although these bills were much discussed, there was too much opposition to introduce them."2 With less than 2000 slaves in the whole state, Delaware seemed like an ideal laboratory for President Lincoln's idea, but Congressman George Fisher was unable to get state legislative approval for the idea.*

*Meanwhile, the President worked a compensated emancipation plan for all slave-owning states.* In early 1862, President Lincoln told abolitionist Mocure D. Conway that southerners "had become at an early day, when there was at least a feeble conscience against slavery, deeply involved commercially and socially with the institution. 

He pitied them heartily, all the more that it had corrupted them; and he earnestly advised us to use what influence we might have to impress on the people the feeling that they should be ready and eager to share largely the pecuniary losses to which the South would be subjected if emancipation should occur. It was the disease of the entire nation, all must share the suffering of its removal."3

President Lincoln told New York businessman-journalist James R. Gilmore:

"The feeling is against slavery, not against the South. The war has educated our people into abolition, and they now deny that slaves can be property. But there are two sides to that question. 

One is ours, the other, the southern side; and those people are just as honest and conscientious in their opinion as we are in ours. They think they have a moral and legal right to their slaves, and until very recently the North has been of the same opinion. For two hundred years the whole country has admitted it and regarded and treated the slaves as property. * Now, does the mere fact that the North has come suddenly to a contrary opinion give us the right to take the slaves from their owners without compensation? The blacks must be freed. Slavery is the bone we are fighting over. It must be got out of the way to give us permanent peace, and if we have to fight this war till the South is subjugated, then I think we shall be justified in freeing the slaves without compensation. But in any settlement arrived at before they force things to that extremity, is it not right and fair that we should make payment for the slaves?*"4

In December 1861, the President sent for Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner. ...

<snip>

Blair promised to try to work on his fellow Border State Congressmen and have them visit the President the following day. The response was not positive. Historian James M. McPherson wrote:

"At a meeting with Lincoln on March 10...border-state congressmen questioned the constitutionality of the proposal, bristled at Lincoln's warning, and deplored the anticipated race problem that would emerge with a large free black population."

President Lincoln told Carl Schurz, a diplomat-turned general, that * "He was not altogether without hope that the proposition he had presented to the southern states in his message of March 6th would find favorable consideration, at least in some of the border states. He had made the proposition in perfect good faith; it was, perhaps, the last of the kind; and if they repelled it, theirs was the responsibility*."12

Compensated Emancipation - Abraham Lincoln


----------



## Delta4Embassy

More than slavery or more general economics I think is how the Confederates tried making a second government with its own President and such. That's why there was war.


----------



## JakeStarkey

All of which means nothing about the OP.

The CSA was all about slavery.



whitehall said:


> The Confederacy only existed for a couple of years in American history but it gives low information idiots a target for hatred. The Confederacy never funded a slave ship or captured a Negro in Africa. The sad truth about the 200 years of international slavery is that the ensign that flew off slave ships wasn't the Confederate battle flag that mostly inner city northern idiots grew up hating. The flag that flew from the stern of slave ships was the British union jack and the French and Spanish flags and the Stars and Stripes. The industrial revolution would have put slavery out of business but the inept Lincoln administration couldn't wait. Innocent Southern people who had nothing to do with slavery died because Lincoln hired a drunk and a maniac to kill civilians.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Lincoln never supported, tacitly or otherwise, the Corwin Amendment.



JWBooth said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that when the nutters try to claim that the Civil War wasn't about slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> Oddly enough, Abraham Lincoln sought to enshrine slavery into the US Constitution with his tacit support for the Corwin Amendment. Said amendment would have made the institution permanent.
> The Confederate Constitution barred importation of slaves, it recognised slaves as property, but unlike Corwin it did not prevent the elimination of the institution at some future date.
Click to expand...


----------



## paperview

Delta4Embassy said:


> More than slavery or more general economics I think is how the Confederates tried making a second government with its own President and such. That's why there was war.


----------



## paperview

JakeStarkey said:


> Lincoln never supported, tacitly or otherwise, the Corwin Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that when the nutters try to claim that the Civil War wasn't about slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> Oddly enough, Abraham Lincoln sought to enshrine slavery into the US Constitution with his tacit support for the Corwin Amendment. Said amendment would have made the institution permanent.
> The Confederate Constitution barred importation of slaves, it recognised slaves as property, but unlike Corwin it did not prevent the elimination of the institution at some future date.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

All said and done, the Corwin Amendment was a last ditch effort, which most all knew stood no chance of survival.

Lincoln had nothing to do with its passage. By the time he addressed it, most states had already seceded. It was a futility, and most all saw it as such. 

At that point anyway - the south had already commenced hostilities. They were bound and determined to go to war and nothing was going to stop them.

The _Southrons_ made it clear in their many declarations of independence and in a boatload of other statements, actions, laws and their own written constitution, the protection of Slavery was at the base of all.

It was the lifeblood (literally) of their economy, and they knew it.


----------



## defcon4

whitehall said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederacy only existed for a couple of years in American history but it gives low information idiots a target for hatred. The Confederacy never funded a slave ship or captured a Negro in Africa. The sad truth about the 200 years of international slavery is that the ensign that flew off slave ships wasn't the Confederate battle flag that mostly inner city northern idiots grew up hating. The flag that flew from the stern of slave ships was the British union jack and the French and Spanish flags and the Stars and Stripes. The industrial revolution would have put slavery out of business but the inept Lincoln administration couldn't wait. Innocent Southern people who had nothing to do with slavery died because Lincoln hired a drunk and a maniac to kill civilians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So did the Confederate states Of America make a provision in their new Constitution that states can leave the CSA if unhappy or The CSA government makes a law they don't like?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The dirty secret is that the Lincoln administration could have made compensation for the border states for a couple of years and avoided the most incredible carnage in history but Lincoln appointed ass-holes made a series of bad decisions. It wasn't about slavery or state's rights. It was about stupid political confrontation that was based on emotion.
Click to expand...

It was about secession of states from the union. Revisionists history tells otherwise. Dumb asses, who do not know it better because they never look into historical facts, are just parroting the crap invented by the revisionists.


----------



## williepete

An interesting article from the 150th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation. Not quite what they've taught in public schools since the end of the war.

FIVE THINGS YOU MAY NOT KNOW ABOUT LINCOLN SLAVERY AND EMANCIPATION
by Sarah Pruitt
September 2012

*1. Lincoln wasn’t an abolitionist. 
2. Lincoln didn’t believe blacks should have the same rights as whites.
3. Lincoln thought colonization could resolve the issue of slavery. 
4. Emancipation was a military policy. 
5. The Emancipation Proclamation didn’t actually free all of the slaves.*
Article:
5 Things You May Not Know About Lincoln Slavery and Emancipation History in the Headlines


----------



## Esmeralda

whitehall said:


> The Confederacy only existed for a couple of years in American history but it gives low information idiots a target for hatred. The Confederacy never funded a slave ship or captured a Negro in Africa. The sad truth about the 200 years of international slavery is that the ensign that flew off slave ships wasn't the Confederate battle flag that mostly inner city northern idiots grew up hating. The flag that flew from the stern of slave ships was the British union jack and the French and Spanish flags and the Stars and Stripes. *The industrial revolution would have put slavery out of business but the inept Lincoln administration couldn't wait. Innocent Southern people who had nothing to do with slavery died because Lincoln hired a drunk and a maniac to kill civilians*.


Astonishing.


----------



## paperview

Esmeralda said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederacy only existed for a couple of years in American history but it gives low information idiots a target for hatred. The Confederacy never funded a slave ship or captured a Negro in Africa. The sad truth about the 200 years of international slavery is that the ensign that flew off slave ships wasn't the Confederate battle flag that mostly inner city northern idiots grew up hating. The flag that flew from the stern of slave ships was the British union jack and the French and Spanish flags and the Stars and Stripes. *The industrial revolution would have put slavery out of business but the inept Lincoln administration couldn't wait. Innocent Southern people who had nothing to do with slavery died because Lincoln hired a drunk and a maniac to kill civilians*.
> 
> 
> 
> Astonishing.
Click to expand...

I know huh?  Truly amazing in its stupidity.


----------



## Esmeralda

JakeStarkey said:


> All of which means nothing about the OP.
> 
> The CSA was all about slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederacy only existed for a couple of years in American history but it gives low information idiots a target for hatred. The Confederacy never funded a slave ship or captured a Negro in Africa. The sad truth about the 200 years of international slavery is that the ensign that flew off slave ships wasn't the Confederate battle flag that mostly inner city northern idiots grew up hating. The flag that flew from the stern of slave ships was the British union jack and the French and Spanish flags and the Stars and Stripes. The industrial revolution would have put slavery out of business but the inept Lincoln administration couldn't wait. Innocent Southern people who had nothing to do with slavery died because Lincoln hired a drunk and a maniac to kill civilians.
Click to expand...

The Confederates went to war to maintain their way of life, to maintain slavery. Anyone who thinks differently is delusional.


----------



## Esmeralda

paperview said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln never supported, tacitly or otherwise, the Corwin Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that when the nutters try to claim that the Civil War wasn't about slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> Oddly enough, Abraham Lincoln sought to enshrine slavery into the US Constitution with his tacit support for the Corwin Amendment. Said amendment would have made the institution permanent.
> The Confederate Constitution barred importation of slaves, it recognised slaves as property, but unlike Corwin it did not prevent the elimination of the institution at some future date.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All said and done, the Corwin Amendment was a last ditch effort, which most all knew stood no chance of survival.
> 
> Lincoln had nothing to do with its passage. By the time he addressed it, most states had already seceded. It was a futility, and most all saw it as such.
> 
> At that point anyway - the south had already commenced hostilities. They were bound and determined to go to war and nothing was going to stop them.
> 
> The _Southrons_ made it clear in their many declarations of independence and in a boatload of other statements, actions, laws and their own written constitution, *the protection of Slavery was at the base of all.
> 
> It was the lifeblood (literally) of their economy, and they knew it*.
Click to expand...

EXACTLY!!


----------



## Ravi

paperview said:


> To wit:
> 
> "Historian John Hope Franklin wrote of President Lincoln :
> 
> "In the fall of 1861 he attempted an experiment with compensated emancipation in Delaware. He interested his friends there and urged them to propose it to the Delaware legislature.
> 
> *He went so far as to write a draft of the bill, which provided for gradual emancipation, and another which provided that the federal government would share the expenses of compensating masters for their slaves. Although these bills were much discussed, there was too much opposition to introduce them."2 With less than 2000 slaves in the whole state, Delaware seemed like an ideal laboratory for President Lincoln's idea, but Congressman George Fisher was unable to get state legislative approval for the idea.*
> 
> *Meanwhile, the President worked a compensated emancipation plan for all slave-owning states.* In early 1862, President Lincoln told abolitionist Mocure D. Conway that southerners "had become at an early day, when there was at least a feeble conscience against slavery, deeply involved commercially and socially with the institution.
> 
> He pitied them heartily, all the more that it had corrupted them; and he earnestly advised us to use what influence we might have to impress on the people the feeling that they should be ready and eager to share largely the pecuniary losses to which the South would be subjected if emancipation should occur. It was the disease of the entire nation, all must share the suffering of its removal."3
> 
> President Lincoln told New York businessman-journalist James R. Gilmore:
> 
> "The feeling is against slavery, not against the South. The war has educated our people into abolition, and they now deny that slaves can be property. But there are two sides to that question.
> 
> One is ours, the other, the southern side; and those people are just as honest and conscientious in their opinion as we are in ours. They think they have a moral and legal right to their slaves, and until very recently the North has been of the same opinion. For two hundred years the whole country has admitted it and regarded and treated the slaves as property. * Now, does the mere fact that the North has come suddenly to a contrary opinion give us the right to take the slaves from their owners without compensation? The blacks must be freed. Slavery is the bone we are fighting over. It must be got out of the way to give us permanent peace, and if we have to fight this war till the South is subjugated, then I think we shall be justified in freeing the slaves without compensation. But in any settlement arrived at before they force things to that extremity, is it not right and fair that we should make payment for the slaves?*"4
> 
> In December 1861, the President sent for Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner. ...
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Blair promised to try to work on his fellow Border State Congressmen and have them visit the President the following day. The response was not positive. Historian James M. McPherson wrote:
> 
> "At a meeting with Lincoln on March 10...border-state congressmen questioned the constitutionality of the proposal, bristled at Lincoln's warning, and deplored the anticipated race problem that would emerge with a large free black population."
> 
> President Lincoln told Carl Schurz, a diplomat-turned general, that * "He was not altogether without hope that the proposition he had presented to the southern states in his message of March 6th would find favorable consideration, at least in some of the border states. He had made the proposition in perfect good faith; it was, perhaps, the last of the kind; and if they repelled it, theirs was the responsibility*."12
> 
> Compensated Emancipation - Abraham Lincoln


And they are still whining about compensation for "stealing" their slaves.


----------



## paperview

Ravi said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that when the nutters try to claim that the Civil War wasn't about slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't have the individual liberty to own human beings of another color, is anyone really free?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course not. The south would have eventually started breeding farms. Much cheaper than importing.
Click to expand...

That's what they did. There were literally breeding farms across the south.

Most of the southern slavers were quite pleased with the prohibition against the importation of slaves.

It was financially beneficial and they could own the market.  And why import what you can make cheaper at home. 

They practiced eugenics as well.  "Breeding" the strongest and hardiest to get a better "crop."  (Not to mention they fucked their own slaves as well).

Very sad and disgusting they would fight a long and bloody war to defend the practice.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The white racists had an unholy lust for dark flesh.


----------



## guno

whitehall said:


> The Confederacy only existed for a couple of years in American history but it gives low information idiots a target for hatred. The Confederacy never funded a slave ship or captured a Negro in Africa. The sad truth about the 200 years of international slavery is that the ensign that flew off slave ships wasn't the Confederate battle flag that mostly inner city northern idiots grew up hating. The flag that flew from the stern of slave ships was the British union jack and the French and Spanish flags and the Stars and Stripes. The industrial revolution would have put slavery out of business but the inept Lincoln administration couldn't wait. Innocent Southern people who had nothing to do with slavery died because Lincoln hired a drunk and a maniac to kill civilians.




But the southern crackers states, now referred to as jesusland wasted no time in instituting jim crow after they got their asses kicked


----------



## paperview

guno said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederacy only existed for a couple of years in American history but it gives low information idiots a target for hatred. The Confederacy never funded a slave ship or captured a Negro in Africa. The sad truth about the 200 years of international slavery is that the ensign that flew off slave ships wasn't the Confederate battle flag that mostly inner city northern idiots grew up hating. The flag that flew from the stern of slave ships was the British union jack and the French and Spanish flags and the Stars and Stripes. The industrial revolution would have put slavery out of business but the inept Lincoln administration couldn't wait. Innocent Southern people who had nothing to do with slavery died because Lincoln hired a drunk and a maniac to kill civilians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the southern crackers states, now referred to as jesusland wasted no time in instituting jim crow after they got their asses kicked
Click to expand...

Yup.

And even re-enslaving them.

Slavery abolished in the South, by FORCE: *1865.*
Slavery by another name in the South continued till until *1951*, when Peonage and in essence, re-enslavement was made illegal.

And this is a stunning figure, in bold below: "*It is estimated that up to 40% of blacks in the South were imprisoned in peonage in the beginning of the 20th century*."

Just incredible.

"Southern states passed "Black Codes" to control the movement of freedmen and to try to gain their labor for planters. They often declared as vagrant someone who was unemployed, even if between jobs. They tried to restrict the movement of freedmen between rural areas and cities, to between towns. Under such laws, local officials arbitrarily arrested tens of thousands of freedmen, and charged them with fines and the court costs of their cases. 

White merchants, farmers or business owners could pay their debts, and the prisoner had to work off the debt. Prisoners were "sold" or leased as forced laborers to owners and operators of coal mines, lumber camps, brickyards, railroads, quarries and farm plantations, with the revenues for their labor going to the states. Thousands of other African Americans were seized by southern landowners and compelled into years of involuntary servitude. 

Government officials leased falsely imprisoned blacks to small-town entrepreneurs, provincial farmers, and dozens of corporations looking for cheap labor. Black men, women and children were forced to labor without compensation. Their labor was repeatedly bought and sold for decades after the official abolition of American slavery.

Whites were seldom prosecuted for holding black workers against their will in peonage. *Southern states and private businesses boomed with this free labor. It is estimated that up to 40% of blacks in the South were imprisoned in peonage in the beginning of the 20th century*. 

Overseers and owners often used severe deprivation, beatings, whippings and other abuse as "discipline" against the workers."

Peon - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Here is a clip from Moyers talking with the author of the Pulitzer Prize winning book,


----------



## Ravi

paperview said:


> guno said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederacy only existed for a couple of years in American history but it gives low information idiots a target for hatred. The Confederacy never funded a slave ship or captured a Negro in Africa. The sad truth about the 200 years of international slavery is that the ensign that flew off slave ships wasn't the Confederate battle flag that mostly inner city northern idiots grew up hating. The flag that flew from the stern of slave ships was the British union jack and the French and Spanish flags and the Stars and Stripes. The industrial revolution would have put slavery out of business but the inept Lincoln administration couldn't wait. Innocent Southern people who had nothing to do with slavery died because Lincoln hired a drunk and a maniac to kill civilians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the southern crackers states, now referred to as jesusland wasted no time in instituting jim crow after they got their asses kicked
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup.
> 
> And even re-enslaving them.
> 
> Slavery abolished in the South, by FORCE: *1865.*
> Slavery by another name in the South continued till until *1951*, when Peonage and in essence, re-enslavement was made illegal.
> 
> And this is a stunning figure, in bold below: "*It is estimated that up to 40% of blacks in the South were imprisoned in peonage in the beginning of the 20th century*."
> 
> Just incredible.
> 
> "Southern states passed "Black Codes" to control the movement of freedmen and to try to gain their labor for planters. They often declared as vagrant someone who was unemployed, even if between jobs. They tried to restrict the movement of freedmen between rural areas and cities, to between towns. Under such laws, local officials arbitrarily arrested tens of thousands of freedmen, and charged them with fines and the court costs of their cases.
> 
> White merchants, farmers or business owners could pay their debts, and the prisoner had to work off the debt. Prisoners were "sold" or leased as forced laborers to owners and operators of coal mines, lumber camps, brickyards, railroads, quarries and farm plantations, with the revenues for their labor going to the states. Thousands of other African Americans were seized by southern landowners and compelled into years of involuntary servitude.
> 
> Government officials leased falsely imprisoned blacks to small-town entrepreneurs, provincial farmers, and dozens of corporations looking for cheap labor. Black men, women and children were forced to labor without compensation. Their labor was repeatedly bought and sold for decades after the official abolition of American slavery.
> 
> Whites were seldom prosecuted for holding black workers against their will in peonage. *Southern states and private businesses boomed with this free labor. It is estimated that up to 40% of blacks in the South were imprisoned in peonage in the beginning of the 20th century*.
> 
> Overseers and owners often used severe deprivation, beatings, whippings and other abuse as "discipline" against the workers."
> 
> Peon - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Here is a clip from Moyers talking with the author of the Pulitzer Prize winning book,
Click to expand...

Wow, that is all news to me. What a bunch of shits.


----------



## paperview

What's


Ravi said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guno said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederacy only existed for a couple of years in American history but it gives low information idiots a target for hatred. The Confederacy never funded a slave ship or captured a Negro in Africa. The sad truth about the 200 years of international slavery is that the ensign that flew off slave ships wasn't the Confederate battle flag that mostly inner city northern idiots grew up hating. The flag that flew from the stern of slave ships was the British union jack and the French and Spanish flags and the Stars and Stripes. The industrial revolution would have put slavery out of business but the inept Lincoln administration couldn't wait. Innocent Southern people who had nothing to do with slavery died because Lincoln hired a drunk and a maniac to kill civilians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the southern crackers states, now referred to as jesusland wasted no time in instituting jim crow after they got their asses kicked
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup.
> 
> And even re-enslaving them.
> 
> Slavery abolished in the South, by FORCE: *1865.*
> Slavery by another name in the South continued till until *1951*, when Peonage and in essence, re-enslavement was made illegal.
> 
> And this is a stunning figure, in bold below: "*It is estimated that up to 40% of blacks in the South were imprisoned in peonage in the beginning of the 20th century*."
> 
> Just incredible.
> 
> "Southern states passed "Black Codes" to control the movement of freedmen and to try to gain their labor for planters. They often declared as vagrant someone who was unemployed, even if between jobs. They tried to restrict the movement of freedmen between rural areas and cities, to between towns. Under such laws, local officials arbitrarily arrested tens of thousands of freedmen, and charged them with fines and the court costs of their cases.
> 
> White merchants, farmers or business owners could pay their debts, and the prisoner had to work off the debt. Prisoners were "sold" or leased as forced laborers to owners and operators of coal mines, lumber camps, brickyards, railroads, quarries and farm plantations, with the revenues for their labor going to the states. Thousands of other African Americans were seized by southern landowners and compelled into years of involuntary servitude.
> 
> Government officials leased falsely imprisoned blacks to small-town entrepreneurs, provincial farmers, and dozens of corporations looking for cheap labor. Black men, women and children were forced to labor without compensation. Their labor was repeatedly bought and sold for decades after the official abolition of American slavery.
> 
> Whites were seldom prosecuted for holding black workers against their will in peonage. *Southern states and private businesses boomed with this free labor. It is estimated that up to 40% of blacks in the South were imprisoned in peonage in the beginning of the 20th century*.
> 
> Overseers and owners often used severe deprivation, beatings, whippings and other abuse as "discipline" against the workers."
> 
> Peon - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Here is a clip from Moyers talking with the author of the Pulitzer Prize winning book,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, that is all news to me. What a bunch of shits.
Click to expand...

Yup.  A lot of people are not even aware of this re-enslavement.


It's spectacular in how secretive they were, but it was HUGE, when you consider what an impact it had to a huge swath of the south and just how * easily a black person could be picked up for *nothing* -- arrested and put away for life -- for a crime -- for *pretty much nothing* -- whistling even, in between jobs (think about that !!) *

In some ways it was even worse than slavery, because the people they were leased out to didn't care even if the workers survived - they had no vested interest in them as property, and they would literally work them to death, and just get new ones at any time. 

It was easy when you can arrest a person for just about anything, and no justice system to stand behind you. 

And the other thing that came out of that documentary Moyers is discussing --

A stunning fact:

*In 1921 John Williams, former plantation owner, became the 1st Southern white man since 1877 to be convicted for 1st degree murder of an African American and it would not happen again until* *1966*.

This and the post-Civil war slavery in the South is shown in a superb documentary: Slavery By Another Name.

Check it out when you have a chance:

You can watch it for free:

CLICK --> Watch The Film Slavery by Another Name PBS


----------



## paperview

Remind this to the idiots who seem to think "slavery would have just  died out" soon anyway, without the war.

It wouldn't have, and it didn't.


----------



## Ravi

paperview said:


> What's
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guno said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederacy only existed for a couple of years in American history but it gives low information idiots a target for hatred. The Confederacy never funded a slave ship or captured a Negro in Africa. The sad truth about the 200 years of international slavery is that the ensign that flew off slave ships wasn't the Confederate battle flag that mostly inner city northern idiots grew up hating. The flag that flew from the stern of slave ships was the British union jack and the French and Spanish flags and the Stars and Stripes. The industrial revolution would have put slavery out of business but the inept Lincoln administration couldn't wait. Innocent Southern people who had nothing to do with slavery died because Lincoln hired a drunk and a maniac to kill civilians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the southern crackers states, now referred to as jesusland wasted no time in instituting jim crow after they got their asses kicked
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup.
> 
> And even re-enslaving them.
> 
> Slavery abolished in the South, by FORCE: *1865.*
> Slavery by another name in the South continued till until *1951*, when Peonage and in essence, re-enslavement was made illegal.
> 
> And this is a stunning figure, in bold below: "*It is estimated that up to 40% of blacks in the South were imprisoned in peonage in the beginning of the 20th century*."
> 
> Just incredible.
> 
> "Southern states passed "Black Codes" to control the movement of freedmen and to try to gain their labor for planters. They often declared as vagrant someone who was unemployed, even if between jobs. They tried to restrict the movement of freedmen between rural areas and cities, to between towns. Under such laws, local officials arbitrarily arrested tens of thousands of freedmen, and charged them with fines and the court costs of their cases.
> 
> White merchants, farmers or business owners could pay their debts, and the prisoner had to work off the debt. Prisoners were "sold" or leased as forced laborers to owners and operators of coal mines, lumber camps, brickyards, railroads, quarries and farm plantations, with the revenues for their labor going to the states. Thousands of other African Americans were seized by southern landowners and compelled into years of involuntary servitude.
> 
> Government officials leased falsely imprisoned blacks to small-town entrepreneurs, provincial farmers, and dozens of corporations looking for cheap labor. Black men, women and children were forced to labor without compensation. Their labor was repeatedly bought and sold for decades after the official abolition of American slavery.
> 
> Whites were seldom prosecuted for holding black workers against their will in peonage. *Southern states and private businesses boomed with this free labor. It is estimated that up to 40% of blacks in the South were imprisoned in peonage in the beginning of the 20th century*.
> 
> Overseers and owners often used severe deprivation, beatings, whippings and other abuse as "discipline" against the workers."
> 
> Peon - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Here is a clip from Moyers talking with the author of the Pulitzer Prize winning book,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, that is all news to me. What a bunch of shits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup.  A lot of people are not even aware of this re-enslavement.
> 
> 
> It's spectacular in how secretive they were, but it was HUGE, when you consider what an impact it had to a huge swath of the south and just how * easily a black person could be picked up for *nothing* -- arrested and put away for life -- for a crime -- for *pretty much nothing* -- whistling even, in between jobs (think about that !!) *
> 
> In some ways it was even worse than slavery, because the people they were leased out to didn't care even if the workers survived - they had no vested interest in them as property, and they would literally work them to death, and just get new ones at any time.
> 
> It was easy when you can arrest a person for just about anything, and no justice system to stand behind you.
> 
> And the other thing that came out of that documentary Moyers is discussing --
> 
> A stunning fact:
> 
> *In 1921 John Williams, former plantation owner, became the 1st Southern white man since 1877 to be convicted for 1st degree murder of an African American and it would not happen again until* *1966*.
> 
> This and the post-Civil war slavery in the South is shown in a superb documentary: Slavery By Another Name.
> 
> Check it out when you have a chance:
> 
> You can watch it for free:
> 
> CLICK --> Watch The Film Slavery by Another Name PBS
Click to expand...

Thank you, I've bookmarked it.

It is now even doubly mindboggling that people still support the entire confederacy.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The first white man executed for murdering a black man after the Civil War did not occur in Texas until this century.


----------



## paperview

JakeStarkey said:


> The first white man executed for murdering a black man after the Civil War did not occur in Texas until this century.


Pretty stunning factoid, isn't it?


----------



## Toro

After listening to all the Confederate apologists, I didn't even know there was slavery in the South.


----------



## paperview

Toro said:


> After listening to all the Confederate apologists, I didn't even know there was slavery in the South.


Biblically justified slavery.

These were good "Christians" - donchaknow.


----------



## whitehall

paperview said:


> guno said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederacy only existed for a couple of years in American history but it gives low information idiots a target for hatred. The Confederacy never funded a slave ship or captured a Negro in Africa. The sad truth about the 200 years of international slavery is that the ensign that flew off slave ships wasn't the Confederate battle flag that mostly inner city northern idiots grew up hating. The flag that flew from the stern of slave ships was the British union jack and the French and Spanish flags and the Stars and Stripes. The industrial revolution would have put slavery out of business but the inept Lincoln administration couldn't wait. Innocent Southern people who had nothing to do with slavery died because Lincoln hired a drunk and a maniac to kill civilians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the southern crackers states, now referred to as jesusland wasted no time in instituting jim crow after they got their asses kicked
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup.
> 
> And even re-enslaving them.
> 
> Slavery abolished in the South, by FORCE: *1865.*
> Slavery by another name in the South continued till until *1951*, when Peonage and in essence, re-enslavement was made illegal.
> 
> And this is a stunning figure, in bold below: "*It is estimated that up to 40% of blacks in the South were imprisoned in peonage in the beginning of the 20th century*."
> 
> Just incredible.
> 
> "Southern states passed "Black Codes" to control the movement of freedmen and to try to gain their labor for planters. They often declared as vagrant someone who was unemployed, even if between jobs. They tried to restrict the movement of freedmen between rural areas and cities, to between towns. Under such laws, local officials arbitrarily arrested tens of thousands of freedmen, and charged them with fines and the court costs of their cases.
> 
> White merchants, farmers or business owners could pay their debts, and the prisoner had to work off the debt. Prisoners were "sold" or leased as forced laborers to owners and operators of coal mines, lumber camps, brickyards, railroads, quarries and farm plantations, with the revenues for their labor going to the states. Thousands of other African Americans were seized by southern landowners and compelled into years of involuntary servitude.
> 
> Government officials leased falsely imprisoned blacks to small-town entrepreneurs, provincial farmers, and dozens of corporations looking for cheap labor. Black men, women and children were forced to labor without compensation. Their labor was repeatedly bought and sold for decades after the official abolition of American slavery.
> 
> Whites were seldom prosecuted for holding black workers against their will in peonage. *Southern states and private businesses boomed with this free labor. It is estimated that up to 40% of blacks in the South were imprisoned in peonage in the beginning of the 20th century*.
> 
> Overseers and owners often used severe deprivation, beatings, whippings and other abuse as "discipline" against the workers."
> 
> Peon - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Here is a clip from Moyers talking with the author of the Pulitzer Prize winning book,
Click to expand...



Bill Moyers? Americans lost more than half a million of their best and bravest on both sides because the Lincoln administration did not have the intelligence or the emotional veracity to make a deal with the border states to put off a conflagration that would kill a freaking 6th of the population. Lincoln was the problem, not the solution.


----------



## paperview

whitehall said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guno said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederacy only existed for a couple of years in American history but it gives low information idiots a target for hatred. The Confederacy never funded a slave ship or captured a Negro in Africa. The sad truth about the 200 years of international slavery is that the ensign that flew off slave ships wasn't the Confederate battle flag that mostly inner city northern idiots grew up hating. The flag that flew from the stern of slave ships was the British union jack and the French and Spanish flags and the Stars and Stripes. The industrial revolution would have put slavery out of business but the inept Lincoln administration couldn't wait. Innocent Southern people who had nothing to do with slavery died because Lincoln hired a drunk and a maniac to kill civilians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the southern crackers states, now referred to as jesusland wasted no time in instituting jim crow after they got their asses kicked
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup.
> 
> And even re-enslaving them.
> 
> Slavery abolished in the South, by FORCE: *1865.*
> Slavery by another name in the South continued till until *1951*, when Peonage and in essence, re-enslavement was made illegal.
> 
> And this is a stunning figure, in bold below: "*It is estimated that up to 40% of blacks in the South were imprisoned in peonage in the beginning of the 20th century*."
> 
> Just incredible.
> 
> "Southern states passed "Black Codes" to control the movement of freedmen and to try to gain their labor for planters. They often declared as vagrant someone who was unemployed, even if between jobs. They tried to restrict the movement of freedmen between rural areas and cities, to between towns. Under such laws, local officials arbitrarily arrested tens of thousands of freedmen, and charged them with fines and the court costs of their cases.
> 
> White merchants, farmers or business owners could pay their debts, and the prisoner had to work off the debt. Prisoners were "sold" or leased as forced laborers to owners and operators of coal mines, lumber camps, brickyards, railroads, quarries and farm plantations, with the revenues for their labor going to the states. Thousands of other African Americans were seized by southern landowners and compelled into years of involuntary servitude.
> 
> Government officials leased falsely imprisoned blacks to small-town entrepreneurs, provincial farmers, and dozens of corporations looking for cheap labor. Black men, women and children were forced to labor without compensation. Their labor was repeatedly bought and sold for decades after the official abolition of American slavery.
> 
> Whites were seldom prosecuted for holding black workers against their will in peonage. *Southern states and private businesses boomed with this free labor. It is estimated that up to 40% of blacks in the South were imprisoned in peonage in the beginning of the 20th century*.
> 
> Overseers and owners often used severe deprivation, beatings, whippings and other abuse as "discipline" against the workers."
> 
> Peon - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Here is a clip from Moyers talking with the author of the Pulitzer Prize winning book,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Moyers? Americans lost more than half a million of their best and bravest on both sides because the Lincoln administration did not have the intelligence or the emotional veracity to make a deal with the border states to put off a conflagration that would kill a freaking 6th of the population. Lincoln was the problem, not the solution.
Click to expand...

^ a totally ignorant post.


----------



## JakeStarkey

^totally correct


----------



## Asclepias

whitehall said:


> The Confederacy only existed for a couple of years in American history but it gives low information idiots a target for hatred. The Confederacy never funded a slave ship or captured a Negro in Africa. The sad truth about the 200 years of international slavery is that the ensign that flew off slave ships wasn't the Confederate battle flag that mostly inner city northern idiots grew up hating. The flag that flew from the stern of slave ships was the British union jack and the French and Spanish flags and the Stars and Stripes. The industrial revolution would have put slavery out of business but the inept Lincoln administration couldn't wait. Innocent Southern people who had nothing to do with slavery died because Lincoln hired a drunk and a maniac to kill civilians.



No such thing as innocent white Southern people. If they supported the confederacy either actively or passively they supported slavery primarily for economic reasons.

Cornerstone Speech - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition."


----------



## Mad Scientist

Maine must have been part of the south since the Governor had slaves.


----------



## Asclepias

Mad Scientist said:


> Maine must have been part of the south since the Governor had slaves.


Nope wrong answer.


----------



## defcon4

*Confederate constitution legalized slavery*
Recently rediscovered documents from March 11, 1861 prove without any further doubt that slavery in fact occurred on the North-American Continent. Morons who do not know anything about history are shocked. They had no idea about it for 154 years what is not shocking.


----------



## ClosedCaption

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that when the nutters try to claim that the Civil War wasn't about slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're all well aware of what the Democratic Party did to brown people and the war they started over it.
Click to expand...



Democratic Party is speculation....but we all know it was whites of all parties


----------



## paperview

defcon4 said:


> *Confederate constitution legalized slavery*
> Recently rediscovered documents from March 11, 1861 prove without any further doubt that slavery in fact occurred on the North-American Continent. Morons who do not know anything about history are shocked. They had no idea about it for 154 years what is not shocking.


But it was the Confederate South that wanted it to remain in perpetuity, and even wrote it into their Constitution.


----------



## defcon4

paperview said:


> defcon4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Confederate constitution legalized slavery*
> Recently rediscovered documents from March 11, 1861 prove without any further doubt that slavery in fact occurred on the North-American Continent. Morons who do not know anything about history are shocked. They had no idea about it for 154 years what is not shocking.
> 
> 
> 
> But it was the Confederate South that wanted it to remain in perpetuity, and even wrote it into their Constitution.
Click to expand...

So what's the news? Of course if one has never heard of it - because skipped history classes - is news to one.


----------



## Ravi

defcon4 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> defcon4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Confederate constitution legalized slavery*
> Recently rediscovered documents from March 11, 1861 prove without any further doubt that slavery in fact occurred on the North-American Continent. Morons who do not know anything about history are shocked. They had no idea about it for 154 years what is not shocking.
> 
> 
> 
> But it was the Confederate South that wanted it to remain in perpetuity, and even wrote it into their Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what's the news? Of course if one has never heard of it - because skipped history classes - is news to one.
Click to expand...

Yeah, a lot of cons didn't know about the confederate constitution. See the thread about cons being willfully stupid.


----------



## defcon4

Ravi said:


> defcon4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> defcon4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Confederate constitution legalized slavery*
> Recently rediscovered documents from March 11, 1861 prove without any further doubt that slavery in fact occurred on the North-American Continent. Morons who do not know anything about history are shocked. They had no idea about it for 154 years what is not shocking.
> 
> 
> 
> But it was the Confederate South that wanted it to remain in perpetuity, and even wrote it into their Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what's the news? Of course if one has never heard of it - because skipped history classes - is news to one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, a lot of cons didn't know about the confederate constitution. See the thread about cons being willfully stupid.
Click to expand...

Your spindle is spinning my dear. Covering up sweetheart?


----------



## James Everett

regent said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederacy only existed for a couple of years in American history but it gives low information idiots a target for hatred. The Confederacy never funded a slave ship or captured a Negro in Africa. The sad truth about the 200 years of international slavery is that the ensign that flew off slave ships wasn't the Confederate battle flag that mostly inner city northern idiots grew up hating. The flag that flew from the stern of slave ships was the British union jack and the French and Spanish flags and the Stars and Stripes. The industrial revolution would have put slavery out of business but the inept Lincoln administration couldn't wait. Innocent Southern people who had nothing to do with slavery died because Lincoln hired a drunk and a maniac to kill civilians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So did the Confederate states Of America make a provision in their new Constitution that states can leave the CSA if unhappy or The CSA government makes a law they don't like?
Click to expand...

Yes, It's under article VI section 6, which is the same as the U.S. CONstitutions tenth amendment, which reserves all power to each State individually which was not delegated to the collective. No power was granted to either the U.S. or the CSA the power to prevent a State from exiting either union/confederacy of States.


----------



## James Everett

gallantwarrior said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederacy only existed for a couple of years in American history but it gives low information idiots a target for hatred. The Confederacy never funded a slave ship or captured a Negro in Africa. The sad truth about the 200 years of international slavery is that the ensign that flew off slave ships wasn't the Confederate battle flag that mostly inner city northern idiots grew up hating. The flag that flew from the stern of slave ships was the British union jack and the French and Spanish flags and the Stars and Stripes. The industrial revolution would have put slavery out of business but the inept Lincoln administration couldn't wait. Innocent Southern people who had nothing to do with slavery died because Lincoln hired a drunk and a maniac to kill civilians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So did the Confederate states Of America make a provision in their new Constitution that states can leave the CSA if unhappy or The CSA government makes a law they don't like?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where exactly do the Confederate States of America exist?  I'm still trying to find their location on this continent, but to no avail.
Click to expand...

The CSA government exists in exile and may be restored by the People of the Southern Confederate States when they decide its time to end U.S. occupation. As for where it exists....One cannot say lo here, or lo there, it exists in the hearts and minds of those of us who know the truth, and it is that truth that will bring about the restoration. Sadly you are to blinded by foolish cult like groupie devotion to a fiction to see the end game.


----------



## James Everett

Ravi said:


> Remember that when the nutters try to claim that the Civil War wasn't about slavery.


The other nutters believe that that is all that it was about: You know just like the fools who believe the hegemony of the U.S. in Iraq was all about WMD?


----------



## James Everett

The truth i


hjmick said:


> EXECUTIVE MANSTON,
> 
> WASHINGTON, Aug. 22, 1862.
> 
> Hon. Horace Greeley:
> 
> DEAR SIR: I have just read yours of the 19th, addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements or assumptions of fact which I may know to be erroneous, I do not now and here controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here argue against them. If there be perceptible in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.
> 
> As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing," as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.
> 
> I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time save Slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy Slavery, I do not agree with them. *My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy Slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.* What I do about Slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save this Union, and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views. I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty, and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men, everywhere, could be free. Yours,
> 
> A. LINCOLN.
> 
> A LETTER FROM PRESIDENT LINCOLN. - Reply to Horace Greeley. Slavery and the Union The Restoration of the Union the Paramount Object. - NYTimes.com


The truth is....Lincoln's rebellion to the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution destroyed the union of States and federalism ushering in a consolidation of the States into a single entity under a wholly national system.
The only way he could have preserved the union was by not rebelling against the lawful authority of the U.S. CONstitution and not invading the CSA.


----------



## James Everett

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that when the nutters try to claim that the Civil War wasn't about slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're all well aware of what the Democratic Party did to brown people and the war they started over it.
Click to expand...

And we Southern Confederates are also aware of the fact that at the same time the U.S. making war on the CSA, it was also simultaneously continuing its extermination of our Native American Indian brothers.


----------



## James Everett

Toro said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that when the nutters try to claim that the Civil War wasn't about slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't have the individual liberty to own human beings of another color, is anyone really free?
Click to expand...

If you don't the individual liberty to exterminate the Native American Indian as the U.S. did, then.....
*"is anyone really free?" *


----------



## James Everett

Ravi said:


> defcon4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> defcon4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Confederate constitution legalized slavery*
> Recently rediscovered documents from March 11, 1861 prove without any further doubt that slavery in fact occurred on the North-American Continent. Morons who do not know anything about history are shocked. They had no idea about it for 154 years what is not shocking.
> 
> 
> 
> But it was the Confederate South that wanted it to remain in perpetuity, and even wrote it into their Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what's the news? Of course if one has never heard of it - because skipped history classes - is news to one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, a lot of cons didn't know about the confederate constitution. See the thread about cons being willfully stupid.
Click to expand...

And the idiots to our north do not realize that Lincoln was in rebellion to the lawful authority of their CONstitution, or that he destroyed the union of States, and federalism.


----------



## James Everett

paperview said:


> defcon4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Confederate constitution legalized slavery*
> Recently rediscovered documents from March 11, 1861 prove without any further doubt that slavery in fact occurred on the North-American Continent. Morons who do not know anything about history are shocked. They had no idea about it for 154 years what is not shocking.
> 
> 
> 
> But it was the Confederate South that wanted it to remain in perpetuity, and even wrote it into their Constitution.
Click to expand...

all the while the Yankee continued to exterminate our Native American brothers and sisters, CONstitution or not, after all who needs a CONstitution to promote what the Yankees were doing.


----------



## Steven_R

whitehall said:


> Bill Moyers? Americans lost more than half a million of their best and bravest on both sides because the Lincoln administration did not have the intelligence or the emotional veracity to make a deal with the border states to put off a conflagration that would kill a freaking 6th of the population. Lincoln was the problem, not the solution.



Lest we forget, Lincoln didn't act in a vacuum. The northern states that remained sent people to Congress that demanded the rebellion be put down, passed budgets and laws and raised armies to do just that. Lincoln may have been in charge of the army but the northern states were the ones that ultimately decided the southern states had no authority to simply leave the union.

Maine had no problem telling Mississippi they couldn't leave.


----------



## James Everett

Asclepias said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederacy only existed for a couple of years in American history but it gives low information idiots a target for hatred. The Confederacy never funded a slave ship or captured a Negro in Africa. The sad truth about the 200 years of international slavery is that the ensign that flew off slave ships wasn't the Confederate battle flag that mostly inner city northern idiots grew up hating. The flag that flew from the stern of slave ships was the British union jack and the French and Spanish flags and the Stars and Stripes. The industrial revolution would have put slavery out of business but the inept Lincoln administration couldn't wait. Innocent Southern people who had nothing to do with slavery died because Lincoln hired a drunk and a maniac to kill civilians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No such thing as innocent white Southern people. If they supported the confederacy either actively or passively they supported slavery primarily for economic reasons.
> 
> Cornerstone Speech - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> "Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition."
Click to expand...

And there were no innocent Yankees as they were fully aware that their U.S. government was exterminating Native American Indian women and children. You hold no moral superiority so give that one up.


----------



## James Everett

Steven_R said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Moyers? Americans lost more than half a million of their best and bravest on both sides because the Lincoln administration did not have the intelligence or the emotional veracity to make a deal with the border states to put off a conflagration that would kill a freaking 6th of the population. Lincoln was the problem, not the solution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lest we forget, Lincoln didn't act in a vacuum. The northern states that remained sent people to Congress that demanded the rebellion be put down, passed budgets and laws and raised armies to do just that. Lincoln may have been in charge of the army but the northern states were the ones that ultimately decided the southern states had no authority to simply leave the union.
> 
> Maine had no problem telling Mississippi they couldn't leave.
Click to expand...

There must have been a law or amendment to the U.S. CONstitution that stated that secession was illegal. Absent a law making something unlawful or illegal, it remains legal. The tenth amendment retained that authority to each individual State.


----------



## James Everett

Ravi said:


> Remember that when the nutters try to claim that the Civil War wasn't about slavery.


I love it when these threads are posted allowing me yet another opportunity to slap Yankees around.


----------



## James Everett

paperview said:


> To wit:
> 
> "Historian John Hope Franklin wrote of President Lincoln :
> 
> "In the fall of 1861 he attempted an experiment with compensated emancipation in Delaware. He interested his friends there and urged them to propose it to the Delaware legislature.
> 
> *He went so far as to write a draft of the bill, which provided for gradual emancipation, and another which provided that the federal government would share the expenses of compensating masters for their slaves. Although these bills were much discussed, there was too much opposition to introduce them."2 With less than 2000 slaves in the whole state, Delaware seemed like an ideal laboratory for President Lincoln's idea, but Congressman George Fisher was unable to get state legislative approval for the idea.*
> 
> *Meanwhile, the President worked a compensated emancipation plan for all slave-owning states.* In early 1862, President Lincoln told abolitionist Mocure D. Conway that southerners "had become at an early day, when there was at least a feeble conscience against slavery, deeply involved commercially and socially with the institution.
> 
> He pitied them heartily, all the more that it had corrupted them; and he earnestly advised us to use what influence we might have to impress on the people the feeling that they should be ready and eager to share largely the pecuniary losses to which the South would be subjected if emancipation should occur. It was the disease of the entire nation, all must share the suffering of its removal."3
> 
> President Lincoln told New York businessman-journalist James R. Gilmore:
> 
> "The feeling is against slavery, not against the South. The war has educated our people into abolition, and they now deny that slaves can be property. But there are two sides to that question.
> 
> One is ours, the other, the southern side; and those people are just as honest and conscientious in their opinion as we are in ours. They think they have a moral and legal right to their slaves, and until very recently the North has been of the same opinion. For two hundred years the whole country has admitted it and regarded and treated the slaves as property. * Now, does the mere fact that the North has come suddenly to a contrary opinion give us the right to take the slaves from their owners without compensation? The blacks must be freed. Slavery is the bone we are fighting over. It must be got out of the way to give us permanent peace, and if we have to fight this war till the South is subjugated, then I think we shall be justified in freeing the slaves without compensation. But in any settlement arrived at before they force things to that extremity, is it not right and fair that we should make payment for the slaves?*"4
> 
> In December 1861, the President sent for Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner. ...
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Blair promised to try to work on his fellow Border State Congressmen and have them visit the President the following day. The response was not positive. Historian James M. McPherson wrote:
> 
> "At a meeting with Lincoln on March 10...border-state congressmen questioned the constitutionality of the proposal, bristled at Lincoln's warning, and deplored the anticipated race problem that would emerge with a large free black population."
> 
> President Lincoln told Carl Schurz, a diplomat-turned general, that * "He was not altogether without hope that the proposition he had presented to the southern states in his message of March 6th would find favorable consideration, at least in some of the border states. He had made the proposition in perfect good faith; it was, perhaps, the last of the kind; and if they repelled it, theirs was the responsibility*."12
> 
> Compensated Emancipation - Abraham Lincoln


The guerrilla that you attempt to hide in the closet is that the U.S. would have been free to end slavery by law in the U.S. with the secession of the Southern States, yet Lincoln chose rebellion to the lawful authority of the U.S. COnstitutions tenth amendment, destroying the union of States in the process. It is a little difficult for the Yankee to maintain any moral superiority while at the same time they were fighting to "preserve the union" and "end Slavery", they were simultaneously exterminating or Native American Indian brothers.


----------



## James Everett

defcon4 said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederacy only existed for a couple of years in American history but it gives low information idiots a target for hatred. The Confederacy never funded a slave ship or captured a Negro in Africa. The sad truth about the 200 years of international slavery is that the ensign that flew off slave ships wasn't the Confederate battle flag that mostly inner city northern idiots grew up hating. The flag that flew from the stern of slave ships was the British union jack and the French and Spanish flags and the Stars and Stripes. The industrial revolution would have put slavery out of business but the inept Lincoln administration couldn't wait. Innocent Southern people who had nothing to do with slavery died because Lincoln hired a drunk and a maniac to kill civilians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So did the Confederate states Of America make a provision in their new Constitution that states can leave the CSA if unhappy or The CSA government makes a law they don't like?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The dirty secret is that the Lincoln administration could have made compensation for the border states for a couple of years and avoided the most incredible carnage in history but Lincoln appointed ass-holes made a series of bad decisions. It wasn't about slavery or state's rights. It was about stupid political confrontation that was based on emotion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was about secession of states from the union. Revisionists history tells otherwise. Dumb asses, who do not know it better because they never look into historical facts, are just parroting the crap invented by the revisionists.
Click to expand...

And I would like for a Yankee dumb ass to cite the law that states that secession was or is an illegal or unlawful act. I have been awaiting the citing of this law for a long time now, but as yet have had a DUMB ASSED Yankee be able to cite such.


----------



## James Everett

This few moments of slapping Yankees around with truth and facts has been such wonderful fun, but its off to work I go. Check back later tonight.


----------



## Steven_R

James Everett said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Moyers? Americans lost more than half a million of their best and bravest on both sides because the Lincoln administration did not have the intelligence or the emotional veracity to make a deal with the border states to put off a conflagration that would kill a freaking 6th of the population. Lincoln was the problem, not the solution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lest we forget, Lincoln didn't act in a vacuum. The northern states that remained sent people to Congress that demanded the rebellion be put down, passed budgets and laws and raised armies to do just that. Lincoln may have been in charge of the army but the northern states were the ones that ultimately decided the southern states had no authority to simply leave the union.
> 
> Maine had no problem telling Mississippi they couldn't leave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There must have been a law or amendment to the U.S. CONstitution that stated that secession was illegal. Absent a law making something unlawful or illegal, it remains legal. The tenth amendment retained that authority to each individual State.
Click to expand...


Legal arguments aside, the northern states through their actions said secession is illegal. If any state tries to leave, they will be forced back into the nation.

Blood in, blood out isn't just for gangs.


----------



## Asclepias

James Everett said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederacy only existed for a couple of years in American history but it gives low information idiots a target for hatred. The Confederacy never funded a slave ship or captured a Negro in Africa. The sad truth about the 200 years of international slavery is that the ensign that flew off slave ships wasn't the Confederate battle flag that mostly inner city northern idiots grew up hating. The flag that flew from the stern of slave ships was the British union jack and the French and Spanish flags and the Stars and Stripes. The industrial revolution would have put slavery out of business but the inept Lincoln administration couldn't wait. Innocent Southern people who had nothing to do with slavery died because Lincoln hired a drunk and a maniac to kill civilians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No such thing as innocent white Southern people. If they supported the confederacy either actively or passively they supported slavery primarily for economic reasons.
> 
> Cornerstone Speech - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> "Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And there were no innocent Yankees as they were fully aware that their U.S. government was exterminating Native American Indian women and children. You hold no moral superiority so give that one up.
Click to expand...

That only works if we are talking about NA's instead of slavery as presented by the OP. The fact you had to deflect to feel just as dirty as the Yankees is amusing.


----------



## JakeStarkey

"The CSA government exists in exile and may be restored by the People of the Southern Confederate States when they decide its time to end U.S. occupation" is loony, but not as loony as Jeri's contention the KKK was started by the Jesuits.  But if Jeri is right, maybe the CSA was started by Jesuits.


----------



## Ravi

James Everett said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that when the nutters try to claim that the Civil War wasn't about slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> I love it when these threads are posted allowing me yet another opportunity to slap Yankees around.
Click to expand...

When are you going to do it?


----------



## James Everett

Asclepias said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederacy only existed for a couple of years in American history but it gives low information idiots a target for hatred. The Confederacy never funded a slave ship or captured a Negro in Africa. The sad truth about the 200 years of international slavery is that the ensign that flew off slave ships wasn't the Confederate battle flag that mostly inner city northern idiots grew up hating. The flag that flew from the stern of slave ships was the British union jack and the French and Spanish flags and the Stars and Stripes. The industrial revolution would have put slavery out of business but the inept Lincoln administration couldn't wait. Innocent Southern people who had nothing to do with slavery died because Lincoln hired a drunk and a maniac to kill civilians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No such thing as innocent white Southern people. If they supported the confederacy either actively or passively they supported slavery primarily for economic reasons.
> 
> Cornerstone Speech - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> "Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And there were no innocent Yankees as they were fully aware that their U.S. government was exterminating Native American Indian women and children. You hold no moral superiority so give that one up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That only works if we are talking about NA's instead of slavery as presented by the OP. The fact you had to deflect to feel just as dirty as the Yankees is amusing.
Click to expand...

The fact is.....
The two are related as they relate to the treatment of fellow man, hence the Yankee, has no right to point to the immorality of the enslavement of the Black man when their ancestors did worse to the Native American Indian to whom you disrespect in your abbreviation. It is always the Yankee tactic to deflect from its immoral past by pointing a crooked finger South and screaming slavery. I wont fly.


----------



## James Everett

Steven_R said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Moyers? Americans lost more than half a million of their best and bravest on both sides because the Lincoln administration did not have the intelligence or the emotional veracity to make a deal with the border states to put off a conflagration that would kill a freaking 6th of the population. Lincoln was the problem, not the solution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lest we forget, Lincoln didn't act in a vacuum. The northern states that remained sent people to Congress that demanded the rebellion be put down, passed budgets and laws and raised armies to do just that. Lincoln may have been in charge of the army but the northern states were the ones that ultimately decided the southern states had no authority to simply leave the union.
> 
> Maine had no problem telling Mississippi they couldn't leave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There must have been a law or amendment to the U.S. CONstitution that stated that secession was illegal. Absent a law making something unlawful or illegal, it remains legal. The tenth amendment retained that authority to each individual State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Legal arguments aside, the northern states through their actions said secession is illegal. If any state tries to leave, they will be forced back into the nation.
> 
> Blood in, blood out isn't just for gangs.
Click to expand...

Oh how cute!!!  Now the U.S. is not a nation of laws? It is a nation built on the foundation of the blood of others?
Thanks for pointing to the tyranny of YOUR government!


----------



## Asclepias

James Everett said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederacy only existed for a couple of years in American history but it gives low information idiots a target for hatred. The Confederacy never funded a slave ship or captured a Negro in Africa. The sad truth about the 200 years of international slavery is that the ensign that flew off slave ships wasn't the Confederate battle flag that mostly inner city northern idiots grew up hating. The flag that flew from the stern of slave ships was the British union jack and the French and Spanish flags and the Stars and Stripes. The industrial revolution would have put slavery out of business but the inept Lincoln administration couldn't wait. Innocent Southern people who had nothing to do with slavery died because Lincoln hired a drunk and a maniac to kill civilians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No such thing as innocent white Southern people. If they supported the confederacy either actively or passively they supported slavery primarily for economic reasons.
> 
> Cornerstone Speech - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> "Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And there were no innocent Yankees as they were fully aware that their U.S. government was exterminating Native American Indian women and children. You hold no moral superiority so give that one up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That only works if we are talking about NA's instead of slavery as presented by the OP. The fact you had to deflect to feel just as dirty as the Yankees is amusing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact is.....
> The two are related as they relate to the treatment of fellow man, hence the Yankee, has no right to point to the immorality of the enslavement of the Black man when their ancestors did worse to the Native American Indian to whom you disrespect in your abbreviation. It is always the Yankee tactic to deflect from its immoral past by pointing a crooked finger South and screaming slavery. I wont fly.
Click to expand...

BS. The south engaged in the slaughter of NA's as well. The difference is that the south fought a war to keep Black people enslaved. Sorry but you loose despite thinking you are educating someone.


----------



## Ravi

James Everett said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederacy only existed for a couple of years in American history but it gives low information idiots a target for hatred. The Confederacy never funded a slave ship or captured a Negro in Africa. The sad truth about the 200 years of international slavery is that the ensign that flew off slave ships wasn't the Confederate battle flag that mostly inner city northern idiots grew up hating. The flag that flew from the stern of slave ships was the British union jack and the French and Spanish flags and the Stars and Stripes. The industrial revolution would have put slavery out of business but the inept Lincoln administration couldn't wait. Innocent Southern people who had nothing to do with slavery died because Lincoln hired a drunk and a maniac to kill civilians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No such thing as innocent white Southern people. If they supported the confederacy either actively or passively they supported slavery primarily for economic reasons.
> 
> Cornerstone Speech - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> "Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And there were no innocent Yankees as they were fully aware that their U.S. government was exterminating Native American Indian women and children. You hold no moral superiority so give that one up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That only works if we are talking about NA's instead of slavery as presented by the OP. The fact you had to deflect to feel just as dirty as the Yankees is amusing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact is.....
> The two are related as they relate to the treatment of fellow man, hence the Yankee, has no right to point to the immorality of the enslavement of the Black man when their ancestors did worse to the Native American Indian to whom you disrespect in your abbreviation. It is always the Yankee tactic to deflect from its immoral past by pointing a crooked finger South and screaming slavery. I wont fly.
Click to expand...

Hey, Bozo. This thread is about the Confederate constitution. Why the deflection?


----------



## Asclepias

Ravi said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederacy only existed for a couple of years in American history but it gives low information idiots a target for hatred. The Confederacy never funded a slave ship or captured a Negro in Africa. The sad truth about the 200 years of international slavery is that the ensign that flew off slave ships wasn't the Confederate battle flag that mostly inner city northern idiots grew up hating. The flag that flew from the stern of slave ships was the British union jack and the French and Spanish flags and the Stars and Stripes. The industrial revolution would have put slavery out of business but the inept Lincoln administration couldn't wait. Innocent Southern people who had nothing to do with slavery died because Lincoln hired a drunk and a maniac to kill civilians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No such thing as innocent white Southern people. If they supported the confederacy either actively or passively they supported slavery primarily for economic reasons.
> 
> Cornerstone Speech - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> "Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And there were no innocent Yankees as they were fully aware that their U.S. government was exterminating Native American Indian women and children. You hold no moral superiority so give that one up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That only works if we are talking about NA's instead of slavery as presented by the OP. The fact you had to deflect to feel just as dirty as the Yankees is amusing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact is.....
> The two are related as they relate to the treatment of fellow man, hence the Yankee, has no right to point to the immorality of the enslavement of the Black man when their ancestors did worse to the Native American Indian to whom you disrespect in your abbreviation. It is always the Yankee tactic to deflect from its immoral past by pointing a crooked finger South and screaming slavery. I wont fly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, Bozo. This thread is about the Confederate constitution. Why the deflection?
Click to expand...

People deflect once they find out they are wrong but lack the capacity to just learn from it.


----------



## James Everett

Ravi said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that when the nutters try to claim that the Civil War wasn't about slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> I love it when these threads are posted allowing me yet another opportunity to slap Yankees around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When are you going to do it?
Click to expand...

When our people have had enough of the occupation, the process of registration is underway, and then the building of a body politic outside the duopoly controlled U.S. political process. However the economic collapse may occur before the process is complete. Only time will tell.


----------



## Asclepias

James Everett said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that when the nutters try to claim that the Civil War wasn't about slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> I love it when these threads are posted allowing me yet another opportunity to slap Yankees around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When are you going to do it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When our people have had enough of the occupation, the process of registration is underway, and then the building of a body politic outside the duopoly controlled U.S. political process. However the economic collapse may occur before the process is complete. Only time will tell.
Click to expand...

So IOW you are doing anything now?


----------



## James Everett

Asclepias said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> No such thing as innocent white Southern people. If they supported the confederacy either actively or passively they supported slavery primarily for economic reasons.
> 
> Cornerstone Speech - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> "Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition."
> 
> 
> 
> And there were no innocent Yankees as they were fully aware that their U.S. government was exterminating Native American Indian women and children. You hold no moral superiority so give that one up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That only works if we are talking about NA's instead of slavery as presented by the OP. The fact you had to deflect to feel just as dirty as the Yankees is amusing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact is.....
> The two are related as they relate to the treatment of fellow man, hence the Yankee, has no right to point to the immorality of the enslavement of the Black man when their ancestors did worse to the Native American Indian to whom you disrespect in your abbreviation. It is always the Yankee tactic to deflect from its immoral past by pointing a crooked finger South and screaming slavery. I wont fly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, Bozo. This thread is about the Confederate constitution. Why the deflection?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People deflect once they find out they are wrong but lack the capacity to just learn from it.
Click to expand...

Oh everyone knows that slavery is wrong, yet Yankees still will not face the immorality of their past and present.
They prefer to point to others rather than look in the mirror.


----------



## Asclepias

James Everett said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there were no innocent Yankees as they were fully aware that their U.S. government was exterminating Native American Indian women and children. You hold no moral superiority so give that one up.
> 
> 
> 
> That only works if we are talking about NA's instead of slavery as presented by the OP. The fact you had to deflect to feel just as dirty as the Yankees is amusing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact is.....
> The two are related as they relate to the treatment of fellow man, hence the Yankee, has no right to point to the immorality of the enslavement of the Black man when their ancestors did worse to the Native American Indian to whom you disrespect in your abbreviation. It is always the Yankee tactic to deflect from its immoral past by pointing a crooked finger South and screaming slavery. I wont fly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, Bozo. This thread is about the Confederate constitution. Why the deflection?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People deflect once they find out they are wrong but lack the capacity to just learn from it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh everyone knows that slavery is wrong, yet Yankees still will not face the immorality of their past and present.
> They prefer to point to others rather than look in the mirror.
Click to expand...

Thats what happens when the subject is about the losers called the confederates. They fought to keep Blacks enslaved. They lost. That has nothing to do with NA's.


----------



## James Everett

Ravi said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederacy only existed for a couple of years in American history but it gives low information idiots a target for hatred. The Confederacy never funded a slave ship or captured a Negro in Africa. The sad truth about the 200 years of international slavery is that the ensign that flew off slave ships wasn't the Confederate battle flag that mostly inner city northern idiots grew up hating. The flag that flew from the stern of slave ships was the British union jack and the French and Spanish flags and the Stars and Stripes. The industrial revolution would have put slavery out of business but the inept Lincoln administration couldn't wait. Innocent Southern people who had nothing to do with slavery died because Lincoln hired a drunk and a maniac to kill civilians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No such thing as innocent white Southern people. If they supported the confederacy either actively or passively they supported slavery primarily for economic reasons.
> 
> Cornerstone Speech - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> "Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And there were no innocent Yankees as they were fully aware that their U.S. government was exterminating Native American Indian women and children. You hold no moral superiority so give that one up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That only works if we are talking about NA's instead of slavery as presented by the OP. The fact you had to deflect to feel just as dirty as the Yankees is amusing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact is.....
> The two are related as they relate to the treatment of fellow man, hence the Yankee, has no right to point to the immorality of the enslavement of the Black man when their ancestors did worse to the Native American Indian to whom you disrespect in your abbreviation. It is always the Yankee tactic to deflect from its immoral past by pointing a crooked finger South and screaming slavery. I wont fly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, Bozo. This thread is about the Confederate constitution. Why the deflection?
Click to expand...

Hey, idiot....
The thread is not about the CSA Constitution, it is about Slavery within, hence it is a point to the mistreatment of fellow man, of which the Yankee has plenty to atone for, without pointing elsewhere. Face your own evils before you point to others.


----------



## James Everett

Asclepias said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> That only works if we are talking about NA's instead of slavery as presented by the OP. The fact you had to deflect to feel just as dirty as the Yankees is amusing.
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is.....
> The two are related as they relate to the treatment of fellow man, hence the Yankee, has no right to point to the immorality of the enslavement of the Black man when their ancestors did worse to the Native American Indian to whom you disrespect in your abbreviation. It is always the Yankee tactic to deflect from its immoral past by pointing a crooked finger South and screaming slavery. I wont fly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, Bozo. This thread is about the Confederate constitution. Why the deflection?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People deflect once they find out they are wrong but lack the capacity to just learn from it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh everyone knows that slavery is wrong, yet Yankees still will not face the immorality of their past and present.
> They prefer to point to others rather than look in the mirror.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats what happens when the subject is about the losers called the confederates. They fought to keep Blacks enslaved. They lost. That has nothing to do with NA's.
Click to expand...

You have your own Yankee misdeeds to atone for. You deal with yours, and we will deal with ours. In other words, IF YOU ARE NOT A SOUTHERN CONFEDERATE, MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS, AND ATONE FOR THE SINS OF YOUR GOVERNMENT.


----------



## Asclepias

James Everett said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> No such thing as innocent white Southern people. If they supported the confederacy either actively or passively they supported slavery primarily for economic reasons.
> 
> Cornerstone Speech - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> "Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition."
> 
> 
> 
> And there were no innocent Yankees as they were fully aware that their U.S. government was exterminating Native American Indian women and children. You hold no moral superiority so give that one up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That only works if we are talking about NA's instead of slavery as presented by the OP. The fact you had to deflect to feel just as dirty as the Yankees is amusing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact is.....
> The two are related as they relate to the treatment of fellow man, hence the Yankee, has no right to point to the immorality of the enslavement of the Black man when their ancestors did worse to the Native American Indian to whom you disrespect in your abbreviation. It is always the Yankee tactic to deflect from its immoral past by pointing a crooked finger South and screaming slavery. I wont fly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, Bozo. This thread is about the Confederate constitution. Why the deflection?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, idiot....
> The thread is not about the CSA Constitution, it is about Slavery within, hence it is a point to the mistreatment of fellow man, of which the Yankee has plenty to atone for, without pointing elsewhere. Face your own evils before you point to others.
Click to expand...

Says right in the title what the OP is about. Matter of fact you dont look too intelligent trying to tell the author of the thread what her thread is about.


----------



## Asclepias

James Everett said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is.....
> The two are related as they relate to the treatment of fellow man, hence the Yankee, has no right to point to the immorality of the enslavement of the Black man when their ancestors did worse to the Native American Indian to whom you disrespect in your abbreviation. It is always the Yankee tactic to deflect from its immoral past by pointing a crooked finger South and screaming slavery. I wont fly.
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, Bozo. This thread is about the Confederate constitution. Why the deflection?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People deflect once they find out they are wrong but lack the capacity to just learn from it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh everyone knows that slavery is wrong, yet Yankees still will not face the immorality of their past and present.
> They prefer to point to others rather than look in the mirror.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats what happens when the subject is about the losers called the confederates. They fought to keep Blacks enslaved. They lost. That has nothing to do with NA's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have your own Yankee misdeeds to atone for. You deal with yours, and we will deal with ours. In other words, IF YOU ARE NOT A SOUTHERN CONFEDERATE, MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS, AND ATONE FOR THE SINS OF YOUR GOVERNMENT.
Click to expand...

Sorry but I will mock you loser confederates as much as I want to. Getting emotional and typing in all caps wont stop me.


----------



## James Everett

James Everett said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> No such thing as innocent white Southern people. If they supported the confederacy either actively or passively they supported slavery primarily for economic reasons.
> 
> Cornerstone Speech - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> "Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition."
> 
> 
> 
> And there were no innocent Yankees as they were fully aware that their U.S. government was exterminating Native American Indian women and children. You hold no moral superiority so give that one up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That only works if we are talking about NA's instead of slavery as presented by the OP. The fact you had to deflect to feel just as dirty as the Yankees is amusing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact is.....
> The two are related as they relate to the treatment of fellow man, hence the Yankee, has no right to point to the immorality of the enslavement of the Black man when their ancestors did worse to the Native American Indian to whom you disrespect in your abbreviation. It is always the Yankee tactic to deflect from its immoral past by pointing a crooked finger South and screaming slavery. I wont fly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, Bozo. This thread is about the Confederate constitution. Why the deflection?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, idiot....
> The thread is not about the CSA Constitution, it is about Slavery within, hence it is a point to the mistreatment of fellow man, of which the Yankee has plenty to atone for, without pointing elsewhere. Face your own evils before you point to others.
Click to expand...


----------



## James Everett

Asclepias said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there were no innocent Yankees as they were fully aware that their U.S. government was exterminating Native American Indian women and children. You hold no moral superiority so give that one up.
> 
> 
> 
> That only works if we are talking about NA's instead of slavery as presented by the OP. The fact you had to deflect to feel just as dirty as the Yankees is amusing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact is.....
> The two are related as they relate to the treatment of fellow man, hence the Yankee, has no right to point to the immorality of the enslavement of the Black man when their ancestors did worse to the Native American Indian to whom you disrespect in your abbreviation. It is always the Yankee tactic to deflect from its immoral past by pointing a crooked finger South and screaming slavery. I wont fly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, Bozo. This thread is about the Confederate constitution. Why the deflection?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, idiot....
> The thread is not about the CSA Constitution, it is about Slavery within, hence it is a point to the mistreatment of fellow man, of which the Yankee has plenty to atone for, without pointing elsewhere. Face your own evils before you point to others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says right in the title what the OP is about. Matter of fact you dont look too intelligent trying to tell the author of the thread what her thread is about.
Click to expand...

Her thread states (And she is the same idiot that I have bitch slapped around several times before) that it is about slavery within the CSA Constitution, hence we may point to the Immorality of the North. You don't set to sit in an ivory tower, you don't have the right to that position. 
The thread is a gratuitous attempt to slap the Southern people around with a stick of guilt to deflect from the Yankees own immorality. The idiot opened the door, I just stepped it to bitch slap her and every other pious Yankee.


----------



## James Everett

Asclepias said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, Bozo. This thread is about the Confederate constitution. Why the deflection?
> 
> 
> 
> People deflect once they find out they are wrong but lack the capacity to just learn from it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh everyone knows that slavery is wrong, yet Yankees still will not face the immorality of their past and present.
> They prefer to point to others rather than look in the mirror.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats what happens when the subject is about the losers called the confederates. They fought to keep Blacks enslaved. They lost. That has nothing to do with NA's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have your own Yankee misdeeds to atone for. You deal with yours, and we will deal with ours. In other words, IF YOU ARE NOT A SOUTHERN CONFEDERATE, MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS, AND ATONE FOR THE SINS OF YOUR GOVERNMENT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry but I will mock you loser confederates as much as I want to. Getting emotional and typing in all caps wont stop me.
Click to expand...

Oh, were you mocking me? 
It didn't have the affect that you sought it seems.
I always stand toe to toe with pseudo intellectual idiots. It is such wonderful fun, witnessing the squirming that you all do when smacked with the facts and truth.


----------



## Asclepias

James Everett said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> That only works if we are talking about NA's instead of slavery as presented by the OP. The fact you had to deflect to feel just as dirty as the Yankees is amusing.
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is.....
> The two are related as they relate to the treatment of fellow man, hence the Yankee, has no right to point to the immorality of the enslavement of the Black man when their ancestors did worse to the Native American Indian to whom you disrespect in your abbreviation. It is always the Yankee tactic to deflect from its immoral past by pointing a crooked finger South and screaming slavery. I wont fly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, Bozo. This thread is about the Confederate constitution. Why the deflection?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, idiot....
> The thread is not about the CSA Constitution, it is about Slavery within, hence it is a point to the mistreatment of fellow man, of which the Yankee has plenty to atone for, without pointing elsewhere. Face your own evils before you point to others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says right in the title what the OP is about. Matter of fact you dont look too intelligent trying to tell the author of the thread what her thread is about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Her thread states (And she is the same idiot that I have bitch slapped around several times before) that it is about slavery within the CSA Constitution, hence we may point to the Immorality of the North. You don't set to sit in an ivory tower, you don't have the right to that position.
> The thread is a gratuitous attempt to slap the Southern people around with a stick of guilt to deflect from the Yankees own immorality. The idiot opened the door, I just stepped it to bitch slap her and every other pious Yankee.
Click to expand...

Sorry but you fail again. The OP is clearly pointing out that the loser confederates and subsequent loser supporters of the confederate try to say the civil war was not about slavery. You must be a loser that cant read in addition to being a loser confederate supporter.


----------



## James Everett

Asclepias said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, Bozo. This thread is about the Confederate constitution. Why the deflection?
> 
> 
> 
> People deflect once they find out they are wrong but lack the capacity to just learn from it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh everyone knows that slavery is wrong, yet Yankees still will not face the immorality of their past and present.
> They prefer to point to others rather than look in the mirror.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats what happens when the subject is about the losers called the confederates. They fought to keep Blacks enslaved. They lost. That has nothing to do with NA's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have your own Yankee misdeeds to atone for. You deal with yours, and we will deal with ours. In other words, IF YOU ARE NOT A SOUTHERN CONFEDERATE, MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS, AND ATONE FOR THE SINS OF YOUR GOVERNMENT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry but I will mock you loser confederates as much as I want to. Getting emotional and typing in all caps wont stop me.
Click to expand...

I aint emotional, the caps are to help idiot Yankees to understand using emphasis with caps.


----------



## Asclepias

James Everett said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> People deflect once they find out they are wrong but lack the capacity to just learn from it.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh everyone knows that slavery is wrong, yet Yankees still will not face the immorality of their past and present.
> They prefer to point to others rather than look in the mirror.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats what happens when the subject is about the losers called the confederates. They fought to keep Blacks enslaved. They lost. That has nothing to do with NA's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have your own Yankee misdeeds to atone for. You deal with yours, and we will deal with ours. In other words, IF YOU ARE NOT A SOUTHERN CONFEDERATE, MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS, AND ATONE FOR THE SINS OF YOUR GOVERNMENT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry but I will mock you loser confederates as much as I want to. Getting emotional and typing in all caps wont stop me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, were you mocking me?
> It didn't have the affect that you sought it seems.
> I always stand toe to toe with pseudo intellectual idiots. It is such wonderful fun, witnessing the squirming that you all do when smacked with the facts and truth.
Click to expand...

Yes I was mocking your delusions that you were making some grand point no one could recover from. Your premise is weak and off topic. You are right about standing at the height of my toe. You are an intellectual midget.


----------



## Asclepias

James Everett said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> People deflect once they find out they are wrong but lack the capacity to just learn from it.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh everyone knows that slavery is wrong, yet Yankees still will not face the immorality of their past and present.
> They prefer to point to others rather than look in the mirror.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats what happens when the subject is about the losers called the confederates. They fought to keep Blacks enslaved. They lost. That has nothing to do with NA's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have your own Yankee misdeeds to atone for. You deal with yours, and we will deal with ours. In other words, IF YOU ARE NOT A SOUTHERN CONFEDERATE, MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS, AND ATONE FOR THE SINS OF YOUR GOVERNMENT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry but I will mock you loser confederates as much as I want to. Getting emotional and typing in all caps wont stop me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I aint emotional, the caps are to help idiot Yankees to understand using infecisi
Click to expand...

Yes you are emotional. Its pretty apparent. You typed in all caps imploring me to mind my business. Too bad you dont have the power to do anything but type in all caps.


----------



## peach174

Delta4Embassy said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that when the nutters try to claim that the Civil War wasn't about slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not like the US Constitution is any better putting blacks at two-thirds that of whites (also legalizing slavery,) and denying women the vote.
Click to expand...


So you would rather of had each slave counted so that the South had more power in the Federal Government?
Slavery WAS an issue, but it was more about free states vs. slave states. Lincoln was firmly opposed to slavery in new states. The South wanted the new states to be slave states, otherwise the South would lose power in Congress and would be solidly outnumbered by the representatives of the free states.


----------



## James Everett

Asclepias said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is.....
> The two are related as they relate to the treatment of fellow man, hence the Yankee, has no right to point to the immorality of the enslavement of the Black man when their ancestors did worse to the Native American Indian to whom you disrespect in your abbreviation. It is always the Yankee tactic to deflect from its immoral past by pointing a crooked finger South and screaming slavery. I wont fly.
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, Bozo. This thread is about the Confederate constitution. Why the deflection?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, idiot....
> The thread is not about the CSA Constitution, it is about Slavery within, hence it is a point to the mistreatment of fellow man, of which the Yankee has plenty to atone for, without pointing elsewhere. Face your own evils before you point to others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says right in the title what the OP is about. Matter of fact you dont look too intelligent trying to tell the author of the thread what her thread is about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Her thread states (And she is the same idiot that I have bitch slapped around several times before) that it is about slavery within the CSA Constitution, hence we may point to the Immorality of the North. You don't set to sit in an ivory tower, you don't have the right to that position.
> The thread is a gratuitous attempt to slap the Southern people around with a stick of guilt to deflect from the Yankees own immorality. The idiot opened the door, I just stepped it to bitch slap her and every other pious Yankee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry but you fail again. The OP is clearly pointing out that the loser confederates and subsequent loser supporters of the confederate try to say the civil war was not about slavery. You must be a loser that cant read in addition to being a southerner.
Click to expand...

I am a Confederate, hence YOUR idiot Yankee cohort used a generalization, as I never claim that Slavery was not one of if not the main reason for secession, yet slavery has nothing to do with the legality of secession.
Goota run now, I will continue the bitch slapping tonight.


----------



## Asclepias

peach174 said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that when the nutters try to claim that the Civil War wasn't about slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not like the US Constitution is any better putting blacks at two-thirds that of whites (also legalizing slavery,) and denying women the vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you would rather of had each slave counted so that the South had more power in the Federal Government?
> Slavery WAS an issue, but it was more about free states vs. slave states. Lincoln was firmly opposed to slavery in new states. The South wanted the new states to be slave states, otherwise the South would lose power in Congress and would be solidly outnumbered by the representatives of the free states.
Click to expand...

No we would rathered the constitution outlaw slavery from the beginning.


----------



## Asclepias

James Everett said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, Bozo. This thread is about the Confederate constitution. Why the deflection?
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, idiot....
> The thread is not about the CSA Constitution, it is about Slavery within, hence it is a point to the mistreatment of fellow man, of which the Yankee has plenty to atone for, without pointing elsewhere. Face your own evils before you point to others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says right in the title what the OP is about. Matter of fact you dont look too intelligent trying to tell the author of the thread what her thread is about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Her thread states (And she is the same idiot that I have bitch slapped around several times before) that it is about slavery within the CSA Constitution, hence we may point to the Immorality of the North. You don't set to sit in an ivory tower, you don't have the right to that position.
> The thread is a gratuitous attempt to slap the Southern people around with a stick of guilt to deflect from the Yankees own immorality. The idiot opened the door, I just stepped it to bitch slap her and every other pious Yankee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry but you fail again. The OP is clearly pointing out that the loser confederates and subsequent loser supporters of the confederate try to say the civil war was not about slavery. You must be a loser that cant read in addition to being a southerner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am a Confederate, hence YOUR idiot Yankee cohort used a generalization, as I never claim that Slavery was not one of if not the main reason for secession, yet slavery has nothing to do with the legality of secession.
> Goota run now, I will continue the bitch slapping tonight.
Click to expand...

Wonder of wonders. You are a loser confederate!  Doesnt matter what you never claimed. Plenty of other losers such as yourself have claimed slavery was not the main reason. You know domestic abuse is against the law right?


----------



## Delta4Embassy

peach174 said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that when the nutters try to claim that the Civil War wasn't about slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not like the US Constitution is any better putting blacks at two-thirds that of whites (also legalizing slavery,) and denying women the vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you would rather of had each slave counted so that the South had more power in the Federal Government?
> Slavery WAS an issue, but it was more about free states vs. slave states. Lincoln was firmly opposed to slavery in new states. The South wanted the new states to be slave states, otherwise the South would lose power in Congress and would be solidly outnumbered by the representatives of the free states.
Click to expand...


Women (rolls eyes) Stick to your knitting girly.


...Logical extension of your arguement.


----------



## Ravi

James Everett said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> That only works if we are talking about NA's instead of slavery as presented by the OP. The fact you had to deflect to feel just as dirty as the Yankees is amusing.
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is.....
> The two are related as they relate to the treatment of fellow man, hence the Yankee, has no right to point to the immorality of the enslavement of the Black man when their ancestors did worse to the Native American Indian to whom you disrespect in your abbreviation. It is always the Yankee tactic to deflect from its immoral past by pointing a crooked finger South and screaming slavery. I wont fly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, Bozo. This thread is about the Confederate constitution. Why the deflection?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, idiot....
> The thread is not about the CSA Constitution, it is about Slavery within, hence it is a point to the mistreatment of fellow man, of which the Yankee has plenty to atone for, without pointing elsewhere. Face your own evils before you point to others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says right in the title what the OP is about. Matter of fact you dont look too intelligent trying to tell the author of the thread what her thread is about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Her thread states (And she is the same idiot that I have bitch slapped around several times before) that it is about slavery within the CSA Constitution, hence we may point to the Immorality of the North. You don't set to sit in an ivory tower, you don't have the right to that position.
> The thread is a gratuitous attempt to slap the Southern people around with a stick of guilt to deflect from the Yankees own immorality. The idiot opened the door, I just stepped it to bitch slap her and every other pious Yankee.
Click to expand...

When have you ever bitch slapped anyone, let alone me? 

Southern people for the most part are not as stupid as you are and most of them realize that the Civil War was about slavery. This thread was intended to point out to the few idiots left in the South (the ones that enjoy making asses of themselves on messageboards) that they are absolutely incorrect about the intent of the Confederacy.

You are invited to stop deflecting and prove that the Confederacy didn't legalize slavery.


----------



## Steven_R

James Everett said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Moyers? Americans lost more than half a million of their best and bravest on both sides because the Lincoln administration did not have the intelligence or the emotional veracity to make a deal with the border states to put off a conflagration that would kill a freaking 6th of the population. Lincoln was the problem, not the solution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lest we forget, Lincoln didn't act in a vacuum. The northern states that remained sent people to Congress that demanded the rebellion be put down, passed budgets and laws and raised armies to do just that. Lincoln may have been in charge of the army but the northern states were the ones that ultimately decided the southern states had no authority to simply leave the union.
> 
> Maine had no problem telling Mississippi they couldn't leave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There must have been a law or amendment to the U.S. CONstitution that stated that secession was illegal. Absent a law making something unlawful or illegal, it remains legal. The tenth amendment retained that authority to each individual State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Legal arguments aside, the northern states through their actions said secession is illegal. If any state tries to leave, they will be forced back into the nation.
> 
> Blood in, blood out isn't just for gangs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh how cute!!!  Now the U.S. is not a nation of laws? It is a nation built on the foundation of the blood of others?
> Thanks for pointing to the tyranny of YOUR government!
Click to expand...


I'm not advocating or approving of what Lincoln and the Union did. I'm just pointing out that regardless of what the Constitution allowed or prohibited, Lincoln didn't act alone and the northern states decided that states could not unilaterally secede.


----------



## Ravi

James Everett said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, Bozo. This thread is about the Confederate constitution. Why the deflection?
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, idiot....
> The thread is not about the CSA Constitution, it is about Slavery within, hence it is a point to the mistreatment of fellow man, of which the Yankee has plenty to atone for, without pointing elsewhere. Face your own evils before you point to others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says right in the title what the OP is about. Matter of fact you dont look too intelligent trying to tell the author of the thread what her thread is about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Her thread states (And she is the same idiot that I have bitch slapped around several times before) that it is about slavery within the CSA Constitution, hence we may point to the Immorality of the North. You don't set to sit in an ivory tower, you don't have the right to that position.
> The thread is a gratuitous attempt to slap the Southern people around with a stick of guilt to deflect from the Yankees own immorality. The idiot opened the door, I just stepped it to bitch slap her and every other pious Yankee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry but you fail again. The OP is clearly pointing out that the loser confederates and subsequent loser supporters of the confederate try to say the civil war was not about slavery. You must be a loser that cant read in addition to being a southerner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am a Confederate, hence YOUR idiot Yankee cohort used a generalization, as I never claim that Slavery was not one of if not the main reason for secession, yet slavery has nothing to do with the legality of secession.
> Goota run now, I will continue the bitch slapping tonight.
Click to expand...

hahahahaha! You are a Confederate???? We must arrest you for treason if you are actively trying to overthrow the USA. Or terrorism.


----------



## peach174

Asclepias said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that when the nutters try to claim that the Civil War wasn't about slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not like the US Constitution is any better putting blacks at two-thirds that of whites (also legalizing slavery,) and denying women the vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you would rather of had each slave counted so that the South had more power in the Federal Government?
> Slavery WAS an issue, but it was more about free states vs. slave states. Lincoln was firmly opposed to slavery in new states. The South wanted the new states to be slave states, otherwise the South would lose power in Congress and would be solidly outnumbered by the representatives of the free states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No we would rathered the constitution outlaw slavery from the beginning.
Click to expand...


They tried but they had to do a compromise with the South so we have the Three Fifths compromise.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Ravi said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, idiot....
> The thread is not about the CSA Constitution, it is about Slavery within, hence it is a point to the mistreatment of fellow man, of which the Yankee has plenty to atone for, without pointing elsewhere. Face your own evils before you point to others.
> 
> 
> 
> Says right in the title what the OP is about. Matter of fact you dont look too intelligent trying to tell the author of the thread what her thread is about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Her thread states (And she is the same idiot that I have bitch slapped around several times before) that it is about slavery within the CSA Constitution, hence we may point to the Immorality of the North. You don't set to sit in an ivory tower, you don't have the right to that position.
> The thread is a gratuitous attempt to slap the Southern people around with a stick of guilt to deflect from the Yankees own immorality. The idiot opened the door, I just stepped it to bitch slap her and every other pious Yankee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry but you fail again. The OP is clearly pointing out that the loser confederates and subsequent loser supporters of the confederate try to say the civil war was not about slavery. You must be a loser that cant read in addition to being a southerner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am a Confederate, hence YOUR idiot Yankee cohort used a generalization, as I never claim that Slavery was not one of if not the main reason for secession, yet slavery has nothing to do with the legality of secession.
> Goota run now, I will continue the bitch slapping tonight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahahahaha! You are a Confederate???? We must arrest you for treason if you are actively trying to overthrow the USA. Or terrorism.
Click to expand...


Looking up Presidential clemncy for another thread the other day, saw that one pardoned all the confederates.


----------



## peach174

Delta4Embassy said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that when the nutters try to claim that the Civil War wasn't about slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not like the US Constitution is any better putting blacks at two-thirds that of whites (also legalizing slavery,) and denying women the vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you would rather of had each slave counted so that the South had more power in the Federal Government?
> Slavery WAS an issue, but it was more about free states vs. slave states. Lincoln was firmly opposed to slavery in new states. The South wanted the new states to be slave states, otherwise the South would lose power in Congress and would be solidly outnumbered by the representatives of the free states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Women (rolls eyes) Stick to your knitting girly.
> 
> 
> ...Logical extension of your arguement.
Click to expand...


It's not an argument it's historical fact.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

peach174 said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that when the nutters try to claim that the Civil War wasn't about slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not like the US Constitution is any better putting blacks at two-thirds that of whites (also legalizing slavery,) and denying women the vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you would rather of had each slave counted so that the South had more power in the Federal Government?
> Slavery WAS an issue, but it was more about free states vs. slave states. Lincoln was firmly opposed to slavery in new states. The South wanted the new states to be slave states, otherwise the South would lose power in Congress and would be solidly outnumbered by the representatives of the free states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Women (rolls eyes) Stick to your knitting girly.
> 
> 
> ...Logical extension of your arguement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not an argument it's historical fact.
Click to expand...


So you don't think women should be allowed to vote, own property, work, have their own financial assets, etc.? How it was when the Constitution was written.


----------



## Asclepias

peach174 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that when the nutters try to claim that the Civil War wasn't about slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not like the US Constitution is any better putting blacks at two-thirds that of whites (also legalizing slavery,) and denying women the vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you would rather of had each slave counted so that the South had more power in the Federal Government?
> Slavery WAS an issue, but it was more about free states vs. slave states. Lincoln was firmly opposed to slavery in new states. The South wanted the new states to be slave states, otherwise the South would lose power in Congress and would be solidly outnumbered by the representatives of the free states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No we would rathered the constitution outlaw slavery from the beginning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They tried but they had to do a compromise with the South so we have the Three Fifths compromise.
Click to expand...

They didnt try. They gave it lip service because they were all hypocrites with the exception of a few that didnt own slaves themsleves.


----------



## peach174

a





Delta4Embassy said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that when the nutters try to claim that the Civil War wasn't about slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not like the US Constitution is any better putting blacks at two-thirds that of whites (also legalizing slavery,) and denying women the vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you would rather of had each slave counted so that the South had more power in the Federal Government?
> Slavery WAS an issue, but it was more about free states vs. slave states. Lincoln was firmly opposed to slavery in new states. The South wanted the new states to be slave states, otherwise the South would lose power in Congress and would be solidly outnumbered by the representatives of the free states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Women (rolls eyes) Stick to your knitting girly.
> 
> 
> ...Logical extension of your arguement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not an argument it's historical fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't think women should be allowed to vote, own property, work, have their own financial assets, etc.? How it was when the Constitution was written.
Click to expand...


That is exactly why we have the bill of rights and nothing to do with what we are talking about.


----------



## peach174

Asclepias said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that when the nutters try to claim that the Civil War wasn't about slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not like the US Constitution is any better putting blacks at two-thirds that of whites (also legalizing slavery,) and denying women the vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you would rather of had each slave counted so that the South had more power in the Federal Government?
> Slavery WAS an issue, but it was more about free states vs. slave states. Lincoln was firmly opposed to slavery in new states. The South wanted the new states to be slave states, otherwise the South would lose power in Congress and would be solidly outnumbered by the representatives of the free states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No we would rathered the constitution outlaw slavery from the beginning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They tried but they had to do a compromise with the South so we have the Three Fifths compromise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They didnt try. They gave it lip service because they were all hypocrites with the exception of a few that didnt own slaves themsleves.
Click to expand...


Then why did they pass a bill for all new states to be slave free?


----------



## Asclepias

peach174 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not like the US Constitution is any better putting blacks at two-thirds that of whites (also legalizing slavery,) and denying women the vote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you would rather of had each slave counted so that the South had more power in the Federal Government?
> Slavery WAS an issue, but it was more about free states vs. slave states. Lincoln was firmly opposed to slavery in new states. The South wanted the new states to be slave states, otherwise the South would lose power in Congress and would be solidly outnumbered by the representatives of the free states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No we would rathered the constitution outlaw slavery from the beginning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They tried but they had to do a compromise with the South so we have the Three Fifths compromise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They didnt try. They gave it lip service because they were all hypocrites with the exception of a few that didnt own slaves themsleves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why did they pass a bill for all new states to be slave free?
Click to expand...

It didnt effect their money and provided political power. BTW there was no law passed for all new states to be free.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

peach174 said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not like the US Constitution is any better putting blacks at two-thirds that of whites (also legalizing slavery,) and denying women the vote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you would rather of had each slave counted so that the South had more power in the Federal Government?
> Slavery WAS an issue, but it was more about free states vs. slave states. Lincoln was firmly opposed to slavery in new states. The South wanted the new states to be slave states, otherwise the South would lose power in Congress and would be solidly outnumbered by the representatives of the free states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Women (rolls eyes) Stick to your knitting girly.
> 
> 
> ...Logical extension of your arguement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not an argument it's historical fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't think women should be allowed to vote, own property, work, have their own financial assets, etc.? How it was when the Constitution was written.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is exactly why we have the bill of rights.
Click to expand...


By the by, Constitution doesn't say blacks are three-fifths that of whites but rather,

"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the *whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."*
Article I Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute

Had nothing to do with blacks vs whites or concern over blacks becomming more populous than whites. Was about free vs slaves. 

As to women's rights, ya, about 150 years later.

"Joint Resolution of Congress proposing a constitutional amendment extending the right of suffrage to women, May 19, 1919"
19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution Women s Right to Vote


----------



## Asclepias

Delta4Embassy said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you would rather of had each slave counted so that the South had more power in the Federal Government?
> Slavery WAS an issue, but it was more about free states vs. slave states. Lincoln was firmly opposed to slavery in new states. The South wanted the new states to be slave states, otherwise the South would lose power in Congress and would be solidly outnumbered by the representatives of the free states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Women (rolls eyes) Stick to your knitting girly.
> 
> 
> ...Logical extension of your arguement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not an argument it's historical fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't think women should be allowed to vote, own property, work, have their own financial assets, etc.? How it was when the Constitution was written.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is exactly why we have the bill of rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By the by, Constitution doesn't say blacks are three-fifths that of whites but rather,
> 
> "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the *whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."*
> Article I Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute
> 
> Had nothing to do with blacks vs whites or concern over blacks becomming more populous than whites. Was about free vs slaves.
> 
> As to women's rights, ya, about 150 years later.
> 
> "Joint Resolution of Congress proposing a constitutional amendment extending the right of suffrage to women, May 19, 1919"
> 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution Women s Right to Vote
Click to expand...

Thats the psychological implication and fits in neatly with the racist views that Blacks were sub-human and therefore needed to be enslaved as the christian thing to do.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Asclepias said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Women (rolls eyes) Stick to your knitting girly.
> 
> 
> ...Logical extension of your arguement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not an argument it's historical fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't think women should be allowed to vote, own property, work, have their own financial assets, etc.? How it was when the Constitution was written.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is exactly why we have the bill of rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By the by, Constitution doesn't say blacks are three-fifths that of whites but rather,
> 
> "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the *whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."*
> Article I Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute
> 
> Had nothing to do with blacks vs whites or concern over blacks becomming more populous than whites. Was about free vs slaves.
> 
> As to women's rights, ya, about 150 years later.
> 
> "Joint Resolution of Congress proposing a constitutional amendment extending the right of suffrage to women, May 19, 1919"
> 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution Women s Right to Vote
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats the psychological implication and fits in neatly with the racist views that Blacks were sub-human and therefore needed to be enslaved as the christian thing to do.
Click to expand...



Offshoot continues to this day with how we often describe murderers are sub-human. Nope. Just human. But we're animals so that kind of potential behaviour is within us all. As with enslaving our own species.


----------



## Asclepias

peach174 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not like the US Constitution is any better putting blacks at two-thirds that of whites (also legalizing slavery,) and denying women the vote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you would rather of had each slave counted so that the South had more power in the Federal Government?
> Slavery WAS an issue, but it was more about free states vs. slave states. Lincoln was firmly opposed to slavery in new states. The South wanted the new states to be slave states, otherwise the South would lose power in Congress and would be solidly outnumbered by the representatives of the free states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No we would rathered the constitution outlaw slavery from the beginning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They tried but they had to do a compromise with the South so we have the Three Fifths compromise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They didnt try. They gave it lip service because they were all hypocrites with the exception of a few that didnt own slaves themsleves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why did they pass a bill for all new states to be slave free?
Click to expand...

Link?


----------



## paperview

peach174 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not like the US Constitution is any better putting blacks at two-thirds that of whites (also legalizing slavery,) and denying women the vote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you would rather of had each slave counted so that the South had more power in the Federal Government?
> Slavery WAS an issue, but it was more about free states vs. slave states. Lincoln was firmly opposed to slavery in new states. The South wanted the new states to be slave states, otherwise the South would lose power in Congress and would be solidly outnumbered by the representatives of the free states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No we would rathered the constitution outlaw slavery from the beginning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They tried but they had to do a compromise with the South so we have the Three Fifths compromise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They didnt try. They gave it lip service because they were all hypocrites with the exception of a few that didnt own slaves themsleves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why did they pass a bill for all new states to be slave free?
Click to expand...

Where did you get that idea?


----------



## James Everett

Ravi said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is.....
> The two are related as they relate to the treatment of fellow man, hence the Yankee, has no right to point to the immorality of the enslavement of the Black man when their ancestors did worse to the Native American Indian to whom you disrespect in your abbreviation. It is always the Yankee tactic to deflect from its immoral past by pointing a crooked finger South and screaming slavery. I wont fly.
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, Bozo. This thread is about the Confederate constitution. Why the deflection?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, idiot....
> The thread is not about the CSA Constitution, it is about Slavery within, hence it is a point to the mistreatment of fellow man, of which the Yankee has plenty to atone for, without pointing elsewhere. Face your own evils before you point to others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says right in the title what the OP is about. Matter of fact you dont look too intelligent trying to tell the author of the thread what her thread is about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Her thread states (And she is the same idiot that I have bitch slapped around several times before) that it is about slavery within the CSA Constitution, hence we may point to the Immorality of the North. You don't set to sit in an ivory tower, you don't have the right to that position.
> The thread is a gratuitous attempt to slap the Southern people around with a stick of guilt to deflect from the Yankees own immorality. The idiot opened the door, I just stepped it to bitch slap her and every other pious Yankee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When have you ever bitch slapped anyone, let alone me?
> 
> Southern people for the most part are not as stupid as you are and most of them realize that the Civil War was about slavery. This thread was intended to point out to the few idiots left in the South (the ones that enjoy making asses of themselves on messageboards) that they are absolutely incorrect about the intent of the Confederacy.
> 
> You are invited to stop deflecting and prove that the Confederacy didn't legalize slavery.
Click to expand...

On other related threads, that's where.
Again, slavery is an irrelevant issue when it comes to the issue of secession. The law is what matters, and there was no law against secession, and at that time, there was no law passed by congress making slavery illegal, that's a sad fact.
The question has nothing to do with slavery. The U.S. CONstitution didn't address slavery, the U.S. Congress never produced a bill, and a U.S. President never signed such into law, therefore the U.S. CONstitution via not addressing the issue of slavery, allowed such hence made it legal until the 13th. 
The questions are .....
When Lincoln and the North rebelled against the lawful authority of their U.S. CONstitition what was their reason?
If it was to end Slavery in the U.S., that was accomplished with the secessions of the Southern States, at that point, there was nothing standing in the way of a constitutional amendment making slavery illegal in the U.S.
If it was to preserve the union, that is a fallacy because the union remained after the Southern States seceded, or there would have been no United States to go to war with the Confederate States. 
So, what exactly is your point that slavery was legal in our CSA Constitution? It was just as legal under your U.S. CONstitution since it's RATification, else it would have stated such within. Why don't you just stick to concerns about your own government?


----------



## James Everett

paperview said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you would rather of had each slave counted so that the South had more power in the Federal Government?
> Slavery WAS an issue, but it was more about free states vs. slave states. Lincoln was firmly opposed to slavery in new states. The South wanted the new states to be slave states, otherwise the South would lose power in Congress and would be solidly outnumbered by the representatives of the free states.
> 
> 
> 
> No we would rathered the constitution outlaw slavery from the beginning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They tried but they had to do a compromise with the South so we have the Three Fifths compromise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They didnt try. They gave it lip service because they were all hypocrites with the exception of a few that didnt own slaves themsleves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why did they pass a bill for all new states to be slave free?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did you get that idea?
Click to expand...

Johnson, pardoned the confederate soldiers and officers. Otherwise the legal arguments would have exposed Lincoln's rebellion.


----------



## James Everett

Asclepias said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, idiot....
> The thread is not about the CSA Constitution, it is about Slavery within, hence it is a point to the mistreatment of fellow man, of which the Yankee has plenty to atone for, without pointing elsewhere. Face your own evils before you point to others.
> 
> 
> 
> Says right in the title what the OP is about. Matter of fact you dont look too intelligent trying to tell the author of the thread what her thread is about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Her thread states (And she is the same idiot that I have bitch slapped around several times before) that it is about slavery within the CSA Constitution, hence we may point to the Immorality of the North. You don't set to sit in an ivory tower, you don't have the right to that position.
> The thread is a gratuitous attempt to slap the Southern people around with a stick of guilt to deflect from the Yankees own immorality. The idiot opened the door, I just stepped it to bitch slap her and every other pious Yankee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry but you fail again. The OP is clearly pointing out that the loser confederates and subsequent loser supporters of the confederate try to say the civil war was not about slavery. You must be a loser that cant read in addition to being a southerner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am a Confederate, hence YOUR idiot Yankee cohort used a generalization, as I never claim that Slavery was not one of if not the main reason for secession, yet slavery has nothing to do with the legality of secession.
> Goota run now, I will continue the bitch slapping tonight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wonder of wonders. You are a loser confederate!  Doesnt matter what you never claimed. Plenty of other losers such as yourself have claimed slavery was not the main reason. You know domestic abuse is against the law right?
Click to expand...

Domestic abuse is a State issue you ignorant Yankee. Your own U.S. CONstitution allowed legal slavery by not addressing it within that CONstitution, why do you think it lasted all those years before secession?


----------



## peach174

paperview said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you would rather of had each slave counted so that the South had more power in the Federal Government?
> Slavery WAS an issue, but it was more about free states vs. slave states. Lincoln was firmly opposed to slavery in new states. The South wanted the new states to be slave states, otherwise the South would lose power in Congress and would be solidly outnumbered by the representatives of the free states.
> 
> 
> 
> No we would rathered the constitution outlaw slavery from the beginning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They tried but they had to do a compromise with the South so we have the Three Fifths compromise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They didnt try. They gave it lip service because they were all hypocrites with the exception of a few that didnt own slaves themsleves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why did they pass a bill for all new states to be slave free?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did you get that idea?
Click to expand...


The Northwest Ordinance
American History USA
The Northwest Ordinance laid out the details of the admission process. When a territory reached 60,000 people it could create a constitution and apply for statehood. This procedure was first applied to Ohio in 1803, and served as a continuing model for the remainder of the United States.

Slavery and involuntary servitude were forbidden in the Northwest Territory, thereby making the Ohio River a natural dividing line between the free and slave states of the country.


----------



## Asclepias

peach174 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> No we would rathered the constitution outlaw slavery from the beginning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They tried but they had to do a compromise with the South so we have the Three Fifths compromise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They didnt try. They gave it lip service because they were all hypocrites with the exception of a few that didnt own slaves themsleves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why did they pass a bill for all new states to be slave free?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did you get that idea?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Northwest Ordinance
> American History USA
> The Northwest Ordinance laid out the details of the admission process. When a territory reached 60,000 people it could create a constitution and apply for statehood. This procedure was first applied to Ohio in 1803, and served as a continuing model for the remainder of the United States.
> 
> Slavery and involuntary servitude were forbidden in the Northwest Territory, thereby making the Ohio River a natural dividing line between the free and slave states of the country.
Click to expand...

Thats not all new states but nice try.


----------



## paperview

peach174 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> No we would rathered the constitution outlaw slavery from the beginning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They tried but they had to do a compromise with the South so we have the Three Fifths compromise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They didnt try. They gave it lip service because they were all hypocrites with the exception of a few that didnt own slaves themsleves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why did they pass a bill for all new states to be slave free?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did you get that idea?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Northwest Ordinance
> American History USA
> The Northwest Ordinance laid out the details of the admission process. When a territory reached 60,000 people it could create a constitution and apply for statehood. This procedure was first applied to Ohio in 1803, and served as a continuing model for the remainder of the United States.
> 
> Slavery and involuntary servitude were forbidden in the Northwest Territory, thereby making the Ohio River a natural dividing line between the free and slave states of the country.
Click to expand...



ha ha.  I guess that's why all the states admitted after the original 13 were Freeee!

Amirite?

Who ever said it earlier about you going back to knitting was right.

You're way out of your league here.


----------



## Ravi

James Everett said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, Bozo. This thread is about the Confederate constitution. Why the deflection?
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, idiot....
> The thread is not about the CSA Constitution, it is about Slavery within, hence it is a point to the mistreatment of fellow man, of which the Yankee has plenty to atone for, without pointing elsewhere. Face your own evils before you point to others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says right in the title what the OP is about. Matter of fact you dont look too intelligent trying to tell the author of the thread what her thread is about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Her thread states (And she is the same idiot that I have bitch slapped around several times before) that it is about slavery within the CSA Constitution, hence we may point to the Immorality of the North. You don't set to sit in an ivory tower, you don't have the right to that position.
> The thread is a gratuitous attempt to slap the Southern people around with a stick of guilt to deflect from the Yankees own immorality. The idiot opened the door, I just stepped it to bitch slap her and every other pious Yankee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When have you ever bitch slapped anyone, let alone me?
> 
> Southern people for the most part are not as stupid as you are and most of them realize that the Civil War was about slavery. This thread was intended to point out to the few idiots left in the South (the ones that enjoy making asses of themselves on messageboards) that they are absolutely incorrect about the intent of the Confederacy.
> 
> You are invited to stop deflecting and prove that the Confederacy didn't legalize slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On other related threads, that's where.
> Again, slavery is an irrelevant issue when it comes to the issue of secession. The law is what matters, and there was no law against secession, and at that time, there was no law passed by congress making slavery illegal, that's a sad fact.
> The question has nothing to do with slavery. The U.S. CONstitution didn't address slavery, the U.S. Congress never produced a bill, and a U.S. President never signed such into law, therefore the U.S. CONstitution via not addressing the issue of slavery, allowed such hence made it legal until the 13th.
> The questions are .....
> When Lincoln and the North rebelled against the lawful authority of their U.S. CONstitition what was their reason?
> If it was to end Slavery in the U.S., that was accomplished with the secessions of the Southern States, at that point, there was nothing standing in the way of a constitutional amendment making slavery illegal in the U.S.
> If it was to preserve the union, that is a fallacy because the union remained after the Southern States seceded, or there would have been no United States to go to war with the Confederate States.
> So, what exactly is your point that slavery was legal in our CSA Constitution? It was just as legal under your U.S. CONstitution since it's RATification, else it would have stated such within. Why don't you just stick to concerns about your own government?
Click to expand...

Yes, it is revolting that slavery was ever allowed. But this thread is about how the confederates made it legal in their constitution.


----------



## peach174

paperview said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They tried but they had to do a compromise with the South so we have the Three Fifths compromise.
> 
> 
> 
> They didnt try. They gave it lip service because they were all hypocrites with the exception of a few that didnt own slaves themsleves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why did they pass a bill for all new states to be slave free?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did you get that idea?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Northwest Ordinance
> American History USA
> The Northwest Ordinance laid out the details of the admission process. When a territory reached 60,000 people it could create a constitution and apply for statehood. This procedure was first applied to Ohio in 1803, and served as a continuing model for the remainder of the United States.
> 
> Slavery and involuntary servitude were forbidden in the Northwest Territory, thereby making the Ohio River a natural dividing line between the free and slave states of the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ha ha.  I guess that's why all the states admitted after the original 13 were Freeee!
> 
> Amirite?
> 
> Who ever said it earlier about you going back to knitting was right.
> 
> You're way out of your league here.
Click to expand...


You are the one who asked.
It's your problem if you did not like the answer


----------



## hortysir

Ravi said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, idiot....
> The thread is not about the CSA Constitution, it is about Slavery within, hence it is a point to the mistreatment of fellow man, of which the Yankee has plenty to atone for, without pointing elsewhere. Face your own evils before you point to others.
> 
> 
> 
> Says right in the title what the OP is about. Matter of fact you dont look too intelligent trying to tell the author of the thread what her thread is about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Her thread states (And she is the same idiot that I have bitch slapped around several times before) that it is about slavery within the CSA Constitution, hence we may point to the Immorality of the North. You don't set to sit in an ivory tower, you don't have the right to that position.
> The thread is a gratuitous attempt to slap the Southern people around with a stick of guilt to deflect from the Yankees own immorality. The idiot opened the door, I just stepped it to bitch slap her and every other pious Yankee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When have you ever bitch slapped anyone, let alone me?
> 
> Southern people for the most part are not as stupid as you are and most of them realize that the Civil War was about slavery. This thread was intended to point out to the few idiots left in the South (the ones that enjoy making asses of themselves on messageboards) that they are absolutely incorrect about the intent of the Confederacy.
> 
> You are invited to stop deflecting and prove that the Confederacy didn't legalize slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On other related threads, that's where.
> Again, slavery is an irrelevant issue when it comes to the issue of secession. The law is what matters, and there was no law against secession, and at that time, there was no law passed by congress making slavery illegal, that's a sad fact.
> The question has nothing to do with slavery. The U.S. CONstitution didn't address slavery, the U.S. Congress never produced a bill, and a U.S. President never signed such into law, therefore the U.S. CONstitution via not addressing the issue of slavery, allowed such hence made it legal until the 13th.
> The questions are .....
> When Lincoln and the North rebelled against the lawful authority of their U.S. CONstitition what was their reason?
> If it was to end Slavery in the U.S., that was accomplished with the secessions of the Southern States, at that point, there was nothing standing in the way of a constitutional amendment making slavery illegal in the U.S.
> If it was to preserve the union, that is a fallacy because the union remained after the Southern States seceded, or there would have been no United States to go to war with the Confederate States.
> So, what exactly is your point that slavery was legal in our CSA Constitution? It was just as legal under your U.S. CONstitution since it's RATification, else it would have stated such within. Why don't you just stick to concerns about your own government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is revolting that slavery was ever allowed. But this thread is about how the confederates made it legal in their constitution.
Click to expand...

While conveniently omitting how Lincoln would have made it permanently legal for all states in a lame attempt to lure the CSA back into the Union


----------



## paperview

peach174 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> They didnt try. They gave it lip service because they were all hypocrites with the exception of a few that didnt own slaves themsleves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why did they pass a bill for all new states to be slave free?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did you get that idea?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Northwest Ordinance
> American History USA
> The Northwest Ordinance laid out the details of the admission process. When a territory reached 60,000 people it could create a constitution and apply for statehood. This procedure was first applied to Ohio in 1803, and served as a continuing model for the remainder of the United States.
> 
> Slavery and involuntary servitude were forbidden in the Northwest Territory, thereby making the Ohio River a natural dividing line between the free and slave states of the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ha ha.  I guess that's why all the states admitted after the original 13 were Freeee!
> 
> Amirite?
> 
> Who ever said it earlier about you going back to knitting was right.
> 
> You're way out of your league here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who asked.
> It's your problem if you did not like the answer
Click to expand...

The answer was *wrong.*

You said : "Then why did they pass a bill for all new states to be slave free?"

Then you posted the 1787 Northwest Ordinance.

Which makes people


----------



## Asclepias

hortysir said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says right in the title what the OP is about. Matter of fact you dont look too intelligent trying to tell the author of the thread what her thread is about.
> 
> 
> 
> Her thread states (And she is the same idiot that I have bitch slapped around several times before) that it is about slavery within the CSA Constitution, hence we may point to the Immorality of the North. You don't set to sit in an ivory tower, you don't have the right to that position.
> The thread is a gratuitous attempt to slap the Southern people around with a stick of guilt to deflect from the Yankees own immorality. The idiot opened the door, I just stepped it to bitch slap her and every other pious Yankee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When have you ever bitch slapped anyone, let alone me?
> 
> Southern people for the most part are not as stupid as you are and most of them realize that the Civil War was about slavery. This thread was intended to point out to the few idiots left in the South (the ones that enjoy making asses of themselves on messageboards) that they are absolutely incorrect about the intent of the Confederacy.
> 
> You are invited to stop deflecting and prove that the Confederacy didn't legalize slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On other related threads, that's where.
> Again, slavery is an irrelevant issue when it comes to the issue of secession. The law is what matters, and there was no law against secession, and at that time, there was no law passed by congress making slavery illegal, that's a sad fact.
> The question has nothing to do with slavery. The U.S. CONstitution didn't address slavery, the U.S. Congress never produced a bill, and a U.S. President never signed such into law, therefore the U.S. CONstitution via not addressing the issue of slavery, allowed such hence made it legal until the 13th.
> The questions are .....
> When Lincoln and the North rebelled against the lawful authority of their U.S. CONstitition what was their reason?
> If it was to end Slavery in the U.S., that was accomplished with the secessions of the Southern States, at that point, there was nothing standing in the way of a constitutional amendment making slavery illegal in the U.S.
> If it was to preserve the union, that is a fallacy because the union remained after the Southern States seceded, or there would have been no United States to go to war with the Confederate States.
> So, what exactly is your point that slavery was legal in our CSA Constitution? It was just as legal under your U.S. CONstitution since it's RATification, else it would have stated such within. Why don't you just stick to concerns about your own government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is revolting that slavery was ever allowed. But this thread is about how the confederates made it legal in their constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While conveniently omitting how Lincoln would have made it permanently legal for all states in a lame attempt to lure the CSA back into the Union
Click to expand...

Another deflection. Did the loser confederates legalize slavery in their constitution and go to war over slavery or not?


----------



## hortysir

Asclepias said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Her thread states (And she is the same idiot that I have bitch slapped around several times before) that it is about slavery within the CSA Constitution, hence we may point to the Immorality of the North. You don't set to sit in an ivory tower, you don't have the right to that position.
> The thread is a gratuitous attempt to slap the Southern people around with a stick of guilt to deflect from the Yankees own immorality. The idiot opened the door, I just stepped it to bitch slap her and every other pious Yankee.
> 
> 
> 
> When have you ever bitch slapped anyone, let alone me?
> 
> Southern people for the most part are not as stupid as you are and most of them realize that the Civil War was about slavery. This thread was intended to point out to the few idiots left in the South (the ones that enjoy making asses of themselves on messageboards) that they are absolutely incorrect about the intent of the Confederacy.
> 
> You are invited to stop deflecting and prove that the Confederacy didn't legalize slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On other related threads, that's where.
> Again, slavery is an irrelevant issue when it comes to the issue of secession. The law is what matters, and there was no law against secession, and at that time, there was no law passed by congress making slavery illegal, that's a sad fact.
> The question has nothing to do with slavery. The U.S. CONstitution didn't address slavery, the U.S. Congress never produced a bill, and a U.S. President never signed such into law, therefore the U.S. CONstitution via not addressing the issue of slavery, allowed such hence made it legal until the 13th.
> The questions are .....
> When Lincoln and the North rebelled against the lawful authority of their U.S. CONstitition what was their reason?
> If it was to end Slavery in the U.S., that was accomplished with the secessions of the Southern States, at that point, there was nothing standing in the way of a constitutional amendment making slavery illegal in the U.S.
> If it was to preserve the union, that is a fallacy because the union remained after the Southern States seceded, or there would have been no United States to go to war with the Confederate States.
> So, what exactly is your point that slavery was legal in our CSA Constitution? It was just as legal under your U.S. CONstitution since it's RATification, else it would have stated such within. Why don't you just stick to concerns about your own government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is revolting that slavery was ever allowed. But this thread is about how the confederates made it legal in their constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While conveniently omitting how Lincoln would have made it permanently legal for all states in a lame attempt to lure the CSA back into the Union
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another deflection. Did the loser confederates legalize slavery in their constitution and go to war over slavery or not?
Click to expand...

No deflection.
Never denied slavery wasn't legal.
But it wasn't the sole reason for secession.....unless you can show that slave ownership is the only issue mentioned in the constitution of the CSA


----------



## peach174

paperview said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why did they pass a bill for all new states to be slave free?
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you get that idea?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Northwest Ordinance
> American History USA
> The Northwest Ordinance laid out the details of the admission process. When a territory reached 60,000 people it could create a constitution and apply for statehood. This procedure was first applied to Ohio in 1803, and served as a continuing model for the remainder of the United States.
> 
> Slavery and involuntary servitude were forbidden in the Northwest Territory, thereby making the Ohio River a natural dividing line between the free and slave states of the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ha ha.  I guess that's why all the states admitted after the original 13 were Freeee!
> 
> Amirite?
> 
> Who ever said it earlier about you going back to knitting was right.
> 
> You're way out of your league here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who asked.
> It's your problem if you did not like the answer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The answer was *wrong.*
> 
> You said : "Then why did they pass a bill for all new states to be slave free?"
> 
> Then you posted the 1787 Northwest Ordinance.
> 
> Which makes people
Click to expand...



Was it not introduced to congress and passed?
The Northwest Ordinance: Our First National Bill of Rights.
ERIC - The Northwest Ordinance Our First National Bill of Rights. 1986-May


----------



## paperview

peach174 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you get that idea?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Northwest Ordinance
> American History USA
> The Northwest Ordinance laid out the details of the admission process. When a territory reached 60,000 people it could create a constitution and apply for statehood. This procedure was first applied to Ohio in 1803, and served as a continuing model for the remainder of the United States.
> 
> Slavery and involuntary servitude were forbidden in the Northwest Territory, thereby making the Ohio River a natural dividing line between the free and slave states of the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ha ha.  I guess that's why all the states admitted after the original 13 were Freeee!
> 
> Amirite?
> 
> Who ever said it earlier about you going back to knitting was right.
> 
> You're way out of your league here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who asked.
> It's your problem if you did not like the answer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The answer was *wrong.*
> 
> You said : "Then why did they pass a bill for all new states to be slave free?"
> 
> Then you posted the 1787 Northwest Ordinance.
> 
> Which makes people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Was it not introduced to congress and passed?
> The Northwest Ordinance: Our First National Bill of Rights.
> ERIC - The Northwest Ordinance Our First National Bill of Rights. 1986-May
Click to expand...

Quick question peachy: After 1787 to the Civil War -  how many new states entered  the union "slave free" states?

Think on it.  Real hard.


----------



## paperview

Asclepias said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Her thread states (And she is the same idiot that I have bitch slapped around several times before) that it is about slavery within the CSA Constitution, hence we may point to the Immorality of the North. You don't set to sit in an ivory tower, you don't have the right to that position.
> The thread is a gratuitous attempt to slap the Southern people around with a stick of guilt to deflect from the Yankees own immorality. The idiot opened the door, I just stepped it to bitch slap her and every other pious Yankee.
> 
> 
> 
> When have you ever bitch slapped anyone, let alone me?
> 
> Southern people for the most part are not as stupid as you are and most of them realize that the Civil War was about slavery. This thread was intended to point out to the few idiots left in the South (the ones that enjoy making asses of themselves on messageboards) that they are absolutely incorrect about the intent of the Confederacy.
> 
> You are invited to stop deflecting and prove that the Confederacy didn't legalize slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On other related threads, that's where.
> Again, slavery is an irrelevant issue when it comes to the issue of secession. The law is what matters, and there was no law against secession, and at that time, there was no law passed by congress making slavery illegal, that's a sad fact.
> The question has nothing to do with slavery. The U.S. CONstitution didn't address slavery, the U.S. Congress never produced a bill, and a U.S. President never signed such into law, therefore the U.S. CONstitution via not addressing the issue of slavery, allowed such hence made it legal until the 13th.
> The questions are .....
> When Lincoln and the North rebelled against the lawful authority of their U.S. CONstitition what was their reason?
> If it was to end Slavery in the U.S., that was accomplished with the secessions of the Southern States, at that point, there was nothing standing in the way of a constitutional amendment making slavery illegal in the U.S.
> If it was to preserve the union, that is a fallacy because the union remained after the Southern States seceded, or there would have been no United States to go to war with the Confederate States.
> So, what exactly is your point that slavery was legal in our CSA Constitution? It was just as legal under your U.S. CONstitution since it's RATification, else it would have stated such within. Why don't you just stick to concerns about your own government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is revolting that slavery was ever allowed. But this thread is about how the confederates made it legal in their constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While conveniently omitting how Lincoln would have made it permanently legal for all states in a lame attempt to lure the CSA back into the Union
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another deflection. Did the loser confederates legalize slavery in their constitution and go to war over slavery or not?
Click to expand...




hortysir said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says right in the title what the OP is about. Matter of fact you dont look too intelligent trying to tell the author of the thread what her thread is about.
> 
> 
> 
> Her thread states (And she is the same idiot that I have bitch slapped around several times before) that it is about slavery within the CSA Constitution, hence we may point to the Immorality of the North. You don't set to sit in an ivory tower, you don't have the right to that position.
> The thread is a gratuitous attempt to slap the Southern people around with a stick of guilt to deflect from the Yankees own immorality. The idiot opened the door, I just stepped it to bitch slap her and every other pious Yankee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When have you ever bitch slapped anyone, let alone me?
> 
> Southern people for the most part are not as stupid as you are and most of them realize that the Civil War was about slavery. This thread was intended to point out to the few idiots left in the South (the ones that enjoy making asses of themselves on messageboards) that they are absolutely incorrect about the intent of the Confederacy.
> 
> You are invited to stop deflecting and prove that the Confederacy didn't legalize slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On other related threads, that's where.
> Again, slavery is an irrelevant issue when it comes to the issue of secession. The law is what matters, and there was no law against secession, and at that time, there was no law passed by congress making slavery illegal, that's a sad fact.
> The question has nothing to do with slavery. The U.S. CONstitution didn't address slavery, the U.S. Congress never produced a bill, and a U.S. President never signed such into law, therefore the U.S. CONstitution via not addressing the issue of slavery, allowed such hence made it legal until the 13th.
> The questions are .....
> When Lincoln and the North rebelled against the lawful authority of their U.S. CONstitition what was their reason?
> If it was to end Slavery in the U.S., that was accomplished with the secessions of the Southern States, at that point, there was nothing standing in the way of a constitutional amendment making slavery illegal in the U.S.
> If it was to preserve the union, that is a fallacy because the union remained after the Southern States seceded, or there would have been no United States to go to war with the Confederate States.
> So, what exactly is your point that slavery was legal in our CSA Constitution? It was just as legal under your U.S. CONstitution since it's RATification, else it would have stated such within. Why don't you just stick to concerns about your own government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is revolting that slavery was ever allowed. But this thread is about how the confederates made it legal in their constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While conveniently omitting how Lincoln would have made it permanently legal for all states in a lame attempt to lure the CSA back into the Union
Click to expand...


Just when was the Corwin Amendment introduced in the House, and when was it passed?

Gowan. Tell us.


----------



## Ravi

hortysir said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says right in the title what the OP is about. Matter of fact you dont look too intelligent trying to tell the author of the thread what her thread is about.
> 
> 
> 
> Her thread states (And she is the same idiot that I have bitch slapped around several times before) that it is about slavery within the CSA Constitution, hence we may point to the Immorality of the North. You don't set to sit in an ivory tower, you don't have the right to that position.
> The thread is a gratuitous attempt to slap the Southern people around with a stick of guilt to deflect from the Yankees own immorality. The idiot opened the door, I just stepped it to bitch slap her and every other pious Yankee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When have you ever bitch slapped anyone, let alone me?
> 
> Southern people for the most part are not as stupid as you are and most of them realize that the Civil War was about slavery. This thread was intended to point out to the few idiots left in the South (the ones that enjoy making asses of themselves on messageboards) that they are absolutely incorrect about the intent of the Confederacy.
> 
> You are invited to stop deflecting and prove that the Confederacy didn't legalize slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On other related threads, that's where.
> Again, slavery is an irrelevant issue when it comes to the issue of secession. The law is what matters, and there was no law against secession, and at that time, there was no law passed by congress making slavery illegal, that's a sad fact.
> The question has nothing to do with slavery. The U.S. CONstitution didn't address slavery, the U.S. Congress never produced a bill, and a U.S. President never signed such into law, therefore the U.S. CONstitution via not addressing the issue of slavery, allowed such hence made it legal until the 13th.
> The questions are .....
> When Lincoln and the North rebelled against the lawful authority of their U.S. CONstitition what was their reason?
> If it was to end Slavery in the U.S., that was accomplished with the secessions of the Southern States, at that point, there was nothing standing in the way of a constitutional amendment making slavery illegal in the U.S.
> If it was to preserve the union, that is a fallacy because the union remained after the Southern States seceded, or there would have been no United States to go to war with the Confederate States.
> So, what exactly is your point that slavery was legal in our CSA Constitution? It was just as legal under your U.S. CONstitution since it's RATification, else it would have stated such within. Why don't you just stick to concerns about your own government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is revolting that slavery was ever allowed. But this thread is about how the confederates made it legal in their constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While conveniently omitting how Lincoln would have made it permanently legal for all states in a lame attempt to lure the CSA back into the Union
Click to expand...

Link?


----------



## Ravi

hortysir said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> When have you ever bitch slapped anyone, let alone me?
> 
> Southern people for the most part are not as stupid as you are and most of them realize that the Civil War was about slavery. This thread was intended to point out to the few idiots left in the South (the ones that enjoy making asses of themselves on messageboards) that they are absolutely incorrect about the intent of the Confederacy.
> 
> You are invited to stop deflecting and prove that the Confederacy didn't legalize slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On other related threads, that's where.
> Again, slavery is an irrelevant issue when it comes to the issue of secession. The law is what matters, and there was no law against secession, and at that time, there was no law passed by congress making slavery illegal, that's a sad fact.
> The question has nothing to do with slavery. The U.S. CONstitution didn't address slavery, the U.S. Congress never produced a bill, and a U.S. President never signed such into law, therefore the U.S. CONstitution via not addressing the issue of slavery, allowed such hence made it legal until the 13th.
> The questions are .....
> When Lincoln and the North rebelled against the lawful authority of their U.S. CONstitition what was their reason?
> If it was to end Slavery in the U.S., that was accomplished with the secessions of the Southern States, at that point, there was nothing standing in the way of a constitutional amendment making slavery illegal in the U.S.
> If it was to preserve the union, that is a fallacy because the union remained after the Southern States seceded, or there would have been no United States to go to war with the Confederate States.
> So, what exactly is your point that slavery was legal in our CSA Constitution? It was just as legal under your U.S. CONstitution since it's RATification, else it would have stated such within. Why don't you just stick to concerns about your own government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is revolting that slavery was ever allowed. But this thread is about how the confederates made it legal in their constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While conveniently omitting how Lincoln would have made it permanently legal for all states in a lame attempt to lure the CSA back into the Union
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another deflection. Did the loser confederates legalize slavery in their constitution and go to war over slavery or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No deflection.
> Never denied slavery wasn't legal.
> But it wasn't the sole reason for secession.....unless you can show that slave ownership is the only issue mentioned in the constitution of the CSA
Click to expand...

Constitutionally, slavery was never legal. The confederacy made it legal. Connect the dots.


----------



## hortysir

Ravi said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Her thread states (And she is the same idiot that I have bitch slapped around several times before) that it is about slavery within the CSA Constitution, hence we may point to the Immorality of the North. You don't set to sit in an ivory tower, you don't have the right to that position.
> The thread is a gratuitous attempt to slap the Southern people around with a stick of guilt to deflect from the Yankees own immorality. The idiot opened the door, I just stepped it to bitch slap her and every other pious Yankee.
> 
> 
> 
> When have you ever bitch slapped anyone, let alone me?
> 
> Southern people for the most part are not as stupid as you are and most of them realize that the Civil War was about slavery. This thread was intended to point out to the few idiots left in the South (the ones that enjoy making asses of themselves on messageboards) that they are absolutely incorrect about the intent of the Confederacy.
> 
> You are invited to stop deflecting and prove that the Confederacy didn't legalize slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On other related threads, that's where.
> Again, slavery is an irrelevant issue when it comes to the issue of secession. The law is what matters, and there was no law against secession, and at that time, there was no law passed by congress making slavery illegal, that's a sad fact.
> The question has nothing to do with slavery. The U.S. CONstitution didn't address slavery, the U.S. Congress never produced a bill, and a U.S. President never signed such into law, therefore the U.S. CONstitution via not addressing the issue of slavery, allowed such hence made it legal until the 13th.
> The questions are .....
> When Lincoln and the North rebelled against the lawful authority of their U.S. CONstitition what was their reason?
> If it was to end Slavery in the U.S., that was accomplished with the secessions of the Southern States, at that point, there was nothing standing in the way of a constitutional amendment making slavery illegal in the U.S.
> If it was to preserve the union, that is a fallacy because the union remained after the Southern States seceded, or there would have been no United States to go to war with the Confederate States.
> So, what exactly is your point that slavery was legal in our CSA Constitution? It was just as legal under your U.S. CONstitution since it's RATification, else it would have stated such within. Why don't you just stick to concerns about your own government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is revolting that slavery was ever allowed. But this thread is about how the confederates made it legal in their constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While conveniently omitting how Lincoln would have made it permanently legal for all states in a lame attempt to lure the CSA back into the Union
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...

Later in 1861, another proposed amendment, also numbered thirteen, was signed by President Lincoln. This was the only proposed amendment that was ever signed by a president. That resolve to amend read: "ARTICLE THIRTEEN, No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State." (In other words, President Lincoln had signed a resolve that would have permitted slavery, and upheld states' rights.) Only one State, Illinois, ratified this proposed amendment before the Civil War broke out in 1861.
The Missing 13th Amendment - 13


----------



## paperview

Ravi said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> On other related threads, that's where.
> Again, slavery is an irrelevant issue when it comes to the issue of secession. The law is what matters, and there was no law against secession, and at that time, there was no law passed by congress making slavery illegal, that's a sad fact.
> The question has nothing to do with slavery. The U.S. CONstitution didn't address slavery, the U.S. Congress never produced a bill, and a U.S. President never signed such into law, therefore the U.S. CONstitution via not addressing the issue of slavery, allowed such hence made it legal until the 13th.
> The questions are .....
> When Lincoln and the North rebelled against the lawful authority of their U.S. CONstitition what was their reason?
> If it was to end Slavery in the U.S., that was accomplished with the secessions of the Southern States, at that point, there was nothing standing in the way of a constitutional amendment making slavery illegal in the U.S.
> If it was to preserve the union, that is a fallacy because the union remained after the Southern States seceded, or there would have been no United States to go to war with the Confederate States.
> So, what exactly is your point that slavery was legal in our CSA Constitution? It was just as legal under your U.S. CONstitution since it's RATification, else it would have stated such within. Why don't you just stick to concerns about your own government?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is revolting that slavery was ever allowed. But this thread is about how the confederates made it legal in their constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While conveniently omitting how Lincoln would have made it permanently legal for all states in a lame attempt to lure the CSA back into the Union
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another deflection. Did the loser confederates legalize slavery in their constitution and go to war over slavery or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No deflection.
> Never denied slavery wasn't legal.
> But it wasn't the sole reason for secession.....unless you can show that slave ownership is the only issue mentioned in the constitution of the CSA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Constitutionally, slavery was never legal. The confederacy made it legal. Connect the dots.
Click to expand...

In the US, Constitutionally, it was legal.


----------



## paperview

hortysir said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> When have you ever bitch slapped anyone, let alone me?
> 
> Southern people for the most part are not as stupid as you are and most of them realize that the Civil War was about slavery. This thread was intended to point out to the few idiots left in the South (the ones that enjoy making asses of themselves on messageboards) that they are absolutely incorrect about the intent of the Confederacy.
> 
> You are invited to stop deflecting and prove that the Confederacy didn't legalize slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On other related threads, that's where.
> Again, slavery is an irrelevant issue when it comes to the issue of secession. The law is what matters, and there was no law against secession, and at that time, there was no law passed by congress making slavery illegal, that's a sad fact.
> The question has nothing to do with slavery. The U.S. CONstitution didn't address slavery, the U.S. Congress never produced a bill, and a U.S. President never signed such into law, therefore the U.S. CONstitution via not addressing the issue of slavery, allowed such hence made it legal until the 13th.
> The questions are .....
> When Lincoln and the North rebelled against the lawful authority of their U.S. CONstitition what was their reason?
> If it was to end Slavery in the U.S., that was accomplished with the secessions of the Southern States, at that point, there was nothing standing in the way of a constitutional amendment making slavery illegal in the U.S.
> If it was to preserve the union, that is a fallacy because the union remained after the Southern States seceded, or there would have been no United States to go to war with the Confederate States.
> So, what exactly is your point that slavery was legal in our CSA Constitution? It was just as legal under your U.S. CONstitution since it's RATification, else it would have stated such within. Why don't you just stick to concerns about your own government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is revolting that slavery was ever allowed. But this thread is about how the confederates made it legal in their constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While conveniently omitting how Lincoln would have made it permanently legal for all states in a lame attempt to lure the CSA back into the Union
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Later in 1861, another proposed amendment, also numbered thirteen, was signed by President Lincoln. This was the only proposed amendment that was ever signed by a president. That resolve to amend read: "ARTICLE THIRTEEN, No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State." (In other words, President Lincoln had signed a resolve that would have permitted slavery, and upheld states' rights.) Only one State, Illinois, ratified this proposed amendment before the Civil War broke out in 1861.
> The Missing 13th Amendment - 13
Click to expand...

No bub.  That's wrong.

Lincoln never signed that amendment.  The one he signed was the actual 13th amendment, freeing the slaves, in 1865.

The Corwin Amendment passed the Senate in 1860.  Lincoln had nothing to do with it.

In March of 1861 - how many states had already left the Union and begun hostilities?

Better not to get your information from stupid conspiracy laced websites.


----------



## Ravi

paperview said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is revolting that slavery was ever allowed. But this thread is about how the confederates made it legal in their constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> While conveniently omitting how Lincoln would have made it permanently legal for all states in a lame attempt to lure the CSA back into the Union
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another deflection. Did the loser confederates legalize slavery in their constitution and go to war over slavery or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No deflection.
> Never denied slavery wasn't legal.
> But it wasn't the sole reason for secession.....unless you can show that slave ownership is the only issue mentioned in the constitution of the CSA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Constitutionally, slavery was never legal. The confederacy made it legal. Connect the dots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the US, Constitutionally, it was legal.
Click to expand...

No. All are created equal. The interpretation pretended it was legal but it was not.


----------



## Valerie

Ravi said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> While conveniently omitting how Lincoln would have made it permanently legal for all states in a lame attempt to lure the CSA back into the Union
> 
> 
> 
> Another deflection. Did the loser confederates legalize slavery in their constitution and go to war over slavery or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No deflection.
> Never denied slavery wasn't legal.
> But it wasn't the sole reason for secession.....unless you can show that slave ownership is the only issue mentioned in the constitution of the CSA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Constitutionally, slavery was never legal. The confederacy made it legal. Connect the dots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the US, Constitutionally, it was legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. All are created equal. The interpretation pretended it was legal but it was not.
Click to expand...



right, laws don't become recognized as 'unconstitutional' until properly legally challenged as such.


----------



## paperview

Ravi said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> While conveniently omitting how Lincoln would have made it permanently legal for all states in a lame attempt to lure the CSA back into the Union
> 
> 
> 
> Another deflection. Did the loser confederates legalize slavery in their constitution and go to war over slavery or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No deflection.
> Never denied slavery wasn't legal.
> But it wasn't the sole reason for secession.....unless you can show that slave ownership is the only issue mentioned in the constitution of the CSA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Constitutionally, slavery was never legal. The confederacy made it legal. Connect the dots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the US, Constitutionally, it was legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. All are created equal. The interpretation pretended it was legal but it was not.
Click to expand...

Those words aren't in the Constitution.

Slavery was legally Constitutional - with three separate places it explicitly recognized and protected slavery. 

Because it was Constitutional was why Lincoln couldn't just free the slaves.  An Amendment was needed for that.

And he signed that Amendment.  Even though it wasn't required or ever done before - he signed it.


----------



## Valerie

Ravi said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another deflection. Did the loser confederates legalize slavery in their constitution and go to war over slavery or not?
> 
> 
> 
> No deflection.
> Never denied slavery wasn't legal.
> But it wasn't the sole reason for secession.....unless you can show that slave ownership is the only issue mentioned in the constitution of the CSA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Constitutionally, slavery was never legal. The confederacy made it legal. Connect the dots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the US, Constitutionally, it was legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. All are created equal. The interpretation pretended it was legal but it was not.
Click to expand...





paperview said:


> Those words aren't in the Constitution.
> 
> Slavery was legally Constitutional - with three separate places it explicitly recognized and protected slavery.
> 
> Because it was Constitutional was why Lincoln couldn't just free the slaves.  An Amendment was needed for that.
> 
> And he signed that Amendment.  Even though it wasn't required or ever done before - he signed it.





slavery was legal however unconstitutional, as evidenced by the results of having been properly legally challenged...


----------



## paperview

Valerie said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another deflection. Did the loser confederates legalize slavery in their constitution and go to war over slavery or not?
> 
> 
> 
> No deflection.
> Never denied slavery wasn't legal.
> But it wasn't the sole reason for secession.....unless you can show that slave ownership is the only issue mentioned in the constitution of the CSA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Constitutionally, slavery was never legal. The confederacy made it legal. Connect the dots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the US, Constitutionally, it was legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. All are created equal. The interpretation pretended it was legal but it was not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those words aren't in the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was legally Constitutional - with three separate places it explicitly recognized and protected slavery.
> 
> Because it was Constitutional was why Lincoln couldn't just free the slaves.  An Amendment was needed for that.
> 
> And he signed that Amendment.  Even though it wasn't required or ever done before - he signed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> slavery was legal however unconstitutional, as evidenced by the results of having been properly legally challenged...
Click to expand...


"slavery was legal *however unconstitutional, as evidenced by the results of having been properly legally challenged."*

What the heck does that mean?  Yes. It was constitutional .  The Constitution protected and recognized slavery. It wasn't legally challenged in SCOTUS - it took a war to happen to end it.

It was affirmed in 1857 with Dred Scott.


----------



## Valerie

Valerie said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> No deflection.
> Never denied slavery wasn't legal.
> But it wasn't the sole reason for secession.....unless you can show that slave ownership is the only issue mentioned in the constitution of the CSA
> 
> 
> 
> Constitutionally, slavery was never legal. The confederacy made it legal. Connect the dots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the US, Constitutionally, it was legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. All are created equal. The interpretation pretended it was legal but it was not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those words aren't in the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was legally Constitutional - with three separate places it explicitly recognized and protected slavery.
> 
> Because it was Constitutional was why Lincoln couldn't just free the slaves.  An Amendment was needed for that.
> 
> And he signed that Amendment.  Even though it wasn't required or ever done before - he signed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> slavery was legal however unconstitutional, as evidenced by the results of having been properly legally challenged...
Click to expand...




paperview said:


> "slavery was legal however unconstitutional, as evidenced by the results of having been properly legally challenged."
> 
> *What the heck does that mean. * Yes. It was constitutional .  The Constitution protected and recognized slavery.




unconstitutional laws stand until properly challenged...


----------



## paperview

Oh, you're playing word games.  I see.


----------



## Valerie

our constitution merely provided the avenue to equality under the law...


----------



## Valerie

paperview said:


> Oh, you're playing word games.  I see.




what the heck does _that_ mean?


----------



## paperview

Valerie said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you're playing word games.  I see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what the heck does _that_ mean?
Click to expand...

Saying it's unconstitutional when it *was* Constitutional. 

Up until they changed the Constitution.


----------



## Valerie

legislators sometimes make unconstitutional laws... true story.


----------



## paperview

1789 - 1865 - Slavery was Constitutional.

1865 to present - Not Constitutional.


----------



## Valerie

paperview said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you're playing word games.  I see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what the heck does _that_ mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Saying it's unconstitutional when it *was* Constitutional.
> 
> Up until they changed the Constitution.
Click to expand...



so you agree that the confederate constitution legalized slavery...


----------



## Valerie

Ravi said:


> Yes, it is revolting that slavery was ever allowed. But this thread is about *how the confederates made it legal in their constitution*.




those were the days, huh...?


----------



## Valerie

_The United States Constitution defines the structure of the national government and dictates the scope and limitation of its powers. The Constitution is known as “the supreme Law of the Land” and all other laws are measured against it. The application of the articles and amendments of the Constitution comprise constitutional law.


In addition to the United States Constitution, each state has its own constitution and therefore, its own body of constitutional law as well. State constitutions resemble the federal Constitution in that they outline the state government’s structure of legislative, executive and judicial branches as well as contain a bill of rights.


But there are various ways state constitutions differ from the federal Constitution. Often, state constitutions are much longer and more detailed than the federal Constitution. State constitutions focus more on limiting rather than granting power since its general authority has already been established. As a result, the constitution of Alabama is six hundred pages long whereas the federal Constitution can be easily read in one sitting front to back.

 The details in state constitutions are not particularly “constitutional” in nature.

State Constitutions vs. The United States Constitution What is a Paralegal What does a Paralegal do _


----------



## paperview

Valerie said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you're playing word games.  I see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what the heck does _that_ mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Saying it's unconstitutional when it *was* Constitutional.
> 
> Up until they changed the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so you agree that the confederate constitution legalized slavery...
Click to expand...

In their "country" - it was legal and Constitutional, yes.


----------



## RKMBrown

Ravi said:


> Remember that when the nutters try to claim that the Civil War wasn't about slavery.


Remember when the asshole lying POS OPs knew what the word only meant?   The civil war wasn't only about slavery, dumb ass.


----------



## paperview

Just primarily about slavery.

It was the cornerstone.


----------



## James Everett

peach174 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> No we would rathered the constitution outlaw slavery from the beginning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They tried but they had to do a compromise with the South so we have the Three Fifths compromise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They didnt try. They gave it lip service because they were all hypocrites with the exception of a few that didnt own slaves themsleves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why did they pass a bill for all new states to be slave free?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did you get that idea?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Northwest Ordinance
> American History USA
> The Northwest Ordinance laid out the details of the admission process. When a territory reached 60,000 people it could create a constitution and apply for statehood. This procedure was first applied to Ohio in 1803, and served as a continuing model for the remainder of the United States.
> 
> Slavery and involuntary servitude were forbidden in the Northwest Territory, thereby making the Ohio River a natural dividing line between the free and slave states of the country.
Click to expand...

Slavery existed in Northern States well beyond 1803, and the Northwest ordinance was not the U.S. CONstitution which did not make slavery illegal hence allowed its legal existence.


----------



## James Everett

Ravi said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, idiot....
> The thread is not about the CSA Constitution, it is about Slavery within, hence it is a point to the mistreatment of fellow man, of which the Yankee has plenty to atone for, without pointing elsewhere. Face your own evils before you point to others.
> 
> 
> 
> Says right in the title what the OP is about. Matter of fact you dont look too intelligent trying to tell the author of the thread what her thread is about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Her thread states (And she is the same idiot that I have bitch slapped around several times before) that it is about slavery within the CSA Constitution, hence we may point to the Immorality of the North. You don't set to sit in an ivory tower, you don't have the right to that position.
> The thread is a gratuitous attempt to slap the Southern people around with a stick of guilt to deflect from the Yankees own immorality. The idiot opened the door, I just stepped it to bitch slap her and every other pious Yankee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When have you ever bitch slapped anyone, let alone me?
> 
> Southern people for the most part are not as stupid as you are and most of them realize that the Civil War was about slavery. This thread was intended to point out to the few idiots left in the South (the ones that enjoy making asses of themselves on messageboards) that they are absolutely incorrect about the intent of the Confederacy.
> 
> You are invited to stop deflecting and prove that the Confederacy didn't legalize slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On other related threads, that's where.
> Again, slavery is an irrelevant issue when it comes to the issue of secession. The law is what matters, and there was no law against secession, and at that time, there was no law passed by congress making slavery illegal, that's a sad fact.
> The question has nothing to do with slavery. The U.S. CONstitution didn't address slavery, the U.S. Congress never produced a bill, and a U.S. President never signed such into law, therefore the U.S. CONstitution via not addressing the issue of slavery, allowed such hence made it legal until the 13th.
> The questions are .....
> When Lincoln and the North rebelled against the lawful authority of their U.S. CONstitition what was their reason?
> If it was to end Slavery in the U.S., that was accomplished with the secessions of the Southern States, at that point, there was nothing standing in the way of a constitutional amendment making slavery illegal in the U.S.
> If it was to preserve the union, that is a fallacy because the union remained after the Southern States seceded, or there would have been no United States to go to war with the Confederate States.
> So, what exactly is your point that slavery was legal in our CSA Constitution? It was just as legal under your U.S. CONstitution since it's RATification, else it would have stated such within. Why don't you just stick to concerns about your own government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is revolting that slavery was ever allowed. But this thread is about how the confederates made it legal in their constitution.
Click to expand...

It was also legal under YOUR U.S. CONstitution as well. Slavery was around far longer under YOUR U.S. CONstitution than the four years of the CSA Constitution.


----------



## James Everett

paperview said:


> Just primarily about slavery.
> 
> It was the cornerstone.


Again, Slavery is irrelevant to the legality of secession. Slavery was legal under YOUR U.S. CONstitution far longer than under our CSA Constitution. Hence your cornerstone reference is basically just chatter. And YOUR U.S. was built on the bodies of the Native American Indian that your Government made a practice of exterminating.


----------



## James Everett

Asclepias said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Her thread states (And she is the same idiot that I have bitch slapped around several times before) that it is about slavery within the CSA Constitution, hence we may point to the Immorality of the North. You don't set to sit in an ivory tower, you don't have the right to that position.
> The thread is a gratuitous attempt to slap the Southern people around with a stick of guilt to deflect from the Yankees own immorality. The idiot opened the door, I just stepped it to bitch slap her and every other pious Yankee.
> 
> 
> 
> When have you ever bitch slapped anyone, let alone me?
> 
> Southern people for the most part are not as stupid as you are and most of them realize that the Civil War was about slavery. This thread was intended to point out to the few idiots left in the South (the ones that enjoy making asses of themselves on messageboards) that they are absolutely incorrect about the intent of the Confederacy.
> 
> You are invited to stop deflecting and prove that the Confederacy didn't legalize slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On other related threads, that's where.
> Again, slavery is an irrelevant issue when it comes to the issue of secession. The law is what matters, and there was no law against secession, and at that time, there was no law passed by congress making slavery illegal, that's a sad fact.
> The question has nothing to do with slavery. The U.S. CONstitution didn't address slavery, the U.S. Congress never produced a bill, and a U.S. President never signed such into law, therefore the U.S. CONstitution via not addressing the issue of slavery, allowed such hence made it legal until the 13th.
> The questions are .....
> When Lincoln and the North rebelled against the lawful authority of their U.S. CONstitition what was their reason?
> If it was to end Slavery in the U.S., that was accomplished with the secessions of the Southern States, at that point, there was nothing standing in the way of a constitutional amendment making slavery illegal in the U.S.
> If it was to preserve the union, that is a fallacy because the union remained after the Southern States seceded, or there would have been no United States to go to war with the Confederate States.
> So, what exactly is your point that slavery was legal in our CSA Constitution? It was just as legal under your U.S. CONstitution since it's RATification, else it would have stated such within. Why don't you just stick to concerns about your own government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is revolting that slavery was ever allowed. But this thread is about how the confederates made it legal in their constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While conveniently omitting how Lincoln would have made it permanently legal for all states in a lame attempt to lure the CSA back into the Union
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another deflection. Did the loser confederates legalize slavery in their constitution and go to war over slavery or not?
Click to expand...

The Southern Confederate States were forced to defend themselves against the hegemony of the U.S.


----------



## James Everett

hortysir said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> When have you ever bitch slapped anyone, let alone me?
> 
> Southern people for the most part are not as stupid as you are and most of them realize that the Civil War was about slavery. This thread was intended to point out to the few idiots left in the South (the ones that enjoy making asses of themselves on messageboards) that they are absolutely incorrect about the intent of the Confederacy.
> 
> You are invited to stop deflecting and prove that the Confederacy didn't legalize slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On other related threads, that's where.
> Again, slavery is an irrelevant issue when it comes to the issue of secession. The law is what matters, and there was no law against secession, and at that time, there was no law passed by congress making slavery illegal, that's a sad fact.
> The question has nothing to do with slavery. The U.S. CONstitution didn't address slavery, the U.S. Congress never produced a bill, and a U.S. President never signed such into law, therefore the U.S. CONstitution via not addressing the issue of slavery, allowed such hence made it legal until the 13th.
> The questions are .....
> When Lincoln and the North rebelled against the lawful authority of their U.S. CONstitition what was their reason?
> If it was to end Slavery in the U.S., that was accomplished with the secessions of the Southern States, at that point, there was nothing standing in the way of a constitutional amendment making slavery illegal in the U.S.
> If it was to preserve the union, that is a fallacy because the union remained after the Southern States seceded, or there would have been no United States to go to war with the Confederate States.
> So, what exactly is your point that slavery was legal in our CSA Constitution? It was just as legal under your U.S. CONstitution since it's RATification, else it would have stated such within. Why don't you just stick to concerns about your own government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is revolting that slavery was ever allowed. But this thread is about how the confederates made it legal in their constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While conveniently omitting how Lincoln would have made it permanently legal for all states in a lame attempt to lure the CSA back into the Union
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another deflection. Did the loser confederates legalize slavery in their constitution and go to war over slavery or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No deflection.
> Never denied slavery wasn't legal.
> But it wasn't the sole reason for secession.....unless you can show that slave ownership is the only issue mentioned in the constitution of the CSA
Click to expand...

Slavery nor any reason was mentioned in the CSA Constitution. You are confusing the ordinances of secession with our CSA Constitution.


----------



## James Everett

Ravi said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> On other related threads, that's where.
> Again, slavery is an irrelevant issue when it comes to the issue of secession. The law is what matters, and there was no law against secession, and at that time, there was no law passed by congress making slavery illegal, that's a sad fact.
> The question has nothing to do with slavery. The U.S. CONstitution didn't address slavery, the U.S. Congress never produced a bill, and a U.S. President never signed such into law, therefore the U.S. CONstitution via not addressing the issue of slavery, allowed such hence made it legal until the 13th.
> The questions are .....
> When Lincoln and the North rebelled against the lawful authority of their U.S. CONstitition what was their reason?
> If it was to end Slavery in the U.S., that was accomplished with the secessions of the Southern States, at that point, there was nothing standing in the way of a constitutional amendment making slavery illegal in the U.S.
> If it was to preserve the union, that is a fallacy because the union remained after the Southern States seceded, or there would have been no United States to go to war with the Confederate States.
> So, what exactly is your point that slavery was legal in our CSA Constitution? It was just as legal under your U.S. CONstitution since it's RATification, else it would have stated such within. Why don't you just stick to concerns about your own government?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is revolting that slavery was ever allowed. But this thread is about how the confederates made it legal in their constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While conveniently omitting how Lincoln would have made it permanently legal for all states in a lame attempt to lure the CSA back into the Union
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another deflection. Did the loser confederates legalize slavery in their constitution and go to war over slavery or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No deflection.
> Never denied slavery wasn't legal.
> But it wasn't the sole reason for secession.....unless you can show that slave ownership is the only issue mentioned in the constitution of the CSA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Constitutionally, slavery was never legal. The confederacy made it legal. Connect the dots.
Click to expand...

Nothing is illegal unless a law is passed making something illegal. Slavery was NOT illegal under YOUR U.S. CONstitution, because NO LAW or amendment was passed until the 13th amendment which was after the occupation began in 1865. Slavery was legal in YOUR U.S. until then.


----------



## James Everett

Ravi said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> While conveniently omitting how Lincoln would have made it permanently legal for all states in a lame attempt to lure the CSA back into the Union
> 
> 
> 
> Another deflection. Did the loser confederates legalize slavery in their constitution and go to war over slavery or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No deflection.
> Never denied slavery wasn't legal.
> But it wasn't the sole reason for secession.....unless you can show that slave ownership is the only issue mentioned in the constitution of the CSA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Constitutionally, slavery was never legal. The confederacy made it legal. Connect the dots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the US, Constitutionally, it was legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. All are created equal. The interpretation pretended it was legal but it was not.
Click to expand...

That's not YOUR U.S. CONstitution, that you are quoting, that is OUR Declaration of Independence.


----------



## James Everett

Asclepias said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederacy only existed for a couple of years in American history but it gives low information idiots a target for hatred. The Confederacy never funded a slave ship or captured a Negro in Africa. The sad truth about the 200 years of international slavery is that the ensign that flew off slave ships wasn't the Confederate battle flag that mostly inner city northern idiots grew up hating. The flag that flew from the stern of slave ships was the British union jack and the French and Spanish flags and the Stars and Stripes. The industrial revolution would have put slavery out of business but the inept Lincoln administration couldn't wait. Innocent Southern people who had nothing to do with slavery died because Lincoln hired a drunk and a maniac to kill civilians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No such thing as innocent white Southern people. If they supported the confederacy either actively or passively they supported slavery primarily for economic reasons.
> 
> Cornerstone Speech - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> "Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And there were no innocent Yankees as they were fully aware that their U.S. government was exterminating Native American Indian women and children. You hold no moral superiority so give that one up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That only works if we are talking about NA's instead of slavery as presented by the OP. The fact you had to deflect to feel just as dirty as the Yankees is amusing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact is.....
> The two are related as they relate to the treatment of fellow man, hence the Yankee, has no right to point to the immorality of the enslavement of the Black man when their ancestors did worse to the Native American Indian to whom you disrespect in your abbreviation. It is always the Yankee tactic to deflect from its immoral past by pointing a crooked finger South and screaming slavery. I wont fly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BS. The south engaged in the slaughter of NA's as well. The difference is that the south fought a war to keep Black people enslaved. Sorry but you loose despite thinking you are educating someone.
Click to expand...

You are ignorant, because you confuse the SOUTH under YOUR U.S. CONstitution,with the Confederate States of America. Your U.S. government continued its extermination of the Native American Indian for many, MANY years after the occupation of our Southern Confederate States began.


----------



## James Everett

Ravi said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederacy only existed for a couple of years in American history but it gives low information idiots a target for hatred. The Confederacy never funded a slave ship or captured a Negro in Africa. The sad truth about the 200 years of international slavery is that the ensign that flew off slave ships wasn't the Confederate battle flag that mostly inner city northern idiots grew up hating. The flag that flew from the stern of slave ships was the British union jack and the French and Spanish flags and the Stars and Stripes. The industrial revolution would have put slavery out of business but the inept Lincoln administration couldn't wait. Innocent Southern people who had nothing to do with slavery died because Lincoln hired a drunk and a maniac to kill civilians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No such thing as innocent white Southern people. If they supported the confederacy either actively or passively they supported slavery primarily for economic reasons.
> 
> Cornerstone Speech - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> "Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And there were no innocent Yankees as they were fully aware that their U.S. government was exterminating Native American Indian women and children. You hold no moral superiority so give that one up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That only works if we are talking about NA's instead of slavery as presented by the OP. The fact you had to deflect to feel just as dirty as the Yankees is amusing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact is.....
> The two are related as they relate to the treatment of fellow man, hence the Yankee, has no right to point to the immorality of the enslavement of the Black man when their ancestors did worse to the Native American Indian to whom you disrespect in your abbreviation. It is always the Yankee tactic to deflect from its immoral past by pointing a crooked finger South and screaming slavery. I wont fly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, Bozo. This thread is about the Confederate constitution. Why the deflection?
Click to expand...

This thread opened the door to ridicule Hypocrites, I just stepped in to ridicule and set the record straight. Makes you uncomfortable huh?


----------



## James Everett

Asclepias said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> No such thing as innocent white Southern people. If they supported the confederacy either actively or passively they supported slavery primarily for economic reasons.
> 
> Cornerstone Speech - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> "Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition."
> 
> 
> 
> And there were no innocent Yankees as they were fully aware that their U.S. government was exterminating Native American Indian women and children. You hold no moral superiority so give that one up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That only works if we are talking about NA's instead of slavery as presented by the OP. The fact you had to deflect to feel just as dirty as the Yankees is amusing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact is.....
> The two are related as they relate to the treatment of fellow man, hence the Yankee, has no right to point to the immorality of the enslavement of the Black man when their ancestors did worse to the Native American Indian to whom you disrespect in your abbreviation. It is always the Yankee tactic to deflect from its immoral past by pointing a crooked finger South and screaming slavery. I wont fly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, Bozo. This thread is about the Confederate constitution. Why the deflection?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People deflect once they find out they are wrong but lack the capacity to just learn from it.
Click to expand...

You have not shewn me to be wrong about anything. I doubt I could learn much from the ignorant Yankee.


----------



## James Everett

Asclepias said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> That only works if we are talking about NA's instead of slavery as presented by the OP. The fact you had to deflect to feel just as dirty as the Yankees is amusing.
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is.....
> The two are related as they relate to the treatment of fellow man, hence the Yankee, has no right to point to the immorality of the enslavement of the Black man when their ancestors did worse to the Native American Indian to whom you disrespect in your abbreviation. It is always the Yankee tactic to deflect from its immoral past by pointing a crooked finger South and screaming slavery. I wont fly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, Bozo. This thread is about the Confederate constitution. Why the deflection?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People deflect once they find out they are wrong but lack the capacity to just learn from it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh everyone knows that slavery is wrong, yet Yankees still will not face the immorality of their past and present.
> They prefer to point to others rather than look in the mirror.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats what happens when the subject is about the losers called the confederates. They fought to keep Blacks enslaved. They lost. That has nothing to do with NA's.
Click to expand...

The U.S. exterminated the Native American Indian, and yes it has a lot to do with Slavery, as it shows the hypocrisy of the Yankee. Save the Black man Murder the red man. Yeah, a bit hypocritical.


----------



## James Everett

Asclepias said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh everyone knows that slavery is wrong, yet Yankees still will not face the immorality of their past and present.
> They prefer to point to others rather than look in the mirror.
> 
> 
> 
> Thats what happens when the subject is about the losers called the confederates. They fought to keep Blacks enslaved. They lost. That has nothing to do with NA's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have your own Yankee misdeeds to atone for. You deal with yours, and we will deal with ours. In other words, IF YOU ARE NOT A SOUTHERN CONFEDERATE, MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS, AND ATONE FOR THE SINS OF YOUR GOVERNMENT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry but I will mock you loser confederates as much as I want to. Getting emotional and typing in all caps wont stop me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, were you mocking me?
> It didn't have the affect that you sought it seems.
> I always stand toe to toe with pseudo intellectual idiots. It is such wonderful fun, witnessing the squirming that you all do when smacked with the facts and truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I was mocking your delusions that you were making some grand point no one could recover from. Your premise is weak and off topic. You are right about standing at the height of my toe. You are an intellectual midget.
Click to expand...

Grand Point? The Grand point is that YOU YANKEES are hypocrites. Slavery was legal in YOUR U.S. from 1787 until 1865, a bit longer than the four years it was legal in the CSA. Yeah, I'd say its a fairly GRAND point. Squirm a lil more for me Yankee.


----------



## James Everett

Asclepias said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that when the nutters try to claim that the Civil War wasn't about slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not like the US Constitution is any better putting blacks at two-thirds that of whites (also legalizing slavery,) and denying women the vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you would rather of had each slave counted so that the South had more power in the Federal Government?
> Slavery WAS an issue, but it was more about free states vs. slave states. Lincoln was firmly opposed to slavery in new states. The South wanted the new states to be slave states, otherwise the South would lose power in Congress and would be solidly outnumbered by the representatives of the free states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No we would rathered the constitution outlaw slavery from the beginning.
Click to expand...

Yeah but the U.S. CONstitution didnt.


----------



## James Everett

Asclepias said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, idiot....
> The thread is not about the CSA Constitution, it is about Slavery within, hence it is a point to the mistreatment of fellow man, of which the Yankee has plenty to atone for, without pointing elsewhere. Face your own evils before you point to others.
> 
> 
> 
> Says right in the title what the OP is about. Matter of fact you dont look too intelligent trying to tell the author of the thread what her thread is about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Her thread states (And she is the same idiot that I have bitch slapped around several times before) that it is about slavery within the CSA Constitution, hence we may point to the Immorality of the North. You don't set to sit in an ivory tower, you don't have the right to that position.
> The thread is a gratuitous attempt to slap the Southern people around with a stick of guilt to deflect from the Yankees own immorality. The idiot opened the door, I just stepped it to bitch slap her and every other pious Yankee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry but you fail again. The OP is clearly pointing out that the loser confederates and subsequent loser supporters of the confederate try to say the civil war was not about slavery. You must be a loser that cant read in addition to being a southerner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am a Confederate, hence YOUR idiot Yankee cohort used a generalization, as I never claim that Slavery was not one of if not the main reason for secession, yet slavery has nothing to do with the legality of secession.
> Goota run now, I will continue the bitch slapping tonight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wonder of wonders. You are a loser confederate!  Doesnt matter what you never claimed. Plenty of other losers such as yourself have claimed slavery was not the main reason. You know domestic abuse is against the law right?
Click to expand...

Loser? Oh no that's YOU. You are being beaten right now. Squirm and squeal Yankee.


----------



## James Everett

Ravi said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, idiot....
> The thread is not about the CSA Constitution, it is about Slavery within, hence it is a point to the mistreatment of fellow man, of which the Yankee has plenty to atone for, without pointing elsewhere. Face your own evils before you point to others.
> 
> 
> 
> Says right in the title what the OP is about. Matter of fact you dont look too intelligent trying to tell the author of the thread what her thread is about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Her thread states (And she is the same idiot that I have bitch slapped around several times before) that it is about slavery within the CSA Constitution, hence we may point to the Immorality of the North. You don't set to sit in an ivory tower, you don't have the right to that position.
> The thread is a gratuitous attempt to slap the Southern people around with a stick of guilt to deflect from the Yankees own immorality. The idiot opened the door, I just stepped it to bitch slap her and every other pious Yankee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry but you fail again. The OP is clearly pointing out that the loser confederates and subsequent loser supporters of the confederate try to say the civil war was not about slavery. You must be a loser that cant read in addition to being a southerner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am a Confederate, hence YOUR idiot Yankee cohort used a generalization, as I never claim that Slavery was not one of if not the main reason for secession, yet slavery has nothing to do with the legality of secession.
> Goota run now, I will continue the bitch slapping tonight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hahahahaha! You are a Confederate???? We must arrest you for treason if you are actively trying to overthrow the USA. Or terrorism.
Click to expand...

Well, Well, what do we have here? Another Yankee who does not understand his own CONstitution, and its first amendment. Figures.


----------



## James Everett

Asclepias said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Women (rolls eyes) Stick to your knitting girly.
> 
> 
> ...Logical extension of your arguement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not an argument it's historical fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't think women should be allowed to vote, own property, work, have their own financial assets, etc.? How it was when the Constitution was written.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is exactly why we have the bill of rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By the by, Constitution doesn't say blacks are three-fifths that of whites but rather,
> 
> "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the *whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."*
> Article I Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute
> 
> Had nothing to do with blacks vs whites or concern over blacks becomming more populous than whites. Was about free vs slaves.
> 
> As to women's rights, ya, about 150 years later.
> 
> "Joint Resolution of Congress proposing a constitutional amendment extending the right of suffrage to women, May 19, 1919"
> 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution Women s Right to Vote
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats the psychological implication and fits in neatly with the racist views that Blacks were sub-human and therefore needed to be enslaved as the christian thing to do.
Click to expand...

Kinda like the Yankee and the Native American Indian, where the U.S. Soldiers claimed that they were killing babies because nits make lice. I guess the Yankee felt our Native American brothers were nothing but lice.


----------



## James Everett

Delta4Embassy said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not an argument it's historical fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't think women should be allowed to vote, own property, work, have their own financial assets, etc.? How it was when the Constitution was written.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is exactly why we have the bill of rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By the by, Constitution doesn't say blacks are three-fifths that of whites but rather,
> 
> "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the *whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."*
> Article I Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute
> 
> Had nothing to do with blacks vs whites or concern over blacks becomming more populous than whites. Was about free vs slaves.
> 
> As to women's rights, ya, about 150 years later.
> 
> "Joint Resolution of Congress proposing a constitutional amendment extending the right of suffrage to women, May 19, 1919"
> 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution Women s Right to Vote
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats the psychological implication and fits in neatly with the racist views that Blacks were sub-human and therefore needed to be enslaved as the christian thing to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Offshoot continues to this day with how we often describe murderers are sub-human. Nope. Just human. But we're animals so that kind of potential behaviour is within us all. As with enslaving our own species.
Click to expand...

Or exterminating them, such as the case with our Native American brothers.


----------



## Ravi

paperview said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another deflection. Did the loser confederates legalize slavery in their constitution and go to war over slavery or not?
> 
> 
> 
> No deflection.
> Never denied slavery wasn't legal.
> But it wasn't the sole reason for secession.....unless you can show that slave ownership is the only issue mentioned in the constitution of the CSA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Constitutionally, slavery was never legal. The confederacy made it legal. Connect the dots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the US, Constitutionally, it was legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. All are created equal. The interpretation pretended it was legal but it was not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those words aren't in the Constitution.
> 
> Slavery was legally Constitutional - with three separate places it explicitly recognized and protected slavery.
> 
> Because it was Constitutional was why Lincoln couldn't just free the slaves.  An Amendment was needed for that.
> 
> And he signed that Amendment.  Even though it wasn't required or ever done before - he signed it.
Click to expand...

If you mean the 3/5 compromise, that was unconstitutional, as subsequent actions proved. Just because some assholes did something didn't make it constitutional.


----------



## Ravi

RKMBrown said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that when the nutters try to claim that the Civil War wasn't about slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> Remember when the asshole lying POS OPs knew what the word only meant?   The civil war wasn't only about slavery, dumb ass.
Click to expand...

Touchy, aren't you? The nutters I refer to claim it wasn't about slavery at all.


----------



## Ravi

James Everett said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> No such thing as innocent white Southern people. If they supported the confederacy either actively or passively they supported slavery primarily for economic reasons.
> 
> Cornerstone Speech - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> "Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition."
> 
> 
> 
> And there were no innocent Yankees as they were fully aware that their U.S. government was exterminating Native American Indian women and children. You hold no moral superiority so give that one up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That only works if we are talking about NA's instead of slavery as presented by the OP. The fact you had to deflect to feel just as dirty as the Yankees is amusing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact is.....
> The two are related as they relate to the treatment of fellow man, hence the Yankee, has no right to point to the immorality of the enslavement of the Black man when their ancestors did worse to the Native American Indian to whom you disrespect in your abbreviation. It is always the Yankee tactic to deflect from its immoral past by pointing a crooked finger South and screaming slavery. I wont fly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, Bozo. This thread is about the Confederate constitution. Why the deflection?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This thread opened the door to ridicule Hypocrites, I just stepped in to ridicule and set the record straight. Makes you uncomfortable huh?
Click to expand...

Oh, I see. You deflect because you're a hypocrit.


----------



## Valerie

RKMBrown said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that when the nutters try to claim that the Civil War wasn't about slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> Remember when the asshole lying POS OPs knew what the word only meant?   The civil war wasn't only about slavery, dumb ass.
Click to expand...




Ravi said:


> Touchy, aren't you? The nutters I refer to claim it wasn't about slavery at all.




he seems kinda defensive...


----------



## paperview

James Everett said:


> Slavery nor any reason was mentioned in the CSA Constitution. You are confusing the ordinances of secession with our CSA Constitution.



Slavery was mentioned in the CSA Constitution. 

Numerous times.

That's specifically was the primary purpose they founded their "nation" on - Slavery was their Cornerstone.

One remarkable thing the CSA did was also  not allow slavery ever to be abolished. Ever. Our Founders allowed a mechanism for slavery to be abolished.

Not so the the CSA. 

When the framers of the Confederate Constitution wrote it, they went out of their way to make sure they would ever be deprived of their human black property.

They founded their nation on being a* perpetual *slave "nation." -- and any new state joining the CSA in the future was *required *to be a slave state..

How's this humdinger: Article I Section 9 of the Confederate Constitution : “No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.” 

This one? Article IV Section 3: “The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and… In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.”

Expanding, preserving, protecting and defending ownership of human beings was what they were about.

And they were ready to fight to the bloody death their right specifically to own humans and profit richly from their population of nearly half slaves. (nearly 4 million out of a total population of 9 million.)


----------



## paperview

James Everett said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is revolting that slavery was ever allowed. But this thread is about how the confederates made it legal in their constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> While conveniently omitting how Lincoln would have made it permanently legal for all states in a lame attempt to lure the CSA back into the Union
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another deflection. Did the loser confederates legalize slavery in their constitution and go to war over slavery or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No deflection.
> Never denied slavery wasn't legal.
> But it wasn't the sole reason for secession.....unless you can show that slave ownership is the only issue mentioned in the constitution of the CSA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Constitutionally, slavery was never legal. The confederacy made it legal. Connect the dots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing is illegal unless a law is passed making something illegal. Slavery was NOT illegal under YOUR U.S. CONstitution, because NO LAW or amendment was passed until the 13th amendment which was after the occupation began in 1865. Slavery was legal in YOUR U.S. until then.
Click to expand...

There was no federal law, but most all the northern states abolished slavery individually, many in the 18th century.

There were a few slaves here and there in some of the states, border states of course more so, but it was tiny, compared to this:


----------



## paperview

Ravi said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> No deflection.
> Never denied slavery wasn't legal.
> But it wasn't the sole reason for secession.....unless you can show that slave ownership is the only issue mentioned in the constitution of the CSA
> 
> 
> 
> Constitutionally, slavery was never legal. The confederacy made it legal. Connect the dots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the US, Constitutionally, it was legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. All are created equal. The interpretation pretended it was legal but it was not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those words aren't in the Constitution.
> 
> Slavery was legally Constitutional - with three separate places it explicitly recognized and protected slavery.
> 
> Because it was Constitutional was why Lincoln couldn't just free the slaves.  An Amendment was needed for that.
> 
> And he signed that Amendment.  Even though it wasn't required or ever done before - he signed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you mean the 3/5 compromise, that was unconstitutional, as subsequent actions proved. Just because some assholes did something didn't make it constitutional.
Click to expand...

3/5th compromise, Fugitive Slave Clause, and slave trade clause.

Look, I know you are trying to say it was subsequently unconstitutional, but if it's part of the Constitution at the time it *was* Constitutional. 

_After 1865_, it became unconstitutional.


----------



## hortysir

paperview said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery nor any reason was mentioned in the CSA Constitution. You are confusing the ordinances of secession with our CSA Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was mentioned in the CSA Constitution.
> 
> Numerous times.
> 
> That's specifically was the primary purpose they founded their "nation" on - Slavery was their Cornerstone.
> 
> One remarkable thing the CSA did was also  not allow slavery ever to be abolished. Ever. Our Founders allowed a mechanism for slavery to be abolished.
> 
> Not so the the CSA.
> 
> When the framers of the Confederate Constitution wrote it, they went out of their way to make sure they would ever be deprived of their human black property.
> 
> They founded their nation on being a* perpetual *slave "nation." -- and any new state joining the CSA in the future was *required *to be a slave state..
> 
> How's this humdinger: Article I Section 9 of the Confederate Constitution : “No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.”
> 
> This one? Article IV Section 3: “The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and… In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.”
> 
> Expanding, preserving, protecting and defending ownership of human beings was what they were about.
> 
> And they were ready to fight to the bloody death their right specifically to own humans and profit richly from their population of nearly half slaves. (nearly 4 million out of a total population of 9 million.)
Click to expand...

Isn't that what, I call the missing 13th and you call the Corwin, amendment did as well?


----------



## RKMBrown

James Everett said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is revolting that slavery was ever allowed. But this thread is about how the confederates made it legal in their constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> While conveniently omitting how Lincoln would have made it permanently legal for all states in a lame attempt to lure the CSA back into the Union
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another deflection. Did the loser confederates legalize slavery in their constitution and go to war over slavery or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No deflection.
> Never denied slavery wasn't legal.
> But it wasn't the sole reason for secession.....unless you can show that slave ownership is the only issue mentioned in the constitution of the CSA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Constitutionally, slavery was never legal. The confederacy made it legal. Connect the dots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing is illegal unless a law is passed making something illegal. Slavery was NOT illegal under YOUR U.S. CONstitution, because NO LAW or amendment was passed until the 13th amendment which was after the occupation began in 1865. Slavery was legal in YOUR U.S. until then.
Click to expand...

Then slavery became legal again in the 14th and 16th amendments. Only this time with the Government being the slave owner.


----------



## bodecea

Ravi said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that when the nutters try to claim that the Civil War wasn't about slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't have the individual liberty to own human beings of another color, is anyone really free?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course not. The south would have eventually started breeding farms. Much cheaper than importing.
Click to expand...

They already had them...Virginia was well known for its breeding plantations.


----------



## RKMBrown

Ravi said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that when the nutters try to claim that the Civil War wasn't about slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> Remember when the asshole lying POS OPs knew what the word only meant?   The civil war wasn't only about slavery, dumb ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Touchy, aren't you? The nutters I refer to claim it wasn't about slavery at all.
Click to expand...

The north did not attack the south over slavery.  The south did not defend it's people from attack by the north over slavery.  The north did not refuse to remove it's troops from sovereign lands over slavery. The first shots were not over slavery.  The fight was over land and control, not slavery.  Slavery was the excuse given.


----------



## James Everett

paperview said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery nor any reason was mentioned in the CSA Constitution. You are confusing the ordinances of secession with our CSA Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was mentioned in the CSA Constitution.
> 
> Numerous times.
> 
> That's specifically was the primary purpose they founded their "nation" on - Slavery was their Cornerstone.
> 
> One remarkable thing the CSA did was also  not allow slavery ever to be abolished. Ever. Our Founders allowed a mechanism for slavery to be abolished.
> 
> Not so the the CSA.
> 
> When the framers of the Confederate Constitution wrote it, they went out of their way to make sure they would ever be deprived of their human black property.
> 
> They founded their nation on being a* perpetual *slave "nation." -- and any new state joining the CSA in the future was *required *to be a slave state..
> 
> How's this humdinger: Article I Section 9 of the Confederate Constitution : “No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.”
> 
> This one? Article IV Section 3: “The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and… In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.”
> 
> Expanding, preserving, protecting and defending ownership of human beings was what they were about.
> 
> And they were ready to fight to the bloody death their right specifically to own humans and profit richly from their population of nearly half slaves. (nearly 4 million out of a total population of 9 million.)
Click to expand...

Nice try, however our CSA Constitution is every bit as amendable as YOUR U.S. CONstitution. While perhaps no existing slave may have been taken, any date could be set wherein no new slave could be made, hence ending the institution with the last living chattel slave , Ex post facto would not then be an issue . 
The point of this very thread is meant to do nothing more than inflame. 
This is the tactic of the Yankee to deflect from their own immorality, that of their government, their ancestors rebellion, and the past 150 years of occupation as a result thereof.
Nothing new here, other than continued Yankee deflection.


----------



## James Everett

paperview said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> While conveniently omitting how Lincoln would have made it permanently legal for all states in a lame attempt to lure the CSA back into the Union
> 
> 
> 
> Another deflection. Did the loser confederates legalize slavery in their constitution and go to war over slavery or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No deflection.
> Never denied slavery wasn't legal.
> But it wasn't the sole reason for secession.....unless you can show that slave ownership is the only issue mentioned in the constitution of the CSA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Constitutionally, slavery was never legal. The confederacy made it legal. Connect the dots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing is illegal unless a law is passed making something illegal. Slavery was NOT illegal under YOUR U.S. CONstitution, because NO LAW or amendment was passed until the 13th amendment which was after the occupation began in 1865. Slavery was legal in YOUR U.S. until then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was no federal law, but most all the northern states abolished slavery individually, many in the 18th century.
> 
> There were a few slaves here and there in some of the states, border states of course more so, but it was tiny, compared to this:
Click to expand...

No, there was no federal law, and that is the point, absent a law, such is lawful. Slavery was legal under YOUR CONstitution or it would not have existed in any of the States, hence this thread is just another Yankee deflecting and inflaming. Nothing new here.
It's simply a way to cover up.


----------



## Ravi

paperview said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Constitutionally, slavery was never legal. The confederacy made it legal. Connect the dots.
> 
> 
> 
> In the US, Constitutionally, it was legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. All are created equal. The interpretation pretended it was legal but it was not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those words aren't in the Constitution.
> 
> Slavery was legally Constitutional - with three separate places it explicitly recognized and protected slavery.
> 
> Because it was Constitutional was why Lincoln couldn't just free the slaves.  An Amendment was needed for that.
> 
> And he signed that Amendment.  Even though it wasn't required or ever done before - he signed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you mean the 3/5 compromise, that was unconstitutional, as subsequent actions proved. Just because some assholes did something didn't make it constitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 3/5th compromise, Fugitive Slave Clause, and slave trade clause.
> 
> Look, I know you are trying to say it was subsequently unconstitutional, but if it's part of the Constitution at the time it *was* Constitutional.
> 
> _After 1865_, it became unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Slavery was not constitutional. The fugitive slave clause was about states rights. It did not make slavery constitutional under the US constitution.


----------



## Ravi

RKMBrown said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that when the nutters try to claim that the Civil War wasn't about slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> Remember when the asshole lying POS OPs knew what the word only meant?   The civil war wasn't only about slavery, dumb ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Touchy, aren't you? The nutters I refer to claim it wasn't about slavery at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The north did not attack the south over slavery.  The south did not defend it's people from attack by the north over slavery.  The north did not refuse to remove it's troops from sovereign lands over slavery. The first shots were not over slavery.  The fight was over land and control, not slavery.  Slavery was the excuse given.
Click to expand...

No.


----------



## James Everett

Ravi said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the US, Constitutionally, it was legal.
> 
> 
> 
> No. All are created equal. The interpretation pretended it was legal but it was not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those words aren't in the Constitution.
> 
> Slavery was legally Constitutional - with three separate places it explicitly recognized and protected slavery.
> 
> Because it was Constitutional was why Lincoln couldn't just free the slaves.  An Amendment was needed for that.
> 
> And he signed that Amendment.  Even though it wasn't required or ever done before - he signed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you mean the 3/5 compromise, that was unconstitutional, as subsequent actions proved. Just because some assholes did something didn't make it constitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 3/5th compromise, Fugitive Slave Clause, and slave trade clause.
> 
> Look, I know you are trying to say it was subsequently unconstitutional, but if it's part of the Constitution at the time it *was* Constitutional.
> 
> _After 1865_, it became unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Slavery was not constitutional. The fugitive slave clause was about states rights. It did not make slavery constitutional under the US constitution.
Click to expand...

Look Yankee "Nutter" it was legal under YOUR U.S. COznstitution from 1789 until 1865. Absent a law or Constitutional prohibition, then it was legal, and you cannot cite either. Look you opened yourself up to be exposed as a Yankee hypocrite, now deal with that which you are.
States do not have rights, people do, States are granted power by the people who have rights. "States rights" is a product of the CON that began in 1787.


----------



## Toro

The Civil War was obviously about slavery.  Slavery was interwoven into the fabric of Southern life and economy.  

For those who don't believe it, just do a basic cost analysis.  

Would you be willing to die if someone took the following away from you

a.) a bit
b.) everything

Some argue it was about tariffs, and that certainly was a grievance, but it wasn't the reason why the South left.  The tariffs were a tax, which would have reduced income, but would not have made a difference to *the total stock of wealth* in the South, other than it would have *grown slower*.  It's no different than if your income taxes were raised.  Yes, your future income would have been lower, but it wouldn't mean the value of your house or 401k was worth less.  It would only affect those who were highly leveraged and squeezed for cash, i.e. someone who took out a mortgage that was too big for their income.  Certainly, tariffs would have squeezed some Southern farmers, but it didn't fundamentally threaten the *stock* of wealth in the South.

Emancipation, however, certainly did threaten the stock of Southern wealth.  IIRC, a third of all the wealth in the South was tied up in slaves.  In fact, the effects of the wealth destruction weren't spread evenly, since slave owners were disproportionally affected.  Everyone who owned slaves were suddenly worth much less than a third, and many people *were* ruined because they had borrowed on the farms and slaves.  These people had enormous motivation to fight.  And since they had all the wealth and controlled the politics, they did.

It's also fascinating to observe the cognitive bias of the Confederate supporters.  None of them support slavery as an institution today.  They know it's not only a despicable institution, it contradicts their belief system, since most believe in individual rights and freedoms.  Most also grew up in the South, and there is an instinctive reaction we all have to defend your own culture and people.  People want to believe that they are just, good and right, so they spin this narrative that slavery wasn't the main issue.


----------



## paperview

Ravi said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the US, Constitutionally, it was legal.
> 
> 
> 
> No. All are created equal. The interpretation pretended it was legal but it was not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those words aren't in the Constitution.
> 
> Slavery was legally Constitutional - with three separate places it explicitly recognized and protected slavery.
> 
> Because it was Constitutional was why Lincoln couldn't just free the slaves.  An Amendment was needed for that.
> 
> And he signed that Amendment.  Even though it wasn't required or ever done before - he signed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you mean the 3/5 compromise, that was unconstitutional, as subsequent actions proved. Just because some assholes did something didn't make it constitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 3/5th compromise, Fugitive Slave Clause, and slave trade clause.
> 
> Look, I know you are trying to say it was subsequently unconstitutional, but if it's part of the Constitution at the time it *was* Constitutional.
> 
> _After 1865_, it became unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Slavery was not constitutional. The fugitive slave clause was about states rights. It did not make slavery constitutional under the US constitution.
Click to expand...

Sorry Ravi, on this you are wrong.  All three aspects of slavery written into the US Constitution recognized and protected it.

Making it Constitutional.

Up until 1865, when the Constitution was amended. Only then it was unconstitutional.

It would be like saying FDR was not Constitutionally elected to his 3 and 4th term, because the 22nd Amendment made running for office to a third term unconstitutional.


----------



## Ravi

paperview said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. All are created equal. The interpretation pretended it was legal but it was not.
> 
> 
> 
> Those words aren't in the Constitution.
> 
> Slavery was legally Constitutional - with three separate places it explicitly recognized and protected slavery.
> 
> Because it was Constitutional was why Lincoln couldn't just free the slaves.  An Amendment was needed for that.
> 
> And he signed that Amendment.  Even though it wasn't required or ever done before - he signed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you mean the 3/5 compromise, that was unconstitutional, as subsequent actions proved. Just because some assholes did something didn't make it constitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 3/5th compromise, Fugitive Slave Clause, and slave trade clause.
> 
> Look, I know you are trying to say it was subsequently unconstitutional, but if it's part of the Constitution at the time it *was* Constitutional.
> 
> _After 1865_, it became unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Slavery was not constitutional. The fugitive slave clause was about states rights. It did not make slavery constitutional under the US constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry Ravi, on this you are wrong.  All three aspects of slavery written into the US Constitution recognized and protected it.
> 
> Making it Constitutional.
> 
> Up until 1865, when the Constitution was amended. Only then it was unconstitutional.
> 
> It would be like saying FDR was not Constitutionally elected to his 3 and 4th term, because the 22nd Amendment made running for office to a third term unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

No, you cannot read this and state that slavery was constitutional:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

At the time, of course, they were only granting liberty to white men. Ignorant fools. That it took a civil war to rectify what should have been clear by the above words is the fault of those that couldn't understand their own words.


----------



## paperview

hortysir said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery nor any reason was mentioned in the CSA Constitution. You are confusing the ordinances of secession with our CSA Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was mentioned in the CSA Constitution.
> 
> Numerous times.
> 
> That's specifically was the primary purpose they founded their "nation" on - Slavery was their Cornerstone.
> 
> One remarkable thing the CSA did was also  not allow slavery ever to be abolished. Ever. Our Founders allowed a mechanism for slavery to be abolished.
> 
> Not so the the CSA.
> 
> When the framers of the Confederate Constitution wrote it, they went out of their way to make sure they would ever be deprived of their human black property.
> 
> They founded their nation on being a* perpetual *slave "nation." -- and any new state joining the CSA in the future was *required *to be a slave state..
> 
> How's this humdinger: Article I Section 9 of the Confederate Constitution : “No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.”
> 
> This one? Article IV Section 3: “The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and… In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.”
> 
> Expanding, preserving, protecting and defending ownership of human beings was what they were about.
> 
> And they were ready to fight to the bloody death their right specifically to own humans and profit richly from their population of nearly half slaves. (nearly 4 million out of a total population of 9 million.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Isn't that what, I call the missing 13th and you call the Corwin, amendment did as well?
Click to expand...

As I said earlier...

All said and done, the Corwin Amendment was a last ditch effort, which most all knew stood no chance of survival.

Lincoln had nothing to do with its passage in Congress (admit you were wrong whne you said he Signed it) -- it was passed by the senate in March 1861,  most states had already seceded by then. It was a futility, and most all saw it as such. 

At that point anyway - the south had already commenced hostilities and committing Acts of War before Lincoln stepped into office. They were bound and determined to go to war and nothing was going to stop them.

The _Southrons_ made it clear in their many declarations of independence and in a boatload of other statements, actions, laws and their own written constitution, the protection of Slavery was at the base of all.

It was the lifeblood (literally) of their economy, and they knew it.


----------



## paperview

Ravi said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those words aren't in the Constitution.
> 
> Slavery was legally Constitutional - with three separate places it explicitly recognized and protected slavery.
> 
> Because it was Constitutional was why Lincoln couldn't just free the slaves.  An Amendment was needed for that.
> 
> And he signed that Amendment.  Even though it wasn't required or ever done before - he signed it.
> 
> 
> 
> If you mean the 3/5 compromise, that was unconstitutional, as subsequent actions proved. Just because some assholes did something didn't make it constitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 3/5th compromise, Fugitive Slave Clause, and slave trade clause.
> 
> Look, I know you are trying to say it was subsequently unconstitutional, but if it's part of the Constitution at the time it *was* Constitutional.
> 
> _After 1865_, it became unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Slavery was not constitutional. The fugitive slave clause was about states rights. It did not make slavery constitutional under the US constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry Ravi, on this you are wrong.  All three aspects of slavery written into the US Constitution recognized and protected it.
> 
> Making it Constitutional.
> 
> Up until 1865, when the Constitution was amended. Only then it was unconstitutional.
> 
> It would be like saying FDR was not Constitutionally elected to his 3 and 4th term, because the 22nd Amendment made running for office to a third term unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you cannot read this and state that slavery was constitutional:
> 
> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
> 
> At the time, of course, they were only granting liberty to white men. Ignorant fools. That it took a civil war to rectify what should have been clear by the above words is the fault of those that couldn't understand their own words.
Click to expand...

Ravi.  You're wrong.

Slavery was constitutional until the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment.


----------



## paperview

Toro said:


> The Civil War was obviously about slavery.  Slavery was interwoven into the fabric of Southern life and economy.
> 
> For those who don't believe it, just do a basic cost analysis.
> 
> Would you be willing to die if someone took the following away from you
> 
> a.) a bit
> b.) everything
> 
> Some argue it was about tariffs, and that certainly was a grievance, but it wasn't the reason why the South left.  The tariffs were a tax, which would have reduced income, but would not have made a difference to *the total stock of wealth* in the South, other than it would have *grown slower*.  It's no different than if your income taxes were raised.  Yes, your future income would have been lower, but it wouldn't mean the value of your house or 401k was worth less.  It would only affect those who were highly leveraged and squeezed for cash, i.e. someone who took out a mortgage that was too big for their income.  Certainly, tariffs would have squeezed some Southern farmers, but it didn't fundamentally threaten the *stock* of wealth in the South.
> 
> Emancipation, however, certainly did threaten the stock of Southern wealth. * IIRC, a third of all the wealth in the South was tied up in slaves.*  In fact, the effects of the wealth destruction weren't spread evenly, since slave owners were disproportionally affected.  Everyone who owned slaves were suddenly worth much less than a third, and many people *were* ruined because they had borrowed on the farms and slaves.  These people had enormous motivation to fight.  And since they had all the wealth and controlled the politics, they did.
> 
> It's also fascinating to observe the cognitive bias of the Confederate supporters.  None of them support slavery as an institution today.  They know it's not only a despicable institution, it contradicts their belief system, since most believe in individual rights and freedoms.  Most also grew up in the South, and there is an instinctive reaction we all have to defend your own culture and people.  People want to believe that they are just, good and right, so they spin this narrative that slavery wasn't the main issue.



Good post.

As far  as the amount of the south's wealth  -
It was more than three Billion (in 1860 dollars, not adjusted for inflation) in slave property

In fact, if you wanted to buy all the railroads, factories and banks in the entire country at that time, it would have only cost you about $2.5 billion.
----> slaves were by far the largest concentration of property in the country. More than three Billion. A stunning figure


----------



## peach174

paperview said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Northwest Ordinance
> American History USA
> The Northwest Ordinance laid out the details of the admission process. When a territory reached 60,000 people it could create a constitution and apply for statehood. This procedure was first applied to Ohio in 1803, and served as a continuing model for the remainder of the United States.
> 
> Slavery and involuntary servitude were forbidden in the Northwest Territory, thereby making the Ohio River a natural dividing line between the free and slave states of the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ha ha.  I guess that's why all the states admitted after the original 13 were Freeee!
> 
> Amirite?
> 
> Who ever said it earlier about you going back to knitting was right.
> 
> You're way out of your league here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who asked.
> It's your problem if you did not like the answer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The answer was *wrong.*
> 
> You said : "Then why did they pass a bill for all new states to be slave free?"
> 
> Then you posted the 1787 Northwest Ordinance.
> 
> Which makes people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Was it not introduced to congress and passed?
> The Northwest Ordinance: Our First National Bill of Rights.
> ERIC - The Northwest Ordinance Our First National Bill of Rights. 1986-May
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quick question peachy: After 1787 to the Civil War -  how many new states entered  the union "slave free" states?
> 
> Think on it.  Real hard.
Click to expand...


There was
19 salve free states, 10 were new and slave free.
15 slave states.
At the start of the Civil War, there were 34 states in the United States, 15 of which were slave states. 11 of these slave states seceded from the United States to form the Confederacy.


----------



## hortysir

paperview said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery nor any reason was mentioned in the CSA Constitution. You are confusing the ordinances of secession with our CSA Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was mentioned in the CSA Constitution.
> 
> Numerous times.
> 
> That's specifically was the primary purpose they founded their "nation" on - Slavery was their Cornerstone.
> 
> One remarkable thing the CSA did was also  not allow slavery ever to be abolished. Ever. Our Founders allowed a mechanism for slavery to be abolished.
> 
> Not so the the CSA.
> 
> When the framers of the Confederate Constitution wrote it, they went out of their way to make sure they would ever be deprived of their human black property.
> 
> They founded their nation on being a* perpetual *slave "nation." -- and any new state joining the CSA in the future was *required *to be a slave state..
> 
> How's this humdinger: Article I Section 9 of the Confederate Constitution : “No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.”
> 
> This one? Article IV Section 3: “The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and… In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.”
> 
> Expanding, preserving, protecting and defending ownership of human beings was what they were about.
> 
> And they were ready to fight to the bloody death their right specifically to own humans and profit richly from their population of nearly half slaves. (nearly 4 million out of a total population of 9 million.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Isn't that what, I call the missing 13th and you call the Corwin, amendment did as well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I said earlier...
> 
> All said and done, the Corwin Amendment was a last ditch effort, which most all knew stood no chance of survival.
> 
> Lincoln had nothing to do with its passage in Congress (admit you were wrong whne you said he Signed it) -- it was passed by the senate in March 1861,  most states had already seceded by then. It was a futility, and most all saw it as such.
> 
> At that point anyway - the south had already commenced hostilities and committing Acts of War before Lincoln stepped into office. They were bound and determined to go to war and nothing was going to stop them.
> 
> The _Southrons_ made it clear in their many declarations of independence and in a boatload of other statements, actions, laws and their own written constitution, the protection of Slavery was at the base of all.
> 
> It was the lifeblood (literally) of their economy, and they knew it.
Click to expand...

I take it that's a yes. The missing 13th and the Corwin amendment attempted the same thing (or is one and the same).
If you think I'm wrong about Lincoln signing it, fine. I only know what I read. I was asked for a link and provided one.


----------



## James Everett

Toro said:


> The Civil War was obviously about slavery.  Slavery was interwoven into the fabric of Southern life and economy.
> 
> For those who don't believe it, just do a basic cost analysis.
> 
> Would you be willing to die if someone took the following away from you
> 
> a.) a bit
> b.) everything
> 
> Some argue it was about tariffs, and that certainly was a grievance, but it wasn't the reason why the South left.  The tariffs were a tax, which would have reduced income, but would not have made a difference to *the total stock of wealth* in the South, other than it would have *grown slower*.  It's no different than if your income taxes were raised.  Yes, your future income would have been lower, but it wouldn't mean the value of your house or 401k was worth less.  It would only affect those who were highly leveraged and squeezed for cash, i.e. someone who took out a mortgage that was too big for their income.  Certainly, tariffs would have squeezed some Southern farmers, but it didn't fundamentally threaten the *stock* of wealth in the South.
> 
> Emancipation, however, certainly did threaten the stock of Southern wealth.  IIRC, a third of all the wealth in the South was tied up in slaves.  In fact, the effects of the wealth destruction weren't spread evenly, since slave owners were disproportionally affected.  Everyone who owned slaves were suddenly worth much less than a third, and many people *were* ruined because they had borrowed on the farms and slaves.  These people had enormous motivation to fight.  And since they had all the wealth and controlled the politics, they did.
> 
> It's also fascinating to observe the cognitive bias of the Confederate supporters.  None of them support slavery as an institution today.  They know it's not only a despicable institution, it contradicts their belief system, since most believe in individual rights and freedoms.  Most also grew up in the South, and there is an instinctive reaction we all have to defend your own culture and people.  People want to believe that they are just, good and right, so they spin this narrative that slavery wasn't the main issue.


As a Southern Confederate, what I find even more fascinating is how the indoctrination affects the Yankee mind  creating a pious attitude of moral superiority. Lets examine this pious Yankees post.....
This Yankee mentions wealth of the Southerner and its connection to Slavery, yet omits the wealth obtained by the Yankee in the Slave trade, the wealth obtained from the very foundation of America through the land taken


Toro said:


> The Civil War was obviously about slavery.  Slavery was interwoven into the fabric of Southern life and economy.
> 
> For those who don't believe it, just do a basic cost analysis.
> 
> Would you be willing to die if someone took the following away from you
> 
> a.) a bit
> b.) everything
> 
> Some argue it was about tariffs, and that certainly was a grievance, but it wasn't the reason why the South left.  The tariffs were a tax, which would have reduced income, but would not have made a difference to *the total stock of wealth* in the South, other than it would have *grown slower*.  It's no different than if your income taxes were raised.  Yes, your future income would have been lower, but it wouldn't mean the value of your house or 401k was worth less.  It would only affect those who were highly leveraged and squeezed for cash, i.e. someone who took out a mortgage that was too big for their income.  Certainly, tariffs would have squeezed some Southern farmers, but it didn't fundamentally threaten the *stock* of wealth in the South.
> 
> Emancipation, however, certainly did threaten the stock of Southern wealth.  IIRC, a third of all the wealth in the South was tied up in slaves.  In fact, the effects of the wealth destruction weren't spread evenly, since slave owners were disproportionally affected.  Everyone who owned slaves were suddenly worth much less than a third, and many people *were* ruined because they had borrowed on the farms and slaves.  These people had enormous motivation to fight.  And since they had all the wealth and controlled the politics, they did.
> 
> It's also fascinating to observe the cognitive bias of the Confederate supporters.  None of them support slavery as an institution today.  They know it's not only a despicable institution, it contradicts their belief system, since most believe in individual rights and freedoms.  Most also grew up in the South, and there is an instinctive reaction we all have to defend your own culture and people.  People want to believe that they are just, good and right, so they spin this narrative that slavery wasn't the main issue.


what is more fascinating is how the Yankee indoctrination leads him to point to others rather than looking at hisself and his own past, such as the wealth obtained through the slave trade, and those slave ships, and the wealth from the land taken from the Native American Indian, and to obtain that wealth, extermination of them was justified in their minds. It is indeed fascinating to witness the Yankee hypocrisy and attempts to project the Southern Confederate as evil in order to console themselves.


----------



## Asclepias

RKMBrown said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that when the nutters try to claim that the Civil War wasn't about slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> Remember when the asshole lying POS OPs knew what the word only meant?   The civil war wasn't only about slavery, dumb ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Touchy, aren't you? The nutters I refer to claim it wasn't about slavery at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The north did not attack the south over slavery.  The south did not defend it's people from attack by the north over slavery.  The north did not refuse to remove it's troops from sovereign lands over slavery. The first shots were not over slavery.  The fight was over land and control, not slavery.  Slavery was the excuse given.
Click to expand...

Actually slavery was exactly what the South went to war for. It says so in the Cornerstone speech and articles of secession from various confederate states. In these declarations you rarely got past the first 2-3 sentences without slavery being mentioned as the reason.

Cornerstone Speech - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition."


----------



## Asclepias

hortysir said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery nor any reason was mentioned in the CSA Constitution. You are confusing the ordinances of secession with our CSA Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was mentioned in the CSA Constitution.
> 
> Numerous times.
> 
> That's specifically was the primary purpose they founded their "nation" on - Slavery was their Cornerstone.
> 
> One remarkable thing the CSA did was also  not allow slavery ever to be abolished. Ever. Our Founders allowed a mechanism for slavery to be abolished.
> 
> Not so the the CSA.
> 
> When the framers of the Confederate Constitution wrote it, they went out of their way to make sure they would ever be deprived of their human black property.
> 
> They founded their nation on being a* perpetual *slave "nation." -- and any new state joining the CSA in the future was *required *to be a slave state..
> 
> How's this humdinger: Article I Section 9 of the Confederate Constitution : “No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.”
> 
> This one? Article IV Section 3: “The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and… In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.”
> 
> Expanding, preserving, protecting and defending ownership of human beings was what they were about.
> 
> And they were ready to fight to the bloody death their right specifically to own humans and profit richly from their population of nearly half slaves. (nearly 4 million out of a total population of 9 million.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Isn't that what, I call the missing 13th and you call the Corwin, amendment did as well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I said earlier...
> 
> All said and done, the Corwin Amendment was a last ditch effort, which most all knew stood no chance of survival.
> 
> Lincoln had nothing to do with its passage in Congress (admit you were wrong whne you said he Signed it) -- it was passed by the senate in March 1861,  most states had already seceded by then. It was a futility, and most all saw it as such.
> 
> At that point anyway - the south had already commenced hostilities and committing Acts of War before Lincoln stepped into office. They were bound and determined to go to war and nothing was going to stop them.
> 
> The _Southrons_ made it clear in their many declarations of independence and in a boatload of other statements, actions, laws and their own written constitution, the protection of Slavery was at the base of all.
> 
> It was the lifeblood (literally) of their economy, and they knew it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I take it that's a yes. The missing 13th and the Corwin amendment attempted the same thing (or is one and the same).
> If you think I'm wrong about Lincoln signing it, fine. I only know what I read. I was asked for a link and provided one.
Click to expand...

The Corwin amendment is on the table in perpetuity.  Its pretty much a disgrace just like the confederate flag.


----------



## paperview

peach174 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> ha ha.  I guess that's why all the states admitted after the original 13 were Freeee!
> 
> Amirite?
> 
> Who ever said it earlier about you going back to knitting was right.
> 
> You're way out of your league here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one who asked.
> It's your problem if you did not like the answer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The answer was *wrong.*
> 
> You said : "Then why did they pass a bill for all new states to be slave free?"
> 
> Then you posted the 1787 Northwest Ordinance.
> 
> Which makes people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Was it not introduced to congress and passed?
> The Northwest Ordinance: Our First National Bill of Rights.
> ERIC - The Northwest Ordinance Our First National Bill of Rights. 1986-May
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quick question peachy: After 1787 to the Civil War -  how many new states entered  the union "slave free" states?
> 
> Think on it.  Real hard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was
> 19 salve free states, 10 were new and slave free.
> 15 slave states.
> At the start of the Civil War, there were 34 states in the United States, 15 of which were slave states. 11 of these slave states seceded from the United States to form the Confederacy.
Click to expand...

lol.  Thanks Ms. Google.

So, now do you see where  you were wrong?


----------



## peach174

paperview said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you mean the 3/5 compromise, that was unconstitutional, as subsequent actions proved. Just because some assholes did something didn't make it constitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> 3/5th compromise, Fugitive Slave Clause, and slave trade clause.
> 
> Look, I know you are trying to say it was subsequently unconstitutional, but if it's part of the Constitution at the time it *was* Constitutional.
> 
> _After 1865_, it became unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Slavery was not constitutional. The fugitive slave clause was about states rights. It did not make slavery constitutional under the US constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry Ravi, on this you are wrong.  All three aspects of slavery written into the US Constitution recognized and protected it.
> 
> Making it Constitutional.
> 
> Up until 1865, when the Constitution was amended. Only then it was unconstitutional.
> 
> It would be like saying FDR was not Constitutionally elected to his 3 and 4th term, because the 22nd Amendment made running for office to a third term unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you cannot read this and state that slavery was constitutional:
> 
> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
> 
> At the time, of course, they were only granting liberty to white men. Ignorant fools. That it took a civil war to rectify what should have been clear by the above words is the fault of those that couldn't understand their own words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ravi.  You're wrong.
> 
> Slavery was constitutional until the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment.
Click to expand...


You are the one who is wrong.
The Constitution did not address the legality of slavery.
It left it up to the individual States.


----------



## paperview

peach174 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3/5th compromise, Fugitive Slave Clause, and slave trade clause.
> 
> Look, I know you are trying to say it was subsequently unconstitutional, but if it's part of the Constitution at the time it *was* Constitutional.
> 
> _After 1865_, it became unconstitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was not constitutional. The fugitive slave clause was about states rights. It did not make slavery constitutional under the US constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry Ravi, on this you are wrong.  All three aspects of slavery written into the US Constitution recognized and protected it.
> 
> Making it Constitutional.
> 
> Up until 1865, when the Constitution was amended. Only then it was unconstitutional.
> 
> It would be like saying FDR was not Constitutionally elected to his 3 and 4th term, because the 22nd Amendment made running for office to a third term unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you cannot read this and state that slavery was constitutional:
> 
> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
> 
> At the time, of course, they were only granting liberty to white men. Ignorant fools. That it took a civil war to rectify what should have been clear by the above words is the fault of those that couldn't understand their own words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ravi.  You're wrong.
> 
> Slavery was constitutional until the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who is wrong.
> The Constitution did not address the legality of slavery.
> It left it up to the individual States.
Click to expand...



No.  You said : "Then why did they pass a bill for all new states to be slave free?"

Then you posted the 1787 Northwest Ordinance.

Now you yourself listed  the many states that were admitted as slave states after the NO.

If that was he case, then your comment about "the [Feds]  passing a bill for all new states to be slave free." is not correct, is it?

No, it is not.

Again, we:


----------



## paperview

peach174 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3/5th compromise, Fugitive Slave Clause, and slave trade clause.
> 
> Look, I know you are trying to say it was subsequently unconstitutional, but if it's part of the Constitution at the time it *was* Constitutional.
> 
> _After 1865_, it became unconstitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was not constitutional. The fugitive slave clause was about states rights. It did not make slavery constitutional under the US constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry Ravi, on this you are wrong.  All three aspects of slavery written into the US Constitution recognized and protected it.
> 
> Making it Constitutional.
> 
> Up until 1865, when the Constitution was amended. Only then it was unconstitutional.
> 
> It would be like saying FDR was not Constitutionally elected to his 3 and 4th term, because the 22nd Amendment made running for office to a third term unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you cannot read this and state that slavery was constitutional:
> 
> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
> 
> At the time, of course, they were only granting liberty to white men. Ignorant fools. That it took a civil war to rectify what should have been clear by the above words is the fault of those that couldn't understand their own words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ravi.  You're wrong.
> 
> Slavery was constitutional until the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who is wrong.
> The Constitution did not address the legality of slavery.
> It left it up to the individual States.
Click to expand...


It certainly did.  It legalized slaves being returned to their masters in other states, it charged an "importation fee" for the human property coming in from the transatlantic slave trade,

told Congress they could not pass a bill for 20 years affecting the slave trade, and it assigned 3/5 representation to that human property, who were not citizens and were not represented.

The states _could_ abolish slavery on their own, but federally, it was legal, and Constitutional. 

The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, and the Dred Scott decision made states that _were_ free to become abettors to the institution of slavery - they didn't like that one bit -- and this was part of the agitation that led up to the Civil War.


----------



## Toro

James Everett said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was obviously about slavery.  Slavery was interwoven into the fabric of Southern life and economy.
> 
> For those who don't believe it, just do a basic cost analysis.
> 
> Would you be willing to die if someone took the following away from you
> 
> a.) a bit
> b.) everything
> 
> Some argue it was about tariffs, and that certainly was a grievance, but it wasn't the reason why the South left.  The tariffs were a tax, which would have reduced income, but would not have made a difference to *the total stock of wealth* in the South, other than it would have *grown slower*.  It's no different than if your income taxes were raised.  Yes, your future income would have been lower, but it wouldn't mean the value of your house or 401k was worth less.  It would only affect those who were highly leveraged and squeezed for cash, i.e. someone who took out a mortgage that was too big for their income.  Certainly, tariffs would have squeezed some Southern farmers, but it didn't fundamentally threaten the *stock* of wealth in the South.
> 
> Emancipation, however, certainly did threaten the stock of Southern wealth.  IIRC, a third of all the wealth in the South was tied up in slaves.  In fact, the effects of the wealth destruction weren't spread evenly, since slave owners were disproportionally affected.  Everyone who owned slaves were suddenly worth much less than a third, and many people *were* ruined because they had borrowed on the farms and slaves.  These people had enormous motivation to fight.  And since they had all the wealth and controlled the politics, they did.
> 
> It's also fascinating to observe the cognitive bias of the Confederate supporters.  None of them support slavery as an institution today.  They know it's not only a despicable institution, it contradicts their belief system, since most believe in individual rights and freedoms.  Most also grew up in the South, and there is an instinctive reaction we all have to defend your own culture and people.  People want to believe that they are just, good and right, so they spin this narrative that slavery wasn't the main issue.
> 
> 
> 
> As a Southern Confederate, what I find even more fascinating is how the indoctrination affects the Yankee mind  creating a pious attitude of moral superiority. Lets examine this pious Yankees post.....
> This Yankee mentions wealth of the Southerner and its connection to Slavery, yet omits the wealth obtained by the Yankee in the Slave trade, the wealth obtained from the very foundation of America through the land taken
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was obviously about slavery.  Slavery was interwoven into the fabric of Southern life and economy.
> 
> For those who don't believe it, just do a basic cost analysis.
> 
> Would you be willing to die if someone took the following away from you
> 
> a.) a bit
> b.) everything
> 
> Some argue it was about tariffs, and that certainly was a grievance, but it wasn't the reason why the South left.  The tariffs were a tax, which would have reduced income, but would not have made a difference to *the total stock of wealth* in the South, other than it would have *grown slower*.  It's no different than if your income taxes were raised.  Yes, your future income would have been lower, but it wouldn't mean the value of your house or 401k was worth less.  It would only affect those who were highly leveraged and squeezed for cash, i.e. someone who took out a mortgage that was too big for their income.  Certainly, tariffs would have squeezed some Southern farmers, but it didn't fundamentally threaten the *stock* of wealth in the South.
> 
> Emancipation, however, certainly did threaten the stock of Southern wealth.  IIRC, a third of all the wealth in the South was tied up in slaves.  In fact, the effects of the wealth destruction weren't spread evenly, since slave owners were disproportionally affected.  Everyone who owned slaves were suddenly worth much less than a third, and many people *were* ruined because they had borrowed on the farms and slaves.  These people had enormous motivation to fight.  And since they had all the wealth and controlled the politics, they did.
> 
> It's also fascinating to observe the cognitive bias of the Confederate supporters.  None of them support slavery as an institution today.  They know it's not only a despicable institution, it contradicts their belief system, since most believe in individual rights and freedoms.  Most also grew up in the South, and there is an instinctive reaction we all have to defend your own culture and people.  People want to believe that they are just, good and right, so they spin this narrative that slavery wasn't the main issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what is more fascinating is how the Yankee indoctrination leads him to point to others rather than looking at hisself and his own past, such as the wealth obtained through the slave trade, and those slave ships, and the wealth from the land taken from the Native American Indian, and to obtain that wealth, extermination of them was justified in their minds. It is indeed fascinating to witness the Yankee hypocrisy and attempts to project the Southern Confederate as evil in order to console themselves.
Click to expand...


I'm not saying that the Northerners were all clean and good.  Not at all.  In fact, the reason why most Northerners were either abolitionists or indifferent to the issue was because the structure of the economy had bypassed slavery.  Agriculture in the north was less labor-intensive and more mechanized, and - more importantly - the growing manufacturing economy made slavery obsolete.  Northerners had nothing to lose, so it was much easier to support abolition.  Conversely, Southerners had everything to lose.

Economies grow because of technological improvements.  Greater technological improvements require a more educated work force.  Slaveowners had no incentive to educate their slaves.  Thus, the productivity of the slave workforce was low, and was declining in relative terms to the northern manufacturing economy.  Manufacturing also requires scale, both in terms of production and distribution, which led to the growth of cities.  Cities generally are also centers of higher education, in part because of scale but also in part because the economy demands it.

Thus, slavery actually stunted the long-term growth of the South.  It should have abandoned it sooner as it maintained an agrarian structure that generally had less incentive to grow a modern economy, one that didn't really evolve until the 1960s, a century after the Civil War.

It's a common narrative on the Far Left that the United States built its wealth because of slave labor.  It would be incorrect to say that this was entirely false, but it is misleading and misses the point.  The reason why slave labor was used was because it was marginally cheaper to use slaves than pay a workforce.  But it didn't cost nothing.  Slaves were expensive to buy and had to be maintained.  Of course, it's a counter-factual and mere speculation, but had slavery been banned from the start, what most likely would have happened was that there would have been a transfer of wealth from landowners to labor as wages in the South would have been higher.  It probably also would have meant a more rapid formation of cities and an increase in the manufacturing base. 

This nation - like all nations - has its shameful moments.  Slavery was one of them, but not the only one.  It's human nature to try to whitewash our sins of the past, but the Confederacy supporters are wrong in their narrative.  They should admit it and move on.


----------



## peach174

paperview said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was not constitutional. The fugitive slave clause was about states rights. It did not make slavery constitutional under the US constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Ravi, on this you are wrong.  All three aspects of slavery written into the US Constitution recognized and protected it.
> 
> Making it Constitutional.
> 
> Up until 1865, when the Constitution was amended. Only then it was unconstitutional.
> 
> It would be like saying FDR was not Constitutionally elected to his 3 and 4th term, because the 22nd Amendment made running for office to a third term unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you cannot read this and state that slavery was constitutional:
> 
> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
> 
> At the time, of course, they were only granting liberty to white men. Ignorant fools. That it took a civil war to rectify what should have been clear by the above words is the fault of those that couldn't understand their own words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ravi.  You're wrong.
> 
> Slavery was constitutional until the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who is wrong.
> The Constitution did not address the legality of slavery.
> It left it up to the individual States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No.  You said : "Then why did they pass a bill for all new states to be slave free?"
> 
> Then you posted the 1787 Northwest Ordinance.
> 
> Now you yourself listed  the many states that were admitted as slave states after the NO.
> 
> If that was he case, then your comment about "the [Feds]  passing a bill for all new states to be slave free." is not correct, is it?
> 
> No, it is not.
> 
> Again, we:
Click to expand...


Whether you like it or not there was more slave free states than slave states.


----------



## Asclepias

peach174 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Ravi, on this you are wrong.  All three aspects of slavery written into the US Constitution recognized and protected it.
> 
> Making it Constitutional.
> 
> Up until 1865, when the Constitution was amended. Only then it was unconstitutional.
> 
> It would be like saying FDR was not Constitutionally elected to his 3 and 4th term, because the 22nd Amendment made running for office to a third term unconstitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> No, you cannot read this and state that slavery was constitutional:
> 
> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
> 
> At the time, of course, they were only granting liberty to white men. Ignorant fools. That it took a civil war to rectify what should have been clear by the above words is the fault of those that couldn't understand their own words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ravi.  You're wrong.
> 
> Slavery was constitutional until the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who is wrong.
> The Constitution did not address the legality of slavery.
> It left it up to the individual States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No.  You said : "Then why did they pass a bill for all new states to be slave free?"
> 
> Then you posted the 1787 Northwest Ordinance.
> 
> Now you yourself listed  the many states that were admitted as slave states after the NO.
> 
> If that was he case, then your comment about "the [Feds]  passing a bill for all new states to be slave free." is not correct, is it?
> 
> No, it is not.
> 
> Again, we:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whether you like it or not there was more slave free states than slave states.
Click to expand...

That doesnt change the fact you either lied or didnt know what you were talking about.


----------



## peach174

Asclepias said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you cannot read this and state that slavery was constitutional:
> 
> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
> 
> At the time, of course, they were only granting liberty to white men. Ignorant fools. That it took a civil war to rectify what should have been clear by the above words is the fault of those that couldn't understand their own words.
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi.  You're wrong.
> 
> Slavery was constitutional until the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who is wrong.
> The Constitution did not address the legality of slavery.
> It left it up to the individual States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No.  You said : "Then why did they pass a bill for all new states to be slave free?"
> 
> Then you posted the 1787 Northwest Ordinance.
> 
> Now you yourself listed  the many states that were admitted as slave states after the NO.
> 
> If that was he case, then your comment about "the [Feds]  passing a bill for all new states to be slave free." is not correct, is it?
> 
> No, it is not.
> 
> Again, we:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whether you like it or not there was more slave free states than slave states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That doesnt change the fact you either lied or didnt know what you were talking about.
Click to expand...


You are the one trying to make it so, as is paperview to fit your narratives.
You don't like any of the facts that has been posted here.


----------



## paperview

Asclepias said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you cannot read this and state that slavery was constitutional:
> 
> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
> 
> At the time, of course, they were only granting liberty to white men. Ignorant fools. That it took a civil war to rectify what should have been clear by the above words is the fault of those that couldn't understand their own words.
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi.  You're wrong.
> 
> Slavery was constitutional until the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who is wrong.
> The Constitution did not address the legality of slavery.
> It left it up to the individual States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No.  You said : "Then why did they pass a bill for all new states to be slave free?"
> 
> Then you posted the 1787 Northwest Ordinance.
> 
> Now you yourself listed  the many states that were admitted as slave states after the NO.
> 
> If that was he case, then your comment about "the [Feds]  passing a bill for all new states to be slave free." is not correct, is it?
> 
> No, it is not.
> 
> Again, we:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whether you like it or not there was more slave free states than slave states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That doesnt change the fact you either lied or didnt know what you were talking about.
Click to expand...

Based on her responses, she doesn't know what she's talking about.

Stick to knitting, Peach. Or hit the books and do some dedicated reading.


----------



## peach174

paperview said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi.  You're wrong.
> 
> Slavery was constitutional until the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one who is wrong.
> The Constitution did not address the legality of slavery.
> It left it up to the individual States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No.  You said : "Then why did they pass a bill for all new states to be slave free?"
> 
> Then you posted the 1787 Northwest Ordinance.
> 
> Now you yourself listed  the many states that were admitted as slave states after the NO.
> 
> If that was he case, then your comment about "the [Feds]  passing a bill for all new states to be slave free." is not correct, is it?
> 
> No, it is not.
> 
> Again, we:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whether you like it or not there was more slave free states than slave states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That doesnt change the fact you either lied or didnt know what you were talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Based on her responses, she doesn't know what she's talking about.
> 
> Stick to knitting, Peach. Or hit the books and do some dedicated reading.
Click to expand...


It is you that needs to do that.


----------



## paperview

peach174 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one who is wrong.
> The Constitution did not address the legality of slavery.
> It left it up to the individual States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  You said : "Then why did they pass a bill for all new states to be slave free?"
> 
> Then you posted the 1787 Northwest Ordinance.
> 
> Now you yourself listed  the many states that were admitted as slave states after the NO.
> 
> If that was he case, then your comment about "the [Feds]  passing a bill for all new states to be slave free." is not correct, is it?
> 
> No, it is not.
> 
> Again, we:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whether you like it or not there was more slave free states than slave states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That doesnt change the fact you either lied or didnt know what you were talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Based on her responses, she doesn't know what she's talking about.
> 
> Stick to knitting, Peach. Or hit the books and do some dedicated reading.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is you that needs to do that.
Click to expand...

I'm content to let the readers decide who is more educated on the subject.


----------



## peach174

paperview said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  You said : "Then why did they pass a bill for all new states to be slave free?"
> 
> Then you posted the 1787 Northwest Ordinance.
> 
> Now you yourself listed  the many states that were admitted as slave states after the NO.
> 
> If that was he case, then your comment about "the [Feds]  passing a bill for all new states to be slave free." is not correct, is it?
> 
> No, it is not.
> 
> Again, we:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whether you like it or not there was more slave free states than slave states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That doesnt change the fact you either lied or didnt know what you were talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Based on her responses, she doesn't know what she's talking about.
> 
> Stick to knitting, Peach. Or hit the books and do some dedicated reading.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is you that needs to do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm content to let the readers decide who is more educated on the subject.
Click to expand...


So am I.
Tell us where in the Federal Constitution it says Slavery is legal and uses the words Negros and Slaves?
It has provisions and compromises but no where does it say Legal Slavery.
In the Confederate Constitution it mentions Negro's and Slaves.


----------



## Asclepias

peach174 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether you like it or not there was more slave free states than slave states.
> 
> 
> 
> That doesnt change the fact you either lied or didnt know what you were talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Based on her responses, she doesn't know what she's talking about.
> 
> Stick to knitting, Peach. Or hit the books and do some dedicated reading.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is you that needs to do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm content to let the readers decide who is more educated on the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So am I.
> Tell us where in the Federal Constitution it says Slavery is legal and uses the words Negros and Slaves?
> It has provisions and compromises but no where does it say Legal Slavery.
> In the Confederate Constitution it mentions Negro's and Slaves.
Click to expand...

Read the part where it says "interests" or "all other Persons" in lieu of slavery. Slavery was a very large issue at the writing of the constitution. It was an embarrassment so they left out the word slavery and tiptoed around it while allowing the south to remain slave holders.  So the term "interests" and "all other Persons" was used much like the word "urban population".

However, it seems you are trying to deflect from your claim that all the new states would be slave free states. Why are you trying to pretend like you didnt say that now?


----------



## paperview

peach174 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether you like it or not there was more slave free states than slave states.
> 
> 
> 
> That doesnt change the fact you either lied or didnt know what you were talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Based on her responses, she doesn't know what she's talking about.
> 
> Stick to knitting, Peach. Or hit the books and do some dedicated reading.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is you that needs to do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm content to let the readers decide who is more educated on the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So am I.
> Tell us where in the Federal Constitution it says Slavery is legal and uses the words Negros and Slaves?
> It has provisions and compromises but no where does it say Legal Slavery.
> In the Confederate Constitution it mentions Negro's and Slaves.
Click to expand...

Oh gawd.

Here we go again.

To repeat:

The constitution legalized slaves being returned to their masters in other states, it charged an "importation fee" for the human property coming in from the transatlantic slave trade,

It said "other persons" -- Who do you think they were talking about being "imported?" 

The Constitution told Congress they could not pass a bill for 20 years affecting the slave trade and it assigned 3/5 representation to that human property, who were not citizens and were not represented.

Who do you think the 3/5th clause referred to?

Derrrr.

There were long debates at the convention about specifically excluding the word, because they were so ashamed of it.


----------



## Asclepias

Article 1 Section 9 of the constitution.

"*The Migration and Importation of such Persons* as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."


----------



## paperview

Exactly:

In this case, who does she think  "*such Persons*" refers to? 

Need more hints peachy?

How about looking, for one,  at *the Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 *
*by James Madison.*

Here's a snippet:

Genl. PINKNEY moved to strike out the words "the year eighteen hundred" as the year limiting the importation of slaves, and to insert the words "the year eighteen hundred and eight" 


 Mr. GHORUM 2ded. the motion 


 Mr. MADISON. Twenty years will produce all the mischief that can be apprehended from the liberty to import slaves. So long a term will be more dishonorable to the National  character than to say nothing about it in the Constitution. 

[Click the link for an eyeful. Some good reading there.]

And did you really think the Constitution was making an allowance for congress to prohibit _immigrants_ or something after 1808, but not before? Think about that.

*Slaves were merchandise*, and as such were being taxed as _merchandise. _Importation refers to merchandise. 

& Something DID happen in 1808. Can you guess what it was?


----------



## paperview

More: 
 Col: MASON was not against using the term “slaves” but agst. naming N. C. S. C. & Georgia, lest it should give offence to the people of those States.

 Mr. SHERMAN liked a description better than the terms proposed, which had been declined by the old Congs. & were not pleasing to some people.

 Mr. CLYMER concurred with  Mr. Sherman

*the Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 *
*by James Madison.*


----------



## Asclepias

paperview said:


> Exactly:
> 
> In this case, who does she think  "*such Persons*" refers to?
> 
> Need more hints peachy?
> 
> How about looking, for one,  at *the Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 *
> *by James Madison.*
> 
> Here's a snippet:
> 
> Genl. PINKNEY moved to strike out the words "the year eighteen hundred" as the year limiting the importation of slaves, and to insert the words "the year eighteen hundred and eight"
> 
> 
> Mr. GHORUM 2ded. the motion
> 
> 
> Mr. MADISON. Twenty years will produce all the mischief that can be apprehended from the liberty to import slaves. So long a term will be more dishonorable to the National  character than to say nothing about it in the Constitution.
> 
> [Click the link for an eyeful. Some good reading there.]
> 
> And did you really think the Constitution was making an allowance for congress to prohibit _immigrants_ or something after 1808, but not before? Think about that.
> 
> *Slaves were merchandise*, and as such were being taxed as _merchandise. _Importation refers to merchandise.
> 
> & Something DID happen in 1808. Can you guess what it was?


Once the breeding programs were in place and slaves were reproducing, the US outlawed the importation of slaves in 1808 without dismantling slavery completely. In fact they did this primarily to raise the value on their existing slaves which many a white politician owned at the time.


----------



## James Everett

Asclepias said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that when the nutters try to claim that the Civil War wasn't about slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> Remember when the asshole lying POS OPs knew what the word only meant?   The civil war wasn't only about slavery, dumb ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Touchy, aren't you? The nutters I refer to claim it wasn't about slavery at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The north did not attack the south over slavery.  The south did not defend it's people from attack by the north over slavery.  The north did not refuse to remove it's troops from sovereign lands over slavery. The first shots were not over slavery.  The fight was over land and control, not slavery.  Slavery was the excuse given.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually slavery was exactly what the South went to war for. It says so in the Cornerstone speech and articles of secession from various confederate states. In these declarations you rarely got past the first 2-3 sentences without slavery being mentioned as the reason.
> 
> Cornerstone Speech - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> "Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition."
Click to expand...

You are confused.
You mix secession with war.
Not all the States that seceded mentioned slavery as a reason for severing their relationship with the Northern States, however there is no doubt that was one of the reasons, and likely the main reason.
The Confederate States went to war as a defense against the U.S. Invasion.
Get your facts straight, and stop relying on Yankee indoctrination.


----------



## Asclepias

James Everett said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that when the nutters try to claim that the Civil War wasn't about slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> Remember when the asshole lying POS OPs knew what the word only meant?   The civil war wasn't only about slavery, dumb ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Touchy, aren't you? The nutters I refer to claim it wasn't about slavery at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The north did not attack the south over slavery.  The south did not defend it's people from attack by the north over slavery.  The north did not refuse to remove it's troops from sovereign lands over slavery. The first shots were not over slavery.  The fight was over land and control, not slavery.  Slavery was the excuse given.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually slavery was exactly what the South went to war for. It says so in the Cornerstone speech and articles of secession from various confederate states. In these declarations you rarely got past the first 2-3 sentences without slavery being mentioned as the reason.
> 
> Cornerstone Speech - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> "Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confused.
> You mix secession with war.
> Not all the States that seceded mentioned slavery as a reason for severing their relationship with the Northern States, however there is no doubt that was one of the reasons, and likely the main reason.
> The Confederate States went to war as a defense against the U.S. Invasion.
> Get your facts straight, and stop relying on Yankee indoctrination.
Click to expand...

You must be confused or illiterate. "Various" states doesnt mean all states. There is no doubt it was the primary reason. It says so in the loser confederate speech called the cornerstone speech as I pointed out. The losers documented their reasons. Their reason was slavery. Stop pretending the south will rise again. It wont. Face it.... the confederates were losers. The best part was that Black soldiers ensured their demise.


----------



## James Everett

Asclepias said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember when the asshole lying POS OPs knew what the word only meant?   The civil war wasn't only about slavery, dumb ass.
> 
> 
> 
> Touchy, aren't you? The nutters I refer to claim it wasn't about slavery at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The north did not attack the south over slavery.  The south did not defend it's people from attack by the north over slavery.  The north did not refuse to remove it's troops from sovereign lands over slavery. The first shots were not over slavery.  The fight was over land and control, not slavery.  Slavery was the excuse given.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually slavery was exactly what the South went to war for. It says so in the Cornerstone speech and articles of secession from various confederate states. In these declarations you rarely got past the first 2-3 sentences without slavery being mentioned as the reason.
> 
> Cornerstone Speech - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> "Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confused.
> You mix secession with war.
> Not all the States that seceded mentioned slavery as a reason for severing their relationship with the Northern States, however there is no doubt that was one of the reasons, and likely the main reason.
> The Confederate States went to war as a defense against the U.S. Invasion.
> Get your facts straight, and stop relying on Yankee indoctrination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You must be confused or illiterate. "Various" states doesnt mean all states. There is no doubt it was the primary reason. It says so in the loser confederate speech called the cornerstone speech as I pointed out. The losers documented their reasons. Their reason was slavery. Stop pretending the south will rise again. It wont. Face it.... the confederates were losers. The best part was that Black soldiers ensured their demise.
Click to expand...

Nice try at deflection. You stated slavery was the main reason the Southern States went to war. I corrected your ignorance. Stop crying like a Yankee child because you made a fool of yourself. 
The VP's cornerstone speech was not about the war. You see, your Yankee indoctrination makes it difficult for you get your facts straight, it's no different than any lie, it's just using half truths which = whole lies. You really should educate yourself out of the indoctrination. The Southern States were simply defending themselves from invasion.


----------



## Asclepias

James Everett said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Touchy, aren't you? The nutters I refer to claim it wasn't about slavery at all.
> 
> 
> 
> The north did not attack the south over slavery.  The south did not defend it's people from attack by the north over slavery.  The north did not refuse to remove it's troops from sovereign lands over slavery. The first shots were not over slavery.  The fight was over land and control, not slavery.  Slavery was the excuse given.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually slavery was exactly what the South went to war for. It says so in the Cornerstone speech and articles of secession from various confederate states. In these declarations you rarely got past the first 2-3 sentences without slavery being mentioned as the reason.
> 
> Cornerstone Speech - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> "Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confused.
> You mix secession with war.
> Not all the States that seceded mentioned slavery as a reason for severing their relationship with the Northern States, however there is no doubt that was one of the reasons, and likely the main reason.
> The Confederate States went to war as a defense against the U.S. Invasion.
> Get your facts straight, and stop relying on Yankee indoctrination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You must be confused or illiterate. "Various" states doesnt mean all states. There is no doubt it was the primary reason. It says so in the loser confederate speech called the cornerstone speech as I pointed out. The losers documented their reasons. Their reason was slavery. Stop pretending the south will rise again. It wont. Face it.... the confederates were losers. The best part was that Black soldiers ensured their demise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice try at deflection. You stated slavery was the main reason the Southern States went to war. I corrected your ignorance. Stop crying like a Yankee child because you made a fool of yourself.
> The VP's cornerstone speech was not about the war. You see, your Yankee indoctrination makes it difficult for you get your facts straight, it's no different than any lie, it's just using half truths which = whole lies. You really should educate yourself out of the indoctrination. The Southern States were simply defending themselves from invasion.
Click to expand...

Thats correct. Slavery was the reason the losers went to war. The Cornerstone speech doubles down on that. You must be confused about history. If Stephens speech had nothing to do with war why did he try to retract the below statement after the losers got their asses beat?

"Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition."


----------



## James Everett

Asclepias said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The north did not attack the south over slavery.  The south did not defend it's people from attack by the north over slavery.  The north did not refuse to remove it's troops from sovereign lands over slavery. The first shots were not over slavery.  The fight was over land and control, not slavery.  Slavery was the excuse given.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually slavery was exactly what the South went to war for. It says so in the Cornerstone speech and articles of secession from various confederate states. In these declarations you rarely got past the first 2-3 sentences without slavery being mentioned as the reason.
> 
> Cornerstone Speech - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> "Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confused.
> You mix secession with war.
> Not all the States that seceded mentioned slavery as a reason for severing their relationship with the Northern States, however there is no doubt that was one of the reasons, and likely the main reason.
> The Confederate States went to war as a defense against the U.S. Invasion.
> Get your facts straight, and stop relying on Yankee indoctrination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You must be confused or illiterate. "Various" states doesnt mean all states. There is no doubt it was the primary reason. It says so in the loser confederate speech called the cornerstone speech as I pointed out. The losers documented their reasons. Their reason was slavery. Stop pretending the south will rise again. It wont. Face it.... the confederates were losers. The best part was that Black soldiers ensured their demise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice try at deflection. You stated slavery was the main reason the Southern States went to war. I corrected your ignorance. Stop crying like a Yankee child because you made a fool of yourself.
> The VP's cornerstone speech was not about the war. You see, your Yankee indoctrination makes it difficult for you get your facts straight, it's no different than any lie, it's just using half truths which = whole lies. You really should educate yourself out of the indoctrination. The Southern States were simply defending themselves from invasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats correct. Slavery was the reason the losers went to war. The Cornerstone speech doubles down on that. You must be confused about history. If Stephens speech had nothing to do with war why did he try to retract the below statement after the losers got their asses beat?
> 
> "Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition."
Click to expand...

You are so pathetically indoctrinated into ignorance that you can't even comprehend how ignorant that you are.
The VP's cornerstone speech was not about why the South went to war you idiot. The Southern Confederate States were forced into war in defense of your Country's invasion. As I suggested, go educate yourself.


----------



## Asclepias

James Everett said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually slavery was exactly what the South went to war for. It says so in the Cornerstone speech and articles of secession from various confederate states. In these declarations you rarely got past the first 2-3 sentences without slavery being mentioned as the reason.
> 
> Cornerstone Speech - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> "Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition."
> 
> 
> 
> You are confused.
> You mix secession with war.
> Not all the States that seceded mentioned slavery as a reason for severing their relationship with the Northern States, however there is no doubt that was one of the reasons, and likely the main reason.
> The Confederate States went to war as a defense against the U.S. Invasion.
> Get your facts straight, and stop relying on Yankee indoctrination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You must be confused or illiterate. "Various" states doesnt mean all states. There is no doubt it was the primary reason. It says so in the loser confederate speech called the cornerstone speech as I pointed out. The losers documented their reasons. Their reason was slavery. Stop pretending the south will rise again. It wont. Face it.... the confederates were losers. The best part was that Black soldiers ensured their demise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice try at deflection. You stated slavery was the main reason the Southern States went to war. I corrected your ignorance. Stop crying like a Yankee child because you made a fool of yourself.
> The VP's cornerstone speech was not about the war. You see, your Yankee indoctrination makes it difficult for you get your facts straight, it's no different than any lie, it's just using half truths which = whole lies. You really should educate yourself out of the indoctrination. The Southern States were simply defending themselves from invasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats correct. Slavery was the reason the losers went to war. The Cornerstone speech doubles down on that. You must be confused about history. If Stephens speech had nothing to do with war why did he try to retract the below statement after the losers got their asses beat?
> 
> "Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are so pathetically indoctrinated into ignorance that you can't even comprehend how ignorant that you are.
> The VP's cornerstone speech was not about why the South went to war you idiot. The Southern Confederate States were forced into war in defense of your Country's invasion. As I suggested, go educate yourself.
Click to expand...

Calling me names doesnt answer the question I posed. The fact you cant answer the question lets me know you are poorly educated and thoroughly ignorant of facts regarding your losers....the confederates.


----------



## James Everett

Asclepias said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are confused.
> You mix secession with war.
> Not all the States that seceded mentioned slavery as a reason for severing their relationship with the Northern States, however there is no doubt that was one of the reasons, and likely the main reason.
> The Confederate States went to war as a defense against the U.S. Invasion.
> Get your facts straight, and stop relying on Yankee indoctrination.
> 
> 
> 
> You must be confused or illiterate. "Various" states doesnt mean all states. There is no doubt it was the primary reason. It says so in the loser confederate speech called the cornerstone speech as I pointed out. The losers documented their reasons. Their reason was slavery. Stop pretending the south will rise again. It wont. Face it.... the confederates were losers. The best part was that Black soldiers ensured their demise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice try at deflection. You stated slavery was the main reason the Southern States went to war. I corrected your ignorance. Stop crying like a Yankee child because you made a fool of yourself.
> The VP's cornerstone speech was not about the war. You see, your Yankee indoctrination makes it difficult for you get your facts straight, it's no different than any lie, it's just using half truths which = whole lies. You really should educate yourself out of the indoctrination. The Southern States were simply defending themselves from invasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats correct. Slavery was the reason the losers went to war. The Cornerstone speech doubles down on that. You must be confused about history. If Stephens speech had nothing to do with war why did he try to retract the below statement after the losers got their asses beat?
> 
> "Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are so pathetically indoctrinated into ignorance that you can't even comprehend how ignorant that you are.
> The VP's cornerstone speech was not about why the South went to war you idiot. The Southern Confederate States were forced into war in defense of your Country's invasion. As I suggested, go educate yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Calling me names doesnt answer the question I posed. The fact you cant answer the question lets me know you are poorly educated and thoroughly ignorant of facts regarding your losers....the confederates.
Click to expand...

Good grief, you are an idiot. 
(The Southern Confederates did not go to war over slavey.)
There is your answer, idiot.
They were forced into war because your country invaded our Confederate States.
As an addition to educating yourself, you may wish also to work on your comprehension skills. Good grief, Yankees are stewpid!!!!!!


----------



## Asclepias

James Everett said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must be confused or illiterate. "Various" states doesnt mean all states. There is no doubt it was the primary reason. It says so in the loser confederate speech called the cornerstone speech as I pointed out. The losers documented their reasons. Their reason was slavery. Stop pretending the south will rise again. It wont. Face it.... the confederates were losers. The best part was that Black soldiers ensured their demise.
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try at deflection. You stated slavery was the main reason the Southern States went to war. I corrected your ignorance. Stop crying like a Yankee child because you made a fool of yourself.
> The VP's cornerstone speech was not about the war. You see, your Yankee indoctrination makes it difficult for you get your facts straight, it's no different than any lie, it's just using half truths which = whole lies. You really should educate yourself out of the indoctrination. The Southern States were simply defending themselves from invasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats correct. Slavery was the reason the losers went to war. The Cornerstone speech doubles down on that. You must be confused about history. If Stephens speech had nothing to do with war why did he try to retract the below statement after the losers got their asses beat?
> 
> "Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are so pathetically indoctrinated into ignorance that you can't even comprehend how ignorant that you are.
> The VP's cornerstone speech was not about why the South went to war you idiot. The Southern Confederate States were forced into war in defense of your Country's invasion. As I suggested, go educate yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Calling me names doesnt answer the question I posed. The fact you cant answer the question lets me know you are poorly educated and thoroughly ignorant of facts regarding your losers....the confederates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good grief, you are an idiot.
> (The Southern Confederates did not go to war over slavey.)
> There is your answer, idiot.
> They were forced into war because your country invaded our Confederate States.
> As an addition to educating yourself, you may wish also to work on your comprehension skills. Good grief, Yankees are stewpid!!!!!!
Click to expand...

You didnt answer my question again. For that I have to assume you are afraid you just got caught up in your ignorance and I will let it slide.


----------



## RKMBrown

Ravi said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that when the nutters try to claim that the Civil War wasn't about slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> Remember when the asshole lying POS OPs knew what the word only meant?   The civil war wasn't only about slavery, dumb ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Touchy, aren't you? The nutters I refer to claim it wasn't about slavery at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The north did not attack the south over slavery.  The south did not defend it's people from attack by the north over slavery.  The north did not refuse to remove it's troops from sovereign lands over slavery. The first shots were not over slavery.  The fight was over land and control, not slavery.  Slavery was the excuse given.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
Click to expand...

Yes.


----------



## James Everett

Asclepias said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try at deflection. You stated slavery was the main reason the Southern States went to war. I corrected your ignorance. Stop crying like a Yankee child because you made a fool of yourself.
> The VP's cornerstone speech was not about the war. You see, your Yankee indoctrination makes it difficult for you get your facts straight, it's no different than any lie, it's just using half truths which = whole lies. You really should educate yourself out of the indoctrination. The Southern States were simply defending themselves from invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> Thats correct. Slavery was the reason the losers went to war. The Cornerstone speech doubles down on that. You must be confused about history. If Stephens speech had nothing to do with war why did he try to retract the below statement after the losers got their asses beat?
> 
> "Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are so pathetically indoctrinated into ignorance that you can't even comprehend how ignorant that you are.
> The VP's cornerstone speech was not about why the South went to war you idiot. The Southern Confederate States were forced into war in defense of your Country's invasion. As I suggested, go educate yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Calling me names doesnt answer the question I posed. The fact you cant answer the question lets me know you are poorly educated and thoroughly ignorant of facts regarding your losers....the confederates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good grief, you are an idiot.
> (The Southern Confederates did not go to war over slavey.)
> There is your answer, idiot.
> They were forced into war because your country invaded our Confederate States.
> As an addition to educating yourself, you may wish also to work on your comprehension skills. Good grief, Yankees are stewpid!!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didnt answer my question again. For that I have to assume you are afraid you just got caught up in your ignorance and I will let it slide.
Click to expand...

I didn't answer you question because the question itself is based on an incorrect assertion. The speech was not about the war you moron. 
There is no answer to a question that is based in your delusional mind and a fiction.


----------



## RKMBrown

Asclepias said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that when the nutters try to claim that the Civil War wasn't about slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> Remember when the asshole lying POS OPs knew what the word only meant?   The civil war wasn't only about slavery, dumb ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Touchy, aren't you? The nutters I refer to claim it wasn't about slavery at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The north did not attack the south over slavery.  The south did not defend it's people from attack by the north over slavery.  The north did not refuse to remove it's troops from sovereign lands over slavery. The first shots were not over slavery.  The fight was over land and control, not slavery.  Slavery was the excuse given.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually slavery was exactly what the South went to war for. It says so in the Cornerstone speech and articles of secession from various confederate states. In these declarations you rarely got past the first 2-3 sentences without slavery being mentioned as the reason.
> 
> Cornerstone Speech - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> "Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition."
Click to expand...

Please provide the class with any evidence you have that secession was a declaration of war.  While you may have a point that one big reason for secession was slavery.  The reason for the war was northern aggression.


----------



## Asclepias

RKMBrown said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that when the nutters try to claim that the Civil War wasn't about slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> Remember when the asshole lying POS OPs knew what the word only meant?   The civil war wasn't only about slavery, dumb ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Touchy, aren't you? The nutters I refer to claim it wasn't about slavery at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The north did not attack the south over slavery.  The south did not defend it's people from attack by the north over slavery.  The north did not refuse to remove it's troops from sovereign lands over slavery. The first shots were not over slavery.  The fight was over land and control, not slavery.  Slavery was the excuse given.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually slavery was exactly what the South went to war for. It says so in the Cornerstone speech and articles of secession from various confederate states. In these declarations you rarely got past the first 2-3 sentences without slavery being mentioned as the reason.
> 
> Cornerstone Speech - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> "Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please provide the class with any evidence you have that secession was a declaration of war.  While you may have a point that one big reason for secession was slavery.  The reason for the war was northern aggression.
Click to expand...

You just replied to my evidence. Like most students that dont pay attention you missed the most important notes you needed to take.


----------



## James Everett

RKMBrown said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that when the nutters try to claim that the Civil War wasn't about slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> Remember when the asshole lying POS OPs knew what the word only meant?   The civil war wasn't only about slavery, dumb ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Touchy, aren't you? The nutters I refer to claim it wasn't about slavery at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The north did not attack the south over slavery.  The south did not defend it's people from attack by the north over slavery.  The north did not refuse to remove it's troops from sovereign lands over slavery. The first shots were not over slavery.  The fight was over land and control, not slavery.  Slavery was the excuse given.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually slavery was exactly what the South went to war for. It says so in the Cornerstone speech and articles of secession from various confederate states. In these declarations you rarely got past the first 2-3 sentences without slavery being mentioned as the reason.
> 
> Cornerstone Speech - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> "Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please provide the class with any evidence you have that secession was a declaration of war.  While you may have a point that one big reason for secession was slavery.  The reason for the war was northern aggression.
Click to expand...

He cannot, he is just another ignorant Yankee. Secession was legal, it was not a declaration of war, the war was provoked by the invasion of the Southern Confederate States by His Country.


----------



## paperview

By January 1861, the South had already commenced hostilities, seizing Federal buildings, forts, arsenals, post offices, Custom house, courthouses, etc all across the south...and firing on Union Ships. Acts of War.

Before Lincoln ever stepped into office.


----------



## RKMBrown

Asclepias said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember when the asshole lying POS OPs knew what the word only meant?   The civil war wasn't only about slavery, dumb ass.
> 
> 
> 
> Touchy, aren't you? The nutters I refer to claim it wasn't about slavery at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The north did not attack the south over slavery.  The south did not defend it's people from attack by the north over slavery.  The north did not refuse to remove it's troops from sovereign lands over slavery. The first shots were not over slavery.  The fight was over land and control, not slavery.  Slavery was the excuse given.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually slavery was exactly what the South went to war for. It says so in the Cornerstone speech and articles of secession from various confederate states. In these declarations you rarely got past the first 2-3 sentences without slavery being mentioned as the reason.
> 
> Cornerstone Speech - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> "Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please provide the class with any evidence you have that secession was a declaration of war.  While you may have a point that one big reason for secession was slavery.  The reason for the war was northern aggression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just replied to my evidence. Like most students that dont pay attention you missed the most important notes you needed to take.
Click to expand...

No.  Your link shows what I said.  Which is that a main reason for session was slavery.  

not sure why this is confusing you so much...  I'll put in bigger letters, maybe that will help.

SECESSION WAS NOT A DECLARATION OF WAR


----------



## Asclepias

James Everett said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember when the asshole lying POS OPs knew what the word only meant?   The civil war wasn't only about slavery, dumb ass.
> 
> 
> 
> Touchy, aren't you? The nutters I refer to claim it wasn't about slavery at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The north did not attack the south over slavery.  The south did not defend it's people from attack by the north over slavery.  The north did not refuse to remove it's troops from sovereign lands over slavery. The first shots were not over slavery.  The fight was over land and control, not slavery.  Slavery was the excuse given.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually slavery was exactly what the South went to war for. It says so in the Cornerstone speech and articles of secession from various confederate states. In these declarations you rarely got past the first 2-3 sentences without slavery being mentioned as the reason.
> 
> Cornerstone Speech - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> "Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please provide the class with any evidence you have that secession was a declaration of war.  While you may have a point that one big reason for secession was slavery.  The reason for the war was northern aggression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He cannot, he is just another ignorant Yankee. Secession was legal, it was not a declaration of war, the war was provoked by the invasion of the Southern Confederate States by His Country.
Click to expand...

The loser confederates had already provoked hostilities long before the north finally said "enough" and got into that ass. (and not how the confederates liked it!)


----------



## Asclepias

RKMBrown said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Touchy, aren't you? The nutters I refer to claim it wasn't about slavery at all.
> 
> 
> 
> The north did not attack the south over slavery.  The south did not defend it's people from attack by the north over slavery.  The north did not refuse to remove it's troops from sovereign lands over slavery. The first shots were not over slavery.  The fight was over land and control, not slavery.  Slavery was the excuse given.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually slavery was exactly what the South went to war for. It says so in the Cornerstone speech and articles of secession from various confederate states. In these declarations you rarely got past the first 2-3 sentences without slavery being mentioned as the reason.
> 
> Cornerstone Speech - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> "Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please provide the class with any evidence you have that secession was a declaration of war.  While you may have a point that one big reason for secession was slavery.  The reason for the war was northern aggression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just replied to my evidence. Like most students that dont pay attention you missed the most important notes you needed to take.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  Your link shows what I said.  Which is that a main reason for session was slavery.
> 
> not sure why this is confusing you so much...  I'll put in bigger letters, maybe that will help.
> 
> SECESSION WAS NOT A DECLARATION OF WAR
Click to expand...

Who said secession was a declaration of war? I said thats the reason the losers went to war. Thanks for agreeing with me.


----------



## paperview

Sorry Bub, you don't get to take property that belongs to the whole of the United States, that the whole of the United Stated payed taxes to build and maintain - and say - "it's ours now."

That's theft.

You don't get to fire on Federal ships, and think you are not declaring war in the process.

"There can be no such thing as peaceable secession. Peaceable secession is an utter impossibility!" - Daniel Webster, in 1850, when the south was flirting with secession again.


----------



## James Everett

paperview said:


> By January 1861, the South had already commenced hostilities, seizing Federal buildings, forts, arsenals, post offices, Custom house, courthouses, etc all across the south...and firing on Union Ships. Acts of War.
> 
> Before Lincoln ever stepped into office.


Actually, at that time, a coastal States territorial waters extended to three miles out from the low tide mark, in order to re supply the U.S. Forts it would require a treaty to traverse these waters, Ft Sumter existing withinCharleston  harbor. The U.S. Committed an act of war by entering these waters. The forts were no longer of use to the U.s. And the Confederate govt offered to purchase them, it is of no matter however as the U. S. Was invading Our territorial waters. See YOUR SCOTUS opinion in pollards lessee v hagan and various others concerning State jurisdiction and the only jurisdiction of the U. S. Government being the ten miles square of the DC and docks armories forts and needful federal buildings. No the U.S. Were the invaders and provoked the war.


----------



## Asclepias

James Everett said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> By January 1861, the South had already commenced hostilities, seizing Federal buildings, forts, arsenals, post offices, Custom house, courthouses, etc all across the south...and firing on Union Ships. Acts of War.
> 
> Before Lincoln ever stepped into office.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, at that time, a coastal States territorial waters extended to three miles out from the low tide mark, in order to re supply the U.S. Forts it would require a treaty to traverse these waters, Ft Sumter existing withinCharleston  harbor. The U.S. Committed an act of war by entering these waters. The forts were no longer of use to the U.s. And the Confederate govt offered to purchase them, it is of no matter however as the U. S. Was invading Our territorial waters. See YOUR SCOTUS opinion in pollards lessee v hagan and various others concerning State jurisdiction and the only jurisdiction of the U. S. Government being the ten miles square of the DC and docks armories forts and needful federal buildings. No the U.S. Were the invaders and provoked the war.
Click to expand...

Its amusing you are living vicariously through people that are losers. "Our"?


----------



## James Everett

paperview said:


> Sorry Bub, you don't get to take property that belongs to the whole of the United States, that the whole of the United Stated payed taxes to build and maintain - and say - "it's ours now."
> 
> That's theft.
> 
> You don't get to fire on Federal ships, and think you are not declaring war in the process.
> 
> "There can be no such thing as peaceable secession. Peaceable secession is an utter impossibility!" - Daniel Webster, in 1850, when the south was flirting with secession again.


I just explained the law to you concerning territorial waters and jurisdiction. Read YOUR SCOTUS opinions prior opinions. I am not where I can post them for you at present, but I will later tonight.


----------



## RKMBrown

Asclepias said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The north did not attack the south over slavery.  The south did not defend it's people from attack by the north over slavery.  The north did not refuse to remove it's troops from sovereign lands over slavery. The first shots were not over slavery.  The fight was over land and control, not slavery.  Slavery was the excuse given.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually slavery was exactly what the South went to war for. It says so in the Cornerstone speech and articles of secession from various confederate states. In these declarations you rarely got past the first 2-3 sentences without slavery being mentioned as the reason.
> 
> Cornerstone Speech - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> "Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please provide the class with any evidence you have that secession was a declaration of war.  While you may have a point that one big reason for secession was slavery.  The reason for the war was northern aggression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just replied to my evidence. Like most students that dont pay attention you missed the most important notes you needed to take.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  Your link shows what I said.  Which is that a main reason for session was slavery.
> 
> not sure why this is confusing you so much...  I'll put in bigger letters, maybe that will help.
> 
> SECESSION WAS NOT A DECLARATION OF WAR
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said secession was a declaration of war? I said thats the reason the losers went to war. Thanks for agreeing with me.
Click to expand...

No moron.  The reason the losers went to war was not BECAUSE THEY SECEDED it was to defend themselves from the INVADING ARMY OF THE NORTH who were sent by THE ASSHOLE IN CHIEF LINCOLN TO KILL SOUTHERNERS.  LINCOLN WAS A PROPONENT OF SLAVERY AT THE TIME.


----------



## paperview

Show us the documents where the South was willing to pay for every bit of federal property they stole or were going to steal, Reb, that was offered before they fired on ships - and you know, actually stole the property of the whole of the U.S.


----------



## James Everett

You 


Asclepias said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> By January 1861, the South had already commenced hostilities, seizing Federal buildings, forts, arsenals, post offices, Custom house, courthouses, etc all across the south...and firing on Union Ships. Acts of War.
> 
> Before Lincoln ever stepped into office.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, at that time, a coastal States territorial waters extended to three miles out from the low tide mark, in order to re supply the U.S. Forts it would require a treaty to traverse these waters, Ft Sumter existing withinCharleston  harbor. The U.S. Committed an act of war by entering these waters. The forts were no longer of use to the U.s. And the Confederate govt offered to purchase them, it is of no matter however as the U. S. Was invading Our territorial waters. See YOUR SCOTUS opinion in pollards lessee v hagan and various others concerning State jurisdiction and the only jurisdiction of the U. S. Government being the ten miles square of the DC and docks armories forts and needful federal buildings. No the U.S. Were the invaders and provoked the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its amusing you are living vicariously through people that are losers. "Our"?
Click to expand...

need to read the law as I posted for Paperview. I will post it in more detail tonight.


----------



## paperview

You will always lose neo-confederates -- because  confederates 

-- are losers.


----------



## Asclepias

RKMBrown said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually slavery was exactly what the South went to war for. It says so in the Cornerstone speech and articles of secession from various confederate states. In these declarations you rarely got past the first 2-3 sentences without slavery being mentioned as the reason.
> 
> Cornerstone Speech - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> "Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition."
> 
> 
> 
> Please provide the class with any evidence you have that secession was a declaration of war.  While you may have a point that one big reason for secession was slavery.  The reason for the war was northern aggression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just replied to my evidence. Like most students that dont pay attention you missed the most important notes you needed to take.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  Your link shows what I said.  Which is that a main reason for session was slavery.
> 
> not sure why this is confusing you so much...  I'll put in bigger letters, maybe that will help.
> 
> SECESSION WAS NOT A DECLARATION OF WAR
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said secession was a declaration of war? I said thats the reason the losers went to war. Thanks for agreeing with me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No moron.  The reason the losers went to war was not BECAUSE THEY SECEDED it was to defend themselves from the INVADING ARMY OF THE NORTH who were sent by THE ASSHOLE IN CHIEF LINCOLN TO KILL SOUTHERNERS.  LINCOLN WAS A PROPONENT OF SLAVERY AT THE TIME.
Click to expand...

Dont get emotional. it doesnt impact me any differently other than to make me laugh. The losers went to war for the same reasons they seceded.


----------



## Asclepias

James Everett said:


> You
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> By January 1861, the South had already commenced hostilities, seizing Federal buildings, forts, arsenals, post offices, Custom house, courthouses, etc all across the south...and firing on Union Ships. Acts of War.
> 
> Before Lincoln ever stepped into office.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, at that time, a coastal States territorial waters extended to three miles out from the low tide mark, in order to re supply the U.S. Forts it would require a treaty to traverse these waters, Ft Sumter existing withinCharleston  harbor. The U.S. Committed an act of war by entering these waters. The forts were no longer of use to the U.s. And the Confederate govt offered to purchase them, it is of no matter however as the U. S. Was invading Our territorial waters. See YOUR SCOTUS opinion in pollards lessee v hagan and various others concerning State jurisdiction and the only jurisdiction of the U. S. Government being the ten miles square of the DC and docks armories forts and needful federal buildings. No the U.S. Were the invaders and provoked the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its amusing you are living vicariously through people that are losers. "Our"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> need to read the law as I posted for Paperview. I will post it in more detail tonight.
Click to expand...

You need to learn how to read before posting. Your education on the matter is sorely lacking, That tends to be the case with loser confederate supporters. You have this romantic dream in your head which has nothing to do with facts or reality.


----------



## RKMBrown

Asclepias said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please provide the class with any evidence you have that secession was a declaration of war.  While you may have a point that one big reason for secession was slavery.  The reason for the war was northern aggression.
> 
> 
> 
> You just replied to my evidence. Like most students that dont pay attention you missed the most important notes you needed to take.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  Your link shows what I said.  Which is that a main reason for session was slavery.
> 
> not sure why this is confusing you so much...  I'll put in bigger letters, maybe that will help.
> 
> SECESSION WAS NOT A DECLARATION OF WAR
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said secession was a declaration of war? I said thats the reason the losers went to war. Thanks for agreeing with me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No moron.  The reason the losers went to war was not BECAUSE THEY SECEDED it was to defend themselves from the INVADING ARMY OF THE NORTH who were sent by THE ASSHOLE IN CHIEF LINCOLN TO KILL SOUTHERNERS.  LINCOLN WAS A PROPONENT OF SLAVERY AT THE TIME.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dont get emotional. it doesnt impact me any differently other than to make me laugh. The losers went to war for the same reasons they seceded.
Click to expand...

Not true.  Would you not defend your family, your home, your town from an invader that was killing your family?  When the North sent their armies south it was for power.  When the South sent their armies to meet them it was for their own freedom.  Granted the assholes included many slavers.  But that is just a "part" of the scene, not the reason for the actions.


----------



## Asclepias

RKMBrown said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just replied to my evidence. Like most students that dont pay attention you missed the most important notes you needed to take.
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Your link shows what I said.  Which is that a main reason for session was slavery.
> 
> not sure why this is confusing you so much...  I'll put in bigger letters, maybe that will help.
> 
> SECESSION WAS NOT A DECLARATION OF WAR
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said secession was a declaration of war? I said thats the reason the losers went to war. Thanks for agreeing with me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No moron.  The reason the losers went to war was not BECAUSE THEY SECEDED it was to defend themselves from the INVADING ARMY OF THE NORTH who were sent by THE ASSHOLE IN CHIEF LINCOLN TO KILL SOUTHERNERS.  LINCOLN WAS A PROPONENT OF SLAVERY AT THE TIME.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dont get emotional. it doesnt impact me any differently other than to make me laugh. The losers went to war for the same reasons they seceded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true.  Would you not defend your family, your home, your town from an invader that was killing your family?  When the North sent their armies south it was for power.  When the South sent their armies to meet them it was for their own freedom.  Granted the assholes included many slavers.  But that is just a "part" of the scene, not the reason for the actions.
Click to expand...

Bullshit. The loser confederates seceded over slavery and they fought a war to preserve slavery. All they had to do was simply abolished slavery and they would not have gotten their asses kicked or "invaded" as you put it.


----------



## James Everett

paperview said:


> You will always lose neo-confederates -- because  confederates
> 
> -- are losers.


Oh, how sad, that's all you got left. So much for pseudo intellectuals.
Cry childish response indeed.


----------



## RKMBrown

Asclepias said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Your link shows what I said.  Which is that a main reason for session was slavery.
> 
> not sure why this is confusing you so much...  I'll put in bigger letters, maybe that will help.
> 
> SECESSION WAS NOT A DECLARATION OF WAR
> 
> 
> 
> Who said secession was a declaration of war? I said thats the reason the losers went to war. Thanks for agreeing with me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No moron.  The reason the losers went to war was not BECAUSE THEY SECEDED it was to defend themselves from the INVADING ARMY OF THE NORTH who were sent by THE ASSHOLE IN CHIEF LINCOLN TO KILL SOUTHERNERS.  LINCOLN WAS A PROPONENT OF SLAVERY AT THE TIME.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dont get emotional. it doesnt impact me any differently other than to make me laugh. The losers went to war for the same reasons they seceded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true.  Would you not defend your family, your home, your town from an invader that was killing your family?  When the North sent their armies south it was for power.  When the South sent their armies to meet them it was for their own freedom.  Granted the assholes included many slavers.  But that is just a "part" of the scene, not the reason for the actions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. The loser confederates seceded over slavery and they fought a war to preserve slavery. All they had to do was simply abolished slavery and they would not have gotten their asses kicked or "invaded" as you put it.
Click to expand...

ROFL... nonsense.  Lincoln did not send the armies to free slaves.  He sent the armies to recover the states that had seceded.  I put as proof, that he reclaimed the southern states.  He did not depose it's leaders and shed them of slavery, then let them go.  Oh no.  He did what he planned to do.  CONQUER the south.  The south did not fight a war to preserve slavery.  Freeing slaves became a political football for the north after the killing of many hundreds of thousands of the North and South.  Hell Lincoln wanted to send all the blacks back to Africa.


----------



## Asclepias

RKMBrown said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said secession was a declaration of war? I said thats the reason the losers went to war. Thanks for agreeing with me.
> 
> 
> 
> No moron.  The reason the losers went to war was not BECAUSE THEY SECEDED it was to defend themselves from the INVADING ARMY OF THE NORTH who were sent by THE ASSHOLE IN CHIEF LINCOLN TO KILL SOUTHERNERS.  LINCOLN WAS A PROPONENT OF SLAVERY AT THE TIME.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dont get emotional. it doesnt impact me any differently other than to make me laugh. The losers went to war for the same reasons they seceded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true.  Would you not defend your family, your home, your town from an invader that was killing your family?  When the North sent their armies south it was for power.  When the South sent their armies to meet them it was for their own freedom.  Granted the assholes included many slavers.  But that is just a "part" of the scene, not the reason for the actions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. The loser confederates seceded over slavery and they fought a war to preserve slavery. All they had to do was simply abolished slavery and they would not have gotten their asses kicked or "invaded" as you put it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROFL... nonsense.  Lincoln did not send the armies to free slaves.  He sent the armies to recover the states that had seceded.  I put as proof, that he reclaimed the southern states.  He did not depose it's leaders and shed them of slavery, then let them go.  Oh no.  He did what he planned to do.  CONQUER the south.  The south did not fight a war to preserve slavery.  Freeing slaves became a political football for the north after the killing of many hundreds of thousands of the North and South.  Hell Lincoln wanted to send all the blacks back to Africa.
Click to expand...

You keep saying things I never said. Why do you do that when you are losing a debate?


----------



## RKMBrown

Asclepias said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Your link shows what I said.  Which is that a main reason for session was slavery.
> 
> not sure why this is confusing you so much...  I'll put in bigger letters, maybe that will help.
> 
> SECESSION WAS NOT A DECLARATION OF WAR
> 
> 
> 
> Who said secession was a declaration of war? I said thats the reason the losers went to war. Thanks for agreeing with me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No moron.  The reason the losers went to war was not BECAUSE THEY SECEDED it was to defend themselves from the INVADING ARMY OF THE NORTH who were sent by THE ASSHOLE IN CHIEF LINCOLN TO KILL SOUTHERNERS.  LINCOLN WAS A PROPONENT OF SLAVERY AT THE TIME.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dont get emotional. it doesnt impact me any differently other than to make me laugh. The losers went to war for the same reasons they seceded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true.  Would you not defend your family, your home, your town from an invader that was killing your family?  When the North sent their armies south it was for power.  When the South sent their armies to meet them it was for their own freedom.  Granted the assholes included many slavers.  But that is just a "part" of the scene, not the reason for the actions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. The loser confederates seceded over slavery and they fought a war to preserve slavery. All they had to do was simply abolished slavery and they would not have gotten their asses kicked or "invaded" as you put it.
Click to expand...

Bullshit liar!  They seceded over the asshole tyrants from the north that wanted to change the republic into a federal tyranny, sort of like the ONE WE HAVE NOW. See the 14th amendment SHOVED DOWN OUR THROATS at the end of the civil war that gives STATE GOVERNMENTS THE RIGHT TO TAKE YOUR LIFE, LIBERTY, AND PROPERTY AND THE FEDS THROUGH THE STATES WHEN THOSE STATES AGREE TO IT.  It was not about freeing anyone, IT WAS ABOUT CHANGING SLAVE OWNERSHIP FROM the plantation owners to GOVERNMENT LEADERS.


----------



## Asclepias

RKMBrown said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said secession was a declaration of war? I said thats the reason the losers went to war. Thanks for agreeing with me.
> 
> 
> 
> No moron.  The reason the losers went to war was not BECAUSE THEY SECEDED it was to defend themselves from the INVADING ARMY OF THE NORTH who were sent by THE ASSHOLE IN CHIEF LINCOLN TO KILL SOUTHERNERS.  LINCOLN WAS A PROPONENT OF SLAVERY AT THE TIME.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dont get emotional. it doesnt impact me any differently other than to make me laugh. The losers went to war for the same reasons they seceded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true.  Would you not defend your family, your home, your town from an invader that was killing your family?  When the North sent their armies south it was for power.  When the South sent their armies to meet them it was for their own freedom.  Granted the assholes included many slavers.  But that is just a "part" of the scene, not the reason for the actions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. The loser confederates seceded over slavery and they fought a war to preserve slavery. All they had to do was simply abolished slavery and they would not have gotten their asses kicked or "invaded" as you put it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit liar!  They seceded over the asshole tyrants from the north that wanted to change the republic into a federal tyranny, sort of like the ONE WE HAVE NOW. See the 14th amendment SHOVED DOWN OUR THROATS at the end of the civil war that gives STATE GOVERNMENTS THE RIGHT TO TAKE YOUR LIFE, LIBERTY, AND PROPERTY AND THE FEDS THROUGH THE STATES WHEN THOSE STATES AGREE TO IT.  It was not about freeing anyone, IT WAS ABOUT CHANGING SLAVE OWNERSHIP FROM the plantation owners to GOVERNMENT LEADERS.
Click to expand...

Your ranting now Brown and off topic. I said the loser confederates went to war over slavery. I was not talking about the north. Stop deflecting and getting emotional.


----------



## RKMBrown

Asclepias said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> No moron.  The reason the losers went to war was not BECAUSE THEY SECEDED it was to defend themselves from the INVADING ARMY OF THE NORTH who were sent by THE ASSHOLE IN CHIEF LINCOLN TO KILL SOUTHERNERS.  LINCOLN WAS A PROPONENT OF SLAVERY AT THE TIME.
> 
> 
> 
> Dont get emotional. it doesnt impact me any differently other than to make me laugh. The losers went to war for the same reasons they seceded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true.  Would you not defend your family, your home, your town from an invader that was killing your family?  When the North sent their armies south it was for power.  When the South sent their armies to meet them it was for their own freedom.  Granted the assholes included many slavers.  But that is just a "part" of the scene, not the reason for the actions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. The loser confederates seceded over slavery and they fought a war to preserve slavery. All they had to do was simply abolished slavery and they would not have gotten their asses kicked or "invaded" as you put it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit liar!  They seceded over the asshole tyrants from the north that wanted to change the republic into a federal tyranny, sort of like the ONE WE HAVE NOW. See the 14th amendment SHOVED DOWN OUR THROATS at the end of the civil war that gives STATE GOVERNMENTS THE RIGHT TO TAKE YOUR LIFE, LIBERTY, AND PROPERTY AND THE FEDS THROUGH THE STATES WHEN THOSE STATES AGREE TO IT.  It was not about freeing anyone, IT WAS ABOUT CHANGING SLAVE OWNERSHIP FROM the plantation owners to GOVERNMENT LEADERS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your ranting now Brown and off topic. I said the loser confederates went to war over slavery. I was not talking about the north. Stop deflecting and getting emotional.
Click to expand...

The South was invaded and conquered.  What makes you think the South attacked the North to get slaves?  They already had slaves.

Show us a link where the north offered to let the south go if they agreed to free the slaves.


----------



## Asclepias

RKMBrown said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont get emotional. it doesnt impact me any differently other than to make me laugh. The losers went to war for the same reasons they seceded.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true.  Would you not defend your family, your home, your town from an invader that was killing your family?  When the North sent their armies south it was for power.  When the South sent their armies to meet them it was for their own freedom.  Granted the assholes included many slavers.  But that is just a "part" of the scene, not the reason for the actions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. The loser confederates seceded over slavery and they fought a war to preserve slavery. All they had to do was simply abolished slavery and they would not have gotten their asses kicked or "invaded" as you put it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit liar!  They seceded over the asshole tyrants from the north that wanted to change the republic into a federal tyranny, sort of like the ONE WE HAVE NOW. See the 14th amendment SHOVED DOWN OUR THROATS at the end of the civil war that gives STATE GOVERNMENTS THE RIGHT TO TAKE YOUR LIFE, LIBERTY, AND PROPERTY AND THE FEDS THROUGH THE STATES WHEN THOSE STATES AGREE TO IT.  It was not about freeing anyone, IT WAS ABOUT CHANGING SLAVE OWNERSHIP FROM the plantation owners to GOVERNMENT LEADERS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your ranting now Brown and off topic. I said the loser confederates went to war over slavery. I was not talking about the north. Stop deflecting and getting emotional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The South was invaded and conquered.  What makes you think the South attacked the North to get slaves?  They already had slaves.
> 
> Show us a link where the north offered to let the south go if they agreed to free the slaves.
Click to expand...

The south got their asses kicked because they refused to give up slavery. When did someone tell you I said the south attacked the north to get slaves?


----------



## paperview

RKMBrown said:


> ...  The south did not fight a war to preserve slavery.



It's incredible people can still be saying this after all the evidence. Yes. they Did.  For christufckingsakes.



> Hell Lincoln wanted to send all the blacks back to Africa


 Lincolns Colonization plan was one adopted by abolitionists, and even some of our founding fathers.

Lincoln's plan was for *voluntary* colonization - not mandatory, because he knew a good portion of the country  would never accept them as equals. 

Knowing the 100 years of deprivation of Civil Rights that followed the Civil war  -- he obviously, was right.


----------



## paperview

Not only was the Confederacy dedicated to preserving, protecting and defending their 4 millions of their  black human bondage,  worth more than 3 Billion (1860 dollars) -- more collective wealth than all the  property in the US combined

-- they were bent on expansion.  Before Lincoln even stepped into office, in January of 1861 --

HUNTSVILLE, January 12, 1861.

To Gov. A. B. MOORE:

I leave for Montgomery to-day. It is absolutely certain that Tennessee will go with the South.

*L. P. WALKER*.

Mr. Henderson, of Macon, offered the following Resolution, which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations:

_Resolved,_ *That the Committee on Foreign relations be instructed to inquire into the expediency of sending a special Commissioner, or Commissioners, to the Territories of New Mexico and Arizonia, for the purpose of securing, if possible, the annexation of those Territories to a Southern Confederacy, as new States, at the earliest practicable period.*

A communication from the Governor was received and read, with reference to affairs at Pensacola, as follows:

Executive Department, January 12, 1861.

and hey...from that same month -- January 1861 --

*"CONFISCATION OF PROPERTY.*
*Be it Ordained by the people of Alabama in Convention assembled, That full power to confiscate Property belonging to enemies at war with the State of Alabama i*s hereby invested in the General Assembly of this State. And the power to suspend the collection of Debts, and all obligations to pay money due or owing persons, artificial or natural, in the non-slaveholding States of the United States of America, may be likewise exercised by the General Assembly of this State, in any manner they may see proper; any provisions in the Constitution of the State to the contrary notwithstanding."

"The enemies at war. " In January, 1861.

And more interest in expanding:

"_*"It is true that the interests of the South may demand territorial expansion, for expansion seems to be the law and destiny and necessity of our institutions. 

To remain healthful and prosperous within and to make sure our development and power, it seems essential that we should grow without. *Arizona and Mexico, Central America and Cuba all may yet be embraced within the limits of our Southern republic.* A Gulf Confederacy may be established in the South which may well enjoy almost a monopoly in the production of cotton, rice, sugar, coffee, tobacco, and tropical fruits.* 

The trade of all tropical America combined with that of the Cotton States would make our Confederacy the wealthiest, the most progressive, and the most influential power on the globe. Should the border States refuse to unite their destiny with ours, then we may be compelled to look for territorial strength and for political power to those rich and beautiful lands that lie upon our southwestern frontier. Their genial climate and productive soil, their rich agricultural and mineral resources, render them *admirably adapted to the institution of slavery. Under the influence of that institution these tropical lands would soon add millions to the commercial wealth of our Republic and their magnificent ports would soon be filled with ships from every nation. Slave labor would there build up for the Southern Confederacy populous and wealthy States *as it has built up for the late Union the States of Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas."_

Lewis M. Stone, Alabama secession convention, January, 1861"

You want to get a eye-opening?  Read :

William Russell Smith 1815-1896. The History and Debates of the Convention of the People of Alabama Begun and Held in the City of Montgomery on the Seventh Day of January 1861 in Which is Preserved the Speeches of the Secret Sessions and Many Valuable State Papers.


----------



## RKMBrown

paperview said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...  The south did not fight a war to preserve slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's incredible people can still be saying this after all the evidence. Yes. they Did.  For christufckingsakes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hell Lincoln wanted to send all the blacks back to Africa
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincolns Colonization plan was one adopted by abolitionists, and even some of our founding fathers.
> 
> Lincoln's plan was for *voluntary* colonization - not mandatory, because he knew a good portion of the country  would never accept them as equals.
> 
> Knowing the 100 years of deprivation of Civil Rights that followed the Civil war  -- he obviously, was right.
Click to expand...

No.  They fought to defend their country and themselves from being killed.  Slavery was on it's way out with or without the civil war. The slavery issue not the reason the south defended themselves from BEING MURDERED BY THE INVADING ARMIES FROM THE NORTH.  Most people in the south did not even own slaves.

As then, only the democrats refuse to see their brothers as equals.


----------



## RKMBrown

Asclepias said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true.  Would you not defend your family, your home, your town from an invader that was killing your family?  When the North sent their armies south it was for power.  When the South sent their armies to meet them it was for their own freedom.  Granted the assholes included many slavers.  But that is just a "part" of the scene, not the reason for the actions.
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. The loser confederates seceded over slavery and they fought a war to preserve slavery. All they had to do was simply abolished slavery and they would not have gotten their asses kicked or "invaded" as you put it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit liar!  They seceded over the asshole tyrants from the north that wanted to change the republic into a federal tyranny, sort of like the ONE WE HAVE NOW. See the 14th amendment SHOVED DOWN OUR THROATS at the end of the civil war that gives STATE GOVERNMENTS THE RIGHT TO TAKE YOUR LIFE, LIBERTY, AND PROPERTY AND THE FEDS THROUGH THE STATES WHEN THOSE STATES AGREE TO IT.  It was not about freeing anyone, IT WAS ABOUT CHANGING SLAVE OWNERSHIP FROM the plantation owners to GOVERNMENT LEADERS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your ranting now Brown and off topic. I said the loser confederates went to war over slavery. I was not talking about the north. Stop deflecting and getting emotional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The South was invaded and conquered.  What makes you think the South attacked the North to get slaves?  They already had slaves.
> 
> Show us a link where the north offered to let the south go if they agreed to free the slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The south got their asses kicked because they refused to give up slavery. When did someone tell you I said the south attacked the north to get slaves?
Click to expand...

Make up your mind they started a war to get slaves or they defended themselves from attack, you can't have it both ways.


----------



## Asclepias

RKMBrown said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. The loser confederates seceded over slavery and they fought a war to preserve slavery. All they had to do was simply abolished slavery and they would not have gotten their asses kicked or "invaded" as you put it.
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit liar!  They seceded over the asshole tyrants from the north that wanted to change the republic into a federal tyranny, sort of like the ONE WE HAVE NOW. See the 14th amendment SHOVED DOWN OUR THROATS at the end of the civil war that gives STATE GOVERNMENTS THE RIGHT TO TAKE YOUR LIFE, LIBERTY, AND PROPERTY AND THE FEDS THROUGH THE STATES WHEN THOSE STATES AGREE TO IT.  It was not about freeing anyone, IT WAS ABOUT CHANGING SLAVE OWNERSHIP FROM the plantation owners to GOVERNMENT LEADERS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your ranting now Brown and off topic. I said the loser confederates went to war over slavery. I was not talking about the north. Stop deflecting and getting emotional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The South was invaded and conquered.  What makes you think the South attacked the North to get slaves?  They already had slaves.
> 
> Show us a link where the north offered to let the south go if they agreed to free the slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The south got their asses kicked because they refused to give up slavery. When did someone tell you I said the south attacked the north to get slaves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Make up your mind they started a war to get slaves or they defended themselves from attack, you can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...

I said neither. Must be one of your deflections again. They started a war to keep slavery. They lost because they were losers. Sorry.


----------



## Rogue 9

JWBooth said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that when the nutters try to claim that the Civil War wasn't about slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> Oddly enough, Abraham Lincoln sought to enshrine slavery into the US Constitution with his tacit support for the Corwin Amendment. Said amendment would have made the institution permanent.
> The Confederate Constitution barred importation of slaves, it recognised slaves as property, but unlike Corwin it did not prevent the elimination of the institution at some future date.
Click to expand...

Have you read the thing?  Here, I'll give you a hint.  



			
				Constitution of the Confederate States said:
			
		

> No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.


Hey look.  You're wrong.  What a surprise.


----------



## RKMBrown

Asclepias said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit liar!  They seceded over the asshole tyrants from the north that wanted to change the republic into a federal tyranny, sort of like the ONE WE HAVE NOW. See the 14th amendment SHOVED DOWN OUR THROATS at the end of the civil war that gives STATE GOVERNMENTS THE RIGHT TO TAKE YOUR LIFE, LIBERTY, AND PROPERTY AND THE FEDS THROUGH THE STATES WHEN THOSE STATES AGREE TO IT.  It was not about freeing anyone, IT WAS ABOUT CHANGING SLAVE OWNERSHIP FROM the plantation owners to GOVERNMENT LEADERS.
> 
> 
> 
> Your ranting now Brown and off topic. I said the loser confederates went to war over slavery. I was not talking about the north. Stop deflecting and getting emotional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The South was invaded and conquered.  What makes you think the South attacked the North to get slaves?  They already had slaves.
> 
> Show us a link where the north offered to let the south go if they agreed to free the slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The south got their asses kicked because they refused to give up slavery. When did someone tell you I said the south attacked the north to get slaves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Make up your mind they started a war to get slaves or they defended themselves from attack, you can't have it both ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said neither. Must be one of your deflections again. They started a war to keep slavery. They lost because they were losers. Sorry.
Click to expand...

What a LYING POS you are.  They did not defend themselves? WTF is wrong with you.


----------



## James Everett

paperview said:


> Show us the documents where the South was willing to pay for every bit of federal property they stole or were going to steal, Reb, that was offered before they fired on ships - and you know, actually stole the property of the whole of the U.S.


Paperview.....
As you requested.....

*"Show us the documents where the South was willing to pay for every bit of federal property they stole or were going to steal, Reb, that was offered before they fired on ships - and you know, actually stole the property of the whole of the U.S."*

South Carolina’s Isaac Hayne, representing Governor Pickens, had been in Washington DC for over two weeks. His job was to establish some sort of agreement between the United States and South Carolina over Fort Sumter. He had seen President Buchanan upon his arrival, but the President requested something in writing. Haynes had met with Southern senators and finally wrote to Governor Pickens in order to put it into words.

Pickens, through Hayne, reiterated that Fort Sumter was property of South Carolina even though the United States had a military post within it. Nevertheless, South Carolina wished to purchase the fort from the United States. If purchased, of course, Major Anderson and all Federal troops would have to leave. But the US could probably use the money much more than it could use a now-useless fort.
[LETTER OF MR. HOLT TO MR. HAYNE.]

War Department, February G, 1861.

Sir: The President of the United States has received your
letter of the 31st ult., and has charged me with the duty of
replying thereto.
Hayne delivered the letter to Buchanan and hoped for a speedy reply.
If it be so that Fort Sumter is held as property, then,
as property, the rights, whatever they may be, of the United
States, can be ascertained, and for the satisfaction of these
rights, the pledge of the State of South Carolina, you are
authorized to give." The full scope and precise purport of
your instructions, as thus modified, you have expressed in the
following words : " I do not come as a military man to demand
the surrender of a fortress, but as the legal officer of the State,
its Attorney General, to claim for the State the exercise of
its undoubted right of eminent domain, and to pledge the State
to make good all injury to the rights of property which arise
from the exercise of the claim." And lest this explicit lan-
guage should not sufficiently define your position, you add :
'• The proposition now is that her (South Carolina's) law officer
should, under authority of the Governor and his Council, dis-
tinctly pledge the faith of South Carolina to make such com-
pensation, in regard to Fort Sumter, and its appurtenances and
contents, to the full extent of the money value of the property
of the United States


----------



## James Everett

paperview said:


> You will always lose neo-confederates -- because  confederates
> 
> -- are losers.


As I stated earlier....
The Coastal States in 1861 territorial waters extended out three miles from the low tide mark. South Carolina Charleston Harbor was well within that three mile mark. The U.S.attempts to traverse South Carolina sovereign waters to resupply fort Sumter without establishing a peace treaty with South Carolina was an act of war and aggression.
*An armistice had been entered into between South Carolina's government and the* *United States government, December 6, 1860. A similar armistice had been entered into* *between Florida and the United States government, January 29, 1861. These armistices* *agreed that the forts, Sumter and Pickens, should neither be garrisoned nor provisioned so* *long as these armistices continued in force.*
South Carolina had offered to purchase the Fort.
Now as to the invasion of South Carolina by the U.S. and its plans to further invade South Carolina....
*On March 29, Lincoln, without consent of his Cabinet, ordered three ships* *with 300 men and provisions to be ready to go to Fort Sumter. All orders were marked* *private. A fourth expedition was secretly sent to Pensacola, Florida, under Lieutenant* *Porter, April 7th, on which date the three vessels were directed to go to Fort Sumter.  On that same day President Lincoln directed Seward to address to the Confederate Peace* *Commissioners in Washington, and say "that they had no design to reinforce Fort Sumter."* *In short there were four expeditions ordered to garrison and provision Forts Sumter and* *Pickens while the armistice was yet in force.  South Carolina observed her agreement faithfully, to make no attack on Fort Sumter on account of promises made to evacuate the premises by the Federals, as well as its permission, continued into April, 1861, for Major Anderson to purchase fresh provisions in the markets of Charleston.  This points out a peaceable disposition which cannot be misunderstood, unless Lincoln was looking to provoke war.
Not until sufficient time had elapsed to cover the estimated landing of the vessels were the Confederate Peace Commissioners informed of these facts regarding the North intent to reinforce the US troops. At length, on the 8th of April, South Carolina was officially informed that "an attempt would be made to supply Fort Sumter, peaceably if they could, forcibly if they must." Eight armed vessels with soldiers aboard had been sent to sustain the notification, and moved so quickly on this expedition that only an unexpected storm at sea caused delay enough for the Confederate authorities to successfully meet the issue. A storm delayed some of the ships. 
The Confederate States objected to this movement of the Federals, because the reinforcement was invasion by the use of physical force; because it asserted the claim of the United States to sovereignty over South Carolina, which was in dispute; and because the supply of the garrison in Fort Sumter with necessary rations was not the object nor the end of the expedition. The purpose was to secure Fort Sumter, to close the port with the warships, to reduce Charleston by bombardment if necessary, to land troops from transports, and thus crush "The Rebellion" where it was supposed to have begun by overthrowing South Carolina.
Now as stated, South Carolina territory extended out to sea 3 miles from the low tide mark, hence in order to re -supply Ft Sumter, the U.S. would need to traverse South Carolina's territorial waters, and to do so without establishing a treaty to do so constituted an act of war.
Confederate States of America Interim Government
March 1 at 5:49pm · Edited ·
Attempts, and intentions by the U.S. to resupply Fort Sumter by traversing South Carolina waters without establishing a treaty with South Carolina was an invasion of South Carolina and constituted an act of war and aggression by the U.S. 
The U.S. had no jurisdiction over the waters within Charleston harbor, or the soil beneath those waters, such can be understood from an early court case .......
United States v. Bevans, 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 336 (1818), which involved a federal prosecution for a murder committed on board the Warship, Independence, anchored in the harbor of Boston, Massachusetts.
The defense complained that only the state had jurisdiction to prosecute and argued that the federal Circuit Courts had no jurisdiction of this crime supposedly committed within the federal government's admiralty jurisdiction. In argument before the Supreme Court, counsel for the United States admitted as follows:
"The exclusive jurisdiction which the United States have in forts and dock-yards ceded to them, is derived from the express assent of the states by whom the cessions are made. It could be derived in no other manner; because without it, the authority of the state would be supreme and exclusive therein," 3 Wheat., at 350, 351.
In holding that the State of Massachusetts had jurisdiction over the crime, the Court held:
"What, then, is the extent of jurisdiction which a state possesses?
"We answer, without hesitation, the jurisdiction of a state is co-extensive with its territory; co-extensive with its legislative power," 3 Wheat., at 386, 387.
So we see here that the U.S. held no jurisdiction in a murder even on a U.S. war ship as it was anchored within the jurisdictional waters of the State of Massachusetts.

A coastal States jurisdiction extended at that time to three miles out from the low tide mark: today that jurisdiction extends much further. ALL OF CHARLESTON HARBOR WAS/IS WITHIN SOUTH CAROLINA'S JURISDICTION.

While the U.S. may have held Jurisdiction within the bounds of Fort Sumter, the U.S. held NO SUCH JURISDICTION over the waters that it must traverse to resupply that fort, hence a treaty to do so would be required before resupplying that fort.

In New York v. Miln, 36 U.S. (11 Pet.) 102 (1837), the question before the Court involved the attempt by the City of New York to assess penalties against the master of a ship for his failure to make a report as to the persons his ship brought to New York. As against the master's contention that the act was unconstitutional and that New York had no jurisdiction in the matter, the Court held:

"If we look at the place of its operation, we find it to be within the territory, and, therefore, within the jurisdiction of New York. If we look at the person on whom it operates, he is found within the same territory and jurisdiction," 36 U.S., at 133.

"They are these: that a State has the same undeniable and unlimited jurisdiction over all persons and things within its territorial limits, as any foreign nation, where that jurisdiction is not surrendered or restrained by the Constitution of the United States. That, by virtue of this, it is not only the right, but the bounden and solemn duty of a State, to advance the safety, happiness and prosperity of its people, and to provide for its general welfare, by any and every act of legislation which it may deem to be conducive to these ends; where the power over the particular subject, or the manner of its exercise is not surrendered or restrained, in the manner just stated. That all those powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what may, perhaps, more properly be called internal police, are not thus surrendered or restrained; and that, consequently, in relation to these, the authority of a State is complete, unqualified and exclusive," 36 U.S., at 139.

In Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 212 (1845), the question of federal jurisdiction was once again before the Court. This case involved a contest of the title to real property, with one of the parties claiming a right to the disputed property via a U.S. patent; the lands in question were situated in Mobile, Alabama, adjacent to Mobile Bay. In discussing the subject of federal jurisdiction, the Court held:

"We think a proper examination of this subject will show that the United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory, of which Alabama or any of the new States were formed," 44 U.S., at 221.

"ecause, the United States have no constitutional capacity to exercise municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty, or eminent domain, within the limits of a State or elsewhere, except in the cases in which it is expressly granted," 44 U.S., at 223.

"Alabama is therefore entitled to the sovereignty and jurisdiction over all the territory within her limits, subject to the common law," 44 U.S., at 228, 229.

This is simply another example of how the unjust, illegal and unlawful war on our Southern Confederate States, and subsequent 150 years of occupation began.*

*Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17 of the U.S. Constitution, which read as follows:

"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings." 
Here we see that any jurisdiction of the States as a collective in government formation has NO JURISDICTION OUTSIDE OF THE TEN MILES SQUARE THAT IS THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IS NON-EXISTENT EXCEPT WITHIN A U.S. FORT, AN ARSENAL, A U.S. GOVERNMENT BUILDING, MAGAZINE, OR DOCK YARD, THUS ANY JURISDICTION BEYOND THAT IS THAT OF EACH STATE RESPECTIVELY/INDIVIDUALLY.

The reason for the inclusion of this clause in the Constitution was and is obvious. Under the Articles of Confederation, the States retained full and complete jurisdiction over lands and persons within their borders. The Congress under the Articles was merely a body which represented and acted as agents of the separate States for external affairs, and had no jurisdiction within the States.


I suggest that the Yankee drop his indoctrination, then learn and accept the truth of their ancestors rebellion.*


----------



## James Everett

RKMBrown said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your ranting now Brown and off topic. I said the loser confederates went to war over slavery. I was not talking about the north. Stop deflecting and getting emotional.
> 
> 
> 
> The South was invaded and conquered.  What makes you think the South attacked the North to get slaves?  They already had slaves.
> 
> Show us a link where the north offered to let the south go if they agreed to free the slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The south got their asses kicked because they refused to give up slavery. When did someone tell you I said the south attacked the north to get slaves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Make up your mind they started a war to get slaves or they defended themselves from attack, you can't have it both ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said neither. Must be one of your deflections again. They started a war to keep slavery. They lost because they were losers. Sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a LYING POS you are.  They did not defend themselves? WTF is wrong with you.
Click to expand...

The majority of this Yankee indoctrination BS is debunked within the Articles posted at CSAgov.org
Not to be confused with CSAgovernment.org which is a website created by two Yankees to create confusion, and thwart the restoration effort.


----------



## Ravi

Asclepias said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The north did not attack the south over slavery.  The south did not defend it's people from attack by the north over slavery.  The north did not refuse to remove it's troops from sovereign lands over slavery. The first shots were not over slavery.  The fight was over land and control, not slavery.  Slavery was the excuse given.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually slavery was exactly what the South went to war for. It says so in the Cornerstone speech and articles of secession from various confederate states. In these declarations you rarely got past the first 2-3 sentences without slavery being mentioned as the reason.
> 
> Cornerstone Speech - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> "Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confused.
> You mix secession with war.
> Not all the States that seceded mentioned slavery as a reason for severing their relationship with the Northern States, however there is no doubt that was one of the reasons, and likely the main reason.
> The Confederate States went to war as a defense against the U.S. Invasion.
> Get your facts straight, and stop relying on Yankee indoctrination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You must be confused or illiterate. "Various" states doesnt mean all states. There is no doubt it was the primary reason. It says so in the loser confederate speech called the cornerstone speech as I pointed out. The losers documented their reasons. Their reason was slavery. Stop pretending the south will rise again. It wont. Face it.... the confederates were losers. The best part was that Black soldiers ensured their demise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice try at deflection. You stated slavery was the main reason the Southern States went to war. I corrected your ignorance. Stop crying like a Yankee child because you made a fool of yourself.
> The VP's cornerstone speech was not about the war. You see, your Yankee indoctrination makes it difficult for you get your facts straight, it's no different than any lie, it's just using half truths which = whole lies. You really should educate yourself out of the indoctrination. The Southern States were simply defending themselves from invasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats correct. Slavery was the reason the losers went to war. The Cornerstone speech doubles down on that. You must be confused about history. If Stephens speech had nothing to do with war why did he try to retract the below statement after the losers got their asses beat?
> 
> "Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition."
Click to expand...

I just can't believe someone would write, think, or believe such a thing let alone found a country based on something like that.


----------



## Ravi

paperview said:


> Not only was the Confederacy dedicated to preserving, protecting and defending their 4 millions of their  black human bondage,  worth more than 3 Billion (1860 dollars) -- more collective wealth than all the  property in the US combined
> 
> -- they were bent on expansion.  Before Lincoln even stepped into office, in January of 1861 --
> 
> HUNTSVILLE, January 12, 1861.
> 
> To Gov. A. B. MOORE:
> 
> I leave for Montgomery to-day. It is absolutely certain that Tennessee will go with the South.
> 
> *L. P. WALKER*.
> 
> Mr. Henderson, of Macon, offered the following Resolution, which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations:
> 
> _Resolved,_ *That the Committee on Foreign relations be instructed to inquire into the expediency of sending a special Commissioner, or Commissioners, to the Territories of New Mexico and Arizonia, for the purpose of securing, if possible, the annexation of those Territories to a Southern Confederacy, as new States, at the earliest practicable period.*
> 
> A communication from the Governor was received and read, with reference to affairs at Pensacola, as follows:
> 
> Executive Department, January 12, 1861.
> 
> and hey...from that same month -- January 1861 --
> 
> *"CONFISCATION OF PROPERTY.*
> *Be it Ordained by the people of Alabama in Convention assembled, That full power to confiscate Property belonging to enemies at war with the State of Alabama i*s hereby invested in the General Assembly of this State. And the power to suspend the collection of Debts, and all obligations to pay money due or owing persons, artificial or natural, in the non-slaveholding States of the United States of America, may be likewise exercised by the General Assembly of this State, in any manner they may see proper; any provisions in the Constitution of the State to the contrary notwithstanding."
> 
> "The enemies at war. " In January, 1861.
> 
> And more interest in expanding:
> 
> "_*"It is true that the interests of the South may demand territorial expansion, for expansion seems to be the law and destiny and necessity of our institutions.
> 
> To remain healthful and prosperous within and to make sure our development and power, it seems essential that we should grow without. *Arizona and Mexico, Central America and Cuba all may yet be embraced within the limits of our Southern republic.* A Gulf Confederacy may be established in the South which may well enjoy almost a monopoly in the production of cotton, rice, sugar, coffee, tobacco, and tropical fruits.*
> 
> The trade of all tropical America combined with that of the Cotton States would make our Confederacy the wealthiest, the most progressive, and the most influential power on the globe. Should the border States refuse to unite their destiny with ours, then we may be compelled to look for territorial strength and for political power to those rich and beautiful lands that lie upon our southwestern frontier. Their genial climate and productive soil, their rich agricultural and mineral resources, render them *admirably adapted to the institution of slavery. Under the influence of that institution these tropical lands would soon add millions to the commercial wealth of our Republic and their magnificent ports would soon be filled with ships from every nation. Slave labor would there build up for the Southern Confederacy populous and wealthy States *as it has built up for the late Union the States of Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas."_
> 
> Lewis M. Stone, Alabama secession convention, January, 1861"
> 
> You want to get a eye-opening?  Read :
> 
> William Russell Smith 1815-1896. The History and Debates of the Convention of the People of Alabama Begun and Held in the City of Montgomery on the Seventh Day of January 1861 in Which is Preserved the Speeches of the Secret Sessions and Many Valuable State Papers.


and here we've been told that the confederates just wanted to live in peace.


----------



## James Everett

Ravi said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually slavery was exactly what the South went to war for. It says so in the Cornerstone speech and articles of secession from various confederate states. In these declarations you rarely got past the first 2-3 sentences without slavery being mentioned as the reason.
> 
> Cornerstone Speech - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> "Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition."
> 
> 
> 
> You are confused.
> You mix secession with war.
> Not all the States that seceded mentioned slavery as a reason for severing their relationship with the Northern States, however there is no doubt that was one of the reasons, and likely the main reason.
> The Confederate States went to war as a defense against the U.S. Invasion.
> Get your facts straight, and stop relying on Yankee indoctrination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You must be confused or illiterate. "Various" states doesnt mean all states. There is no doubt it was the primary reason. It says so in the loser confederate speech called the cornerstone speech as I pointed out. The losers documented their reasons. Their reason was slavery. Stop pretending the south will rise again. It wont. Face it.... the confederates were losers. The best part was that Black soldiers ensured their demise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice try at deflection. You stated slavery was the main reason the Southern States went to war. I corrected your ignorance. Stop crying like a Yankee child because you made a fool of yourself.
> The VP's cornerstone speech was not about the war. You see, your Yankee indoctrination makes it difficult for you get your facts straight, it's no different than any lie, it's just using half truths which = whole lies. You really should educate yourself out of the indoctrination. The Southern States were simply defending themselves from invasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats correct. Slavery was the reason the losers went to war. The Cornerstone speech doubles down on that. You must be confused about history. If Stephens speech had nothing to do with war why did he try to retract the below statement after the losers got their asses beat?
> 
> "Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just can't believe someone would write, think, or believe such a thing let alone found a country based on something like that.
Click to expand...

The Yankee, cannot help but lie in order to justify and coverup their ignorance. Such are the same idiots who believe the war in Iraq is over WMD: After all their President said so.
There is nothing within the speech that states that the Southern States went to war over slavery, such is just another lie by the Yankee liars to justify their ancestors rebellion.
The United States was built on the same principle as Alexander Stephens Stated that the Southern Confederacy was built on, they just acted in typical hypocritical form when it came to the Black man, and the Native American Indian. All men were created equal, that is when it suited there desires. For 89 years the black man was enslaved under the U.S. CONstitution, for a far more number of years the Native American Indian was exterminated under manifest destiny, wherein the Soldiers that carved the unborn from their mothers wombs, threw nursing infants into the air and bayoneted them as their lil bodies fell back to the blood stained ground, and then stated their reasons for doing these things was because "NITS MAKE LICE!" I cannot believe that the Yankee would believe such and build a nation on the blood of these people. 
It was after all, Yankee General Philip Sheridan who stated...."The only good Indian I ever saw was a DEAD Indian".
You see, such as Ravi's post begins with a lie, and is based in an attempt to deflect, and project all her ancestors evils on the people of the Southern Confederate States.
The war was forced upon the Southern Confederate States in defense of the invasion of the Southern Confederate States by the Yankee.

The Coastal States in 1861 territorial waters extended out three miles from the low tide mark. South Carolina Charleston Harbor was well within that three mile mark. The U.S.attempts to traverse South Carolina sovereign waters to resupply fort Sumter without establishing a peace treaty with South Carolina was an act of war and aggression.
*An armistice had been entered into between South Carolina's government and the* *United States government, December 6, 1860. A similar armistice had been entered into* *between Florida and the United States government, January 29, 1861. These armistices* *agreed that the forts, Sumter and Pickens, should neither be garrisoned nor provisioned so* *long as these armistices continued in force.*
South Carolina had offered to purchase the Fort.
Now as to the invasion of South Carolina by the U.S. and its plans to further invade South Carolina....
*On March 29, Lincoln, without consent of his Cabinet, ordered three ships* *with 300 men and provisions to be ready to go to Fort Sumter. All orders were marked* *private. A fourth expedition was secretly sent to Pensacola, Florida, under Lieutenant* *Porter, April 7th, on which date the three vessels were directed to go to Fort Sumter. On that same day President Lincoln directed Seward to address to the Confederate Peace* *Commissioners in Washington, and say "that they had no design to reinforce Fort Sumter."* *In short there were four expeditions ordered to garrison and provision Forts Sumter and* *Pickens while the armistice was yet in force. South Carolina observed her agreement faithfully, to make no attack on Fort Sumter on account of promises made to evacuate the premises by the Federals, as well as its permission, continued into April, 1861, for Major Anderson to purchase fresh provisions in the markets of Charleston. This points out a peaceable disposition which cannot be misunderstood, unless Lincoln was looking to provoke war.
Not until sufficient time had elapsed to cover the estimated landing of the vessels were the Confederate Peace Commissioners informed of these facts regarding the North intent to reinforce the US troops. At length, on the 8th of April, South Carolina was officially informed that "an attempt would be made to supply Fort Sumter, peaceably if they could, forcibly if they must." Eight armed vessels with soldiers aboard had been sent to sustain the notification, and moved so quickly on this expedition that only an unexpected storm at sea caused delay enough for the Confederate authorities to successfully meet the issue. A storm delayed some of the ships. 
The Confederate States objected to this movement of the Federals, because the reinforcement was invasion by the use of physical force; because it asserted the claim of the United States to sovereignty over South Carolina, which was in dispute; and because the supply of the garrison in Fort Sumter with necessary rations was not the object nor the end of the expedition. The purpose was to secure Fort Sumter, to close the port with the warships, to reduce Charleston by bombardment if necessary, to land troops from transports, and thus crush "The Rebellion" where it was supposed to have begun by overthrowing South Carolina.
Now as stated, South Carolina territory extended out to sea 3 miles from the low tide mark, hence in order to re -supply Ft Sumter, the U.S. would need to traverse South Carolina's territorial waters, and to do so without establishing a treaty to do so constituted an act of war.
Confederate States of America Interim Government
March 1 at 5:49pm · Edited ·
Attempts, and intentions by the U.S. to resupply Fort Sumter by traversing South Carolina waters without establishing a treaty with South Carolina was an invasion of South Carolina and constituted an act of war and aggression by the U.S. 
The U.S. had no jurisdiction over the waters within Charleston harbor, or the soil beneath those waters, such can be understood from an early court case .......
United States v. Bevans, 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 336 (1818), which involved a federal prosecution for a murder committed on board the Warship, Independence, anchored in the harbor of Boston, Massachusetts.
The defense complained that only the state had jurisdiction to prosecute and argued that the federal Circuit Courts had no jurisdiction of this crime supposedly committed within the federal government's admiralty jurisdiction. In argument before the Supreme Court, counsel for the United States admitted as follows:
"The exclusive jurisdiction which the United States have in forts and dock-yards ceded to them, is derived from the express assent of the states by whom the cessions are made. It could be derived in no other manner; because without it, the authority of the state would be supreme and exclusive therein," 3 Wheat., at 350, 351.
In holding that the State of Massachusetts had jurisdiction over the crime, the Court held:
"What, then, is the extent of jurisdiction which a state possesses?
"We answer, without hesitation, the jurisdiction of a state is co-extensive with its territory; co-extensive with its legislative power," 3 Wheat., at 386, 387.
So we see here that the U.S. held no jurisdiction in a murder even on a U.S. war ship as it was anchored within the jurisdictional waters of the State of Massachusetts.

A coastal States jurisdiction extended at that time to three miles out from the low tide mark: today that jurisdiction extends much further. ALL OF CHARLESTON HARBOR WAS/IS WITHIN SOUTH CAROLINA'S JURISDICTION.

While the U.S. may have held Jurisdiction within the bounds of Fort Sumter, the U.S. held NO SUCH JURISDICTION over the waters that it must traverse to resupply that fort, hence a treaty to do so would be required before resupplying that fort.

In New York v. Miln, 36 U.S. (11 Pet.) 102 (1837), the question before the Court involved the attempt by the City of New York to assess penalties against the master of a ship for his failure to make a report as to the persons his ship brought to New York. As against the master's contention that the act was unconstitutional and that New York had no jurisdiction in the matter, the Court held:

"If we look at the place of its operation, we find it to be within the territory, and, therefore, within the jurisdiction of New York. If we look at the person on whom it operates, he is found within the same territory and jurisdiction," 36 U.S., at 133.

"They are these: that a State has the same undeniable and unlimited jurisdiction over all persons and things within its territorial limits, as any foreign nation, where that jurisdiction is not surrendered or restrained by the Constitution of the United States. That, by virtue of this, it is not only the right, but the bounden and solemn duty of a State, to advance the safety, happiness and prosperity of its people, and to provide for its general welfare, by any and every act of legislation which it may deem to be conducive to these ends; where the power over the particular subject, or the manner of its exercise is not surrendered or restrained, in the manner just stated. That all those powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what may, perhaps, more properly be called internal police, are not thus surrendered or restrained; and that, consequently, in relation to these, the authority of a State is complete, unqualified and exclusive," 36 U.S., at 139.

In Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 212 (1845), the question of federal jurisdiction was once again before the Court. This case involved a contest of the title to real property, with one of the parties claiming a right to the disputed property via a U.S. patent; the lands in question were situated in Mobile, Alabama, adjacent to Mobile Bay. In discussing the subject of federal jurisdiction, the Court held:

"We think a proper examination of this subject will show that the United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory, of which Alabama or any of the new States were formed," 44 U.S., at 221.

"ecause, the United States have no constitutional capacity to exercise municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty, or eminent domain, within the limits of a State or elsewhere, except in the cases in which it is expressly granted," 44 U.S., at 223.

"Alabama is therefore entitled to the sovereignty and jurisdiction over all the territory within her limits, subject to the common law," 44 U.S., at 228, 229.

This is simply another example of how the unjust, illegal and unlawful war on our Southern Confederate States, and subsequent 150 years of occupation began.*

*Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17 of the U.S. Constitution, which read as follows:

"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings." 
Here we see that any jurisdiction of the States as a collective in government formation has NO JURISDICTION OUTSIDE OF THE TEN MILES SQUARE THAT IS THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IS NON-EXISTENT EXCEPT WITHIN A U.S. FORT, AN ARSENAL, A U.S. GOVERNMENT BUILDING, MAGAZINE, OR DOCK YARD, THUS ANY JURISDICTION BEYOND THAT IS THAT OF EACH STATE RESPECTIVELY/INDIVIDUALLY.

The reason for the inclusion of this clause in the Constitution was and is obvious. Under the Articles of Confederation, the States retained full and complete jurisdiction over lands and persons within their borders. The Congress under the Articles was merely a body which represented and acted as agents of the separate States for external affairs, and had no jurisdiction within the States.


I suggest that the Yankee drop his indoctrination, then learn and accept the truth of their ancestors rebellion.*


----------



## Ravi

Right, the cornerstone of their "country" was slavery and that means the war had nothing to do with slavery.


----------



## James Everett

Ravi said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not only was the Confederacy dedicated to preserving, protecting and defending their 4 millions of their  black human bondage,  worth more than 3 Billion (1860 dollars) -- more collective wealth than all the  property in the US combined
> 
> -- they were bent on expansion.  Before Lincoln even stepped into office, in January of 1861 --
> 
> HUNTSVILLE, January 12, 1861.
> 
> To Gov. A. B. MOORE:
> 
> I leave for Montgomery to-day. It is absolutely certain that Tennessee will go with the South.
> 
> *L. P. WALKER*.
> 
> Mr. Henderson, of Macon, offered the following Resolution, which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations:
> 
> _Resolved,_ *That the Committee on Foreign relations be instructed to inquire into the expediency of sending a special Commissioner, or Commissioners, to the Territories of New Mexico and Arizonia, for the purpose of securing, if possible, the annexation of those Territories to a Southern Confederacy, as new States, at the earliest practicable period.*
> 
> A communication from the Governor was received and read, with reference to affairs at Pensacola, as follows:
> 
> Executive Department, January 12, 1861.
> 
> and hey...from that same month -- January 1861 --
> 
> *"CONFISCATION OF PROPERTY.*
> *Be it Ordained by the people of Alabama in Convention assembled, That full power to confiscate Property belonging to enemies at war with the State of Alabama i*s hereby invested in the General Assembly of this State. And the power to suspend the collection of Debts, and all obligations to pay money due or owing persons, artificial or natural, in the non-slaveholding States of the United States of America, may be likewise exercised by the General Assembly of this State, in any manner they may see proper; any provisions in the Constitution of the State to the contrary notwithstanding."
> 
> "The enemies at war. " In January, 1861.
> 
> And more interest in expanding:
> 
> "_*"It is true that the interests of the South may demand territorial expansion, for expansion seems to be the law and destiny and necessity of our institutions.
> 
> To remain healthful and prosperous within and to make sure our development and power, it seems essential that we should grow without. *Arizona and Mexico, Central America and Cuba all may yet be embraced within the limits of our Southern republic.* A Gulf Confederacy may be established in the South which may well enjoy almost a monopoly in the production of cotton, rice, sugar, coffee, tobacco, and tropical fruits.*
> 
> The trade of all tropical America combined with that of the Cotton States would make our Confederacy the wealthiest, the most progressive, and the most influential power on the globe. Should the border States refuse to unite their destiny with ours, then we may be compelled to look for territorial strength and for political power to those rich and beautiful lands that lie upon our southwestern frontier. Their genial climate and productive soil, their rich agricultural and mineral resources, render them *admirably adapted to the institution of slavery. Under the influence of that institution these tropical lands would soon add millions to the commercial wealth of our Republic and their magnificent ports would soon be filled with ships from every nation. Slave labor would there build up for the Southern Confederacy populous and wealthy States *as it has built up for the late Union the States of Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas."_
> 
> Lewis M. Stone, Alabama secession convention, January, 1861"
> 
> You want to get a eye-opening?  Read :
> 
> William Russell Smith 1815-1896. The History and Debates of the Convention of the People of Alabama Begun and Held in the City of Montgomery on the Seventh Day of January 1861 in Which is Preserved the Speeches of the Secret Sessions and Many Valuable State Papers.
> 
> 
> 
> and here we've been told that the confederates just wanted to live in peace.
Click to expand...

Nice try but on....On January 9, 1861, The U.S. Ship, the Star of the west had already began the invasion by invading South Carolina territorial waters. The Jan 12 1861, date that the Yankee posted,  was three days after the U.S. invasion had begun.
*Nice try Yankee*, but the armistice was established one month prior to the commencement of the U.S. invasion.


----------



## paperview

James Everett said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show us the documents where the South was willing to pay for every bit of federal property they stole or were going to steal, Reb, that was offered before they fired on ships - and you know, actually stole the property of the whole of the U.S.
> 
> 
> 
> Paperview.....
> As you requested.....
> 
> *"Show us the documents where the South was willing to pay for every bit of federal property they stole or were going to steal, Reb, that was offered before they fired on ships - and you know, actually stole the property of the whole of the U.S."*
> 
> South Carolina’s Isaac Hayne, representing Governor Pickens, had been in Washington DC for over two weeks. His job was to establish some sort of agreement between the United States and South Carolina over Fort Sumter. He had seen President Buchanan upon his arrival, but the President requested something in writing. Haynes had met with Southern senators and finally wrote to Governor Pickens in order to put it into words.
> 
> Pickens, through Hayne, reiterated that Fort Sumter was property of South Carolina even though the United States had a military post within it. Nevertheless, South Carolina wished to purchase the fort from the United States. If purchased, of course, Major Anderson and all Federal troops would have to leave. But the US could probably use the money much more than it could use a now-useless fort.
> [LETTER OF MR. HOLT TO MR. HAYNE.]
> 
> War Department, February G, 1861.
> 
> Sir: The President of the United States has received your
> letter of the 31st ult., and has charged me with the duty of
> replying thereto.
> Hayne delivered the letter to Buchanan and hoped for a speedy reply.
> If it be so that Fort Sumter is held as property, then,
> as property, the rights, whatever they may be, of the United
> States, can be ascertained, and for the satisfaction of these
> rights, the pledge of the State of South Carolina, you are
> authorized to give." The full scope and precise purport of
> your instructions, as thus modified, you have expressed in the
> following words : " I do not come as a military man to demand
> the surrender of a fortress, but as the legal officer of the State,
> its Attorney General, to claim for the State the exercise of
> its undoubted right of eminent domain, and to pledge the State
> to make good all injury to the rights of property which arise
> from the exercise of the claim." And lest this explicit lan-
> guage should not sufficiently define your position, you add :
> '• The proposition now is that her (South Carolina's) law officer
> should, under authority of the Governor and his Council, dis-
> tinctly pledge the faith of South Carolina to make such com-
> pensation, in regard to Fort Sumter, and its appurtenances and
> contents, to the full extent of the money value of the property
> of the United States
Click to expand...

I knew you going to post that --

That does not show 
 where the South was willing to pay for every bit of federal property they stole or were going to steal, Reb, that was offered before they fired on ships - and you know, actually stole the property of the whole of the U.S.

They  had taken control of most of the forts all across the south, as well as a shitton of federal buildings, courthouses, arsenals,post offices, yadda yadda. 

One measly fort they offered to pay. Ha!  A fort SC had already ceded all property rights to the US in 1836. 

That's like stealing a mansion, squatting in it, declaring you own it now -- and then offering to pay the value of the used car in the driveway, and saying hey - that should cover the cost for everything. My mansion now. 

Then turning around and saying:  Hey! What are you complaining about? I offered to pay for it!!!


----------



## James Everett

Ravi said:


> Right, the cornerstone of their "country" was slavery and that means the war had nothing to do with slavery.


The war would not have occurred had the U.S. not invaded the Confederate States. Slavery may have been one of the reasons for secession, but the reason for the war was that the U.S. invaded the Southern Confederate States. Again...Nice try.


----------



## paperview

Alllllllllllllll the federal buildings
Alllllllllllllll the forts,
Alllllllllllllll the arsenals,
Alllllllllllllll the mints,
Alllllllllllllll the courthouses -- every bit of federal property ...

All across the south --Yeah, that's what they *stole* and declared as theirs - even though the whole of the United States taxpayers had paid for it.

They stole it. Thief's.  They did this before Lincoln ever stepped into office.


----------



## paperview

The rest of your nonsense is Sons of Confederate Veterans pablum.


----------



## James Everett

paperview said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show us the documents where the South was willing to pay for every bit of federal property they stole or were going to steal, Reb, that was offered before they fired on ships - and you know, actually stole the property of the whole of the U.S.
> 
> 
> 
> Paperview.....
> As you requested.....
> 
> *"Show us the documents where the South was willing to pay for every bit of federal property they stole or were going to steal, Reb, that was offered before they fired on ships - and you know, actually stole the property of the whole of the U.S."*
> 
> South Carolina’s Isaac Hayne, representing Governor Pickens, had been in Washington DC for over two weeks. His job was to establish some sort of agreement between the United States and South Carolina over Fort Sumter. He had seen President Buchanan upon his arrival, but the President requested something in writing. Haynes had met with Southern senators and finally wrote to Governor Pickens in order to put it into words.
> 
> Pickens, through Hayne, reiterated that Fort Sumter was property of South Carolina even though the United States had a military post within it. Nevertheless, South Carolina wished to purchase the fort from the United States. If purchased, of course, Major Anderson and all Federal troops would have to leave. But the US could probably use the money much more than it could use a now-useless fort.
> [LETTER OF MR. HOLT TO MR. HAYNE.]
> 
> War Department, February G, 1861.
> 
> Sir: The President of the United States has received your
> letter of the 31st ult., and has charged me with the duty of
> replying thereto.
> Hayne delivered the letter to Buchanan and hoped for a speedy reply.
> If it be so that Fort Sumter is held as property, then,
> as property, the rights, whatever they may be, of the United
> States, can be ascertained, and for the satisfaction of these
> rights, the pledge of the State of South Carolina, you are
> authorized to give." The full scope and precise purport of
> your instructions, as thus modified, you have expressed in the
> following words : " I do not come as a military man to demand
> the surrender of a fortress, but as the legal officer of the State,
> its Attorney General, to claim for the State the exercise of
> its undoubted right of eminent domain, and to pledge the State
> to make good all injury to the rights of property which arise
> from the exercise of the claim." And lest this explicit lan-
> guage should not sufficiently define your position, you add :
> '• The proposition now is that her (South Carolina's) law officer
> should, under authority of the Governor and his Council, dis-
> tinctly pledge the faith of South Carolina to make such com-
> pensation, in regard to Fort Sumter, and its appurtenances and
> contents, to the full extent of the money value of the property
> of the United States
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I knew you going to post that --
> 
> That does not show
> where the South was willing to pay for every bit of federal property they stole or were going to steal, Reb, that was offered before they fired on ships - and you know, actually stole the property of the whole of the U.S.
> 
> They  had taken control of most of the forts all across the south, as well as a shitton of federal buildings, courthouses, arsenals,post offices, yadda yadda.
> 
> One measly fort they offered to pay. Ha!  A fort SC had already ceded all property rights to the US in 1836.
> 
> That's like stealing a mansion, squatting in it, declaring you own it now -- and then offering to pay the value of the used car in the driveway, and saying hey - that should cover the cost for everything. My mansion now.
> 
> Then turning around and saying:  Hey! What are you complaining about? I offered to pay for it!!!
Click to expand...

But you miss the fact that YOUR government had already invaded South Carolina sovereign territory with the Star of the West. Now if you knew I was going to post that, then why the attempt to hide the truth?
Did you think that I was unaware of this truth, and that you could slide it past the unknowing of that truth?
Why did you ask me to supply the truth, if you already knew it existed? 
Such would be dishonest on YOUR part, but then again you are a Yankee, one could expect no different than dishonesty. 
Now the fact is, that before South Carolina was forced to fend off the invasion, the offer was made to purchase the Fort. The U.S. was REQUIRED to enter into a treaty with South Carolina, hence the Confederacy to which they became part, in order to traverse South Carolina waters to re-supply the U.S. Fort. Until such could be established, the troops were offered safe passage to evacuate a Forth that was no loner of use to the U.S. for no other purpose than to establish hostilities and stage an invasion.


----------



## James Everett

paperview said:


> The rest of your nonsense is Sons of Confederate Veterans pablum.


It is not nonsense, it is truth that the Yankee has attempted to cover up through the indoctrination of which you clearly suffer.


----------



## James Everett

paperview said:


> Alllllllllllllll the federal buildings
> Alllllllllllllll the forts,
> Alllllllllllllll the arsenals,
> Alllllllllllllll the mints,
> Alllllllllllllll the courthouses -- every bit of federal property ...
> 
> All across the south --Yeah, that's what they *stole* and declared as theirs - even though the whole of the United States taxpayers had paid for it.
> 
> They stole it. Thief's.  They did this before Lincoln ever stepped into office.


The South was funding the majority of the U.S. at that time, it was little compensation for the Souths funding of Northern interests. But again, the U.S. invaded one of our Confederate States, which constituted an act of war.
Any fort within the Southern Confederate States could not have been re-supplied without a treaty to do so, The U.S. chose invasion over establishing a treaty. All you are doing at this point is producing typical Yankee indoctrination chatter.


----------



## paperview

James Everett said:


> But you miss the fact that YOUR government had already invaded South Carolina sovereign territory with the Star of the West. Now if you knew I was going to post that, then why the attempt to hide the truth?
> Did you think that I was unaware of this truth, and that you could slide it past the unknowing of that truth?
> Why did you ask me to supply the truth, if you already knew it existed?
> ....



I knew you could not produce any documentation that the South offered to buy all the federal property.

They had already taken over lots more Federal govt building across the south -* before *the rebs fired on Star of the West.



December 20, 1860: South Carolina convention passes ordinance of secession.
December 24, 1860: *Mississippi Senator Jefferson Davis introduces a "compromise" proposal which would effectively make slavery a national institution.*
December 26, 1860: Major Anderson moves Federal garrison in Charleston, SC, from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter.
January 3, 1861: G*eorgia seizes Fort Pulaski. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.*
January 4, 1861: *Alabama seizes U.S. arsenal at Mount Vernon. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.*
January 5, 1861: *Alabama seizes Forts Morgan and Gaines*. * <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.*
January 6, 1861: *Florida seizes Apalachicola arsenal. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE ARSENAL BEFORE THEY SECEDED.*
January 7, 1861: *Florida seizes Fort Marion*. * <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.*
January 8, 1861: Floridians try to seize Fort Barrancas but are chased off.
January 9, 1861: Mississippi secedes.

*Star of the West fired on in Charleston Harbor <-- FIRING ON A SHIP - A CLEAR ACT OF WAR
THE STEAMSHIP "MARION." SEIZED BY THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TO BE CONVERTED INTO A MAN-OF-WAR.*
January 10, 1861: Florida secedes.

*Louisiana seizes U.S. arsenal at Baton Rouge, as well as Forts Jackson and St. Philip.*
January 11, 1861: Alabama secedes.
*
Louisiana seizes U.S. Marine Hospital....*
It goes on...
------------
Here's a clue:  You just can't go and steal federal property the whole of the US paid for and think you can keep it...


----------



## James Everett

paperview said:


> Alllllllllllllll the federal buildings
> Alllllllllllllll the forts,
> Alllllllllllllll the arsenals,
> Alllllllllllllll the mints,
> Alllllllllllllll the courthouses -- every bit of federal property ...
> 
> All across the south --Yeah, that's what they *stole* and declared as theirs - even though the whole of the United States taxpayers had paid for it.
> 
> They stole it. Thief's.  They did this before Lincoln ever stepped into office.


Oh, and I knew you would resort to your indoctrination, and attempt to marginalize the truth using terms such as....._*"The rest of your nonsense is Sons of Confederate Veterans pablum."*_
The fact is that it is truth, and you wish to project that it is not, which in turn makes you a liar. Any attempt at covering the truth is a lie. A half truth is a whole lie. The Yankee has always practiced such tactic.
The truth shall set you free.


----------



## James Everett

paperview said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you miss the fact that YOUR government had already invaded South Carolina sovereign territory with the Star of the West. Now if you knew I was going to post that, then why the attempt to hide the truth?
> Did you think that I was unaware of this truth, and that you could slide it past the unknowing of that truth?
> Why did you ask me to supply the truth, if you already knew it existed?
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I knew you could not produce any documentation that the South offered to buy all the federal property.
> 
> They had already taken over lots more Federal govt building across the south -* before *the rebs fired on Star of the West.
> 
> 
> 
> December 20, 1860: South Carolina convention passes ordinance of secession.
> December 24, 1860: *Mississippi Senator Jefferson Davis introduces a "compromise" proposal which would effectively make slavery a national institution.*
> December 26, 1860: Major Anderson moves Federal garrison in Charleston, SC, from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter.
> January 3, 1861: G*eorgia seizes Fort Pulaski. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.*
> January 4, 1861: *Alabama seizes U.S. arsenal at Mount Vernon. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.*
> January 5, 1861: *Alabama seizes Forts Morgan and Gaines*. * <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.*
> January 6, 1861: *Florida seizes Apalachicola arsenal. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE ARSENAL BEFORE THEY SECEDED.*
> January 7, 1861: *Florida seizes Fort Marion*. * <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.*
> January 8, 1861: Floridians try to seize Fort Barrancas but are chased off.
> January 9, 1861: Mississippi secedes.
> 
> *Star of the West fired on in Charleston Harbor <-- FIRING ON A SHIP - A CLEAR ACT OF WAR
> THE STEAMSHIP "MARION." SEIZED BY THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TO BE CONVERTED INTO A MAN-OF-WAR.*
> January 10, 1861: Florida secedes.
> 
> *Louisiana seizes U.S. arsenal at Baton Rouge, as well as Forts Jackson and St. Philip.*
> January 11, 1861: Alabama secedes.
> *
> Louisiana seizes U.S. Marine Hospital....*
> It goes on...
> ------------
> Here's a clue:  You just can't go and steal federal property the whole of the US paid for and think you can keep it...
Click to expand...


*The final vote in Georgia was on January_2, 1861 was 42,744 in favor of co-operation and 41,717 in favor of immediate secession. In case you missed it...That was ONE DAY before the fort was taken.
Yet another lie posted by another Yankee.
Really? do we need continue exposing your lies??  Really?*


----------



## paperview

"The South was funding the majority of the U.S. at that time..."

Bull.
Shit.


James Everett said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you miss the fact that YOUR government had already invaded South Carolina sovereign territory with the Star of the West. Now if you knew I was going to post that, then why the attempt to hide the truth?
> Did you think that I was unaware of this truth, and that you could slide it past the unknowing of that truth?
> Why did you ask me to supply the truth, if you already knew it existed?
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I knew you could not produce any documentation that the South offered to buy all the federal property.
> 
> They had already taken over lots more Federal govt building across the south -* before *the rebs fired on Star of the West.
> 
> 
> 
> December 20, 1860: South Carolina convention passes ordinance of secession.
> December 24, 1860: *Mississippi Senator Jefferson Davis introduces a "compromise" proposal which would effectively make slavery a national institution.*
> December 26, 1860: Major Anderson moves Federal garrison in Charleston, SC, from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter.
> January 3, 1861: G*eorgia seizes Fort Pulaski. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.*
> January 4, 1861: *Alabama seizes U.S. arsenal at Mount Vernon. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.*
> January 5, 1861: *Alabama seizes Forts Morgan and Gaines*. * <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.*
> January 6, 1861: *Florida seizes Apalachicola arsenal. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE ARSENAL BEFORE THEY SECEDED.*
> January 7, 1861: *Florida seizes Fort Marion*. * <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.*
> January 8, 1861: Floridians try to seize Fort Barrancas but are chased off.
> January 9, 1861: Mississippi secedes.
> 
> *Star of the West fired on in Charleston Harbor <-- FIRING ON A SHIP - A CLEAR ACT OF WAR
> THE STEAMSHIP "MARION." SEIZED BY THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TO BE CONVERTED INTO A MAN-OF-WAR.*
> January 10, 1861: Florida secedes.
> 
> *Louisiana seizes U.S. arsenal at Baton Rouge, as well as Forts Jackson and St. Philip.*
> January 11, 1861: Alabama secedes.
> *
> Louisiana seizes U.S. Marine Hospital....*
> It goes on...
> ------------
> Here's a clue:  You just can't go and steal federal property the whole of the US paid for and think you can keep it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The final vote in Georgia was on January_2, 1861 was 42,744 in favor of co-operation and 41,717 in favor of immediate secession. In case you missed it...That was ONE DAY before the fort was taken.
> Yet another lie posted by another Yankee.
> Really? do we need continue exposing your lies??  Really?*
Click to expand...


Your own fucking link disproves you.  This is what you supplied:

January 1, 1861 Georgia votes against holding a secession convention, but the results are manipulated by Governor Joseph Brown to indicate that the state strongly supported the convention.
January 7, 1861 Robert Toombs delivers a farewell to the U. S. Senate, almost two weeks before Georgia votes to secede.
January 9, 1861 Mississippi secedes from the Union
January 10, 1861 Florida secedes from the Union
January 11, 1861 Alabama secedes from the Union
January 19, 1861 *Georgia votes to secede from the Union at a convention held in Milledgeville, Georgia. *
Civil War - 1861
Robert Toombs
Milledgeville
Slavery in Georgia
January 25, 1861 The federal arsenal in Augusta is taken by the Georgia Militia 

Georgia History Timeline Chronology 1861

Boy, are you ever dumb.


----------



## Asclepias

Debating with James Everett is like talking to mentally handicapped beaver.


----------



## mudwhistle

Ravi said:


> Remember that when the nutters try to claim that the Civil War wasn't about slavery.


Nope.

That was libruls....Democraps.....


----------



## James Everett

paperview said:


> "The South was funding the majority of the U.S. at that time..."
> 
> Bull.
> Shit.
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you miss the fact that YOUR government had already invaded South Carolina sovereign territory with the Star of the West. Now if you knew I was going to post that, then why the attempt to hide the truth?
> Did you think that I was unaware of this truth, and that you could slide it past the unknowing of that truth?
> Why did you ask me to supply the truth, if you already knew it existed?
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I knew you could not produce any documentation that the South offered to buy all the federal property.
> 
> They had already taken over lots more Federal govt building across the south -* before *the rebs fired on Star of the West.
> 
> 
> 
> December 20, 1860: South Carolina convention passes ordinance of secession.
> December 24, 1860: *Mississippi Senator Jefferson Davis introduces a "compromise" proposal which would effectively make slavery a national institution.*
> December 26, 1860: Major Anderson moves Federal garrison in Charleston, SC, from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter.
> January 3, 1861: G*eorgia seizes Fort Pulaski. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.*
> January 4, 1861: *Alabama seizes U.S. arsenal at Mount Vernon. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.*
> January 5, 1861: *Alabama seizes Forts Morgan and Gaines*. * <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.*
> January 6, 1861: *Florida seizes Apalachicola arsenal. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE ARSENAL BEFORE THEY SECEDED.*
> January 7, 1861: *Florida seizes Fort Marion*. * <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.*
> January 8, 1861: Floridians try to seize Fort Barrancas but are chased off.
> January 9, 1861: Mississippi secedes.
> 
> *Star of the West fired on in Charleston Harbor <-- FIRING ON A SHIP - A CLEAR ACT OF WAR
> THE STEAMSHIP "MARION." SEIZED BY THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TO BE CONVERTED INTO A MAN-OF-WAR.*
> January 10, 1861: Florida secedes.
> 
> *Louisiana seizes U.S. arsenal at Baton Rouge, as well as Forts Jackson and St. Philip.*
> January 11, 1861: Alabama secedes.
> *
> Louisiana seizes U.S. Marine Hospital....*
> It goes on...
> ------------
> Here's a clue:  You just can't go and steal federal property the whole of the US paid for and think you can keep it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The final vote in Georgia was on January_2, 1861 was 42,744 in favor of co-operation and 41,717 in favor of immediate secession. In case you missed it...That was ONE DAY before the fort was taken.
> Yet another lie posted by another Yankee.
> Really? do we need continue exposing your lies??  Really?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your own fucking link disproves you.  This is what you supplied:
> 
> January 1, 1861 Georgia votes against holding a secession convention, but the results are manipulated by Governor Joseph Brown to indicate that the state strongly supported the convention.
> January 7, 1861 Robert Toombs delivers a farewell to the U. S. Senate, almost two weeks before Georgia votes to secede.
> January 9, 1861 Mississippi secedes from the Union
> January 10, 1861 Florida secedes from the Union
> January 11, 1861 Alabama secedes from the Union
> January 19, 1861 *Georgia votes to secede from the Union at a convention held in Milledgeville, Georgia. *
> Civil War - 1861
> Robert Toombs
> Milledgeville
> Slavery in Georgia
> January 25, 1861 The federal arsenal in Augusta is taken by the Georgia Militia
> 
> Georgia History Timeline Chronology 1861
> 
> Boy, are you ever dumb.
Click to expand...

I stand corrected on those dates.


----------



## Asclepias

James Everett said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The South was funding the majority of the U.S. at that time..."
> 
> Bull.
> Shit.
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you miss the fact that YOUR government had already invaded South Carolina sovereign territory with the Star of the West. Now if you knew I was going to post that, then why the attempt to hide the truth?
> Did you think that I was unaware of this truth, and that you could slide it past the unknowing of that truth?
> Why did you ask me to supply the truth, if you already knew it existed?
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I knew you could not produce any documentation that the South offered to buy all the federal property.
> 
> They had already taken over lots more Federal govt building across the south -* before *the rebs fired on Star of the West.
> 
> 
> 
> December 20, 1860: South Carolina convention passes ordinance of secession.
> December 24, 1860: *Mississippi Senator Jefferson Davis introduces a "compromise" proposal which would effectively make slavery a national institution.*
> December 26, 1860: Major Anderson moves Federal garrison in Charleston, SC, from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter.
> January 3, 1861: G*eorgia seizes Fort Pulaski. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.*
> January 4, 1861: *Alabama seizes U.S. arsenal at Mount Vernon. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.*
> January 5, 1861: *Alabama seizes Forts Morgan and Gaines*. * <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.*
> January 6, 1861: *Florida seizes Apalachicola arsenal. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE ARSENAL BEFORE THEY SECEDED.*
> January 7, 1861: *Florida seizes Fort Marion*. * <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.*
> January 8, 1861: Floridians try to seize Fort Barrancas but are chased off.
> January 9, 1861: Mississippi secedes.
> 
> *Star of the West fired on in Charleston Harbor <-- FIRING ON A SHIP - A CLEAR ACT OF WAR
> THE STEAMSHIP "MARION." SEIZED BY THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TO BE CONVERTED INTO A MAN-OF-WAR.*
> January 10, 1861: Florida secedes.
> 
> *Louisiana seizes U.S. arsenal at Baton Rouge, as well as Forts Jackson and St. Philip.*
> January 11, 1861: Alabama secedes.
> *
> Louisiana seizes U.S. Marine Hospital....*
> It goes on...
> ------------
> Here's a clue:  You just can't go and steal federal property the whole of the US paid for and think you can keep it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The final vote in Georgia was on January_2, 1861 was 42,744 in favor of co-operation and 41,717 in favor of immediate secession. In case you missed it...That was ONE DAY before the fort was taken.
> Yet another lie posted by another Yankee.
> Really? do we need continue exposing your lies??  Really?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your own fucking link disproves you.  This is what you supplied:
> 
> January 1, 1861 Georgia votes against holding a secession convention, but the results are manipulated by Governor Joseph Brown to indicate that the state strongly supported the convention.
> January 7, 1861 Robert Toombs delivers a farewell to the U. S. Senate, almost two weeks before Georgia votes to secede.
> January 9, 1861 Mississippi secedes from the Union
> January 10, 1861 Florida secedes from the Union
> January 11, 1861 Alabama secedes from the Union
> January 19, 1861 *Georgia votes to secede from the Union at a convention held in Milledgeville, Georgia. *
> Civil War - 1861
> Robert Toombs
> Milledgeville
> Slavery in Georgia
> January 25, 1861 The federal arsenal in Augusta is taken by the Georgia Militia
> 
> Georgia History Timeline Chronology 1861
> 
> Boy, are you ever dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I stand corrected on those dates.
Click to expand...

You should probably rethink this whole support of the loser confederate thing while you are standing corrected. You seem to have a lot things you need to stand corrected on.


----------



## James Everett

Asclepias said:


> Debating with James Everett is like talking to mentally handicapped beaver.


I stand corrected on that date.


----------



## Asclepias

James Everett said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Debating with James Everett is like talking to mentally handicapped beaver.
> 
> 
> 
> I stand corrected on that date.
Click to expand...

Yeah I know. Thats not the only error in knowledge you have displayed though.


----------



## James Everett

Asclepias said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The South was funding the majority of the U.S. at that time..."
> 
> Bull.
> Shit.
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you miss the fact that YOUR government had already invaded South Carolina sovereign territory with the Star of the West. Now if you knew I was going to post that, then why the attempt to hide the truth?
> Did you think that I was unaware of this truth, and that you could slide it past the unknowing of that truth?
> Why did you ask me to supply the truth, if you already knew it existed?
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I knew you could not produce any documentation that the South offered to buy all the federal property.
> 
> They had already taken over lots more Federal govt building across the south -* before *the rebs fired on Star of the West.
> 
> 
> 
> December 20, 1860: South Carolina convention passes ordinance of secession.
> December 24, 1860: *Mississippi Senator Jefferson Davis introduces a "compromise" proposal which would effectively make slavery a national institution.*
> December 26, 1860: Major Anderson moves Federal garrison in Charleston, SC, from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter.
> January 3, 1861: G*eorgia seizes Fort Pulaski. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.*
> January 4, 1861: *Alabama seizes U.S. arsenal at Mount Vernon. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.*
> January 5, 1861: *Alabama seizes Forts Morgan and Gaines*. * <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.*
> January 6, 1861: *Florida seizes Apalachicola arsenal. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE ARSENAL BEFORE THEY SECEDED.*
> January 7, 1861: *Florida seizes Fort Marion*. * <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.*
> January 8, 1861: Floridians try to seize Fort Barrancas but are chased off.
> January 9, 1861: Mississippi secedes.
> 
> *Star of the West fired on in Charleston Harbor <-- FIRING ON A SHIP - A CLEAR ACT OF WAR
> THE STEAMSHIP "MARION." SEIZED BY THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TO BE CONVERTED INTO A MAN-OF-WAR.*
> January 10, 1861: Florida secedes.
> 
> *Louisiana seizes U.S. arsenal at Baton Rouge, as well as Forts Jackson and St. Philip.*
> January 11, 1861: Alabama secedes.
> *
> Louisiana seizes U.S. Marine Hospital....*
> It goes on...
> ------------
> Here's a clue:  You just can't go and steal federal property the whole of the US paid for and think you can keep it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The final vote in Georgia was on January_2, 1861 was 42,744 in favor of co-operation and 41,717 in favor of immediate secession. In case you missed it...That was ONE DAY before the fort was taken.
> Yet another lie posted by another Yankee.
> Really? do we need continue exposing your lies??  Really?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your own fucking link disproves you.  This is what you supplied:
> 
> January 1, 1861 Georgia votes against holding a secession convention, but the results are manipulated by Governor Joseph Brown to indicate that the state strongly supported the convention.
> January 7, 1861 Robert Toombs delivers a farewell to the U. S. Senate, almost two weeks before Georgia votes to secede.
> January 9, 1861 Mississippi secedes from the Union
> January 10, 1861 Florida secedes from the Union
> January 11, 1861 Alabama secedes from the Union
> January 19, 1861 *Georgia votes to secede from the Union at a convention held in Milledgeville, Georgia. *
> Civil War - 1861
> Robert Toombs
> Milledgeville
> Slavery in Georgia
> January 25, 1861 The federal arsenal in Augusta is taken by the Georgia Militia
> 
> Georgia History Timeline Chronology 1861
> 
> Boy, are you ever dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I stand corrected on those dates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should probably rethink this whole support of the loser confederate thing while you are standing corrected. You seem to have a lot things you need to stand corrected on.
Click to expand...

No, you will need to show wherever else I have been incorrect. One mistake does not make all other statements incorrect. I doubt that you even understand why I support the Confederacy. We still must refer to the FACT that secession was legal regardless of the war, and subsequent 150 years occupation


----------



## James Everett

f


James Everett said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The South was funding the majority of the U.S. at that time..."
> 
> Bull.
> Shit.
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> I knew you could not produce any documentation that the South offered to buy all the federal property.
> 
> They had already taken over lots more Federal govt building across the south -* before *the rebs fired on Star of the West.
> 
> 
> 
> December 20, 1860: South Carolina convention passes ordinance of secession.
> December 24, 1860: *Mississippi Senator Jefferson Davis introduces a "compromise" proposal which would effectively make slavery a national institution.*
> December 26, 1860: Major Anderson moves Federal garrison in Charleston, SC, from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter.
> January 3, 1861: G*eorgia seizes Fort Pulaski. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.*
> January 4, 1861: *Alabama seizes U.S. arsenal at Mount Vernon. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.*
> January 5, 1861: *Alabama seizes Forts Morgan and Gaines*. * <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.*
> January 6, 1861: *Florida seizes Apalachicola arsenal. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE ARSENAL BEFORE THEY SECEDED.*
> January 7, 1861: *Florida seizes Fort Marion*. * <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.*
> January 8, 1861: Floridians try to seize Fort Barrancas but are chased off.
> January 9, 1861: Mississippi secedes.
> 
> *Star of the West fired on in Charleston Harbor <-- FIRING ON A SHIP - A CLEAR ACT OF WAR
> THE STEAMSHIP "MARION." SEIZED BY THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TO BE CONVERTED INTO A MAN-OF-WAR.*
> January 10, 1861: Florida secedes.
> 
> *Louisiana seizes U.S. arsenal at Baton Rouge, as well as Forts Jackson and St. Philip.*
> January 11, 1861: Alabama secedes.
> *
> Louisiana seizes U.S. Marine Hospital....*
> It goes on...
> ------------
> Here's a clue:  You just can't go and steal federal property the whole of the US paid for and think you can keep it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The final vote in Georgia was on January_2, 1861 was 42,744 in favor of co-operation and 41,717 in favor of immediate secession. In case you missed it...That was ONE DAY before the fort was taken.
> Yet another lie posted by another Yankee.
> Really? do we need continue exposing your lies??  Really?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your own fucking link disproves you.  This is what you supplied:
> 
> January 1, 1861 Georgia votes against holding a secession convention, but the results are manipulated by Governor Joseph Brown to indicate that the state strongly supported the convention.
> January 7, 1861 Robert Toombs delivers a farewell to the U. S. Senate, almost two weeks before Georgia votes to secede.
> January 9, 1861 Mississippi secedes from the Union
> January 10, 1861 Florida secedes from the Union
> January 11, 1861 Alabama secedes from the Union
> January 19, 1861 *Georgia votes to secede from the Union at a convention held in Milledgeville, Georgia. *
> Civil War - 1861
> Robert Toombs
> Milledgeville
> Slavery in Georgia
> January 25, 1861 The federal arsenal in Augusta is taken by the Georgia Militia
> 
> Georgia History Timeline Chronology 1861
> 
> Boy, are you ever dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I stand corrected on those dates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should probably rethink this whole support of the loser confederate thing while you are standing corrected. You seem to have a lot things you need to stand corrected on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you will need to show wherever else I have been incorrect. One mistake does not make all other statements incorrect. I doubt that you even understand why I support the Confederacy. We still must refer to the FACT that secession was legal regardless of the war, and subsequent 150 years occupation
Click to expand...




Asclepias said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Debating with James Everett is like talking to mentally handicapped beaver.
> 
> 
> 
> I stand corrected on that date.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah I know. Thats not the only error in knowledge you have displayed though.
Click to expand...

Please cite any other.


----------



## paperview

When you said the south offered to pay for all the federals buildings they stole. 

When it was a single fort.

A fort the South ceded all property rights to in 1836.

That's just a few on the heaping pile of revisionist Lost Cause crap you throw out daily, in your pretend confederate gray uniform, waving the battle flag of slavers.


----------



## Asclepias

James Everett said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The South was funding the majority of the U.S. at that time..."
> 
> Bull.
> Shit.
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> I knew you could not produce any documentation that the South offered to buy all the federal property.
> 
> They had already taken over lots more Federal govt building across the south -* before *the rebs fired on Star of the West.
> 
> 
> 
> December 20, 1860: South Carolina convention passes ordinance of secession.
> December 24, 1860: *Mississippi Senator Jefferson Davis introduces a "compromise" proposal which would effectively make slavery a national institution.*
> December 26, 1860: Major Anderson moves Federal garrison in Charleston, SC, from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter.
> January 3, 1861: G*eorgia seizes Fort Pulaski. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.*
> January 4, 1861: *Alabama seizes U.S. arsenal at Mount Vernon. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.*
> January 5, 1861: *Alabama seizes Forts Morgan and Gaines*. * <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.*
> January 6, 1861: *Florida seizes Apalachicola arsenal. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE ARSENAL BEFORE THEY SECEDED.*
> January 7, 1861: *Florida seizes Fort Marion*. * <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.*
> January 8, 1861: Floridians try to seize Fort Barrancas but are chased off.
> January 9, 1861: Mississippi secedes.
> 
> *Star of the West fired on in Charleston Harbor <-- FIRING ON A SHIP - A CLEAR ACT OF WAR
> THE STEAMSHIP "MARION." SEIZED BY THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TO BE CONVERTED INTO A MAN-OF-WAR.*
> January 10, 1861: Florida secedes.
> 
> *Louisiana seizes U.S. arsenal at Baton Rouge, as well as Forts Jackson and St. Philip.*
> January 11, 1861: Alabama secedes.
> *
> Louisiana seizes U.S. Marine Hospital....*
> It goes on...
> ------------
> Here's a clue:  You just can't go and steal federal property the whole of the US paid for and think you can keep it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The final vote in Georgia was on January_2, 1861 was 42,744 in favor of co-operation and 41,717 in favor of immediate secession. In case you missed it...That was ONE DAY before the fort was taken.
> Yet another lie posted by another Yankee.
> Really? do we need continue exposing your lies??  Really?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your own fucking link disproves you.  This is what you supplied:
> 
> January 1, 1861 Georgia votes against holding a secession convention, but the results are manipulated by Governor Joseph Brown to indicate that the state strongly supported the convention.
> January 7, 1861 Robert Toombs delivers a farewell to the U. S. Senate, almost two weeks before Georgia votes to secede.
> January 9, 1861 Mississippi secedes from the Union
> January 10, 1861 Florida secedes from the Union
> January 11, 1861 Alabama secedes from the Union
> January 19, 1861 *Georgia votes to secede from the Union at a convention held in Milledgeville, Georgia. *
> Civil War - 1861
> Robert Toombs
> Milledgeville
> Slavery in Georgia
> January 25, 1861 The federal arsenal in Augusta is taken by the Georgia Militia
> 
> Georgia History Timeline Chronology 1861
> 
> Boy, are you ever dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I stand corrected on those dates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should probably rethink this whole support of the loser confederate thing while you are standing corrected. You seem to have a lot things you need to stand corrected on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you will need to show wherever else I have been incorrect. One mistake does not make all other statements incorrect. I doubt that you even understand why I support the Confederacy. We still must refer to the FACT that secession was legal regardless of the war, and subsequent 150 years occupation
Click to expand...

You need to rethink your entire premise. There are too many errors to point out. I dont care to understand why you support the loser confederates. Thats your choice. However, I find your posts full of brainwashed, error filled babble and frankly its boring.


----------



## paperview

Asclepias said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The South was funding the majority of the U.S. at that time..."
> 
> Bull.
> Shit.
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you miss the fact that YOUR government had already invaded South Carolina sovereign territory with the Star of the West. Now if you knew I was going to post that, then why the attempt to hide the truth?
> Did you think that I was unaware of this truth, and that you could slide it past the unknowing of that truth?
> Why did you ask me to supply the truth, if you already knew it existed?
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I knew you could not produce any documentation that the South offered to buy all the federal property.
> 
> They had already taken over lots more Federal govt building across the south -* before *the rebs fired on Star of the West.
> 
> 
> 
> December 20, 1860: South Carolina convention passes ordinance of secession.
> December 24, 1860: *Mississippi Senator Jefferson Davis introduces a "compromise" proposal which would effectively make slavery a national institution.*
> December 26, 1860: Major Anderson moves Federal garrison in Charleston, SC, from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter.
> January 3, 1861: G*eorgia seizes Fort Pulaski. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.*
> January 4, 1861: *Alabama seizes U.S. arsenal at Mount Vernon. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.*
> January 5, 1861: *Alabama seizes Forts Morgan and Gaines*. * <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.*
> January 6, 1861: *Florida seizes Apalachicola arsenal. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE ARSENAL BEFORE THEY SECEDED.*
> January 7, 1861: *Florida seizes Fort Marion*. * <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.*
> January 8, 1861: Floridians try to seize Fort Barrancas but are chased off.
> January 9, 1861: Mississippi secedes.
> 
> *Star of the West fired on in Charleston Harbor <-- FIRING ON A SHIP - A CLEAR ACT OF WAR
> THE STEAMSHIP "MARION." SEIZED BY THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TO BE CONVERTED INTO A MAN-OF-WAR.*
> January 10, 1861: Florida secedes.
> 
> *Louisiana seizes U.S. arsenal at Baton Rouge, as well as Forts Jackson and St. Philip.*
> January 11, 1861: Alabama secedes.
> *
> Louisiana seizes U.S. Marine Hospital....*
> It goes on...
> ------------
> Here's a clue:  You just can't go and steal federal property the whole of the US paid for and think you can keep it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The final vote in Georgia was on January_2, 1861 was 42,744 in favor of co-operation and 41,717 in favor of immediate secession. In case you missed it...That was ONE DAY before the fort was taken.
> Yet another lie posted by another Yankee.
> Really? do we need continue exposing your lies??  Really?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your own fucking link disproves you.  This is what you supplied:
> 
> January 1, 1861 Georgia votes against holding a secession convention, but the results are manipulated by Governor Joseph Brown to indicate that the state strongly supported the convention.
> January 7, 1861 Robert Toombs delivers a farewell to the U. S. Senate, almost two weeks before Georgia votes to secede.
> January 9, 1861 Mississippi secedes from the Union
> January 10, 1861 Florida secedes from the Union
> January 11, 1861 Alabama secedes from the Union
> January 19, 1861 *Georgia votes to secede from the Union at a convention held in Milledgeville, Georgia. *
> Civil War - 1861
> Robert Toombs
> Milledgeville
> Slavery in Georgia
> January 25, 1861 The federal arsenal in Augusta is taken by the Georgia Militia
> 
> Georgia History Timeline Chronology 1861
> 
> Boy, are you ever dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I stand corrected on those dates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should probably rethink this whole support of the loser confederate thing while you are standing corrected. You seem to have a lot things you need to stand corrected on.
Click to expand...

The funny thing is - he cited the popular election results (which were tainted, and there's a whole long story about the shenanigans that went on in GA) -- but what he showed was Georgians voted against secession. 

(well, less than 1/10 of the population of Georgians did)


----------



## James Everett

paperview said:


> When you said the south offered to pay for all the federals buildings they stole.
> 
> When it was a single fort.
> 
> A fort the South ceded all property rights to in 1836.
> 
> That's just a few on the heaping pile of revisionist Lost Cause crap you throw out daily, in your pretend confederate gray uniform, waving the battle flag of slavers.


I have never worn a Confederate uniform, or participated in reacting.
You are correct again. I did say "Them" I should have used the singular in reference to Ft Sumter alone and It was South Carolina, NOT the CSA government that offered to purchase the Fort.
Yet still to resupply the fort required the traversing of South Carolina waters which would require a treaty to do so, which the U.S. did not conclude. The Forts were of no use to the U.S. upon secession anyway. And there still is the legality of secession and the ongoing occupation to confront, regardless of the war.


----------



## James Everett

Asclepias said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The South was funding the majority of the U.S. at that time..."
> 
> Bull.
> Shit.
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The final vote in Georgia was on January_2, 1861 was 42,744 in favor of co-operation and 41,717 in favor of immediate secession. In case you missed it...That was ONE DAY before the fort was taken.
> Yet another lie posted by another Yankee.
> Really? do we need continue exposing your lies??  Really?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your own fucking link disproves you.  This is what you supplied:
> 
> January 1, 1861 Georgia votes against holding a secession convention, but the results are manipulated by Governor Joseph Brown to indicate that the state strongly supported the convention.
> January 7, 1861 Robert Toombs delivers a farewell to the U. S. Senate, almost two weeks before Georgia votes to secede.
> January 9, 1861 Mississippi secedes from the Union
> January 10, 1861 Florida secedes from the Union
> January 11, 1861 Alabama secedes from the Union
> January 19, 1861 *Georgia votes to secede from the Union at a convention held in Milledgeville, Georgia. *
> Civil War - 1861
> Robert Toombs
> Milledgeville
> Slavery in Georgia
> January 25, 1861 The federal arsenal in Augusta is taken by the Georgia Militia
> 
> Georgia History Timeline Chronology 1861
> 
> Boy, are you ever dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I stand corrected on those dates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should probably rethink this whole support of the loser confederate thing while you are standing corrected. You seem to have a lot things you need to stand corrected on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you will need to show wherever else I have been incorrect. One mistake does not make all other statements incorrect. I doubt that you even understand why I support the Confederacy. We still must refer to the FACT that secession was legal regardless of the war, and subsequent 150 years occupation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to rethink your entire premise. There are too many errors to point out. I dont care to understand why you support the loser confederates. Thats your choice. However, I find your posts full of brainwashed, error filled babble and frankly its boring.
Click to expand...

You miss the bigger picture. Perhaps my use of the CSA is not the best avenue, to the restoration of the founders intent, but at present it offers the best avenue. I have found no other way as yet. Until then I continue my support of our 1861 CSA and the legality of secession.


----------



## RKMBrown

Ravi said:


> Right, the cornerstone of their "country" was slavery and that means the war had nothing to do with slavery.


No that means the south had a lot of slaves (legal at the time) and the north wanted their land and assets so they invaded the south.


----------



## RKMBrown

paperview said:


> Alllllllllllllll the federal buildings
> Alllllllllllllll the forts,
> Alllllllllllllll the arsenals,
> Alllllllllllllll the mints,
> Alllllllllllllll the courthouses -- every bit of federal property ...
> 
> All across the south --Yeah, that's what they *stole* and declared as theirs - even though the whole of the United States taxpayers had paid for it.
> 
> They stole it. Thief's.  They did this before Lincoln ever stepped into office.


Are you trying to say they never paid taxes in the south before they seceded? Huh?


----------



## James Everett

paperview said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The South was funding the majority of the U.S. at that time..."
> 
> Bull.
> Shit.
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> I knew you could not produce any documentation that the South offered to buy all the federal property.
> 
> They had already taken over lots more Federal govt building across the south -* before *the rebs fired on Star of the West.
> 
> 
> 
> December 20, 1860: South Carolina convention passes ordinance of secession.
> December 24, 1860: *Mississippi Senator Jefferson Davis introduces a "compromise" proposal which would effectively make slavery a national institution.*
> December 26, 1860: Major Anderson moves Federal garrison in Charleston, SC, from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter.
> January 3, 1861: G*eorgia seizes Fort Pulaski. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.*
> January 4, 1861: *Alabama seizes U.S. arsenal at Mount Vernon. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.*
> January 5, 1861: *Alabama seizes Forts Morgan and Gaines*. * <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.*
> January 6, 1861: *Florida seizes Apalachicola arsenal. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE ARSENAL BEFORE THEY SECEDED.*
> January 7, 1861: *Florida seizes Fort Marion*. * <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.*
> January 8, 1861: Floridians try to seize Fort Barrancas but are chased off.
> January 9, 1861: Mississippi secedes.
> 
> *Star of the West fired on in Charleston Harbor <-- FIRING ON A SHIP - A CLEAR ACT OF WAR
> THE STEAMSHIP "MARION." SEIZED BY THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TO BE CONVERTED INTO A MAN-OF-WAR.*
> January 10, 1861: Florida secedes.
> 
> *Louisiana seizes U.S. arsenal at Baton Rouge, as well as Forts Jackson and St. Philip.*
> January 11, 1861: Alabama secedes.
> *
> Louisiana seizes U.S. Marine Hospital....*
> It goes on...
> ------------
> Here's a clue:  You just can't go and steal federal property the whole of the US paid for and think you can keep it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The final vote in Georgia was on January_2, 1861 was 42,744 in favor of co-operation and 41,717 in favor of immediate secession. In case you missed it...That was ONE DAY before the fort was taken.
> Yet another lie posted by another Yankee.
> Really? do we need continue exposing your lies??  Really?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your own fucking link disproves you.  This is what you supplied:
> 
> January 1, 1861 Georgia votes against holding a secession convention, but the results are manipulated by Governor Joseph Brown to indicate that the state strongly supported the convention.
> January 7, 1861 Robert Toombs delivers a farewell to the U. S. Senate, almost two weeks before Georgia votes to secede.
> January 9, 1861 Mississippi secedes from the Union
> January 10, 1861 Florida secedes from the Union
> January 11, 1861 Alabama secedes from the Union
> January 19, 1861 *Georgia votes to secede from the Union at a convention held in Milledgeville, Georgia. *
> Civil War - 1861
> Robert Toombs
> Milledgeville
> Slavery in Georgia
> January 25, 1861 The federal arsenal in Augusta is taken by the Georgia Militia
> 
> Georgia History Timeline Chronology 1861
> 
> Boy, are you ever dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I stand corrected on those dates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should probably rethink this whole support of the loser confederate thing while you are standing corrected. You seem to have a lot things you need to stand corrected on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The funny thing is - he cited the popular election results (which were tainted, and there's a whole long story about the shenanigans that went on in GA) -- but what he showed was Georgians voted against secession.
> 
> (well, less than 1/10 of the population of Georgians did)
Click to expand...

I will leave you all for now with this question....
How would  any of you suggest the Southern States restore the founders intent?


----------



## Asclepias

James Everett said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The South was funding the majority of the U.S. at that time..."
> 
> Bull.
> Shit.
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The final vote in Georgia was on January_2, 1861 was 42,744 in favor of co-operation and 41,717 in favor of immediate secession. In case you missed it...That was ONE DAY before the fort was taken.
> Yet another lie posted by another Yankee.
> Really? do we need continue exposing your lies??  Really?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your own fucking link disproves you.  This is what you supplied:
> 
> January 1, 1861 Georgia votes against holding a secession convention, but the results are manipulated by Governor Joseph Brown to indicate that the state strongly supported the convention.
> January 7, 1861 Robert Toombs delivers a farewell to the U. S. Senate, almost two weeks before Georgia votes to secede.
> January 9, 1861 Mississippi secedes from the Union
> January 10, 1861 Florida secedes from the Union
> January 11, 1861 Alabama secedes from the Union
> January 19, 1861 *Georgia votes to secede from the Union at a convention held in Milledgeville, Georgia. *
> Civil War - 1861
> Robert Toombs
> Milledgeville
> Slavery in Georgia
> January 25, 1861 The federal arsenal in Augusta is taken by the Georgia Militia
> 
> Georgia History Timeline Chronology 1861
> 
> Boy, are you ever dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I stand corrected on those dates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should probably rethink this whole support of the loser confederate thing while you are standing corrected. You seem to have a lot things you need to stand corrected on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The funny thing is - he cited the popular election results (which were tainted, and there's a whole long story about the shenanigans that went on in GA) -- but what he showed was Georgians voted against secession.
> 
> (well, less than 1/10 of the population of Georgians did)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will leave you all for now with this question....
> How would  any of you suggest the Southern States restore the founders intent?
Click to expand...

The founders intent supported slavery. Why would I help the south with any suggestions?


----------



## RKMBrown

James Everett said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The South was funding the majority of the U.S. at that time..."
> 
> Bull.
> Shit.
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The final vote in Georgia was on January_2, 1861 was 42,744 in favor of co-operation and 41,717 in favor of immediate secession. In case you missed it...That was ONE DAY before the fort was taken.
> Yet another lie posted by another Yankee.
> Really? do we need continue exposing your lies??  Really?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your own fucking link disproves you.  This is what you supplied:
> 
> January 1, 1861 Georgia votes against holding a secession convention, but the results are manipulated by Governor Joseph Brown to indicate that the state strongly supported the convention.
> January 7, 1861 Robert Toombs delivers a farewell to the U. S. Senate, almost two weeks before Georgia votes to secede.
> January 9, 1861 Mississippi secedes from the Union
> January 10, 1861 Florida secedes from the Union
> January 11, 1861 Alabama secedes from the Union
> January 19, 1861 *Georgia votes to secede from the Union at a convention held in Milledgeville, Georgia. *
> Civil War - 1861
> Robert Toombs
> Milledgeville
> Slavery in Georgia
> January 25, 1861 The federal arsenal in Augusta is taken by the Georgia Militia
> 
> Georgia History Timeline Chronology 1861
> 
> Boy, are you ever dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I stand corrected on those dates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should probably rethink this whole support of the loser confederate thing while you are standing corrected. You seem to have a lot things you need to stand corrected on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The funny thing is - he cited the popular election results (which were tainted, and there's a whole long story about the shenanigans that went on in GA) -- but what he showed was Georgians voted against secession.
> 
> (well, less than 1/10 of the population of Georgians did)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will leave you all for now with this question....
> How would  any of you suggest the Southern States restore the founders intent?
Click to expand...

Fix our voting system.


----------



## James Everett

RKMBrown said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The South was funding the majority of the U.S. at that time..."
> 
> Bull.
> Shit.
> Your own fucking link disproves you.  This is what you supplied:
> 
> January 1, 1861 Georgia votes against holding a secession convention, but the results are manipulated by Governor Joseph Brown to indicate that the state strongly supported the convention.
> January 7, 1861 Robert Toombs delivers a farewell to the U. S. Senate, almost two weeks before Georgia votes to secede.
> January 9, 1861 Mississippi secedes from the Union
> January 10, 1861 Florida secedes from the Union
> January 11, 1861 Alabama secedes from the Union
> January 19, 1861 *Georgia votes to secede from the Union at a convention held in Milledgeville, Georgia. *
> Civil War - 1861
> Robert Toombs
> Milledgeville
> Slavery in Georgia
> January 25, 1861 The federal arsenal in Augusta is taken by the Georgia Militia
> 
> Georgia History Timeline Chronology 1861
> 
> Boy, are you ever dumb.
> 
> 
> 
> I stand corrected on those dates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should probably rethink this whole support of the loser confederate thing while you are standing corrected. You seem to have a lot things you need to stand corrected on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The funny thing is - he cited the popular election results (which were tainted, and there's a whole long story about the shenanigans that went on in GA) -- but what he showed was Georgians voted against secession.
> 
> (well, less than 1/10 of the population of Georgians did)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will leave you all for now with this question....
> How would  any of you suggest the Southern States restore the founders intent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fix our voting system.
Click to expand...

It cannot be fixed, as the political process is controlled by the party duopoly, I.E. the demorats and the repugs, which are owned by the multi-national corporations. A body politic must be established outside of the current political system. This has been the purpose the restoration effort from the beginning, that being to establish a seperate body politic for our Southern States outside that controlled by the two party U.S. system. At this point, the CSA restoration stands as the best avenue, as the secessions were legal regardless of the war.


----------



## James Everett

RKMBrown said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The South was funding the majority of the U.S. at that time..."
> 
> Bull.
> Shit.
> Your own fucking link disproves you.  This is what you supplied:
> 
> January 1, 1861 Georgia votes against holding a secession convention, but the results are manipulated by Governor Joseph Brown to indicate that the state strongly supported the convention.
> January 7, 1861 Robert Toombs delivers a farewell to the U. S. Senate, almost two weeks before Georgia votes to secede.
> January 9, 1861 Mississippi secedes from the Union
> January 10, 1861 Florida secedes from the Union
> January 11, 1861 Alabama secedes from the Union
> January 19, 1861 *Georgia votes to secede from the Union at a convention held in Milledgeville, Georgia. *
> Civil War - 1861
> Robert Toombs
> Milledgeville
> Slavery in Georgia
> January 25, 1861 The federal arsenal in Augusta is taken by the Georgia Militia
> 
> Georgia History Timeline Chronology 1861
> 
> Boy, are you ever dumb.
> 
> 
> 
> I stand corrected on those dates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should probably rethink this whole support of the loser confederate thing while you are standing corrected. You seem to have a lot things you need to stand corrected on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The funny thing is - he cited the popular election results (which were tainted, and there's a whole long story about the shenanigans that went on in GA) -- but what he showed was Georgians voted against secession.
> 
> (well, less than 1/10 of the population of Georgians did)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will leave you all for now with this question....
> How would  any of you suggest the Southern States restore the founders intent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fix our voting system.
Click to expand...

There is no doubt that we are a separate and different people with different values and morals, being forced under a combined political system. All one need do is look at the red and blue map that has been established to show just how divided we are and remain. The North will never stop treating the South as a second class people to use as a punching bag so that they may hide their own misdeeds.


----------



## paperview

RKMBrown said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Alllllllllllllll the federal buildings
> Alllllllllllllll the forts,
> Alllllllllllllll the arsenals,
> Alllllllllllllll the mints,
> Alllllllllllllll the courthouses -- every bit of federal property ...
> 
> All across the south --Yeah, that's what they *stole* and declared as theirs - even though the whole of the United States taxpayers had paid for it.
> 
> They stole it. Thief's.  They did this before Lincoln ever stepped into office.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to say they never paid taxes in the south before they seceded? Huh?
Click to expand...


I paid  taxes.  Guess I get to take over Fort Knox.


----------



## Asclepias

James Everett said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> I stand corrected on those dates.
> 
> 
> 
> You should probably rethink this whole support of the loser confederate thing while you are standing corrected. You seem to have a lot things you need to stand corrected on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The funny thing is - he cited the popular election results (which were tainted, and there's a whole long story about the shenanigans that went on in GA) -- but what he showed was Georgians voted against secession.
> 
> (well, less than 1/10 of the population of Georgians did)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will leave you all for now with this question....
> How would  any of you suggest the Southern States restore the founders intent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fix our voting system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It cannot be fixed, as the political process is controlled by the party duopoly, I.E. the demorats and the repugs, which are owned by the multi-national corporations. A body politic must be established outside of the current political system. This has been the purpose the restoration effort from the beginning, that being to establish a seperate body politic for our Southern States outside that controlled by the two party U.S. system. At this point, the CSA restoration stands as the best avenue, as the secessions were legal regardless of the war.
Click to expand...


"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."


----------



## RKMBrown

James Everett said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> I stand corrected on those dates.
> 
> 
> 
> You should probably rethink this whole support of the loser confederate thing while you are standing corrected. You seem to have a lot things you need to stand corrected on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The funny thing is - he cited the popular election results (which were tainted, and there's a whole long story about the shenanigans that went on in GA) -- but what he showed was Georgians voted against secession.
> 
> (well, less than 1/10 of the population of Georgians did)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will leave you all for now with this question....
> How would  any of you suggest the Southern States restore the founders intent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fix our voting system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It cannot be fixed, as the political process is controlled by the party duopoly, I.E. the demorats and the repugs, which are owned by the multi-national corporations. A body politic must be established outside of the current political system. This has been the purpose the restoration effort from the beginning, that being to establish a seperate body politic for our Southern States outside that controlled by the two party U.S. system. At this point, the CSA restoration stands as the best avenue, as the secessions were legal regardless of the war.
Click to expand...

Anything can be fixed.


----------



## RKMBrown

paperview said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Alllllllllllllll the federal buildings
> Alllllllllllllll the forts,
> Alllllllllllllll the arsenals,
> Alllllllllllllll the mints,
> Alllllllllllllll the courthouses -- every bit of federal property ...
> 
> All across the south --Yeah, that's what they *stole* and declared as theirs - even though the whole of the United States taxpayers had paid for it.
> 
> They stole it. Thief's.  They did this before Lincoln ever stepped into office.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to say they never paid taxes in the south before they seceded? Huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I paid  taxes.  Guess I get to take over Fort Knox.
Click to expand...

Correct, you are a partial owner of Fort Knox.


----------



## RKMBrown

James Everett said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> I stand corrected on those dates.
> 
> 
> 
> You should probably rethink this whole support of the loser confederate thing while you are standing corrected. You seem to have a lot things you need to stand corrected on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The funny thing is - he cited the popular election results (which were tainted, and there's a whole long story about the shenanigans that went on in GA) -- but what he showed was Georgians voted against secession.
> 
> (well, less than 1/10 of the population of Georgians did)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will leave you all for now with this question....
> How would  any of you suggest the Southern States restore the founders intent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fix our voting system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no doubt that we are a separate and different people with different values and morals, being forced under a combined political system. All one need do is look at the red and blue map that has been established to show just how divided we are and remain. The North will never stop treating the South as a second class people to use as a punching bag so that they may hide their own misdeeds.
Click to expand...

We are many groups... and we are one group.  The problem is authoritarians have taken ownership of both political parties.  To fix the voting system is a simple matter.  There are many voting systems available to us.  The two party voting system is broken.  A better system would include the ability to provide an order of your favorites in an election.  This way you could vote for the libertarian, then the democrat or republican of your choice with the understanding that your vote won't be pissed away if the libertarian does not win.  Alternatively we could expand the system of run-off elections to national elections.  Though that seems a waste of everyone's time.


----------



## paperview

RKMBrown said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Alllllllllllllll the federal buildings
> Alllllllllllllll the forts,
> Alllllllllllllll the arsenals,
> Alllllllllllllll the mints,
> Alllllllllllllll the courthouses -- every bit of federal property ...
> 
> All across the south --Yeah, that's what they *stole* and declared as theirs - even though the whole of the United States taxpayers had paid for it.
> 
> They stole it. Thief's.  They did this before Lincoln ever stepped into office.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to say they never paid taxes in the south before they seceded? Huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I paid  taxes.  Guess I get to take over Fort Knox.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct, you are a partial owner of Fort Knox.
Click to expand...

Just like the American people all owned Fort Sumter.  

Guess you missed the 'I can take it over now" part.


----------



## James Everett

Og


Asclepias said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The South was funding the majority of the U.S. at that time..."
> 
> Bull.
> Shit.
> Your own fucking link disproves you.  This is what you supplied:
> 
> January 1, 1861 Georgia votes against holding a secession convention, but the results are manipulated by Governor Joseph Brown to indicate that the state strongly supported the convention.
> January 7, 1861 Robert Toombs delivers a farewell to the U. S. Senate, almost two weeks before Georgia votes to secede.
> January 9, 1861 Mississippi secedes from the Union
> January 10, 1861 Florida secedes from the Union
> January 11, 1861 Alabama secedes from the Union
> January 19, 1861 *Georgia votes to secede from the Union at a convention held in Milledgeville, Georgia. *
> Civil War - 1861
> Robert Toombs
> Milledgeville
> Slavery in Georgia
> January 25, 1861 The federal arsenal in Augusta is taken by the Georgia Militia
> 
> Georgia History Timeline Chronology 1861
> 
> Boy, are you ever dumb.
> 
> 
> 
> I stand corrected on those dates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should probably rethink this whole support of the loser confederate thing while you are standing corrected. You seem to have a lot things you need to stand corrected on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The funny thing is - he cited the popular election results (which were tainted, and there's a whole long story about the shenanigans that went on in GA) -- but what he showed was Georgians voted against secession.
> 
> (well, less than 1/10 of the population of Georgians did)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will leave you all for now with this question....
> How would  any of you suggest the Southern States restore the founders intent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The founders intent supported slavery. Why would I help the south with any suggestions?
Click to expand...

Oh, so the Declaration of independence is a fraud, and the revolutionary war was a war by the founders' to protect slavery? 
Very revealing revelation, thank you!


----------



## Asclepias

James Everett said:


> Og
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> I stand corrected on those dates.
> 
> 
> 
> You should probably rethink this whole support of the loser confederate thing while you are standing corrected. You seem to have a lot things you need to stand corrected on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The funny thing is - he cited the popular election results (which were tainted, and there's a whole long story about the shenanigans that went on in GA) -- but what he showed was Georgians voted against secession.
> 
> (well, less than 1/10 of the population of Georgians did)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will leave you all for now with this question....
> How would  any of you suggest the Southern States restore the founders intent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The founders intent supported slavery. Why would I help the south with any suggestions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, so the Declaration of independence is a fraud, and the revolutionary war was a war by the founders' to protect slavery?
> Very revealing revelation, thank you!
Click to expand...

Yes the DoI is a fraud. Anything strike you as weird with the opening statement in light of the fact slavery was supported?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

No the revolutionary war was fought to get away from England. So you must have flunked american history?


----------



## James Everett

paperview said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Alllllllllllllll the federal buildings
> Alllllllllllllll the forts,
> Alllllllllllllll the arsenals,
> Alllllllllllllll the mints,
> Alllllllllllllll the courthouses -- every bit of federal property ...
> 
> All across the south --Yeah, that's what they *stole* and declared as theirs - even though the whole of the United States taxpayers had paid for it.
> 
> They stole it. Thief's.  They did this before Lincoln ever stepped into office.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to say they never paid taxes in the south before they seceded? Huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I paid  taxes.  Guess I get to take over Fort Knox.
Click to expand...

No, no, NO, as part owner, take a thousand other investors with you, go see how close you can get to the front door, then just knock and explain that you and these other investors wish as part owners to tour the facility and examine the gold that the Yankee government confiscated and replaced with paper federal reserve notes. 
Hell Paperview is right, it is yours .


----------



## James Everett

Asclepias said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Og
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should probably rethink this whole support of the loser confederate thing while you are standing corrected. You seem to have a lot things you need to stand corrected on.
> 
> 
> 
> The funny thing is - he cited the popular election results (which were tainted, and there's a whole long story about the shenanigans that went on in GA) -- but what he showed was Georgians voted against secession.
> 
> (well, less than 1/10 of the population of Georgians did)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will leave you all for now with this question....
> How would  any of you suggest the Southern States restore the founders intent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The founders intent supported slavery. Why would I help the south with any suggestions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, so the Declaration of independence is a fraud, and the revolutionary war was a war by the founders' to protect slavery?
> Very revealing revelation, thank you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes the DoI is a fraud. Anything strike you as weird with the opening statement in light of the fact slavery was supported?
> 
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
> 
> No the revolutionary war was fought to get away from England. So you must have flunked american history?
Click to expand...

So, you support a government that was built on maintaining slavery? If that, as you say was the intent, then you cannot rightfully sit in judgement of the CSA government.


----------



## James Everett

Asclepias said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Og
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should probably rethink this whole support of the loser confederate thing while you are standing corrected. You seem to have a lot things you need to stand corrected on.
> 
> 
> 
> The funny thing is - he cited the popular election results (which were tainted, and there's a whole long story about the shenanigans that went on in GA) -- but what he showed was Georgians voted against secession.
> 
> (well, less than 1/10 of the population of Georgians did)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will leave you all for now with this question....
> How would  any of you suggest the Southern States restore the founders intent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The founders intent supported slavery. Why would I help the south with any suggestions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, so the Declaration of independence is a fraud, and the revolutionary war was a war by the founders' to protect slavery?
> Very revealing revelation, thank you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes the DoI is a fraud. Anything strike you as weird with the opening statement in light of the fact slavery was supported?
> 
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
> 
> No the revolutionary war was fought to get away from England. So you must have flunked american history?
Click to expand...

So, what you are stating is that we denounce our government that was established on slavery, and support your government which you yourself was built on slavery?
Seems a little odd: does it not?


----------



## James Everett

paperview said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Alllllllllllllll the federal buildings
> Alllllllllllllll the forts,
> Alllllllllllllll the arsenals,
> Alllllllllllllll the mints,
> Alllllllllllllll the courthouses -- every bit of federal property ...
> 
> All across the south --Yeah, that's what they *stole* and declared as theirs - even though the whole of the United States taxpayers had paid for it.
> 
> They stole it. Thief's.  They did this before Lincoln ever stepped into office.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to say they never paid taxes in the south before they seceded? Huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I paid  taxes.  Guess I get to take over Fort Knox.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct, you are a partial owner of Fort Knox.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just like the American people all owned Fort Sumter.
> 
> Guess you missed the 'I can take it over now" part.
Click to expand...

I'm curious now. 
Now that the forts have been recovered, and slavery ended, when may we expect an end to the occupation?


----------



## rdean

gallantwarrior said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederacy only existed for a couple of years in American history but it gives low information idiots a target for hatred. The Confederacy never funded a slave ship or captured a Negro in Africa. The sad truth about the 200 years of international slavery is that the ensign that flew off slave ships wasn't the Confederate battle flag that mostly inner city northern idiots grew up hating. The flag that flew from the stern of slave ships was the British union jack and the French and Spanish flags and the Stars and Stripes. The industrial revolution would have put slavery out of business but the inept Lincoln administration couldn't wait. Innocent Southern people who had nothing to do with slavery died because Lincoln hired a drunk and a maniac to kill civilians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So did the Confederate states Of America make a provision in their new Constitution that states can leave the CSA if unhappy or The CSA government makes a law they don't like?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where exactly do the Confederate States of America exist?  I'm still trying to find their location on this continent, but to no avail.
Click to expand...

Any state that practices "Confederate History Day or Month".

Google


----------



## James Everett

paperview said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Alllllllllllllll the federal buildings
> Alllllllllllllll the forts,
> Alllllllllllllll the arsenals,
> Alllllllllllllll the mints,
> Alllllllllllllll the courthouses -- every bit of federal property ...
> 
> All across the south --Yeah, that's what they *stole* and declared as theirs - even though the whole of the United States taxpayers had paid for it.
> 
> They stole it. Thief's.  They did this before Lincoln ever stepped into office.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to say they never paid taxes in the south before they seceded? Huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I paid  taxes.  Guess I get to take over Fort Knox.
Click to expand...

It also occurred to me that since the issue over the forts and slavery have been long resolved, the legality of secession remains legal, as no amendment has yet been established to make such UN- constitutional, hence secession was a legal act, therefore the restoration should continue as a legal avenue to end the occupation and restore the Articles of Confederation for the Southern Confederate States.


----------



## Asclepias

James Everett said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Og
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> The funny thing is - he cited the popular election results (which were tainted, and there's a whole long story about the shenanigans that went on in GA) -- but what he showed was Georgians voted against secession.
> 
> (well, less than 1/10 of the population of Georgians did)
> 
> 
> 
> I will leave you all for now with this question....
> How would  any of you suggest the Southern States restore the founders intent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The founders intent supported slavery. Why would I help the south with any suggestions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, so the Declaration of independence is a fraud, and the revolutionary war was a war by the founders' to protect slavery?
> Very revealing revelation, thank you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes the DoI is a fraud. Anything strike you as weird with the opening statement in light of the fact slavery was supported?
> 
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
> 
> No the revolutionary war was fought to get away from England. So you must have flunked american history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you support a government that was built on maintaining slavery? If that, as you say was the intent, then you cannot rightfully sit in judgement of the CSA government.
Click to expand...

Sure I can. The real americans got rid of slavery. The loser confederates wanted to continue it. Its called progress when you attempt to correct a mistake.


----------



## RKMBrown

Asclepias said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Og
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should probably rethink this whole support of the loser confederate thing while you are standing corrected. You seem to have a lot things you need to stand corrected on.
> 
> 
> 
> The funny thing is - he cited the popular election results (which were tainted, and there's a whole long story about the shenanigans that went on in GA) -- but what he showed was Georgians voted against secession.
> 
> (well, less than 1/10 of the population of Georgians did)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will leave you all for now with this question....
> How would  any of you suggest the Southern States restore the founders intent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The founders intent supported slavery. Why would I help the south with any suggestions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, so the Declaration of independence is a fraud, and the revolutionary war was a war by the founders' to protect slavery?
> Very revealing revelation, thank you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes the DoI is a fraud. Anything strike you as weird with the opening statement in light of the fact slavery was supported?
> 
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
> 
> No the revolutionary war was fought to get away from England. So you must have flunked american history?
Click to expand...

Yeah and the civil war was fought to keep the south from getting away.  So you have flunked again.


----------



## Asclepias

RKMBrown said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Og
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> The funny thing is - he cited the popular election results (which were tainted, and there's a whole long story about the shenanigans that went on in GA) -- but what he showed was Georgians voted against secession.
> 
> (well, less than 1/10 of the population of Georgians did)
> 
> 
> 
> I will leave you all for now with this question....
> How would  any of you suggest the Southern States restore the founders intent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The founders intent supported slavery. Why would I help the south with any suggestions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, so the Declaration of independence is a fraud, and the revolutionary war was a war by the founders' to protect slavery?
> Very revealing revelation, thank you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes the DoI is a fraud. Anything strike you as weird with the opening statement in light of the fact slavery was supported?
> 
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
> 
> No the revolutionary war was fought to get away from England. So you must have flunked american history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah and the civil war was fought to keep the south from getting away.  So you have flunked again.
Click to expand...

Not from the souths perspective which is what we were talking about. You flunked reading comprehension again I see.


----------



## James Everett

Asclepias said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Og
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will leave you all for now with this question....
> How would  any of you suggest the Southern States restore the founders intent?
> 
> 
> 
> The founders intent supported slavery. Why would I help the south with any suggestions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, so the Declaration of independence is a fraud, and the revolutionary war was a war by the founders' to protect slavery?
> Very revealing revelation, thank you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes the DoI is a fraud. Anything strike you as weird with the opening statement in light of the fact slavery was supported?
> 
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
> 
> No the revolutionary war was fought to get away from England. So you must have flunked american history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you support a government that was built on maintaining slavery? If that, as you say was the intent, then you cannot rightfully sit in judgement of the CSA government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure I can. The real americans got rid of slavery. The loser confederates wanted to continue it. Its called progress when you attempt to correct a mistake.
Click to expand...

Ya kinda blew that moral high ground with the next 40 or more years of exterminating the Native American Indian.
Now is the time to allow us to move forward restoring our government since this slavery and fort issue has been resolved. 
What's your excuse this time around with slavery ended and all???


----------



## Asclepias

James Everett said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Og
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> The founders intent supported slavery. Why would I help the south with any suggestions?
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so the Declaration of independence is a fraud, and the revolutionary war was a war by the founders' to protect slavery?
> Very revealing revelation, thank you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes the DoI is a fraud. Anything strike you as weird with the opening statement in light of the fact slavery was supported?
> 
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
> 
> No the revolutionary war was fought to get away from England. So you must have flunked american history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you support a government that was built on maintaining slavery? If that, as you say was the intent, then you cannot rightfully sit in judgement of the CSA government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure I can. The real americans got rid of slavery. The loser confederates wanted to continue it. Its called progress when you attempt to correct a mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ya kinda blew that moral high ground with the next 40 or more years of exterminating the Native American Indian.
> Now is the time to allow us to move forward restoring our government since this slavery and fort issue has been resolved.
> What's your excuse this time around with slavery ended and all???
Click to expand...


Not really. There was no moral high ground to begin with. The north supported slavery until they tried to correct it. The south fought a losing fight to up hold it.  The south also participated in the extermination of the NA's which you seem to forget. Your last sentence doesnt make any sense.


----------



## James Everett

Asclepias said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Og
> Oh, so the Declaration of independence is a fraud, and the revolutionary war was a war by the founders' to protect slavery?
> Very revealing revelation, thank you!
> 
> 
> 
> Yes the DoI is a fraud. Anything strike you as weird with the opening statement in light of the fact slavery was supported?
> 
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
> 
> No the revolutionary war was fought to get away from England. So you must have flunked american history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you support a government that was built on maintaining slavery? If that, as you say was the intent, then you cannot rightfully sit in judgement of the CSA government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure I can. The real americans got rid of slavery. The loser confederates wanted to continue it. Its called progress when you attempt to correct a mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ya kinda blew that moral high ground with the next 40 or more years of exterminating the Native American Indian.
> Now is the time to allow us to move forward restoring our government since this slavery and fort issue has been resolved.
> What's your excuse this time around with slavery ended and all???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really. There was no moral high ground to begin with. The north supported slavery until they tried to correct it. The south fought a losing fight to up hold it.  The south also participated in the extermination of the NA's which you seem to forget. Your last sentence doesnt make any sense.
Click to expand...

The last sentence is in reference to the restoration and end to the occupation.
Since you admit to no moral high ground, then stop being hypocritical in your continuous attacks on those who support their CSA.


----------



## Asclepias

James Everett said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes the DoI is a fraud. Anything strike you as weird with the opening statement in light of the fact slavery was supported?
> 
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
> 
> No the revolutionary war was fought to get away from England. So you must have flunked american history?
> 
> 
> 
> So, you support a government that was built on maintaining slavery? If that, as you say was the intent, then you cannot rightfully sit in judgement of the CSA government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure I can. The real americans got rid of slavery. The loser confederates wanted to continue it. Its called progress when you attempt to correct a mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ya kinda blew that moral high ground with the next 40 or more years of exterminating the Native American Indian.
> Now is the time to allow us to move forward restoring our government since this slavery and fort issue has been resolved.
> What's your excuse this time around with slavery ended and all???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really. There was no moral high ground to begin with. The north supported slavery until they tried to correct it. The south fought a losing fight to up hold it.  The south also participated in the extermination of the NA's which you seem to forget. Your last sentence doesnt make any sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The last sentence is in reference to the restoration and end to the occupation.
> Since you admit to no moral high ground, then stop being hypocritical in your continuous attacks on those who support their CSA.
Click to expand...

The end of what occupation? I'm not being hypocritical. I think all people like you are idiots when you claim the confederates didnt go to war over slavery.


----------



## RKMBrown

Asclepias said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Og
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will leave you all for now with this question....
> How would  any of you suggest the Southern States restore the founders intent?
> 
> 
> 
> The founders intent supported slavery. Why would I help the south with any suggestions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, so the Declaration of independence is a fraud, and the revolutionary war was a war by the founders' to protect slavery?
> Very revealing revelation, thank you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes the DoI is a fraud. Anything strike you as weird with the opening statement in light of the fact slavery was supported?
> 
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
> 
> No the revolutionary war was fought to get away from England. So you must have flunked american history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah and the civil war was fought to keep the south from getting away.  So you have flunked again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not from the souths perspective which is what we were talking about. You flunked reading comprehension again I see.
Click to expand...

Gotta love it when morons from the north try to tell people from the south what they think.


----------



## Asclepias

RKMBrown said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Og
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> The founders intent supported slavery. Why would I help the south with any suggestions?
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so the Declaration of independence is a fraud, and the revolutionary war was a war by the founders' to protect slavery?
> Very revealing revelation, thank you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes the DoI is a fraud. Anything strike you as weird with the opening statement in light of the fact slavery was supported?
> 
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
> 
> No the revolutionary war was fought to get away from England. So you must have flunked american history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah and the civil war was fought to keep the south from getting away.  So you have flunked again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not from the souths perspective which is what we were talking about. You flunked reading comprehension again I see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gotta love it when morons from the north try to tell people from the south what they think.
Click to expand...

The confederates told us what they thought. Matter of fact they documented it.  BTW my family is from the south.


----------



## James Everett

Asclepias said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you support a government that was built on maintaining slavery? If that, as you say was the intent, then you cannot rightfully sit in judgement of the CSA government.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure I can. The real americans got rid of slavery. The loser confederates wanted to continue it. Its called progress when you attempt to correct a mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ya kinda blew that moral high ground with the next 40 or more years of exterminating the Native American Indian.
> Now is the time to allow us to move forward restoring our government since this slavery and fort issue has been resolved.
> What's your excuse this time around with slavery ended and all???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really. There was no moral high ground to begin with. The north supported slavery until they tried to correct it. The south fought a losing fight to up hold it.  The south also participated in the extermination of the NA's which you seem to forget. Your last sentence doesnt make any sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The last sentence is in reference to the restoration and end to the occupation.
> Since you admit to no moral high ground, then stop being hypocritical in your continuous attacks on those who support their CSA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The end of what occupation? I'm not being hypocritical. I think all people like you are idiots when you claim the confederates didnt go to war over slavery.
Click to expand...

But surely you must understand the difference between a declaration of war, and a declaration of secession. If not, then you are the idiot.
Apparently the war was over the useless forts that your government wished to maintain in the Southern Confederate States since Slavery was legal and prospered under YOUR CONstitution as you have stated was the intent of the founders'.
Yes, occupation is a result of war, and the replacement of our State governments. 
Perhaps you can explain this to this idiot.....
If the Yankee made war on the Southern confederacy, to end slavery in those States, then why did this crusade not continue into other States such as Venezuela?
The 13th amendment was a shoe in with only the Northern States left united. 
Why fight to free the black man in those now foreign States, yet continue exterminating the Red Man? 
Is Black better than Red ?
Please explain  these things to this idiot.


----------



## James Everett

Asclepias said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Og
> Oh, so the Declaration of independence is a fraud, and the revolutionary war was a war by the founders' to protect slavery?
> Very revealing revelation, thank you!
> 
> 
> 
> Yes the DoI is a fraud. Anything strike you as weird with the opening statement in light of the fact slavery was supported?
> 
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
> 
> No the revolutionary war was fought to get away from England. So you must have flunked american history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah and the civil war was fought to keep the south from getting away.  So you have flunked again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not from the souths perspective which is what we were talking about. You flunked reading comprehension again I see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gotta love it when morons from the north try to tell people from the south what they think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The confederates told us what they thought. Matter of fact they documented it.  BTW my family is from the south.
Click to expand...

I don't care where your family is from, you are a Yankee. 
The war was not over Slavery, secession was. 
You cannot seem to distinguish between the two, is there some problem with your ability to understand this?


----------



## Asclepias

James Everett said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure I can. The real americans got rid of slavery. The loser confederates wanted to continue it. Its called progress when you attempt to correct a mistake.
> 
> 
> 
> Ya kinda blew that moral high ground with the next 40 or more years of exterminating the Native American Indian.
> Now is the time to allow us to move forward restoring our government since this slavery and fort issue has been resolved.
> What's your excuse this time around with slavery ended and all???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really. There was no moral high ground to begin with. The north supported slavery until they tried to correct it. The south fought a losing fight to up hold it.  The south also participated in the extermination of the NA's which you seem to forget. Your last sentence doesnt make any sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The last sentence is in reference to the restoration and end to the occupation.
> Since you admit to no moral high ground, then stop being hypocritical in your continuous attacks on those who support their CSA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The end of what occupation? I'm not being hypocritical. I think all people like you are idiots when you claim the confederates didnt go to war over slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But surely you must understand the difference between a declaration of war, and a declaration of secession. If not, then you are the idiot.
> Apparently the war was over the useless forts that your government wished to maintain in the Southern Confederate States since Slavery was legal and prospered under YOUR CONstitution as you have stated was the intent of the founders'.
> Yes, occupation is a result of war, and the replacement of our State governments.
> Perhaps you can explain this to this idiot.....
> If the Yankee made war on the Southern confederacy, to end slavery in those States, then why did this crusade not continue into other States such as Venezuela?
> The 13th amendment was a shoe in with only the Northern States left united.
> Why fight to free the black man in those now foreign States, yet continue exterminating the Red Man?
> Is Black better than Red ?
> Please explain  these things to this idiot.
Click to expand...

Yes i understand the difference. However, what does that have to do with the point? 
We arent talking about the reasons the North kicked the souths ass. We are talking about the fact the south fought to maintain slavery.  BTW you do realize Venezuela is not part of the US dont you?


----------



## Asclepias

James Everett said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes the DoI is a fraud. Anything strike you as weird with the opening statement in light of the fact slavery was supported?
> 
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
> 
> No the revolutionary war was fought to get away from England. So you must have flunked american history?
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah and the civil war was fought to keep the south from getting away.  So you have flunked again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not from the souths perspective which is what we were talking about. You flunked reading comprehension again I see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gotta love it when morons from the north try to tell people from the south what they think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The confederates told us what they thought. Matter of fact they documented it.  BTW my family is from the south.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't care where your family is from, you are a Yankee.
> The war was not over Slavery, secession was.
> You cannot seem to distinguish between the two, is there some problem with your ability to understand this?
Click to expand...

I wasnt talking to you so not interested in what you care about.
The war was over the south wanting to keep slavery. You cant seem to grasp this. Is there a problem with your ability to think?


----------



## RKMBrown

Asclepias said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Og
> Oh, so the Declaration of independence is a fraud, and the revolutionary war was a war by the founders' to protect slavery?
> Very revealing revelation, thank you!
> 
> 
> 
> Yes the DoI is a fraud. Anything strike you as weird with the opening statement in light of the fact slavery was supported?
> 
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
> 
> No the revolutionary war was fought to get away from England. So you must have flunked american history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah and the civil war was fought to keep the south from getting away.  So you have flunked again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not from the souths perspective which is what we were talking about. You flunked reading comprehension again I see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gotta love it when morons from the north try to tell people from the south what they think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The confederates told us what they thought. Matter of fact they documented it.  BTW my family is from the south.
Click to expand...

So you fought in the civil war to retain your slaves and you speak for the entire south?


----------



## Asclepias

RKMBrown said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes the DoI is a fraud. Anything strike you as weird with the opening statement in light of the fact slavery was supported?
> 
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
> 
> No the revolutionary war was fought to get away from England. So you must have flunked american history?
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah and the civil war was fought to keep the south from getting away.  So you have flunked again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not from the souths perspective which is what we were talking about. You flunked reading comprehension again I see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gotta love it when morons from the north try to tell people from the south what they think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The confederates told us what they thought. Matter of fact they documented it.  BTW my family is from the south.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you fought in the civil war to retain your slaves and you speak for the entire south?
Click to expand...

So you are doing your deflecting act again since you cant find solid ground for your infantile opinion?


----------



## RKMBrown

Asclepias said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah and the civil war was fought to keep the south from getting away.  So you have flunked again.
> 
> 
> 
> Not from the souths perspective which is what we were talking about. You flunked reading comprehension again I see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gotta love it when morons from the north try to tell people from the south what they think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The confederates told us what they thought. Matter of fact they documented it.  BTW my family is from the south.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you fought in the civil war to retain your slaves and you speak for the entire south?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are doing your deflecting act again since you cant find solid ground for your infantile opinion?
Click to expand...

Defending oneself is only done by infants?  WTF kind of drugs are you on?


----------



## James Everett

Asclepias said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ya kinda blew that moral high ground with the next 40 or more years of exterminating the Native American Indian.
> Now is the time to allow us to move forward restoring our government since this slavery and fort issue has been resolved.
> What's your excuse this time around with slavery ended and all???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really. There was no moral high ground to begin with. The north supported slavery until they tried to correct it. The south fought a losing fight to up hold it.  The south also participated in the extermination of the NA's which you seem to forget. Your last sentence doesnt make any sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The last sentence is in reference to the restoration and end to the occupation.
> Since you admit to no moral high ground, then stop being hypocritical in your continuous attacks on those who support their CSA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The end of what occupation? I'm not being hypocritical. I think all people like you are idiots when you claim the confederates didnt go to war over slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But surely you must understand the difference between a declaration of war, and a declaration of secession. If not, then you are the idiot.
> Apparently the war was over the useless forts that your government wished to maintain in the Southern Confederate States since Slavery was legal and prospered under YOUR CONstitution as you have stated was the intent of the founders'.
> Yes, occupation is a result of war, and the replacement of our State governments.
> Perhaps you can explain this to this idiot.....
> If the Yankee made war on the Southern confederacy, to end slavery in those States, then why did this crusade not continue into other States such as Venezuela?
> The 13th amendment was a shoe in with only the Northern States left united.
> Why fight to free the black man in those now foreign States, yet continue exterminating the Red Man?
> Is Black better than Red ?
> Please explain  these things to this idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes i understand the difference. However, what does that have to do with the point?
> We arent talking about the reasons the North kicked the souths ass. We are talking about the fact the south fought to maintain slavery.  BTW you do realize Venezuela is not part of the US dont you?
Click to expand...

You do realize that upon secession the Southern States were no more part of the U.S. Than was Venezuela, right? 
No, the war was over secession, not over whether or not the now foreign States to the south of the U.S. Held slaves or not.


----------



## Asclepias

RKMBrown said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not from the souths perspective which is what we were talking about. You flunked reading comprehension again I see.
> 
> 
> 
> Gotta love it when morons from the north try to tell people from the south what they think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The confederates told us what they thought. Matter of fact they documented it.  BTW my family is from the south.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you fought in the civil war to retain your slaves and you speak for the entire south?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are doing your deflecting act again since you cant find solid ground for your infantile opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Defending oneself is only done by infants?  WTF kind of drugs are you on?
Click to expand...

Not the kind of drugs that make you deflect when your point has been vaporized thats for sure.


----------



## Asclepias

James Everett said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really. There was no moral high ground to begin with. The north supported slavery until they tried to correct it. The south fought a losing fight to up hold it.  The south also participated in the extermination of the NA's which you seem to forget. Your last sentence doesnt make any sense.
> 
> 
> 
> The last sentence is in reference to the restoration and end to the occupation.
> Since you admit to no moral high ground, then stop being hypocritical in your continuous attacks on those who support their CSA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The end of what occupation? I'm not being hypocritical. I think all people like you are idiots when you claim the confederates didnt go to war over slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But surely you must understand the difference between a declaration of war, and a declaration of secession. If not, then you are the idiot.
> Apparently the war was over the useless forts that your government wished to maintain in the Southern Confederate States since Slavery was legal and prospered under YOUR CONstitution as you have stated was the intent of the founders'.
> Yes, occupation is a result of war, and the replacement of our State governments.
> Perhaps you can explain this to this idiot.....
> If the Yankee made war on the Southern confederacy, to end slavery in those States, then why did this crusade not continue into other States such as Venezuela?
> The 13th amendment was a shoe in with only the Northern States left united.
> Why fight to free the black man in those now foreign States, yet continue exterminating the Red Man?
> Is Black better than Red ?
> Please explain  these things to this idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes i understand the difference. However, what does that have to do with the point?
> We arent talking about the reasons the North kicked the souths ass. We are talking about the fact the south fought to maintain slavery.  BTW you do realize Venezuela is not part of the US dont you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do realize that upon secession the Southern States were no more part of the U.S. Than was Venezuela, right?
> No, the war was over secession, not over whether or not the now foreign States to the south of the U.S. Held slaves or not.
Click to expand...

They lost that stance once they committed acts of war and were told forcefully they could no longer be an independent nation. Sorry but Venezuela never was part of the US. Stop reaching. Its pitiful.

The war was over slavery. The confederates documented that.


----------



## RKMBrown

Asclepias said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gotta love it when morons from the north try to tell people from the south what they think.
> 
> 
> 
> The confederates told us what they thought. Matter of fact they documented it.  BTW my family is from the south.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you fought in the civil war to retain your slaves and you speak for the entire south?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are doing your deflecting act again since you cant find solid ground for your infantile opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Defending oneself is only done by infants?  WTF kind of drugs are you on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not the kind of drugs that make you deflect when your point has been vaporized thats for sure.
Click to expand...

Ah, so you are deflecting to discussions of infants to defend your point that the south was not defending itself from invasion by the north.


----------



## Asclepias

RKMBrown said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> The confederates told us what they thought. Matter of fact they documented it.  BTW my family is from the south.
> 
> 
> 
> So you fought in the civil war to retain your slaves and you speak for the entire south?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are doing your deflecting act again since you cant find solid ground for your infantile opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Defending oneself is only done by infants?  WTF kind of drugs are you on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not the kind of drugs that make you deflect when your point has been vaporized thats for sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, so you are deflecting to discussions of infants to defend your point that the south was not defending itself from invasion by the north.
Click to expand...

So you are deflecting to a scenario where I fought in the Civil War and you expect me to take  you seriously?


----------



## paperview

James Everett said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really. There was no moral high ground to begin with. The north supported slavery until they tried to correct it. The south fought a losing fight to up hold it.  The south also participated in the extermination of the NA's which you seem to forget. Your last sentence doesnt make any sense.
> 
> 
> 
> The last sentence is in reference to the restoration and end to the occupation.
> Since you admit to no moral high ground, then stop being hypocritical in your continuous attacks on those who support their CSA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The end of what occupation? I'm not being hypocritical. I think all people like you are idiots when you claim the confederates didnt go to war over slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But surely you must understand the difference between a declaration of war, and a declaration of secession. If not, then you are the idiot.
> Apparently the war was over the useless forts that your government wished to maintain in the Southern Confederate States since Slavery was legal and prospered under YOUR CONstitution as you have stated was the intent of the founders'.
> Yes, occupation is a result of war, and the replacement of our State governments.
> Perhaps you can explain this to this idiot.....
> If the Yankee made war on the Southern confederacy, to end slavery in those States, then why did this crusade not continue into other States such as Venezuela?
> The 13th amendment was a shoe in with only the Northern States left united.
> Why fight to free the black man in those now foreign States, yet continue exterminating the Red Man?
> Is Black better than Red ?
> Please explain  these things to this idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes i understand the difference. However, what does that have to do with the point?
> We arent talking about the reasons the North kicked the souths ass. We are talking about the fact the south fought to maintain slavery.  BTW you do realize Venezuela is not part of the US dont you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do realize that upon secession the Southern States were no more part of the U.S. Than was Venezuela, right?
> No, the war was over secession, not over whether or not the now foreign States to the south of the U.S. Held slaves or not.
Click to expand...


You could secede in your little panty-lined bunker right now -- set up your own "government" and think you actually are not part of the US -- but no one will recognize it.

Just as the US did not recognize the CSA as legitimate - as well as every other country in the world did.


----------



## RKMBrown

Asclepias said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you fought in the civil war to retain your slaves and you speak for the entire south?
> 
> 
> 
> So you are doing your deflecting act again since you cant find solid ground for your infantile opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Defending oneself is only done by infants?  WTF kind of drugs are you on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not the kind of drugs that make you deflect when your point has been vaporized thats for sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, so you are deflecting to discussions of infants to defend your point that the south was not defending itself from invasion by the north.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are deflecting to a scenario where I fought in the Civil War and you expect me to take  you seriously?
Click to expand...

You're the one claiming to have personal knowledge of the reasons for the people who fought in the civil war.  I assume you must have first hand knowledge to be able to make that claim.  Or are you now admitting that you were lying?


----------



## Asclepias

RKMBrown said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are doing your deflecting act again since you cant find solid ground for your infantile opinion?
> 
> 
> 
> Defending oneself is only done by infants?  WTF kind of drugs are you on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not the kind of drugs that make you deflect when your point has been vaporized thats for sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, so you are deflecting to discussions of infants to defend your point that the south was not defending itself from invasion by the north.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are deflecting to a scenario where I fought in the Civil War and you expect me to take  you seriously?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're the one claiming to have personal knowledge of the reasons for the people who fought in the civil war.  I assume you must have first hand knowledge to be able to make that claim.  Or are you now admitting that you were lying?
Click to expand...

More deflections. Your pride must be hurt.


----------



## RKMBrown

Asclepias said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Defending oneself is only done by infants?  WTF kind of drugs are you on?
> 
> 
> 
> Not the kind of drugs that make you deflect when your point has been vaporized thats for sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, so you are deflecting to discussions of infants to defend your point that the south was not defending itself from invasion by the north.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are deflecting to a scenario where I fought in the Civil War and you expect me to take  you seriously?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're the one claiming to have personal knowledge of the reasons for the people who fought in the civil war.  I assume you must have first hand knowledge to be able to make that claim.  Or are you now admitting that you were lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More deflections. Your pride must be hurt.
Click to expand...

Why deflect to "my pride?" What proof do you have of your claims that every single fighter in the south fought the war to defend the practice of slavery and not to defend their homes states and families.


----------



## Asclepias

RKMBrown said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not the kind of drugs that make you deflect when your point has been vaporized thats for sure.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, so you are deflecting to discussions of infants to defend your point that the south was not defending itself from invasion by the north.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are deflecting to a scenario where I fought in the Civil War and you expect me to take  you seriously?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're the one claiming to have personal knowledge of the reasons for the people who fought in the civil war.  I assume you must have first hand knowledge to be able to make that claim.  Or are you now admitting that you were lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More deflections. Your pride must be hurt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why deflect to "my pride?" What proof do you have of your claims that every single fighter in the south fought the war to defend the practice of slavery and not to defend their homes states and families.
Click to expand...

Youve grown boring with your deflections. Its not even fun laughing at you now. You do this everytime i embarrass you.


----------



## James Everett

So, you sa


Asclepias said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah and the civil war was fought to keep the south from getting away.  So you have flunked again.
> 
> 
> 
> Not from the souths perspective which is what we were talking about. You flunked reading comprehension again I see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gotta love it when morons from the north try to tell people from the south what they think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The confederates told us what they thought. Matter of fact they documented it.  BTW my family is from the south.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't care where your family is from, you are a Yankee.
> The war was not over Slavery, secession was.
> You cannot seem to distinguish between the two, is there some problem with your ability to understand this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wasnt talking to you so not interested in what you care about.
> The war was over the south wanting to keep slavery. You cant seem to grasp this. Is there a problem with your ability to think?
Click to expand...

So you say the war was over the South wanting to keep slavery? 
Lets look at this logically, if you are able.
The South Seceded from the U.S. at which point the Southern States were no longer part of the U.S. therefore it is your assertion that the "South" left the union so that they could keep their slaves and then said.....
Hey we are no longer part of the U.S. therefore we can now keep our Slaves without any interference from the U.S. but, what the hell, lets go to war over slavery anyway?
Do you see how ignorant you appear?
When the Southern States seceded over slavery, they were free to do as they wish, so why on earth would they go to war unless the U.S. was invading those States to force them to free their Slaves?
So it is now your assertion that the U.S. invaded the now foreign Southern States to force them to free their Slaves, yet they stopped their crusade at the gulf coast instead of making war on Venezuela to force that foreign State to free their Slaves as well? 
Why?
If the war was to free slaves in foreign States that were not part of the union, then why did the U.S. not continue this crusade? 
Why was the Black man sooo important that they went to war to free them, yet at that very same time, the U.S. was continuing its extermination of the Native American Indian?
Is it your assertion that the Black man is better than the Red man?
Logically, I cannot understand that YOUR government would go to war to free the Black Slaves while exterminating the Native American Indian, and then stop this grand crusade to end Slavery at the Gulf coast and not go to war with every State on the planet to end the enslavement of the Black Man.


----------



## Asclepias

James Everett said:


> So, you sa
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not from the souths perspective which is what we were talking about. You flunked reading comprehension again I see.
> 
> 
> 
> Gotta love it when morons from the north try to tell people from the south what they think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The confederates told us what they thought. Matter of fact they documented it.  BTW my family is from the south.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't care where your family is from, you are a Yankee.
> The war was not over Slavery, secession was.
> You cannot seem to distinguish between the two, is there some problem with your ability to understand this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wasnt talking to you so not interested in what you care about.
> The war was over the south wanting to keep slavery. You cant seem to grasp this. Is there a problem with your ability to think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you say the war was over the South wanting to keep slavery?
> Lets look at this logically, if you are able.
> The South Seceded from the U.S. at which point the Southern States were no longer part of the U.S. therefore it is your assertion that the "South" left the union so that they could keep their slaves and then said.....
> Hey we are no longer part of the U.S. therefore we can now keep our Slaves without any interference from the U.S. but, what the hell, lets go to war over slavery anyway?
> Do you see how ignorant you appear?
> When the Southern States seceded over slavery, they were free to do as they wish, so why on earth would they go to war unless the U.S. was invading those States to force them to free their Slaves?
> So it is now your assertion that the U.S. invaded the now foreign Southern States to force them to free their Slaves, yet they stopped their crusade at the gulf coast instead of making war on Venezuela to force that foreign State to free their Slaves as well?
> Why?
> If the war was to free slaves in foreign States that were not part of the union, then why did the U.S. not continue this crusade?
> Why was the Black man sooo important that they went to war to free them, yet at that very same time, the U.S. was continuing its extermination of the Native American Indian?
> Is it your assertion that the Black man is better than the Red man?
> Logically, I cannot understand that YOUR government would go to war to free the Black Slaves while exterminating the Native American Indian, and then stop this grand crusade to end Slavery at the Gulf coast and not go to war with every State on the planet to end the enslavement of the Black Man.
Click to expand...

Logically? You werent allowed to secede from the US for starters. No one gave you permission and thats why you got your ass kicked. Since you entire argument seems to rest on the fallacy you had permission to secede, I would suggest you get a new argument.


----------



## JakeStarkey

James, STFU, then go read 9th paragraph of the Cornerstone speech by the CSA vice-president, think about it, then report to us what the veep had to say about the cause of the war as  "This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution."   Corner Stone Speech Teaching American History


----------



## James Everett

Asclepias said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> The last sentence is in reference to the restoration and end to the occupation.
> Since you admit to no moral high ground, then stop being hypocritical in your continuous attacks on those who support their CSA.
> 
> 
> 
> The end of what occupation? I'm not being hypocritical. I think all people like you are idiots when you claim the confederates didnt go to war over slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But surely you must understand the difference between a declaration of war, and a declaration of secession. If not, then you are the idiot.
> Apparently the war was over the useless forts that your government wished to maintain in the Southern Confederate States since Slavery was legal and prospered under YOUR CONstitution as you have stated was the intent of the founders'.
> Yes, occupation is a result of war, and the replacement of our State governments.
> Perhaps you can explain this to this idiot.....
> If the Yankee made war on the Southern confederacy, to end slavery in those States, then why did this crusade not continue into other States such as Venezuela?
> The 13th amendment was a shoe in with only the Northern States left united.
> Why fight to free the black man in those now foreign States, yet continue exterminating the Red Man?
> Is Black better than Red ?
> Please explain  these things to this idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes i understand the difference. However, what does that have to do with the point?
> We arent talking about the reasons the North kicked the souths ass. We are talking about the fact the south fought to maintain slavery.  BTW you do realize Venezuela is not part of the US dont you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do realize that upon secession the Southern States were no more part of the U.S. Than was Venezuela, right?
> No, the war was over secession, not over whether or not the now foreign States to the south of the U.S. Held slaves or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They lost that stance once they committed acts of war and were told forcefully they could no longer be an independent nation. Sorry but Venezuela never was part of the US. Stop reaching. Its pitiful.
> 
> The war was over slavery. The confederates documented that.
Click to expand...




paperview said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> The last sentence is in reference to the restoration and end to the occupation.
> Since you admit to no moral high ground, then stop being hypocritical in your continuous attacks on those who support their CSA.
> 
> 
> 
> The end of what occupation? I'm not being hypocritical. I think all people like you are idiots when you claim the confederates didnt go to war over slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But surely you must understand the difference between a declaration of war, and a declaration of secession. If not, then you are the idiot.
> Apparently the war was over the useless forts that your government wished to maintain in the Southern Confederate States since Slavery was legal and prospered under YOUR CONstitution as you have stated was the intent of the founders'.
> Yes, occupation is a result of war, and the replacement of our State governments.
> Perhaps you can explain this to this idiot.....
> If the Yankee made war on the Southern confederacy, to end slavery in those States, then why did this crusade not continue into other States such as Venezuela?
> The 13th amendment was a shoe in with only the Northern States left united.
> Why fight to free the black man in those now foreign States, yet continue exterminating the Red Man?
> Is Black better than Red ?
> Please explain  these things to this idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes i understand the difference. However, what does that have to do with the point?
> We arent talking about the reasons the North kicked the souths ass. We are talking about the fact the south fought to maintain slavery.  BTW you do realize Venezuela is not part of the US dont you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do realize that upon secession the Southern States were no more part of the U.S. Than was Venezuela, right?
> No, the war was over secession, not over whether or not the now foreign States to the south of the U.S. Held slaves or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You could secede in your little panty-lined bunker right now -- set up your own "government" and think you actually are not part of the US -- but no one will recognize it.
> 
> Just as the US did not recognize the CSA as legitimate - as well as every other country in the world did.
Click to expand...

Well, there actually is no need to secede as that would be an exercise in redundancy, as clearly the Southern States already accomplished secession. 
You state that the U.S. did not recognize the CSA as legitimate?
Yet they went to war with the CSA?
What makes you think that the U.S. is the authority on which State relationships are legitimate and which are not?
Is it written somewhere in international law that in order for foreign State relationships to be legitimate, they must first petition the U.S. for recognition?
Surely the States that were united in the Southern Confederacy recognized their relationship with the other States. 
The CSA is in History books as existing and legitimate.


----------



## Asclepias

James Everett said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> The end of what occupation? I'm not being hypocritical. I think all people like you are idiots when you claim the confederates didnt go to war over slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> But surely you must understand the difference between a declaration of war, and a declaration of secession. If not, then you are the idiot.
> Apparently the war was over the useless forts that your government wished to maintain in the Southern Confederate States since Slavery was legal and prospered under YOUR CONstitution as you have stated was the intent of the founders'.
> Yes, occupation is a result of war, and the replacement of our State governments.
> Perhaps you can explain this to this idiot.....
> If the Yankee made war on the Southern confederacy, to end slavery in those States, then why did this crusade not continue into other States such as Venezuela?
> The 13th amendment was a shoe in with only the Northern States left united.
> Why fight to free the black man in those now foreign States, yet continue exterminating the Red Man?
> Is Black better than Red ?
> Please explain  these things to this idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes i understand the difference. However, what does that have to do with the point?
> We arent talking about the reasons the North kicked the souths ass. We are talking about the fact the south fought to maintain slavery.  BTW you do realize Venezuela is not part of the US dont you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do realize that upon secession the Southern States were no more part of the U.S. Than was Venezuela, right?
> No, the war was over secession, not over whether or not the now foreign States to the south of the U.S. Held slaves or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They lost that stance once they committed acts of war and were told forcefully they could no longer be an independent nation. Sorry but Venezuela never was part of the US. Stop reaching. Its pitiful.
> 
> The war was over slavery. The confederates documented that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> The end of what occupation? I'm not being hypocritical. I think all people like you are idiots when you claim the confederates didnt go to war over slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But surely you must understand the difference between a declaration of war, and a declaration of secession. If not, then you are the idiot.
> Apparently the war was over the useless forts that your government wished to maintain in the Southern Confederate States since Slavery was legal and prospered under YOUR CONstitution as you have stated was the intent of the founders'.
> Yes, occupation is a result of war, and the replacement of our State governments.
> Perhaps you can explain this to this idiot.....
> If the Yankee made war on the Southern confederacy, to end slavery in those States, then why did this crusade not continue into other States such as Venezuela?
> The 13th amendment was a shoe in with only the Northern States left united.
> Why fight to free the black man in those now foreign States, yet continue exterminating the Red Man?
> Is Black better than Red ?
> Please explain  these things to this idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes i understand the difference. However, what does that have to do with the point?
> We arent talking about the reasons the North kicked the souths ass. We are talking about the fact the south fought to maintain slavery.  BTW you do realize Venezuela is not part of the US dont you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do realize that upon secession the Southern States were no more part of the U.S. Than was Venezuela, right?
> No, the war was over secession, not over whether or not the now foreign States to the south of the U.S. Held slaves or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You could secede in your little panty-lined bunker right now -- set up your own "government" and think you actually are not part of the US -- but no one will recognize it.
> 
> Just as the US did not recognize the CSA as legitimate - as well as every other country in the world did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, there actually is no need to secede as that would be an exercise in redundancy, as clearly the Southern States already accomplished secession.
> You state that the U.S. did not recognize the CSA as legitimate?
> Yet they went to war with the CSA?
> What makes you think that the U.S. is the authority on which State relationships are legitimate and which are not?
> Is it written somewhere in international law that in order for foreign State relationships to be legitimate, they must first petition the U.S. for recognition?
> Surely the States that were united in the Southern Confederacy recognized their relationship with the other States.
> The CSA is in History books as existing and legitimate.
Click to expand...

Sorry bub. The CSA ranks as one of the worst ideas in the history of mankind. The CSA exists in the history books only to put a name to the losers.  You were a joke with no recognition and got your asses kicked for your petulance. Name one country that recognized the CSA as a sovereign nation. I'll wait.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> James, STFU, then go read 9th paragraph of the Cornerstone speech by the CSA vice-president, think about it, then report to us what the veep had to say about the cause of the war as  "This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution."   Corner Stone Speech Teaching American History


JAKE,
Perhaps you should just post the wording wherein the statement is made that the War was over slavery. The closest that I find is the mention of revolution, yet revolution is not war, there are many forms of revolution, as in a revolutionary idea, the industrial revolution, a momentous change in a situation, such as the relationship between the States via secession, etc....
Please post his exact reference to the causes of the war.
Think about it Jake....Why would the Southern States go to war after they exited the union to "Preserve Slavery" why would they go to war when secession already accomplished the preservation of Slavery if left alone and not attacked by the U.S. Slavery would have been preserved: don't you think?


----------



## Asclepias

James Everett said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> James, STFU, then go read 9th paragraph of the Cornerstone speech by the CSA vice-president, think about it, then report to us what the veep had to say about the cause of the war as  "This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution."   Corner Stone Speech Teaching American History
> 
> 
> 
> JAKE,
> Perhaps you should just post the wording wherein the statement is made that the War was over slavery. The closest that I find is the mention of revolution, yet revolution is not war, there are many forms of revolution, as in a revolutionary idea, the industrial revolution, a momentous change in a situation, such as the relationship between the States via secession, etc....
> Please post his exact reference to the causes of the war.
> Think about it Jake....Why would the Southern States go to war after they exited the union to "Preserve Slavery" why would they go to war when secession already accomplished the preservation of Slavery if left alone and not attacked by the U.S. Slavery would have been preserved: don't you think?
Click to expand...

When you play semantics everyone knows you just lost the debate.


----------



## James Everett

Asclepias said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> But surely you must understand the difference between a declaration of war, and a declaration of secession. If not, then you are the idiot.
> Apparently the war was over the useless forts that your government wished to maintain in the Southern Confederate States since Slavery was legal and prospered under YOUR CONstitution as you have stated was the intent of the founders'.
> Yes, occupation is a result of war, and the replacement of our State governments.
> Perhaps you can explain this to this idiot.....
> If the Yankee made war on the Southern confederacy, to end slavery in those States, then why did this crusade not continue into other States such as Venezuela?
> The 13th amendment was a shoe in with only the Northern States left united.
> Why fight to free the black man in those now foreign States, yet continue exterminating the Red Man?
> Is Black better than Red ?
> Please explain  these things to this idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes i understand the difference. However, what does that have to do with the point?
> We arent talking about the reasons the North kicked the souths ass. We are talking about the fact the south fought to maintain slavery.  BTW you do realize Venezuela is not part of the US dont you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do realize that upon secession the Southern States were no more part of the U.S. Than was Venezuela, right?
> No, the war was over secession, not over whether or not the now foreign States to the south of the U.S. Held slaves or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They lost that stance once they committed acts of war and were told forcefully they could no longer be an independent nation. Sorry but Venezuela never was part of the US. Stop reaching. Its pitiful.
> 
> The war was over slavery. The confederates documented that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> But surely you must understand the difference between a declaration of war, and a declaration of secession. If not, then you are the idiot.
> Apparently the war was over the useless forts that your government wished to maintain in the Southern Confederate States since Slavery was legal and prospered under YOUR CONstitution as you have stated was the intent of the founders'.
> Yes, occupation is a result of war, and the replacement of our State governments.
> Perhaps you can explain this to this idiot.....
> If the Yankee made war on the Southern confederacy, to end slavery in those States, then why did this crusade not continue into other States such as Venezuela?
> The 13th amendment was a shoe in with only the Northern States left united.
> Why fight to free the black man in those now foreign States, yet continue exterminating the Red Man?
> Is Black better than Red ?
> Please explain  these things to this idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes i understand the difference. However, what does that have to do with the point?
> We arent talking about the reasons the North kicked the souths ass. We are talking about the fact the south fought to maintain slavery.  BTW you do realize Venezuela is not part of the US dont you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do realize that upon secession the Southern States were no more part of the U.S. Than was Venezuela, right?
> No, the war was over secession, not over whether or not the now foreign States to the south of the U.S. Held slaves or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You could secede in your little panty-lined bunker right now -- set up your own "government" and think you actually are not part of the US -- but no one will recognize it.
> 
> Just as the US did not recognize the CSA as legitimate - as well as every other country in the world did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, there actually is no need to secede as that would be an exercise in redundancy, as clearly the Southern States already accomplished secession.
> You state that the U.S. did not recognize the CSA as legitimate?
> Yet they went to war with the CSA?
> What makes you think that the U.S. is the authority on which State relationships are legitimate and which are not?
> Is it written somewhere in international law that in order for foreign State relationships to be legitimate, they must first petition the U.S. for recognition?
> Surely the States that were united in the Southern Confederacy recognized their relationship with the other States.
> The CSA is in History books as existing and legitimate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry bub. The CSA exists in the history books only to put a name to the losers.  You were a joke with no recognition and got your asses kicked for your petulance. Name one country that recognized the CSA as a sovereign nation. I'll wait.
Click to expand...

You asked.....
_*Name one country that recognized the CSA as a sovereign nation. I'll wait*_
The CSA was NOT a nation, it was a Confederacy of nation States. This is what YOUR union was intended to be, as Alexander Hamilton stated in the "federalist" #32....
_*"An entire consolidation of the States into one complete national sovereignty would imply an entire subordination of the parts; and whatever powers might remain in them, would be altogether dependent on the general will. But as the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty."*_
So by 1861 the States no longer were considered as retaining any vestige of sovereignty?
Now as each State was a nation itself united in a confederacy with other nation/States, they each recognized one another as legitimate. 
Are not governments instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed?


----------



## Asclepias

James Everett said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes i understand the difference. However, what does that have to do with the point?
> We arent talking about the reasons the North kicked the souths ass. We are talking about the fact the south fought to maintain slavery.  BTW you do realize Venezuela is not part of the US dont you?
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that upon secession the Southern States were no more part of the U.S. Than was Venezuela, right?
> No, the war was over secession, not over whether or not the now foreign States to the south of the U.S. Held slaves or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They lost that stance once they committed acts of war and were told forcefully they could no longer be an independent nation. Sorry but Venezuela never was part of the US. Stop reaching. Its pitiful.
> 
> The war was over slavery. The confederates documented that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes i understand the difference. However, what does that have to do with the point?
> We arent talking about the reasons the North kicked the souths ass. We are talking about the fact the south fought to maintain slavery.  BTW you do realize Venezuela is not part of the US dont you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do realize that upon secession the Southern States were no more part of the U.S. Than was Venezuela, right?
> No, the war was over secession, not over whether or not the now foreign States to the south of the U.S. Held slaves or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You could secede in your little panty-lined bunker right now -- set up your own "government" and think you actually are not part of the US -- but no one will recognize it.
> 
> Just as the US did not recognize the CSA as legitimate - as well as every other country in the world did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, there actually is no need to secede as that would be an exercise in redundancy, as clearly the Southern States already accomplished secession.
> You state that the U.S. did not recognize the CSA as legitimate?
> Yet they went to war with the CSA?
> What makes you think that the U.S. is the authority on which State relationships are legitimate and which are not?
> Is it written somewhere in international law that in order for foreign State relationships to be legitimate, they must first petition the U.S. for recognition?
> Surely the States that were united in the Southern Confederacy recognized their relationship with the other States.
> The CSA is in History books as existing and legitimate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry bub. The CSA exists in the history books only to put a name to the losers.  You were a joke with no recognition and got your asses kicked for your petulance. Name one country that recognized the CSA as a sovereign nation. I'll wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You asked.....
> _*Name one country that recognized the CSA as a sovereign nation. I'll wait*_
> The CSA was NOT a nation, it was a Confederacy of nation States. This is what YOUR union was intended to be, as Alexander Hamilton stated in the "federalist" #32....
> _*"An entire consolidation of the States into one complete national sovereignty would imply an entire subordination of the parts; and whatever powers might remain in them, would be altogether dependent on the general will. But as the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty."*_
> So by 1861 the States no longer were considered as retaining any vestige of sovereignty?
> Now as each State was a nation itself united in a confederacy with other nation/States, they each recognized one another as legitimate.
> Are not governments instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed?
Click to expand...

Sorry guy. You just said it yourself. If the CSA was not a nation then they werent legitimate. Thats just another reason they got their asses kicked for pretending to be a sovereign nation without permission.  Everywhere you turn your logic betrays you.


----------



## James Everett

Asclepias said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you sa
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gotta love it when morons from the north try to tell people from the south what they think.
> 
> 
> 
> The confederates told us what they thought. Matter of fact they documented it.  BTW my family is from the south.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't care where your family is from, you are a Yankee.
> The war was not over Slavery, secession was.
> You cannot seem to distinguish between the two, is there some problem with your ability to understand this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wasnt talking to you so not interested in what you care about.
> The war was over the south wanting to keep slavery. You cant seem to grasp this. Is there a problem with your ability to think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you say the war was over the South wanting to keep slavery?
> Lets look at this logically, if you are able.
> The South Seceded from the U.S. at which point the Southern States were no longer part of the U.S. therefore it is your assertion that the "South" left the union so that they could keep their slaves and then said.....
> Hey we are no longer part of the U.S. therefore we can now keep our Slaves without any interference from the U.S. but, what the hell, lets go to war over slavery anyway?
> Do you see how ignorant you appear?
> When the Southern States seceded over slavery, they were free to do as they wish, so why on earth would they go to war unless the U.S. was invading those States to force them to free their Slaves?
> So it is now your assertion that the U.S. invaded the now foreign Southern States to force them to free their Slaves, yet they stopped their crusade at the gulf coast instead of making war on Venezuela to force that foreign State to free their Slaves as well?
> Why?
> If the war was to free slaves in foreign States that were not part of the union, then why did the U.S. not continue this crusade?
> Why was the Black man sooo important that they went to war to free them, yet at that very same time, the U.S. was continuing its extermination of the Native American Indian?
> Is it your assertion that the Black man is better than the Red man?
> Logically, I cannot understand that YOUR government would go to war to free the Black Slaves while exterminating the Native American Indian, and then stop this grand crusade to end Slavery at the Gulf coast and not go to war with every State on the planet to end the enslavement of the Black Man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Logically? You werent allowed to secede from the US for starters. No one gave you permission and thats why you got your ass kicked. Since you entire argument seems to rest on the fallacy you had permission to secede, I would suggest you get a new argument.
Click to expand...

You state.....
Logically? You werent allowed to secede from the US for starters. No one gave you permission and thats why you got your ass kicked.

Oh, so now you admit that the war was over the right of secession?

Now please by all means cite the Law that states that secession is illegal or unlawful. 
If there was no law against secession, then clearly in the absence of a law, something is legal, hence Lincoln and YOUR Yankee ancestors were in rebellion to the lawful authority of YOUR CONstitutions tenth amendment.
Even YOUR COMRADE Paperview has stated that since YOUR U.S. CONstitution did not state that Slavery was illegal, then clearly Slavery was legal in the U.S.
Such would also apply to secession. 
As for gettin my ass kicked....
I was not around, and I would say that hundreds of thousands of DEAD YANKEE SOLDIERS GOT THEIR "ASS KICKED", AS THEIR LIVES WERE ENDED IN THAT WAR, WHICH YOU REFER TO ASS SOME SORT OF ASS KICKING.


----------



## Asclepias

James Everett said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you sa
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> The confederates told us what they thought. Matter of fact they documented it.  BTW my family is from the south.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care where your family is from, you are a Yankee.
> The war was not over Slavery, secession was.
> You cannot seem to distinguish between the two, is there some problem with your ability to understand this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wasnt talking to you so not interested in what you care about.
> The war was over the south wanting to keep slavery. You cant seem to grasp this. Is there a problem with your ability to think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you say the war was over the South wanting to keep slavery?
> Lets look at this logically, if you are able.
> The South Seceded from the U.S. at which point the Southern States were no longer part of the U.S. therefore it is your assertion that the "South" left the union so that they could keep their slaves and then said.....
> Hey we are no longer part of the U.S. therefore we can now keep our Slaves without any interference from the U.S. but, what the hell, lets go to war over slavery anyway?
> Do you see how ignorant you appear?
> When the Southern States seceded over slavery, they were free to do as they wish, so why on earth would they go to war unless the U.S. was invading those States to force them to free their Slaves?
> So it is now your assertion that the U.S. invaded the now foreign Southern States to force them to free their Slaves, yet they stopped their crusade at the gulf coast instead of making war on Venezuela to force that foreign State to free their Slaves as well?
> Why?
> If the war was to free slaves in foreign States that were not part of the union, then why did the U.S. not continue this crusade?
> Why was the Black man sooo important that they went to war to free them, yet at that very same time, the U.S. was continuing its extermination of the Native American Indian?
> Is it your assertion that the Black man is better than the Red man?
> Logically, I cannot understand that YOUR government would go to war to free the Black Slaves while exterminating the Native American Indian, and then stop this grand crusade to end Slavery at the Gulf coast and not go to war with every State on the planet to end the enslavement of the Black Man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Logically? You werent allowed to secede from the US for starters. No one gave you permission and thats why you got your ass kicked. Since you entire argument seems to rest on the fallacy you had permission to secede, I would suggest you get a new argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You state.....
> Logically? You werent allowed to secede from the US for starters. No one gave you permission and thats why you got your ass kicked.
> 
> Oh, so now you admit that the war was over the right of secession?
> 
> Now please by all means cite the Law that states that secession is illegal or unlawful.
> If there was no law against secession, then clearly in the absence of a law, something is legal, hence Lincoln and YOUR Yankee ancestors were in rebellion to the lawful authority of YOUR CONstitutions tenth amendment.
> Even YOUR COMRADE Paperview has stated that since YOUR U.S. CONstitution did not state that Slavery was illegal, then clearly Slavery was legal in the U.S.
> Such would also apply to secession.
> As for gettin my ass kicked....
> I was not around, and I would say that hundreds of thousands of DEAD YANKEE SOLDIERS GOT THEIR "ASS KICKED", AS THEIR LIVES WERE ENDED IN THAT WAR, WHICH YOU REFER TO ASS SOME SORT OF ASS KICKING.
Click to expand...

I admit the Union kicked your ass over secession. The losers fought over slavery.


----------



## James Everett

Asclepias said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that upon secession the Southern States were no more part of the U.S. Than was Venezuela, right?
> No, the war was over secession, not over whether or not the now foreign States to the south of the U.S. Held slaves or not.
> 
> 
> 
> They lost that stance once they committed acts of war and were told forcefully they could no longer be an independent nation. Sorry but Venezuela never was part of the US. Stop reaching. Its pitiful.
> 
> The war was over slavery. The confederates documented that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that upon secession the Southern States were no more part of the U.S. Than was Venezuela, right?
> No, the war was over secession, not over whether or not the now foreign States to the south of the U.S. Held slaves or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You could secede in your little panty-lined bunker right now -- set up your own "government" and think you actually are not part of the US -- but no one will recognize it.
> 
> Just as the US did not recognize the CSA as legitimate - as well as every other country in the world did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, there actually is no need to secede as that would be an exercise in redundancy, as clearly the Southern States already accomplished secession.
> You state that the U.S. did not recognize the CSA as legitimate?
> Yet they went to war with the CSA?
> What makes you think that the U.S. is the authority on which State relationships are legitimate and which are not?
> Is it written somewhere in international law that in order for foreign State relationships to be legitimate, they must first petition the U.S. for recognition?
> Surely the States that were united in the Southern Confederacy recognized their relationship with the other States.
> The CSA is in History books as existing and legitimate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry bub. The CSA exists in the history books only to put a name to the losers.  You were a joke with no recognition and got your asses kicked for your petulance. Name one country that recognized the CSA as a sovereign nation. I'll wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You asked.....
> _*Name one country that recognized the CSA as a sovereign nation. I'll wait*_
> The CSA was NOT a nation, it was a Confederacy of nation States. This is what YOUR union was intended to be, as Alexander Hamilton stated in the "federalist" #32....
> _*"An entire consolidation of the States into one complete national sovereignty would imply an entire subordination of the parts; and whatever powers might remain in them, would be altogether dependent on the general will. But as the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty."*_
> So by 1861 the States no longer were considered as retaining any vestige of sovereignty?
> Now as each State was a nation itself united in a confederacy with other nation/States, they each recognized one another as legitimate.
> Are not governments instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry guy. You just said it yourself. If the CSA was not a nation then they werent legitimate. Thats just another reason they got their asses kicked for pretending to be a sovereign nation without permission.  Everywhere you turn your logic betrays you.
Click to expand...

No, they were not a nation, as I stated, the CSA was a confederacy of Nation States. You cannot seem to distinguish between the two. Such is why you cannot even comprehend that YOUR united States was never intended to be a consolidation, but rather a union. 
The CSA was a legitimate Confederacy, NOT a nation. You really have no place calling anyone else a dumb ass, when you cannot even grasp the difference between a nation and a Confederacy of States.


----------



## James Everett

Asclepias said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> James, STFU, then go read 9th paragraph of the Cornerstone speech by the CSA vice-president, think about it, then report to us what the veep had to say about the cause of the war as  "This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution."   Corner Stone Speech Teaching American History
> 
> 
> 
> JAKE,
> Perhaps you should just post the wording wherein the statement is made that the War was over slavery. The closest that I find is the mention of revolution, yet revolution is not war, there are many forms of revolution, as in a revolutionary idea, the industrial revolution, a momentous change in a situation, such as the relationship between the States via secession, etc....
> Please post his exact reference to the causes of the war.
> Think about it Jake....Why would the Southern States go to war after they exited the union to "Preserve Slavery" why would they go to war when secession already accomplished the preservation of Slavery if left alone and not attacked by the U.S. Slavery would have been preserved: don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you play semantics everyone knows you just lost the debate.
Click to expand...

What semantics have I played?
Proper definitions are not semantics. You are to simple minded to grasp proper definitions therefore your comprehension skills fail you.


----------



## Asclepias

James Everett said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> James, STFU, then go read 9th paragraph of the Cornerstone speech by the CSA vice-president, think about it, then report to us what the veep had to say about the cause of the war as  "This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution."   Corner Stone Speech Teaching American History
> 
> 
> 
> JAKE,
> Perhaps you should just post the wording wherein the statement is made that the War was over slavery. The closest that I find is the mention of revolution, yet revolution is not war, there are many forms of revolution, as in a revolutionary idea, the industrial revolution, a momentous change in a situation, such as the relationship between the States via secession, etc....
> Please post his exact reference to the causes of the war.
> Think about it Jake....Why would the Southern States go to war after they exited the union to "Preserve Slavery" why would they go to war when secession already accomplished the preservation of Slavery if left alone and not attacked by the U.S. Slavery would have been preserved: don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you play semantics everyone knows you just lost the debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What semantics have I played?
> Proper definitions are not semantics. You are to simple minded to grasp proper definitions therefore your comprehension skills fail you.
Click to expand...

The only thing that has failed is your logic and your intelligence.


----------



## James Everett

paperview said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> The last sentence is in reference to the restoration and end to the occupation.
> Since you admit to no moral high ground, then stop being hypocritical in your continuous attacks on those who support their CSA.
> 
> 
> 
> The end of what occupation? I'm not being hypocritical. I think all people like you are idiots when you claim the confederates didnt go to war over slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But surely you must understand the difference between a declaration of war, and a declaration of secession. If not, then you are the idiot.
> Apparently the war was over the useless forts that your government wished to maintain in the Southern Confederate States since Slavery was legal and prospered under YOUR CONstitution as you have stated was the intent of the founders'.
> Yes, occupation is a result of war, and the replacement of our State governments.
> Perhaps you can explain this to this idiot.....
> If the Yankee made war on the Southern confederacy, to end slavery in those States, then why did this crusade not continue into other States such as Venezuela?
> The 13th amendment was a shoe in with only the Northern States left united.
> Why fight to free the black man in those now foreign States, yet continue exterminating the Red Man?
> Is Black better than Red ?
> Please explain  these things to this idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes i understand the difference. However, what does that have to do with the point?
> We arent talking about the reasons the North kicked the souths ass. We are talking about the fact the south fought to maintain slavery.  BTW you do realize Venezuela is not part of the US dont you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do realize that upon secession the Southern States were no more part of the U.S. Than was Venezuela, right?
> No, the war was over secession, not over whether or not the now foreign States to the south of the U.S. Held slaves or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You could secede in your little panty-lined bunker right now -- set up your own "government" and think you actually are not part of the US -- but no one will recognize it.
> 
> Just as the US did not recognize the CSA as legitimate - as well as every other country in the world did.
Click to expand...

So here is what we have learned from this thread.....
The U.S. CONstitution made slavery legal for 89 years via the framers neglect in addressing it, and then the U.S. governments neglect in making a federal law making slavery illegal. We learned that under the CSA Constitution slavery was also made legal by actually enumerating it.
We learned that absent a law in the U.S. CONstitution making slavery illegal then it was indeed legal.
We also learned that absent a law making secession illegal then it also was legal.
We learned according to Paperview that slavery was not the reason that Lincoln and the Northern States invaded the Southern Confederate States, but rather to reclaim the U.S. forts that the Southern States had taken.
We learned that the Yankee holds the Native American Indian as not being equal to the Black man, as clearly according to Asclepias the war was over Slavery, and the U.S. was fighting to end Slavery, while at the same time exterminating the Native American Indian.
Have I missed anything other than the typical Yankee foul mouthed insults which as always expose their lack of character.


----------



## James Everett

Asclepias said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> James, STFU, then go read 9th paragraph of the Cornerstone speech by the CSA vice-president, think about it, then report to us what the veep had to say about the cause of the war as  "This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution."   Corner Stone Speech Teaching American History
> 
> 
> 
> JAKE,
> Perhaps you should just post the wording wherein the statement is made that the War was over slavery. The closest that I find is the mention of revolution, yet revolution is not war, there are many forms of revolution, as in a revolutionary idea, the industrial revolution, a momentous change in a situation, such as the relationship between the States via secession, etc....
> Please post his exact reference to the causes of the war.
> Think about it Jake....Why would the Southern States go to war after they exited the union to "Preserve Slavery" why would they go to war when secession already accomplished the preservation of Slavery if left alone and not attacked by the U.S. Slavery would have been preserved: don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you play semantics everyone knows you just lost the debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What semantics have I played?
> Proper definitions are not semantics. You are to simple minded to grasp proper definitions therefore your comprehension skills fail you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only thing that has failed is your logic and your intelligence.
Click to expand...

Seems to me that I am far above you on both counts.


----------



## James Everett

Asclepias said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you sa
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care where your family is from, you are a Yankee.
> The war was not over Slavery, secession was.
> You cannot seem to distinguish between the two, is there some problem with your ability to understand this?
> 
> 
> 
> I wasnt talking to you so not interested in what you care about.
> The war was over the south wanting to keep slavery. You cant seem to grasp this. Is there a problem with your ability to think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you say the war was over the South wanting to keep slavery?
> Lets look at this logically, if you are able.
> The South Seceded from the U.S. at which point the Southern States were no longer part of the U.S. therefore it is your assertion that the "South" left the union so that they could keep their slaves and then said.....
> Hey we are no longer part of the U.S. therefore we can now keep our Slaves without any interference from the U.S. but, what the hell, lets go to war over slavery anyway?
> Do you see how ignorant you appear?
> When the Southern States seceded over slavery, they were free to do as they wish, so why on earth would they go to war unless the U.S. was invading those States to force them to free their Slaves?
> So it is now your assertion that the U.S. invaded the now foreign Southern States to force them to free their Slaves, yet they stopped their crusade at the gulf coast instead of making war on Venezuela to force that foreign State to free their Slaves as well?
> Why?
> If the war was to free slaves in foreign States that were not part of the union, then why did the U.S. not continue this crusade?
> Why was the Black man sooo important that they went to war to free them, yet at that very same time, the U.S. was continuing its extermination of the Native American Indian?
> Is it your assertion that the Black man is better than the Red man?
> Logically, I cannot understand that YOUR government would go to war to free the Black Slaves while exterminating the Native American Indian, and then stop this grand crusade to end Slavery at the Gulf coast and not go to war with every State on the planet to end the enslavement of the Black Man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Logically? You werent allowed to secede from the US for starters. No one gave you permission and thats why you got your ass kicked. Since you entire argument seems to rest on the fallacy you had permission to secede, I would suggest you get a new argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You state.....
> Logically? You werent allowed to secede from the US for starters. No one gave you permission and thats why you got your ass kicked.
> 
> Oh, so now you admit that the war was over the right of secession?
> 
> Now please by all means cite the Law that states that secession is illegal or unlawful.
> If there was no law against secession, then clearly in the absence of a law, something is legal, hence Lincoln and YOUR Yankee ancestors were in rebellion to the lawful authority of YOUR CONstitutions tenth amendment.
> Even YOUR COMRADE Paperview has stated that since YOUR U.S. CONstitution did not state that Slavery was illegal, then clearly Slavery was legal in the U.S.
> Such would also apply to secession.
> As for gettin my ass kicked....
> I was not around, and I would say that hundreds of thousands of DEAD YANKEE SOLDIERS GOT THEIR "ASS KICKED", AS THEIR LIVES WERE ENDED IN THAT WAR, WHICH YOU REFER TO ASS SOME SORT OF ASS KICKING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I admit the Union kicked your ass over secession. The losers fought over slavery.
Click to expand...

So now you have changed your position? Earlier you stated that YOUR government was fighting to end Slavery, now they were fighting in order that they may force a tyranny much the same as Russia did under the former Soviet Union where it to was held together by force.


----------



## James Everett

paperview said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> The last sentence is in reference to the restoration and end to the occupation.
> Since you admit to no moral high ground, then stop being hypocritical in your continuous attacks on those who support their CSA.
> 
> 
> 
> The end of what occupation? I'm not being hypocritical. I think all people like you are idiots when you claim the confederates didnt go to war over slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But surely you must understand the difference between a declaration of war, and a declaration of secession. If not, then you are the idiot.
> Apparently the war was over the useless forts that your government wished to maintain in the Southern Confederate States since Slavery was legal and prospered under YOUR CONstitution as you have stated was the intent of the founders'.
> Yes, occupation is a result of war, and the replacement of our State governments.
> Perhaps you can explain this to this idiot.....
> If the Yankee made war on the Southern confederacy, to end slavery in those States, then why did this crusade not continue into other States such as Venezuela?
> The 13th amendment was a shoe in with only the Northern States left united.
> Why fight to free the black man in those now foreign States, yet continue exterminating the Red Man?
> Is Black better than Red ?
> Please explain  these things to this idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes i understand the difference. However, what does that have to do with the point?
> We arent talking about the reasons the North kicked the souths ass. We are talking about the fact the south fought to maintain slavery.  BTW you do realize Venezuela is not part of the US dont you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do realize that upon secession the Southern States were no more part of the U.S. Than was Venezuela, right?
> No, the war was over secession, not over whether or not the now foreign States to the south of the U.S. Held slaves or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You could secede in your little panty-lined bunker right now -- set up your own "government" and think you actually are not part of the US -- but no one will recognize it.
> 
> Just as the US did not recognize the CSA as legitimate - as well as every other country in the world did.
Click to expand...

I am curious about your statement that YOUR US did not recognize our CSA as legitimate: Why do you think that the U.S. did not recognize the CSA as legitimate?


----------



## James Everett

Asclepias said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> But surely you must understand the difference between a declaration of war, and a declaration of secession. If not, then you are the idiot.
> Apparently the war was over the useless forts that your government wished to maintain in the Southern Confederate States since Slavery was legal and prospered under YOUR CONstitution as you have stated was the intent of the founders'.
> Yes, occupation is a result of war, and the replacement of our State governments.
> Perhaps you can explain this to this idiot.....
> If the Yankee made war on the Southern confederacy, to end slavery in those States, then why did this crusade not continue into other States such as Venezuela?
> The 13th amendment was a shoe in with only the Northern States left united.
> Why fight to free the black man in those now foreign States, yet continue exterminating the Red Man?
> Is Black better than Red ?
> Please explain  these things to this idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes i understand the difference. However, what does that have to do with the point?
> We arent talking about the reasons the North kicked the souths ass. We are talking about the fact the south fought to maintain slavery.  BTW you do realize Venezuela is not part of the US dont you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do realize that upon secession the Southern States were no more part of the U.S. Than was Venezuela, right?
> No, the war was over secession, not over whether or not the now foreign States to the south of the U.S. Held slaves or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They lost that stance once they committed acts of war and were told forcefully they could no longer be an independent nation. Sorry but Venezuela never was part of the US. Stop reaching. Its pitiful.
> 
> The war was over slavery. The confederates documented that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> But surely you must understand the difference between a declaration of war, and a declaration of secession. If not, then you are the idiot.
> Apparently the war was over the useless forts that your government wished to maintain in the Southern Confederate States since Slavery was legal and prospered under YOUR CONstitution as you have stated was the intent of the founders'.
> Yes, occupation is a result of war, and the replacement of our State governments.
> Perhaps you can explain this to this idiot.....
> If the Yankee made war on the Southern confederacy, to end slavery in those States, then why did this crusade not continue into other States such as Venezuela?
> The 13th amendment was a shoe in with only the Northern States left united.
> Why fight to free the black man in those now foreign States, yet continue exterminating the Red Man?
> Is Black better than Red ?
> Please explain  these things to this idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes i understand the difference. However, what does that have to do with the point?
> We arent talking about the reasons the North kicked the souths ass. We are talking about the fact the south fought to maintain slavery.  BTW you do realize Venezuela is not part of the US dont you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do realize that upon secession the Southern States were no more part of the U.S. Than was Venezuela, right?
> No, the war was over secession, not over whether or not the now foreign States to the south of the U.S. Held slaves or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You could secede in your little panty-lined bunker right now -- set up your own "government" and think you actually are not part of the US -- but no one will recognize it.
> 
> Just as the US did not recognize the CSA as legitimate - as well as every other country in the world did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, there actually is no need to secede as that would be an exercise in redundancy, as clearly the Southern States already accomplished secession.
> You state that the U.S. did not recognize the CSA as legitimate?
> Yet they went to war with the CSA?
> What makes you think that the U.S. is the authority on which State relationships are legitimate and which are not?
> Is it written somewhere in international law that in order for foreign State relationships to be legitimate, they must first petition the U.S. for recognition?
> Surely the States that were united in the Southern Confederacy recognized their relationship with the other States.
> The CSA is in History books as existing and legitimate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry bub. The CSA ranks as one of the worst ideas in the history of mankind. The CSA exists in the history books only to put a name to the losers.  You were a joke with no recognition and got your asses kicked for your petulance. Name one country that recognized the CSA as a sovereign nation. I'll wait.
Click to expand...

Its spelled  "PESTILENCE", not petulance. The pestilence on liberty is YOUR U.S. as it continued on exterminating the Native American Indian, it continues to be a pestilence on the world with its perpetual warmongering and hegemony. Operation AJAX comes to mind, wherein the democratic government of Iran was overthrown by YOUR government and replaced with a tyrant who murdered and tortured those people for decades so that YOUR government could take their oil.
No four years hardly amounts to the PESTILENCE of YOUR government.


----------



## RKMBrown

Asclepias said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, so you are deflecting to discussions of infants to defend your point that the south was not defending itself from invasion by the north.
> 
> 
> 
> So you are deflecting to a scenario where I fought in the Civil War and you expect me to take  you seriously?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're the one claiming to have personal knowledge of the reasons for the people who fought in the civil war.  I assume you must have first hand knowledge to be able to make that claim.  Or are you now admitting that you were lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More deflections. Your pride must be hurt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why deflect to "my pride?" What proof do you have of your claims that every single fighter in the south fought the war to defend the practice of slavery and not to defend their homes states and families.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Youve grown boring with your deflections. Its not even fun laughing at you now. You do this everytime i embarrass you.
Click to expand...

Yeah just keep deflecting away from your idiotic opinion that the south did not fight to defend themselves.


----------



## paperview

"But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other -- though last, not least. 

The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. 

*This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. 

Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. 

The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically.

 It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away.* 

This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. 

The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. *They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error.* It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

*Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. 

[Applause.] 

This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."*

http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~ras2777/amgov/stephens.html


----------



## Asclepias

James Everett said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you sa
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasnt talking to you so not interested in what you care about.
> The war was over the south wanting to keep slavery. You cant seem to grasp this. Is there a problem with your ability to think?
> 
> 
> 
> So you say the war was over the South wanting to keep slavery?
> Lets look at this logically, if you are able.
> The South Seceded from the U.S. at which point the Southern States were no longer part of the U.S. therefore it is your assertion that the "South" left the union so that they could keep their slaves and then said.....
> Hey we are no longer part of the U.S. therefore we can now keep our Slaves without any interference from the U.S. but, what the hell, lets go to war over slavery anyway?
> Do you see how ignorant you appear?
> When the Southern States seceded over slavery, they were free to do as they wish, so why on earth would they go to war unless the U.S. was invading those States to force them to free their Slaves?
> So it is now your assertion that the U.S. invaded the now foreign Southern States to force them to free their Slaves, yet they stopped their crusade at the gulf coast instead of making war on Venezuela to force that foreign State to free their Slaves as well?
> Why?
> If the war was to free slaves in foreign States that were not part of the union, then why did the U.S. not continue this crusade?
> Why was the Black man sooo important that they went to war to free them, yet at that very same time, the U.S. was continuing its extermination of the Native American Indian?
> Is it your assertion that the Black man is better than the Red man?
> Logically, I cannot understand that YOUR government would go to war to free the Black Slaves while exterminating the Native American Indian, and then stop this grand crusade to end Slavery at the Gulf coast and not go to war with every State on the planet to end the enslavement of the Black Man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Logically? You werent allowed to secede from the US for starters. No one gave you permission and thats why you got your ass kicked. Since you entire argument seems to rest on the fallacy you had permission to secede, I would suggest you get a new argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You state.....
> Logically? You werent allowed to secede from the US for starters. No one gave you permission and thats why you got your ass kicked.
> 
> Oh, so now you admit that the war was over the right of secession?
> 
> Now please by all means cite the Law that states that secession is illegal or unlawful.
> If there was no law against secession, then clearly in the absence of a law, something is legal, hence Lincoln and YOUR Yankee ancestors were in rebellion to the lawful authority of YOUR CONstitutions tenth amendment.
> Even YOUR COMRADE Paperview has stated that since YOUR U.S. CONstitution did not state that Slavery was illegal, then clearly Slavery was legal in the U.S.
> Such would also apply to secession.
> As for gettin my ass kicked....
> I was not around, and I would say that hundreds of thousands of DEAD YANKEE SOLDIERS GOT THEIR "ASS KICKED", AS THEIR LIVES WERE ENDED IN THAT WAR, WHICH YOU REFER TO ASS SOME SORT OF ASS KICKING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I admit the Union kicked your ass over secession. The losers fought over slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So now you have changed your position? Earlier you stated that YOUR government was fighting to end Slavery, now they were fighting in order that they may force a tyranny much the same as Russia did under the former Soviet Union where it to was held together by force.
Click to expand...

Never changed my position. You got your ass kicked over seceding without permission and so the north could take away your means of generating wealth with slaves. Read a history book.


----------



## Asclepias

RKMBrown said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are deflecting to a scenario where I fought in the Civil War and you expect me to take  you seriously?
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one claiming to have personal knowledge of the reasons for the people who fought in the civil war.  I assume you must have first hand knowledge to be able to make that claim.  Or are you now admitting that you were lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More deflections. Your pride must be hurt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why deflect to "my pride?" What proof do you have of your claims that every single fighter in the south fought the war to defend the practice of slavery and not to defend their homes states and families.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Youve grown boring with your deflections. Its not even fun laughing at you now. You do this everytime i embarrass you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah just keep deflecting away from your idiotic opinion that the south did not fight to defend themselves.
Click to expand...

The south fought to defend themselves from losing slavery. There is no defending that and thats why they got their asses kicked.


----------



## James Everett

paperview said:


> "But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other -- though last, not least.
> 
> The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization.
> 
> *This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.
> 
> Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted.
> 
> The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically.
> 
> It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away.*
> 
> This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time.
> 
> The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. *They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error.* It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."
> 
> *Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. *
> 
> *[Applause.] *
> 
> *This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."*
> 
> http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~ras2777/amgov/stephens.html


Your point?
The argument made by your Yankee cohorts is that the "South" went to war over slavery, and the rebuttal is that the Southern States seceded for the most part over slavery, hence slavery was at that point secure, and the U.S. was free of the institution as at that point nothing stood in the way of the 13th amendment, therefore, why on earth would the South, at that point having through secession go to war over slavery when secssions secured the institution for them?
Why would the North go to war to end Slavery in the U.S. when the secessions of the Southern States ended Slavery in the U.S.?
If Slavery was the one and only issue, then secession settled that one and only contention between the Southern States and the Northern States.
Does this help to expose this illogical fallacy of YOUR YANKEE assertion?
Now as for the Cornerstone speech and its declaration that the White man was superior to the Black man, well so what if this man stated what he and many oyjers felt at that time to be the truth: This same belief was held by the North, NOT ONLY CONCERNING THE BLACK MAN, BUT ALSO CONCERNING THE NATIVE AMERICAN INDIAN THAT THEY WOULD CONTINUE EXTERMINATING FOR ANOTHER 30 ODD YEARS.
This speech may be posted until hell freezes over, but it gains you no moral edge, nor does it validate your false assertion that the "South" went to war over Slavery, and the North went to war  to end slavery in the U.S., as the secessions accomplished the end of slavery in the U.S. With nothing standing in the way to make it illegal. The "South" via secessions secured the institution for themselves.


----------



## James Everett

Asclepias said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you sa
> So you say the war was over the South wanting to keep slavery?
> Lets look at this logically, if you are able.
> The South Seceded from the U.S. at which point the Southern States were no longer part of the U.S. therefore it is your assertion that the "South" left the union so that they could keep their slaves and then said.....
> Hey we are no longer part of the U.S. therefore we can now keep our Slaves without any interference from the U.S. but, what the hell, lets go to war over slavery anyway?
> Do you see how ignorant you appear?
> When the Southern States seceded over slavery, they were free to do as they wish, so why on earth would they go to war unless the U.S. was invading those States to force them to free their Slaves?
> So it is now your assertion that the U.S. invaded the now foreign Southern States to force them to free their Slaves, yet they stopped their crusade at the gulf coast instead of making war on Venezuela to force that foreign State to free their Slaves as well?
> Why?
> If the war was to free slaves in foreign States that were not part of the union, then why did the U.S. not continue this crusade?
> Why was the Black man sooo important that they went to war to free them, yet at that very same time, the U.S. was continuing its extermination of the Native American Indian?
> Is it your assertion that the Black man is better than the Red man?
> Logically, I cannot understand that YOUR government would go to war to free the Black Slaves while exterminating the Native American Indian, and then stop this grand crusade to end Slavery at the Gulf coast and not go to war with every State on the planet to end the enslavement of the Black Man.
> 
> 
> 
> Logically? You werent allowed to secede from the US for starters. No one gave you permission and thats why you got your ass kicked. Since you entire argument seems to rest on the fallacy you had permission to secede, I would suggest you get a new argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You state.....
> Logically? You werent allowed to secede from the US for starters. No one gave you permission and thats why you got your ass kicked.
> 
> Oh, so now you admit that the war was over the right of secession?
> 
> Now please by all means cite the Law that states that secession is illegal or unlawful.
> If there was no law against secession, then clearly in the absence of a law, something is legal, hence Lincoln and YOUR Yankee ancestors were in rebellion to the lawful authority of YOUR CONstitutions tenth amendment.
> Even YOUR COMRADE Paperview has stated that since YOUR U.S. CONstitution did not state that Slavery was illegal, then clearly Slavery was legal in the U.S.
> Such would also apply to secession.
> As for gettin my ass kicked....
> I was not around, and I would say that hundreds of thousands of DEAD YANKEE SOLDIERS GOT THEIR "ASS KICKED", AS THEIR LIVES WERE ENDED IN THAT WAR, WHICH YOU REFER TO ASS SOME SORT OF ASS KICKING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I admit the Union kicked your ass over secession. The losers fought over slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So now you have changed your position? Earlier you stated that YOUR government was fighting to end Slavery, now they were fighting in order that they may force a tyranny much the same as Russia did under the former Soviet Union where it to was held together by force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never changed my position. You got your ass kicked over seceding without permission and so the north could take away your means of generating wealth with slaves. Read a history book.
Click to expand...

Please cite the article and section in YOUR CONstitution that states that a Southern State, or any other must request permission from the North to secede.
You are further making a fool of yourself.


----------



## Asclepias

James Everett said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Logically? You werent allowed to secede from the US for starters. No one gave you permission and thats why you got your ass kicked. Since you entire argument seems to rest on the fallacy you had permission to secede, I would suggest you get a new argument.
> 
> 
> 
> You state.....
> Logically? You werent allowed to secede from the US for starters. No one gave you permission and thats why you got your ass kicked.
> 
> Oh, so now you admit that the war was over the right of secession?
> 
> Now please by all means cite the Law that states that secession is illegal or unlawful.
> If there was no law against secession, then clearly in the absence of a law, something is legal, hence Lincoln and YOUR Yankee ancestors were in rebellion to the lawful authority of YOUR CONstitutions tenth amendment.
> Even YOUR COMRADE Paperview has stated that since YOUR U.S. CONstitution did not state that Slavery was illegal, then clearly Slavery was legal in the U.S.
> Such would also apply to secession.
> As for gettin my ass kicked....
> I was not around, and I would say that hundreds of thousands of DEAD YANKEE SOLDIERS GOT THEIR "ASS KICKED", AS THEIR LIVES WERE ENDED IN THAT WAR, WHICH YOU REFER TO ASS SOME SORT OF ASS KICKING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I admit the Union kicked your ass over secession. The losers fought over slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So now you have changed your position? Earlier you stated that YOUR government was fighting to end Slavery, now they were fighting in order that they may force a tyranny much the same as Russia did under the former Soviet Union where it to was held together by force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never changed my position. You got your ass kicked over seceding without permission and so the north could take away your means of generating wealth with slaves. Read a history book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please cite the article and section in YOUR CONstitution that states that a Southern State, or any other must request permission from the North to secede.
> You are further making a fool of yourself.
Click to expand...

Youre the only one making a fool of himself. I am amazed you are this uneducated. Please show me in the constitution, (the real one) where it states that any state has a right to secede. I'll wait.

article i section 10 of the u.s. constitution

Article One of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or *Confederation*;...."


----------



## RKMBrown

Asclepias said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one claiming to have personal knowledge of the reasons for the people who fought in the civil war.  I assume you must have first hand knowledge to be able to make that claim.  Or are you now admitting that you were lying?
> 
> 
> 
> More deflections. Your pride must be hurt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why deflect to "my pride?" What proof do you have of your claims that every single fighter in the south fought the war to defend the practice of slavery and not to defend their homes states and families.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Youve grown boring with your deflections. Its not even fun laughing at you now. You do this everytime i embarrass you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah just keep deflecting away from your idiotic opinion that the south did not fight to defend themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The south fought to defend themselves from losing slavery. There is no defending that and thats why they got their asses kicked.
Click to expand...

Incorrect.  The "people" in the south fought to defend themselves being being killed by the people from the north, and the mercenaries from Europe.  Some of the people in the south may have had a desire to keep their slaves, but that would be a very very small portion of the people in the south, further, it was legal to keep slaves in the north and the south.  So your accusation is ludicrous.


----------



## Asclepias

RKMBrown said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> More deflections. Your pride must be hurt.
> 
> 
> 
> Why deflect to "my pride?" What proof do you have of your claims that every single fighter in the south fought the war to defend the practice of slavery and not to defend their homes states and families.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Youve grown boring with your deflections. Its not even fun laughing at you now. You do this everytime i embarrass you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah just keep deflecting away from your idiotic opinion that the south did not fight to defend themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The south fought to defend themselves from losing slavery. There is no defending that and thats why they got their asses kicked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incorrect.  The "people" in the south fought to defend themselves being being killed by the people from the north, and the mercenaries from Europe.  Some of the people in the south may have had a desire to keep their slaves, but that would be a very very small portion of the people in the south, further, it was legal to keep slaves in the north and the south.  So your accusation is ludicrous.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. The large majority of people in the south and all of the confederates had a vested interest in continuing slavery regardless of if they owned a slave or not. They would not have gotten their asses kicked had they merely conceded slavery was over. In that light your assertion is moronic.


----------



## RKMBrown

Asclepias said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why deflect to "my pride?" What proof do you have of your claims that every single fighter in the south fought the war to defend the practice of slavery and not to defend their homes states and families.
> 
> 
> 
> Youve grown boring with your deflections. Its not even fun laughing at you now. You do this everytime i embarrass you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah just keep deflecting away from your idiotic opinion that the south did not fight to defend themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The south fought to defend themselves from losing slavery. There is no defending that and thats why they got their asses kicked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incorrect.  The "people" in the south fought to defend themselves being being killed by the people from the north, and the mercenaries from Europe.  Some of the people in the south may have had a desire to keep their slaves, but that would be a very very small portion of the people in the south, further, it was legal to keep slaves in the north and the south.  So your accusation is ludicrous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incorrect. The large majority of people in the south and all of the confederates had a vested interest in continuing slavery regardless of if they owned a slave or not. They would not have gotten their asses kicked had they merely conceded slavery was over. In that light your assertion is moronic.
Click to expand...

Nonsense the majority of the people in the south were slaves.  Why would they have a vested interest in continuing slavery?  Are you actually saying blacks were better off as slaves?  


What makes you think the north would have allowed the south to secede had they ended slavery?


----------



## Ravi

RKMBrown said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Youve grown boring with your deflections. Its not even fun laughing at you now. You do this everytime i embarrass you.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah just keep deflecting away from your idiotic opinion that the south did not fight to defend themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The south fought to defend themselves from losing slavery. There is no defending that and thats why they got their asses kicked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incorrect.  The "people" in the south fought to defend themselves being being killed by the people from the north, and the mercenaries from Europe.  Some of the people in the south may have had a desire to keep their slaves, but that would be a very very small portion of the people in the south, further, it was legal to keep slaves in the north and the south.  So your accusation is ludicrous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incorrect. The large majority of people in the south and all of the confederates had a vested interest in continuing slavery regardless of if they owned a slave or not. They would not have gotten their asses kicked had they merely conceded slavery was over. In that light your assertion is moronic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense the majority of the people in the south were slaves.  Why would they have a vested interest in continuing slavery?  Are you actually saying blacks were better off as slaves?
> 
> 
> What makes you think the north would have allowed the south to secede had they ended slavery?
Click to expand...

The majority were not slaves:

1860 - U.S. Census. U.S. population: 31,443,321. Total number of slaves in the Lower South : 2,312,352 (47% of total population). Total number of slaves in the Upper South: 1,208758 (29% of total population).


----------



## RKMBrown

Ravi said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah just keep deflecting away from your idiotic opinion that the south did not fight to defend themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> The south fought to defend themselves from losing slavery. There is no defending that and thats why they got their asses kicked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incorrect.  The "people" in the south fought to defend themselves being being killed by the people from the north, and the mercenaries from Europe.  Some of the people in the south may have had a desire to keep their slaves, but that would be a very very small portion of the people in the south, further, it was legal to keep slaves in the north and the south.  So your accusation is ludicrous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incorrect. The large majority of people in the south and all of the confederates had a vested interest in continuing slavery regardless of if they owned a slave or not. They would not have gotten their asses kicked had they merely conceded slavery was over. In that light your assertion is moronic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense the majority of the people in the south were slaves.  Why would they have a vested interest in continuing slavery?  Are you actually saying blacks were better off as slaves?
> 
> 
> What makes you think the north would have allowed the south to secede had they ended slavery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The majority were not slaves:
> 
> 1860 - U.S. Census. U.S. population: 31,443,321. Total number of slaves in the Lower South : 2,312,352 (47% of total population). Total number of slaves in the Upper South: 1,208758 (29% of total population).
Click to expand...

Thx for the clarification.


----------



## Asclepias

RKMBrown said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Youve grown boring with your deflections. Its not even fun laughing at you now. You do this everytime i embarrass you.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah just keep deflecting away from your idiotic opinion that the south did not fight to defend themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The south fought to defend themselves from losing slavery. There is no defending that and thats why they got their asses kicked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incorrect.  The "people" in the south fought to defend themselves being being killed by the people from the north, and the mercenaries from Europe.  Some of the people in the south may have had a desire to keep their slaves, but that would be a very very small portion of the people in the south, further, it was legal to keep slaves in the north and the south.  So your accusation is ludicrous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incorrect. The large majority of people in the south and all of the confederates had a vested interest in continuing slavery regardless of if they owned a slave or not. They would not have gotten their asses kicked had they merely conceded slavery was over. In that light your assertion is moronic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense the majority of the people in the south were slaves.  Why would they have a vested interest in continuing slavery?  Are you actually saying blacks were better off as slaves?
> 
> 
> What makes you think the north would have allowed the south to secede had they ended slavery?
Click to expand...

You forgot that Blacks were not considered people hence the whites desire to see them enslaved. Then again you probably knew that already and needed to deflect once more from the issue with another wild goose chase you are famous for when embarrassed at your logic being exposed.

The south didnt have permission to secede. I already pointed that out. The point is that they attempted to do so over slavery and subsequently fought a war over it.


----------



## RKMBrown

Asclepias said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah just keep deflecting away from your idiotic opinion that the south did not fight to defend themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> The south fought to defend themselves from losing slavery. There is no defending that and thats why they got their asses kicked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incorrect.  The "people" in the south fought to defend themselves being being killed by the people from the north, and the mercenaries from Europe.  Some of the people in the south may have had a desire to keep their slaves, but that would be a very very small portion of the people in the south, further, it was legal to keep slaves in the north and the south.  So your accusation is ludicrous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incorrect. The large majority of people in the south and all of the confederates had a vested interest in continuing slavery regardless of if they owned a slave or not. They would not have gotten their asses kicked had they merely conceded slavery was over. In that light your assertion is moronic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense the majority of the people in the south were slaves.  Why would they have a vested interest in continuing slavery?  Are you actually saying blacks were better off as slaves?
> 
> 
> What makes you think the north would have allowed the south to secede had they ended slavery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You forgot that Blacks were not considered people hence the whites desire to see them enslaved. Then again you probably knew that already and needed to deflect once more from the issue with another wild goose chase you are famous for when embarrassed at your logic being exposed.
> 
> The south didnt have permission to secede. I already pointed that out. The point is that they did so over slavery and subsequently fought a war over it.
Click to expand...

Oh I see so when you say people you mean white people. Got it.  Rolls eyes.  So what do you call black people?  sub-humans?


----------



## Asclepias

RKMBrown said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> The south fought to defend themselves from losing slavery. There is no defending that and thats why they got their asses kicked.
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect.  The "people" in the south fought to defend themselves being being killed by the people from the north, and the mercenaries from Europe.  Some of the people in the south may have had a desire to keep their slaves, but that would be a very very small portion of the people in the south, further, it was legal to keep slaves in the north and the south.  So your accusation is ludicrous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Incorrect. The large majority of people in the south and all of the confederates had a vested interest in continuing slavery regardless of if they owned a slave or not. They would not have gotten their asses kicked had they merely conceded slavery was over. In that light your assertion is moronic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense the majority of the people in the south were slaves.  Why would they have a vested interest in continuing slavery?  Are you actually saying blacks were better off as slaves?
> 
> 
> What makes you think the north would have allowed the south to secede had they ended slavery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You forgot that Blacks were not considered people hence the whites desire to see them enslaved. Then again you probably knew that already and needed to deflect once more from the issue with another wild goose chase you are famous for when embarrassed at your logic being exposed.
> 
> The south didnt have permission to secede. I already pointed that out. The point is that they did so over slavery and subsequently fought a war over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh I see so when you say people you mean white people. Got it.  Rolls eyes.  So what do you call black people?  sub-humans?
Click to expand...

Exactly. when I said people I was referring to white people. I call Black people kings and queens.


----------



## RKMBrown

Asclepias said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect.  The "people" in the south fought to defend themselves being being killed by the people from the north, and the mercenaries from Europe.  Some of the people in the south may have had a desire to keep their slaves, but that would be a very very small portion of the people in the south, further, it was legal to keep slaves in the north and the south.  So your accusation is ludicrous.
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect. The large majority of people in the south and all of the confederates had a vested interest in continuing slavery regardless of if they owned a slave or not. They would not have gotten their asses kicked had they merely conceded slavery was over. In that light your assertion is moronic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense the majority of the people in the south were slaves.  Why would they have a vested interest in continuing slavery?  Are you actually saying blacks were better off as slaves?
> 
> 
> What makes you think the north would have allowed the south to secede had they ended slavery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You forgot that Blacks were not considered people hence the whites desire to see them enslaved. Then again you probably knew that already and needed to deflect once more from the issue with another wild goose chase you are famous for when embarrassed at your logic being exposed.
> 
> The south didnt have permission to secede. I already pointed that out. The point is that they did so over slavery and subsequently fought a war over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh I see so when you say people you mean white people. Got it.  Rolls eyes.  So what do you call black people?  sub-humans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly. when I said people I was referring to white people. I call Black people kings and queens.
Click to expand...

Rest my case.


----------



## Asclepias

RKMBrown said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect. The large majority of people in the south and all of the confederates had a vested interest in continuing slavery regardless of if they owned a slave or not. They would not have gotten their asses kicked had they merely conceded slavery was over. In that light your assertion is moronic.
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense the majority of the people in the south were slaves.  Why would they have a vested interest in continuing slavery?  Are you actually saying blacks were better off as slaves?
> 
> 
> What makes you think the north would have allowed the south to secede had they ended slavery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You forgot that Blacks were not considered people hence the whites desire to see them enslaved. Then again you probably knew that already and needed to deflect once more from the issue with another wild goose chase you are famous for when embarrassed at your logic being exposed.
> 
> The south didnt have permission to secede. I already pointed that out. The point is that they did so over slavery and subsequently fought a war over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh I see so when you say people you mean white people. Got it.  Rolls eyes.  So what do you call black people?  sub-humans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly. when I said people I was referring to white people. I call Black people kings and queens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rest my case.
Click to expand...

I humbly accept your concession.


----------



## RKMBrown

Asclepias said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense the majority of the people in the south were slaves.  Why would they have a vested interest in continuing slavery?  Are you actually saying blacks were better off as slaves?
> 
> 
> What makes you think the north would have allowed the south to secede had they ended slavery?
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot that Blacks were not considered people hence the whites desire to see them enslaved. Then again you probably knew that already and needed to deflect once more from the issue with another wild goose chase you are famous for when embarrassed at your logic being exposed.
> 
> The south didnt have permission to secede. I already pointed that out. The point is that they did so over slavery and subsequently fought a war over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh I see so when you say people you mean white people. Got it.  Rolls eyes.  So what do you call black people?  sub-humans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly. when I said people I was referring to white people. I call Black people kings and queens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rest my case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I humbly accept your concession.
Click to expand...

Lying POS.


----------



## James Everett

Asclepias said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> You state.....
> Logically? You werent allowed to secede from the US for starters. No one gave you permission and thats why you got your ass kicked.
> 
> Oh, so now you admit that the war was over the right of secession?
> 
> Now please by all means cite the Law that states that secession is illegal or unlawful.
> If there was no law against secession, then clearly in the absence of a law, something is legal, hence Lincoln and YOUR Yankee ancestors were in rebellion to the lawful authority of YOUR CONstitutions tenth amendment.
> Even YOUR COMRADE Paperview has stated that since YOUR U.S. CONstitution did not state that Slavery was illegal, then clearly Slavery was legal in the U.S.
> Such would also apply to secession.
> As for gettin my ass kicked....
> I was not around, and I would say that hundreds of thousands of DEAD YANKEE SOLDIERS GOT THEIR "ASS KICKED", AS THEIR LIVES WERE ENDED IN THAT WAR, WHICH YOU REFER TO ASS SOME SORT OF ASS KICKING.
> 
> 
> 
> I admit the Union kicked your ass over secession. The losers fought over slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So now you have changed your position? Earlier you stated that YOUR government was fighting to end Slavery, now they were fighting in order that they may force a tyranny much the same as Russia did under the former Soviet Union where it to was held together by force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never changed my position. You got your ass kicked over seceding without permission and so the north could take away your means of generating wealth with slaves. Read a history book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please cite the article and section in YOUR CONstitution that states that a Southern State, or any other must request permission from the North to secede.
> You are further making a fool of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Youre the only one making a fool of himself. I am amazed you are this uneducated. Please show me in the constitution, (the real one) where it states that any state has a right to secede. I'll wait.
> 
> article i section 10 of the u.s. constitution
> 
> Article One of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or *Confederation*;...."
Click to expand...

I trust your wait wasn't to long.
Allow me to educate you.....
YOUR U.S. CONstitution never addressed secession, hence the power to prevent a State from seceding from the union was never delegated to the U.S. (The States in union collectively) to prevent a State from exercising it's retained power power to sever its ties with the other States. This retained power is addressed in YOUR tenth amendment.
Article I section 10, addresses the States within the union denying them as individual States to establish an alliance with another, but as any idiot should be able to ascertain, there was no law preventing a State from seceding, that power was reserved by each individual State, therefore once a State seceded it was no longer bound by article I Section 10 or any other part of YOUR CONstitution. You see you are to ignorant to understand that the first cause, which was legal, nullified the second cause to which you refer.
You can't help but continue to make a fool of yourself can you?
You are in way above your education.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Ravi said:


> Remember that when the nutters try to claim that the Civil War wasn't about slavery.


The United States Constitution "legalized" slavery as well. Was the Revolutionary War about slavery too? The fact that many of the Confederate states seceded over the threat to the spread of slavery that they perceived from Lincoln and the Republican Party is well documented, but what people mean when they say the Civil War wasn't fought over slavery is that Lincoln waged the war not to free the slaves but to force those states back into the Union. If his goal was to free the slaves then the Emancipation Proclamation would have applied to the states that remained in the Union as well as the Confederate states. Furthermore, slavery was not the only issue that caused those states to secede. Tariffs were also an issue, as Lincoln campaigned on raising the tariff and did exactly that after taking office, as Jefferson Davis's inaugural address makes clear. Also, Virginia did not secede until after Lincoln put his blockade of southern ports into effect. To say that the Civil War was fought over slavery is far too simplistic.


----------



## Asclepias

James Everett said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I admit the Union kicked your ass over secession. The losers fought over slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> So now you have changed your position? Earlier you stated that YOUR government was fighting to end Slavery, now they were fighting in order that they may force a tyranny much the same as Russia did under the former Soviet Union where it to was held together by force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never changed my position. You got your ass kicked over seceding without permission and so the north could take away your means of generating wealth with slaves. Read a history book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please cite the article and section in YOUR CONstitution that states that a Southern State, or any other must request permission from the North to secede.
> You are further making a fool of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Youre the only one making a fool of himself. I am amazed you are this uneducated. Please show me in the constitution, (the real one) where it states that any state has a right to secede. I'll wait.
> 
> article i section 10 of the u.s. constitution
> 
> Article One of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or *Confederation*;...."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I trust your wait wasn't to long.
> Allow me to educate you.....
> YOUR U.S. CONstitution never addressed secession, hence the power to prevent a State from seceding from the union was never delegated to the U.S. (The States in union collectively) to prevent a State from exercising it's retained power power to sever its ties with the other States. This retained power is addressed in YOUR tenth amendment.
> Article I section 10, addresses the States within the union denying them as individual States to establish an alliance with another, but as any idiot should be able to ascertain, there was no law preventing a State from seceding, that power was reserved by each individual State, therefore once a State seceded it was no longer bound by article I Section 10 or any other part of YOUR CONstitution. You see you are to ignorant to understand that the first cause, which was legal, nullified the second cause to which you refer.
> You can't help but continue to make a fool of yourself can you?
> You are in way above your education.
Click to expand...

Yeah actually it did.

"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or *Confederation*;...."


----------



## James Everett

Asclepias said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now you have changed your position? Earlier you stated that YOUR government was fighting to end Slavery, now they were fighting in order that they may force a tyranny much the same as Russia did under the former Soviet Union where it to was held together by force.
> 
> 
> 
> Never changed my position. You got your ass kicked over seceding without permission and so the north could take away your means of generating wealth with slaves. Read a history book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please cite the article and section in YOUR CONstitution that states that a Southern State, or any other must request permission from the North to secede.
> You are further making a fool of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Youre the only one making a fool of himself. I am amazed you are this uneducated. Please show me in the constitution, (the real one) where it states that any state has a right to secede. I'll wait.
> 
> article i section 10 of the u.s. constitution
> 
> Article One of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or *Confederation*;...."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I trust your wait wasn't to long.
> Allow me to educate you.....
> YOUR U.S. CONstitution never addressed secession, hence the power to prevent a State from seceding from the union was never delegated to the U.S. (The States in union collectively) to prevent a State from exercising it's retained power power to sever its ties with the other States. This retained power is addressed in YOUR tenth amendment.
> Article I section 10, addresses the States within the union denying them as individual States to establish an alliance with another, but as any idiot should be able to ascertain, there was no law preventing a State from seceding, that power was reserved by each individual State, therefore once a State seceded it was no longer bound by article I Section 10 or any other part of YOUR CONstitution. You see you are to ignorant to understand that the first cause, which was legal, nullified the second cause to which you refer.
> You can't help but continue to make a fool of yourself can you?
> You are in way above your education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah actually it did.
> 
> "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or *Confederation*;...."
Click to expand...

Secession was accomplished, hence your CONstitution no longer applied to States that were no longer part of YOUR union. Please stop being ignorant and refer to the first cause. Think secession wasn't accomplished?
Then explain re-admittance and conditions for such if they were not indeed severed from YOUR union. Educate yourself so that you don't continue making a bigger fool of yourself.


----------



## James Everett

Asclepias said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now you have changed your position? Earlier you stated that YOUR government was fighting to end Slavery, now they were fighting in order that they may force a tyranny much the same as Russia did under the former Soviet Union where it to was held together by force.
> 
> 
> 
> Never changed my position. You got your ass kicked over seceding without permission and so the north could take away your means of generating wealth with slaves. Read a history book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please cite the article and section in YOUR CONstitution that states that a Southern State, or any other must request permission from the North to secede.
> You are further making a fool of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Youre the only one making a fool of himself. I am amazed you are this uneducated. Please show me in the constitution, (the real one) where it states that any state has a right to secede. I'll wait.
> 
> article i section 10 of the u.s. constitution
> 
> Article One of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or *Confederation*;...."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I trust your wait wasn't to long.
> Allow me to educate you.....
> YOUR U.S. CONstitution never addressed secession, hence the power to prevent a State from seceding from the union was never delegated to the U.S. (The States in union collectively) to prevent a State from exercising it's retained power power to sever its ties with the other States. This retained power is addressed in YOUR tenth amendment.
> Article I section 10, addresses the States within the union denying them as individual States to establish an alliance with another, but as any idiot should be able to ascertain, there was no law preventing a State from seceding, that power was reserved by each individual State, therefore once a State seceded it was no longer bound by article I Section 10 or any other part of YOUR CONstitution. You see you are to ignorant to understand that the first cause, which was legal, nullified the second cause to which you refer.
> You can't help but continue to make a fool of yourself can you?
> You are in way above your education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah actually it did.
> 
> "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or *Confederation*;...."
Click to expand...

Most likely it is your inability to grasp the first cause to which I continue to direct you to, and that is that the States that seceded did so each individually, and it was not until after they had seceded that the established a new treaty/alliance between themselves in the form of the 1862 CSA Constitution. They at that point were no longer party to the 1787/1789 treaty.


----------



## Asclepias

James Everett said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never changed my position. You got your ass kicked over seceding without permission and so the north could take away your means of generating wealth with slaves. Read a history book.
> 
> 
> 
> Please cite the article and section in YOUR CONstitution that states that a Southern State, or any other must request permission from the North to secede.
> You are further making a fool of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Youre the only one making a fool of himself. I am amazed you are this uneducated. Please show me in the constitution, (the real one) where it states that any state has a right to secede. I'll wait.
> 
> article i section 10 of the u.s. constitution
> 
> Article One of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or *Confederation*;...."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I trust your wait wasn't to long.
> Allow me to educate you.....
> YOUR U.S. CONstitution never addressed secession, hence the power to prevent a State from seceding from the union was never delegated to the U.S. (The States in union collectively) to prevent a State from exercising it's retained power power to sever its ties with the other States. This retained power is addressed in YOUR tenth amendment.
> Article I section 10, addresses the States within the union denying them as individual States to establish an alliance with another, but as any idiot should be able to ascertain, there was no law preventing a State from seceding, that power was reserved by each individual State, therefore once a State seceded it was no longer bound by article I Section 10 or any other part of YOUR CONstitution. You see you are to ignorant to understand that the first cause, which was legal, nullified the second cause to which you refer.
> You can't help but continue to make a fool of yourself can you?
> You are in way above your education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah actually it did.
> 
> "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or *Confederation*;...."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most likely it is your inability to grasp the first cause to which I continue to direct you to, and that is that the States that seceded did so each individually, and it was not until after they had seceded that the established a new treaty/alliance between themselves in the form of the 1862 CSA Constitution. They at that point were no longer party to the 1787/1789 treaty.
Click to expand...

They couldnt even do it individually without permission. The only way to legally do it was through revolution and since you lost the war you didnt have permission for individual states to secede. Sorry you lose. We even have SCOTUS case history to support the argument against your continued ignorance.

Secession in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"Chase, [Chief Justice], ruled in favor of Texas on the ground that the Confederate state government in Texas had no legal existence on the basis that the secession of Texas from the United States was illegal. *The critical finding underpinning the ruling that Texas could not secede from the United States was that, following its admission to the United States in 1845, Texas had become part of "an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible states." In practical terms, this meant that Texas has never seceded from the United States."*


----------



## whitehall

Slavery existed for about two hundred years before the states that formed the "confederacy" ever left the union. Lincoln went along with slavery as long as it didn't extend into the new territories. New Jersey was the last yankee state to outlaw slavery because the Garden State enjoyed it's cheap labor up to ten years before the Civil War. Most Confederate soldiers never owned any more slaves than the families of union soldiers. Why dig up the race card 150+plus years after the Civil War? To promote more hatred?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Both paperview and I have provided the Cornerstone speech that crushs James' specious argument fo evah, homies.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> Both paperview and I have provided the Cornerstone speech that crushs James' specious argument fo evah, homies.


Oh apparently JAKE, your sweetheart Paperview has ran away yet again, as she never addressed my last post.


----------



## James Everett

Asclepias said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please cite the article and section in YOUR CONstitution that states that a Southern State, or any other must request permission from the North to secede.
> You are further making a fool of yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> Youre the only one making a fool of himself. I am amazed you are this uneducated. Please show me in the constitution, (the real one) where it states that any state has a right to secede. I'll wait.
> 
> article i section 10 of the u.s. constitution
> 
> Article One of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or *Confederation*;...."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I trust your wait wasn't to long.
> Allow me to educate you.....
> YOUR U.S. CONstitution never addressed secession, hence the power to prevent a State from seceding from the union was never delegated to the U.S. (The States in union collectively) to prevent a State from exercising it's retained power power to sever its ties with the other States. This retained power is addressed in YOUR tenth amendment.
> Article I section 10, addresses the States within the union denying them as individual States to establish an alliance with another, but as any idiot should be able to ascertain, there was no law preventing a State from seceding, that power was reserved by each individual State, therefore once a State seceded it was no longer bound by article I Section 10 or any other part of YOUR CONstitution. You see you are to ignorant to understand that the first cause, which was legal, nullified the second cause to which you refer.
> You can't help but continue to make a fool of yourself can you?
> You are in way above your education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah actually it did.
> 
> "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or *Confederation*;...."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most likely it is your inability to grasp the first cause to which I continue to direct you to, and that is that the States that seceded did so each individually, and it was not until after they had seceded that the established a new treaty/alliance between themselves in the form of the 1862 CSA Constitution. They at that point were no longer party to the 1787/1789 treaty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They couldnt even do it individually without permission. The only way to legally do it was through revolution and since you lost the war you didnt have permission for individual states to secede. Sorry you lose. We even have SCOTUS case history to support the argument against your continued ignorance.
> 
> Secession in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> "Chase, [Chief Justice], ruled in favor of Texas on the ground that the Confederate state government in Texas had no legal existence on the basis that the secession of Texas from the United States was illegal. *The critical finding underpinning the ruling that Texas could not secede from the United States was that, following its admission to the United States in 1845, Texas had become part of "an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible states." In practical terms, this meant that Texas has never seceded from the United States."*
Click to expand...

Oh, another base indoctrinated Yankee posting Texas v White.
The gullible indoctrinated Yankee is always drawn in and sacrificed on the alter because of these pseudo intellectual Yankees who think Texas v White somehow decided the issue of secession, and here we have another sacrificial lamb. 
Lets begin educating a fool.....
Texas v White was not a case over secession: it was a case concerning U.S. Bonds.
Do you know the definition of DICTA?

*"Expressions in a court's opinion that go beyond the facts before the court and therefore are individual views of the author of the opinion and not binding in subsequent cases as legal precedent."*

It is therefore unreasonable to claim this issue was “decided” when the arguments presented by the parties to the case did not address the right of States to secede. Without the opportunity for argument, debate, and rebuttal on the issue, it cannot be said that this issue was “decided” when a very partisan Chief Justice took the occasion to insert his opinion on a question that was not argued before the Court.
The opinion in Texas v White sets NO LEGAL precedent.

SCOTUS Justice Salmon Chase A YANKEE from Ohio who was Ole Abe Lincolns treasury secretary, A Yankee Senator from Ohio, Could not hardly be considered an unbiased Justice, In fact each Justice was a U.S. Justice....
Chief Justice S.P. Chase of Ohio, a Lincoln appointee, delivered the opinion. Other associate justices and appointing presidents were Samuel Nelson, New York (Tyler); R.C. Grier, Pennsylvania (Polk); N. Clifford, Maine (Buchanan); N.H. Swayne, Ohio (Lincoln); S.F. Miller, Iowa (Lincoln); David Davis, Illinois (Lincoln) and S. J. Field, California (Lincoln).
NOT one could be said to be non-biased, such is akin to having G Gordon Liddy act as Vice President and President of the Senate in YOUR President Richard Nixon's Impeachment, or Monica Lewinsky acting as the same in YOUR President Clinton's Impeachment.
A serious conflict of interest and lack of impartiality by the Chief justice in his writing of the majority opinion. There were five Lincoln appointees sitting on the bench when Chief Justice Chase offered his opinion on secession, but the Chief justice was the only Justice intimately entwined with the Lincoln administration and its policies regarding secession. He certainly should have recused himself if he was going to opine from the Bench on Lincoln’s view of secession
Yet even overlooking that fact, let us read YOUR own CONstitutions Article III Section 2....
*"(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution,"*
Now, YOUR Chief Justice Chase could no more cite a U.S. Law that states that secession was illegal in
Texas v White than can you today: WHY? Because it doesn't exist.
Again YOUR SCOTUS Judicial power exists only in law arising UNDER YOUR CONstitution: So Cite that law.
YOUR SCOTUS cited the Articles of Confederation as a base for the opinion....
*Chase discusses the origins of the Union of States and notes that the Articles of Confederation declared the Union to “be perpetual.” 

And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained “to form a more perfect Union.” It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?*

*The old Constitution to which Chase referred was the Articles of Confederation, a CONSTITUTION BETWEEN STATES, yet the "more perfect union was a CONstitution of "We the people" NOT We the States. So the perpetual union between States was replaced with "WE the people", a CONTRACT.
The Articles were replaced hence no longer in force, the perpetual union was not so perpetual as it was replaced.If perpetual was carried over, then what else was carried over yet not enumerated in the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution?


The most obvious of these is the contention that Texas never ceased to be a state, yet, the people of Texas were denied representation as a state until they agreed to certain "reconstruction" acts of the U.S. Congress. Among those requirements was accepting a new state constitution dictated by the U.S. through armed force. Stalinists did the same thing to coerce independent nations into the "indissoluble Soviet Union."
Each State that left the union was required to meet certain Reconstruction acts, hence they were considered as no longer being member States in the union, here is where YOUR assertion of Article I section 10 falters, because the States were required to meet these requirements to be Re-admitted, re-admitted means they were not part of the union because they seceded.
Fact is, there has never been a court case where arguments were made on the right of States to withdraw from the Union. Without the opportunity for both sides to present their arguments on the issue, just dicta alone from the Chief Justice does not establish a precedent setting opinion of the Court. This fact alone should put an end to the use of Texas v. White to refute the right of States to withdraw from the Union, but even so, there are other problems with Texas v. White that need to be exposed.
Chase claimed, “The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States.” However, he failed to mention or explain the secession of nine of these original States from their first union (the Articles of Confederation); the only union the States ever proclaimed to be perpetual. There can be no doubt that our first Union under the Articles of Confederation, although claiming to be perpetual, or our current Union under the Constitution, without any such claim of being perpetual, were neither perpetual nor indissoluble.
Yes, you are base in knowledge here, and a product of indoctrination.

*


----------



## JakeStarkey

James Everett said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both paperview and I have provided the Cornerstone speech that crushs James' specious argument fo evah, homies.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh apparently JAKE, your sweetheart Paperview has ran away yet again, as she never addressed my last post.
Click to expand...

You have made no point worthy of address.  All of your arguments have been crushed.


----------



## paperview

James Everett said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both paperview and I have provided the Cornerstone speech that crushs James' specious argument fo evah, homies.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh apparently JAKE, your sweetheart Paperview has ran away yet again, as she never addressed my last post.
Click to expand...

Because you're a retard confederate who imagines himself _occupied_ and still living in some 150 year old time warp trying to refight your Lost Cause.

It's like arguing with an defective Japanese soldier stranded on an island decades after the WW is over.  

I have better things to do than tussle with a mental patient.


----------



## JakeStarkey

paperview said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both paperview and I have provided the Cornerstone speech that crushs James' specious argument fo evah, homies.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh apparently JAKE, your sweetheart Paperview has ran away yet again, as she never addressed my last post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because you're a retard confederate who imagines himself _occupied_ and still living in some 150 year old time warp trying to refight your Lost Cause.
> 
> *It's like arguing with an defective Japanese soldier stranded on an island decades after the WW is over.  *
> 
> I have better things to do than tussle with a mental patient.
Click to expand...


That is the best description of James' approach to the CSA: on a deserted island, from which he casts notes in bottles into the sea, hoping someone will read somewhere.


----------



## James Everett

paperview said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both paperview and I have provided the Cornerstone speech that crushs James' specious argument fo evah, homies.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh apparently JAKE, your sweetheart Paperview has ran away yet again, as she never addressed my last post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because you're a retard confederate who imagines himself _occupied_ and still living in some 150 year old time warp trying to refight your Lost Cause.
> 
> It's like arguing with an defective Japanese soldier stranded on an island decades after the WW is over.
> 
> I have better things to do than tussle with a mental patient.
Click to expand...

*
Yes, I have better things to do than educate ignorant Pseudo intellectual Yankees, but then fools such as you must be exposed...... 
Occupation definition.....
a. * The act or process of holding or possessing a place.
*b. * The state of being held or possessed.
 Invasion, conquest, and control of a nation or territory by foreign armed forces.
Military occupation occurs when a belligerent state invades the territory of another state with the intention of holding the territory at least temporarily.
*Self determination definition....*
Freedom of the people of a given area to determine their own political status; independence.
(Government, Politics & Diplomacy) the right of a nation or people to determine its own form of government without influence from outside.
*Let us see if occupation applies as a result of the Yankee rebellion......

Isham (I'-sam) G. Harris, of Memphis, was elected governor of Tennessee in 1857, and again in 1859, both times by large majorities.
On February 22 Grant declared martial law in Tennessee.
On March 12, 1862, Andrew Johnson, whom President Lincoln had appointed Military Governor of
Tennessee, arrived and took over for the Union.
Governor Johnson demanded that all of Nashville's city officers and employees take an oath of allegiance to the Union, when they refused, he arrested them for treason and appointed his own officers in their place.
In the fall of 1864, Governor Johnson was elected Vice-President of the United States, and he was to be
inaugurated on March 4, 1865.
A convention of Unionist met in Nashville January 9, 1865, drafted amendments to the state constitution, nominated candidates for governor and the legislature, and set February 22 and March 4, 1865 for the people to ratify their actions.
No Confederates or Confederate sympathizers, were allowed to vote.
The Legislature of 1869, a military legislature acting under threat duress and collusion, called for a vote on holding a constitutional convention, and electing delegated to attend it.
This election, limited to only pro-unionist which was held on December 18, 1869, favored a convention by a very large vote.
Duress any unlawful threat or coercion used by person to induce another to act (or refrain from acting) in a manner he or she otherwise would not (or would). Subjecting person to improper pressure which overcomes his will and coerces him to comply with demand to which he would not yield if acting as free agent [Henry-Campbell: Black, Blacks Law Dictionary®, Sixth Edition, West Publishing Co. St. Paul Minnesota, 1990
As we are all well able to see, what occurred fits every definition of OCCUPATION.
Paperview and her lil minion JAKE STARKEY are victims of the ignorance of indoctrination to the point that they ignore FACTS in favor of fiction.......*


----------



## JakeStarkey

"Nonsense".  James, keep writing your notes on your deserted island.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> "Nonsense".  James, keep writing your notes on your deserted island.


JAKE,
You never add anything of value to a discussion. All you do is deny, deny, deny, without ever posting a rebuttal citing fact or anything of relevance. You are nothing more than a cheerleader for the opposition to truth and facts. Shake your POM POMS...


----------



## Asclepias

James Everett said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Youre the only one making a fool of himself. I am amazed you are this uneducated. Please show me in the constitution, (the real one) where it states that any state has a right to secede. I'll wait.
> 
> article i section 10 of the u.s. constitution
> 
> Article One of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or *Confederation*;...."
> 
> 
> 
> I trust your wait wasn't to long.
> Allow me to educate you.....
> YOUR U.S. CONstitution never addressed secession, hence the power to prevent a State from seceding from the union was never delegated to the U.S. (The States in union collectively) to prevent a State from exercising it's retained power power to sever its ties with the other States. This retained power is addressed in YOUR tenth amendment.
> Article I section 10, addresses the States within the union denying them as individual States to establish an alliance with another, but as any idiot should be able to ascertain, there was no law preventing a State from seceding, that power was reserved by each individual State, therefore once a State seceded it was no longer bound by article I Section 10 or any other part of YOUR CONstitution. You see you are to ignorant to understand that the first cause, which was legal, nullified the second cause to which you refer.
> You can't help but continue to make a fool of yourself can you?
> You are in way above your education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah actually it did.
> 
> "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or *Confederation*;...."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most likely it is your inability to grasp the first cause to which I continue to direct you to, and that is that the States that seceded did so each individually, and it was not until after they had seceded that the established a new treaty/alliance between themselves in the form of the 1862 CSA Constitution. They at that point were no longer party to the 1787/1789 treaty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They couldnt even do it individually without permission. The only way to legally do it was through revolution and since you lost the war you didnt have permission for individual states to secede. Sorry you lose. We even have SCOTUS case history to support the argument against your continued ignorance.
> 
> Secession in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> "Chase, [Chief Justice], ruled in favor of Texas on the ground that the Confederate state government in Texas had no legal existence on the basis that the secession of Texas from the United States was illegal. *The critical finding underpinning the ruling that Texas could not secede from the United States was that, following its admission to the United States in 1845, Texas had become part of "an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible states." In practical terms, this meant that Texas has never seceded from the United States."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, another base indoctrinated Yankee posting Texas v White.
> The gullible indoctrinated Yankee is always drawn in and sacrificed on the alter because of these pseudo intellectual Yankees who think Texas v White somehow decided the issue of secession, and here we have another sacrificial lamb.
> Lets begin educating a fool.....
> Texas v White was not a case over secession: it was a case concerning U.S. Bonds.
> Do you know the definition of DICTA?
> 
> *"Expressions in a court's opinion that go beyond the facts before the court and therefore are individual views of the author of the opinion and not binding in subsequent cases as legal precedent."*
> 
> It is therefore unreasonable to claim this issue was “decided” when the arguments presented by the parties to the case did not address the right of States to secede. Without the opportunity for argument, debate, and rebuttal on the issue, it cannot be said that this issue was “decided” when a very partisan Chief Justice took the occasion to insert his opinion on a question that was not argued before the Court.
> The opinion in Texas v White sets NO LEGAL precedent.
> 
> SCOTUS Justice Salmon Chase A YANKEE from Ohio who was Ole Abe Lincolns treasury secretary, A Yankee Senator from Ohio, Could not hardly be considered an unbiased Justice, In fact each Justice was a U.S. Justice....
> Chief Justice S.P. Chase of Ohio, a Lincoln appointee, delivered the opinion. Other associate justices and appointing presidents were Samuel Nelson, New York (Tyler); R.C. Grier, Pennsylvania (Polk); N. Clifford, Maine (Buchanan); N.H. Swayne, Ohio (Lincoln); S.F. Miller, Iowa (Lincoln); David Davis, Illinois (Lincoln) and S. J. Field, California (Lincoln).
> NOT one could be said to be non-biased, such is akin to having G Gordon Liddy act as Vice President and President of the Senate in YOUR President Richard Nixon's Impeachment, or Monica Lewinsky acting as the same in YOUR President Clinton's Impeachment.
> A serious conflict of interest and lack of impartiality by the Chief justice in his writing of the majority opinion. There were five Lincoln appointees sitting on the bench when Chief Justice Chase offered his opinion on secession, but the Chief justice was the only Justice intimately entwined with the Lincoln administration and its policies regarding secession. He certainly should have recused himself if he was going to opine from the Bench on Lincoln’s view of secession
> Yet even overlooking that fact, let us read YOUR own CONstitutions Article III Section 2....
> *"(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution,"*
> Now, YOUR Chief Justice Chase could no more cite a U.S. Law that states that secession was illegal in
> Texas v White than can you today: WHY? Because it doesn't exist.
> Again YOUR SCOTUS Judicial power exists only in law arising UNDER YOUR CONstitution: So Cite that law.
> YOUR SCOTUS cited the Articles of Confederation as a base for the opinion....
> *Chase discusses the origins of the Union of States and notes that the Articles of Confederation declared the Union to “be perpetual.”
> 
> And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained “to form a more perfect Union.” It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?*
> 
> *The old Constitution to which Chase referred was the Articles of Confederation, a CONSTITUTION BETWEEN STATES, yet the "more perfect union was a CONstitution of "We the people" NOT We the States. So the perpetual union between States was replaced with "WE the people", a CONTRACT.
> The Articles were replaced hence no longer in force, the perpetual union was not so perpetual as it was replaced.If perpetual was carried over, then what else was carried over yet not enumerated in the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution?
> 
> 
> The most obvious of these is the contention that Texas never ceased to be a state, yet, the people of Texas were denied representation as a state until they agreed to certain "reconstruction" acts of the U.S. Congress. Among those requirements was accepting a new state constitution dictated by the U.S. through armed force. Stalinists did the same thing to coerce independent nations into the "indissoluble Soviet Union."
> Each State that left the union was required to meet certain Reconstruction acts, hence they were considered as no longer being member States in the union, here is where YOUR assertion of Article I section 10 falters, because the States were required to meet these requirements to be Re-admitted, re-admitted means they were not part of the union because they seceded.
> Fact is, there has never been a court case where arguments were made on the right of States to withdraw from the Union. Without the opportunity for both sides to present their arguments on the issue, just dicta alone from the Chief Justice does not establish a precedent setting opinion of the Court. This fact alone should put an end to the use of Texas v. White to refute the right of States to withdraw from the Union, but even so, there are other problems with Texas v. White that need to be exposed.
> Chase claimed, “The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States.” However, he failed to mention or explain the secession of nine of these original States from their first union (the Articles of Confederation); the only union the States ever proclaimed to be perpetual. There can be no doubt that our first Union under the Articles of Confederation, although claiming to be perpetual, or our current Union under the Constitution, without any such claim of being perpetual, were neither perpetual nor indissoluble.
> Yes, you are base in knowledge here, and a product of indoctrination.
> *
Click to expand...

Someone obviously did a number on your head. I have razed every one of your paper mache excuses as to why you losers had a right to secede. Your claims are amusing but only in sad pitiful way. Its getting redundant showing you the facts. Face it. You lost. If you think you have a case take it to court and see what happens. Please post the results and tag me.


----------



## James Everett

Asclepias said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> I trust your wait wasn't to long.
> Allow me to educate you.....
> YOUR U.S. CONstitution never addressed secession, hence the power to prevent a State from seceding from the union was never delegated to the U.S. (The States in union collectively) to prevent a State from exercising it's retained power power to sever its ties with the other States. This retained power is addressed in YOUR tenth amendment.
> Article I section 10, addresses the States within the union denying them as individual States to establish an alliance with another, but as any idiot should be able to ascertain, there was no law preventing a State from seceding, that power was reserved by each individual State, therefore once a State seceded it was no longer bound by article I Section 10 or any other part of YOUR CONstitution. You see you are to ignorant to understand that the first cause, which was legal, nullified the second cause to which you refer.
> You can't help but continue to make a fool of yourself can you?
> You are in way above your education.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah actually it did.
> 
> "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or *Confederation*;...."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most likely it is your inability to grasp the first cause to which I continue to direct you to, and that is that the States that seceded did so each individually, and it was not until after they had seceded that the established a new treaty/alliance between themselves in the form of the 1862 CSA Constitution. They at that point were no longer party to the 1787/1789 treaty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They couldnt even do it individually without permission. The only way to legally do it was through revolution and since you lost the war you didnt have permission for individual states to secede. Sorry you lose. We even have SCOTUS case history to support the argument against your continued ignorance.
> 
> Secession in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> "Chase, [Chief Justice], ruled in favor of Texas on the ground that the Confederate state government in Texas had no legal existence on the basis that the secession of Texas from the United States was illegal. *The critical finding underpinning the ruling that Texas could not secede from the United States was that, following its admission to the United States in 1845, Texas had become part of "an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible states." In practical terms, this meant that Texas has never seceded from the United States."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, another base indoctrinated Yankee posting Texas v White.
> The gullible indoctrinated Yankee is always drawn in and sacrificed on the alter because of these pseudo intellectual Yankees who think Texas v White somehow decided the issue of secession, and here we have another sacrificial lamb.
> Lets begin educating a fool.....
> Texas v White was not a case over secession: it was a case concerning U.S. Bonds.
> Do you know the definition of DICTA?
> 
> *"Expressions in a court's opinion that go beyond the facts before the court and therefore are individual views of the author of the opinion and not binding in subsequent cases as legal precedent."*
> 
> It is therefore unreasonable to claim this issue was “decided” when the arguments presented by the parties to the case did not address the right of States to secede. Without the opportunity for argument, debate, and rebuttal on the issue, it cannot be said that this issue was “decided” when a very partisan Chief Justice took the occasion to insert his opinion on a question that was not argued before the Court.
> The opinion in Texas v White sets NO LEGAL precedent.
> 
> SCOTUS Justice Salmon Chase A YANKEE from Ohio who was Ole Abe Lincolns treasury secretary, A Yankee Senator from Ohio, Could not hardly be considered an unbiased Justice, In fact each Justice was a U.S. Justice....
> Chief Justice S.P. Chase of Ohio, a Lincoln appointee, delivered the opinion. Other associate justices and appointing presidents were Samuel Nelson, New York (Tyler); R.C. Grier, Pennsylvania (Polk); N. Clifford, Maine (Buchanan); N.H. Swayne, Ohio (Lincoln); S.F. Miller, Iowa (Lincoln); David Davis, Illinois (Lincoln) and S. J. Field, California (Lincoln).
> NOT one could be said to be non-biased, such is akin to having G Gordon Liddy act as Vice President and President of the Senate in YOUR President Richard Nixon's Impeachment, or Monica Lewinsky acting as the same in YOUR President Clinton's Impeachment.
> A serious conflict of interest and lack of impartiality by the Chief justice in his writing of the majority opinion. There were five Lincoln appointees sitting on the bench when Chief Justice Chase offered his opinion on secession, but the Chief justice was the only Justice intimately entwined with the Lincoln administration and its policies regarding secession. He certainly should have recused himself if he was going to opine from the Bench on Lincoln’s view of secession
> Yet even overlooking that fact, let us read YOUR own CONstitutions Article III Section 2....
> *"(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution,"*
> Now, YOUR Chief Justice Chase could no more cite a U.S. Law that states that secession was illegal in
> Texas v White than can you today: WHY? Because it doesn't exist.
> Again YOUR SCOTUS Judicial power exists only in law arising UNDER YOUR CONstitution: So Cite that law.
> YOUR SCOTUS cited the Articles of Confederation as a base for the opinion....
> *Chase discusses the origins of the Union of States and notes that the Articles of Confederation declared the Union to “be perpetual.”
> 
> And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained “to form a more perfect Union.” It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?*
> 
> *The old Constitution to which Chase referred was the Articles of Confederation, a CONSTITUTION BETWEEN STATES, yet the "more perfect union was a CONstitution of "We the people" NOT We the States. So the perpetual union between States was replaced with "WE the people", a CONTRACT.
> The Articles were replaced hence no longer in force, the perpetual union was not so perpetual as it was replaced.If perpetual was carried over, then what else was carried over yet not enumerated in the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution?
> 
> 
> The most obvious of these is the contention that Texas never ceased to be a state, yet, the people of Texas were denied representation as a state until they agreed to certain "reconstruction" acts of the U.S. Congress. Among those requirements was accepting a new state constitution dictated by the U.S. through armed force. Stalinists did the same thing to coerce independent nations into the "indissoluble Soviet Union."
> Each State that left the union was required to meet certain Reconstruction acts, hence they were considered as no longer being member States in the union, here is where YOUR assertion of Article I section 10 falters, because the States were required to meet these requirements to be Re-admitted, re-admitted means they were not part of the union because they seceded.
> Fact is, there has never been a court case where arguments were made on the right of States to withdraw from the Union. Without the opportunity for both sides to present their arguments on the issue, just dicta alone from the Chief Justice does not establish a precedent setting opinion of the Court. This fact alone should put an end to the use of Texas v. White to refute the right of States to withdraw from the Union, but even so, there are other problems with Texas v. White that need to be exposed.
> Chase claimed, “The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States.” However, he failed to mention or explain the secession of nine of these original States from their first union (the Articles of Confederation); the only union the States ever proclaimed to be perpetual. There can be no doubt that our first Union under the Articles of Confederation, although claiming to be perpetual, or our current Union under the Constitution, without any such claim of being perpetual, were neither perpetual nor indissoluble.
> Yes, you are base in knowledge here, and a product of indoctrination.
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Someone obviously did a number on your head. I have razed every one of your paper mache excuses as to why you losers had a right to secede. Your claims are amusing but only in sad pitiful way. Its getting redundant showing you the facts. Face it. You lost. If you think you have a case take it to court and see what happens. Please post the results and tag me.
Click to expand...

Exposing the truth for our people is the purpose here, YOU are irrelevant to the cause. You see, those who see the truth and the facts revealed before their eyes, are awakened to the fiction which has been fed them through the indoctrination. I note that you had no defense against this truth that I have posted. The case will be brought before the people NOT YOUR governments Kangaroo court. It s called building a body politic outside that of the occupying governments political system, and as this body politic grows, it will overtake your withering two party duopoly controlled system. You see, you are to base to comprehend the process to which will destroy yours.
Remember, governments derive their just powers from the CONSENT of the governed, as that consent is transferred, YOUR governments control will whither away.
You can huff and puff about your rebellious ancestors kicking someones ass, as you put it, but you are not them, and now and in the future are different times and political demographics, Look at the Red and Blue map, and you will see how our process will easily gain consent, and that is wherein the power exists.
You are fighting an old war, we are using an old war to expose the truth, we are focused on the future, while you relish the past.
Good Luck.


----------



## JakeStarkey

James Everett said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Nonsense".  James, keep writing your notes on your deserted island.
> 
> 
> 
> JAKE,
> You never add anything of value to a discussion. All you do is deny, deny, deny, without ever posting a rebuttal citing fact or anything of relevance. You are nothing more than a cheerleader for the opposition to truth and facts. Shake your POM POMS...
Click to expand...

Says the twisted mind from his stranded island.  Your points and observations have been completely rebutted time and again by at least five of us many times over.  Keep putting your notes into bottles and pitching them into the ocean.

You are irrelevant.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Nonsense".  James, keep writing your notes on your deserted island.
> 
> 
> 
> JAKE,
> You never add anything of value to a discussion. All you do is deny, deny, deny, without ever posting a rebuttal citing fact or anything of relevance. You are nothing more than a cheerleader for the opposition to truth and facts. Shake your POM POMS...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the twisted mind from his stranded island.  Your points and observations have been completely rebutted time and again by at least five of us many times over.  Keep putting your notes into bottles and pitching them into the ocean.
> 
> You are irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Not hardly, you and the other court jesters post the same old tired worn out fiction, then I post the truth, backed by fact and citation, then you post just the same BS as you just posted along with a childish insult in which you think wins your BS case and then claim victory, never do you rebut the facts that I post, because you can't. 
I just posted facts for you and the other jesters who would rather die than man up an admit when you are incorrect, as I have done when I make a misstatement. Such only further  reveals the lack of character that plagues the Yankee to his core.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Yep, James Irrelevant Everett is your name, and moonshine is your game.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> Yep, James Irrelevant Everett is your name, and moonshine is your game.


Well that was lame even for a 10 year old. I suppose you make fart noises with your armpit for amusement as well?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Only because your obsession is irrelevant, James.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> Only because your obsession is irrelevant, James.


Yes JAKE,
We are all aware that to the Yankee, the TRUTH, LAWS, and YOUR own CONstitution are irrelevant.
However such things to the Southern Confederate are relevant.
Such is why YOUR government does whatever it wishes regardless of any law that may exist to the contrary.
You all pretend that your Presidents have the power to decree law..."Executive order" as does a King, no such power is granted to YOUR President within YOUR CONstitution, yet still each does just that, when no one can even express a limit to this usurpation of power not delegated.
YOUR Kangaroo court = SCOTUS renders opinion based on assumptions not law, based on a constitution that were replace with a CONstitution claiming the old inadequate and that only one portion of one Article is still in force: It renders opinions outside it own CONstitutional authority. It claims certain violations of "separation of Church and State, when the only violation that could ever be, is if "CONGRESS MADE A LAW RESPECTING THE ESTABLISHMENT, OR THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF" Yet Congress has made NO LAW, hence there can be NO VIOLATION of a NON EXISTENT law in which YOUR Kangaroo court can render an opinion.
The Yankee lives in a fictional realm of indoctrination rather than reality.
*
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States"*

The Yankee lives a delusion, an infection within their own minds placed there through indoctrination into fiction, why would it be surprising to us that TRUTH to the Yankee is irrelevant?


----------



## JakeStarkey

James, you ranting obsession proves your irrelevance.

I am glad you have found a hobby that interest you and is dangerous to no one at all.

When you die, your obsession will end.

But I suggest that you arrange to make sure all of your material is on a drive and that you submit to UVA or UTA archives.  The folks there would love to have it.


----------



## Unkotare

Could there be a more meaningless waste of energy than some idiots TODAY trying to defend the traitorous confederate dogs that tried to destroy our Union for the sake of an ancient, evil institution? Those arrogant curs were justly brought to heel, and no amount of revision by LARPing losers today will change that.


----------



## RKMBrown

Unkotare said:


> Could there be a more meaningless waste of energy than some idiots TODAY trying to defend the traitorous confederate dogs that tried to destroy our Union for the sake of an ancient, evil institution? Those arrogant curs were justly brought to heel, and no amount of revision by LARPing losers today will change that.


What prick would brag about the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings?  Unkotare, yeah that's who.


----------



## JakeStarkey

RKMBrown said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could there be a more meaningless waste of energy than some idiots TODAY trying to defend the traitorous confederate dogs that tried to destroy our Union for the sake of an ancient, evil institution? Those arrogant curs were justly brought to heel, and no amount of revision by LARPing losers today will change that.
> 
> 
> 
> What prick would brag about the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings?  Unkotare, yeah that's who.
Click to expand...

The CSA alone was responsible for the death and destruction of the Civil War.  Those who disagree are morally insane.


----------



## Unkotare

RKMBrown said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could there be a more meaningless waste of energy than some idiots TODAY trying to defend the traitorous confederate dogs that tried to destroy our Union for the sake of an ancient, evil institution? Those arrogant curs were justly brought to heel, and no amount of revision by LARPing losers today will change that.
> 
> 
> 
> What prick would brag about the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings?  Unkotare, yeah that's who.
Click to expand...


I have done no such thing, you dishonest POS.


----------



## James Everett

Unkotare said:


> Could there be a more meaningless waste of energy than some idiots TODAY trying to defend the traitorous confederate dogs that tried to destroy our Union for the sake of an ancient, evil institution? Those arrogant curs were justly brought to heel, and no amount of revision by LARPing losers today will change that.


First,
I have dealt with you before, and you are a disgusting base foul mouth individual . You have no place judging anyone. Your screen names says it all, and it is not surprising that you and JAKE would be associates...
*Unkotare *
Some things would be interpreted as meaning (who leaked = stool) guy that hung down shit and Unkotare, is used as the word's Azake.
Their union was destroyed by Lincolns rebellion, NOT by the Southern States secessions. Lincoln's rebellion consolidated the States into a single State, thus destroying the union of States/United States.
The U.S. government had legalized Slavery from 1789 until 1865. Their U.S. government exterminated my Native American Ancestors for over a hundred years.
Their union would have continued without the Southern States.
Under international law, one party's denunciation of a multilateral treaty does not terminate the treaty between the other party's unless they themselves choose to denounce the treaty as well.
You really should focus your attention to Japan, and it mistreatment of the Korean and Chinese peoples, before addressing that of others.


----------



## James Everett

RKMBrown said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could there be a more meaningless waste of energy than some idiots TODAY trying to defend the traitorous confederate dogs that tried to destroy our Union for the sake of an ancient, evil institution? Those arrogant curs were justly brought to heel, and no amount of revision by LARPing losers today will change that.
> 
> 
> 
> What prick would brag about the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings?  Unkotare, yeah that's who.
Click to expand...

This "Unkotare" has no true knowledge on this subject. I have dealt with him in the past, and his vile posts, caused the tread to be shut down. All he is capable of is the use of foul language, his posts are no more relevant than those of JAKE STARKEY'S Childish posts.
This UNKOTARE, simply jumps from thread to thread posting wherein his knowledge on a given subject is base at best.
When the pseudo intellectuals such as Paperview and Ravi, are defeated with facts and citation of them, and run for cover, these base individuals with nothing of relevance to add to the debate are sent onto the field with their foul language in order to get the thread shut down. You can count on nothing but trash talk at this point from the opposing Yankee hordes.


----------



## Unkotare

James Everett said:


> You have no place judging anyone. .




When you disgrace yourself by attempting to play the apologist for arrogant, traitorous men who defended evil and led many honorable men and women to unnecessary deaths, you deserve to be judged as a no-class, ignorant, vile POS. 


You have been so judged.


----------



## Unkotare

James Everett said:


> This "Unkotare" has no true knowledge on this subject..



I have taught US History for decades, big mouth.


----------



## James Everett

Unkotare said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> This "Unkotare" has no true knowledge on this subject..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have taught US History for decades, big mouth.
Click to expand...

You have spread the same indoctrination, that was fed to YOU. Such is not education.
You just stated that the South attempted to destroy the union, which is typical indoctrination into fiction.
Teacher? NOT HARDLY.
You refer to the Southern Confederates as "Traitors" Again, you spread indoctrination. Please show how those men were traitors.
You defend a government that Exterminated my Native American ancestors, and you argue against those who support the restoration of the Articles of Confederation through the proper and legal avenue of restoring OUR government and through the legal avenue of amending OUR Constitution?


----------



## Unkotare

James Everett said:


> You just stated that the South attempted to destroy the union



Which is true.


----------



## Unkotare

James Everett said:


> You refer to the Southern Confederates as "Traitors"




Which they were. They got only a degree of what they deserved.


----------



## Unkotare

James Everett said:


> You defend a government that Exterminated my Native American ancestor




I don't give half a shit about your background, but I have never 'defended' killing Native Americans, you dishonest, honorless POS.


----------



## Unkotare

James Everett said:


> you argue against those who support the restoration of the Articles of Confederation




Anyone who thinks that it is going to happen must be as stupid as you. Check back in 10, 20, 100 years and let me know if it has happened. It won't, you fucking idiot.


----------



## James Everett

Unkotare said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> You refer to the Southern Confederates as "Traitors"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which they were. They got only a degree of what they deserved.
Click to expand...

No, you are incorrect. Traitor in this instance would be defined as treason. Secession is NOT treason, as treason would require the breaking of the law, and no such law existed concerning secession, Once a State has legally seceded, it is no longer party to the treaty called the U.S. CONstitution, hence it would be impossible to in reality call the Southern Confederate a "Traitor". Again, you use base illogical assertions and are uneducated and indoctrinated.


----------



## James Everett

Unkotare said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> You defend a government that Exterminated my Native American ancestor
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't give half a shit about your background, but I have never 'defended' killing Native Americans, you dishonest, honorless POS.
Click to expand...

I have never defended slavery either, so whats your point?
You are simply a bigot who likes to ramble and use foul language when you are exposed.


----------



## James Everett

RKMBrown said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could there be a more meaningless waste of energy than some idiots TODAY trying to defend the traitorous confederate dogs that tried to destroy our Union for the sake of an ancient, evil institution? Those arrogant curs were justly brought to heel, and no amount of revision by LARPing losers today will change that.
> 
> 
> 
> What prick would brag about the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings?  Unkotare, yeah that's who.
Click to expand...

As you can clearly see, the Pseudo intellectuals have left the field, and we now have just as I stated....Unkotare using nothing but foul language absent of logic and education.


----------



## James Everett

Unkotare said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> You defend a government that Exterminated my Native American ancestor
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't give half a shit about your background, but I have never 'defended' killing Native Americans, you dishonest, honorless POS.
Click to expand...

Allow me to throw YOUR own words back at YOU.....
*"When you disgrace yourself by attempting to play the apologist for arrogant, traitorous men who defended evil and led many honorable men and women to unnecessary deaths, you deserve to be judged as a no-class, ignorant, vile POS."*
Lincoln was in rebellion to the lawful authority of the Tenth amendment to the U.S. CONstitution, hence a "traitor".
He defended the evil extermination of the Native American Indian using his U.S. Soldiers to do the dirty deeds of the government that you defend, Slaughtering many honorable men and women, and infant children in the name of "Manifest destiny".
You do that which YOU accuse.


----------



## Unkotare

James Everett said:


> [
> 
> 
> 
> 
> treason would require the breaking of the law, d



Which they did, as determined by the highest court in the country.


----------



## James Everett

Unkotare said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> 
> 
> treason would require the breaking of the law, d
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which they did, as determined by the highest court in the country.
Click to expand...

Again, you show your ignorance.
There has never been a case before YOUR SCOTUS about secession, and don't show further ignorance by posting Texas v White, as that case was not a case concerning secession, and the DICT has no bearing on any case that may be brought concerning secession.
The court never did try the CSA President for treason.
Please, if you were being truthful about being an educator, PLEASE PLEASE stop as you are not qualified to be anything more than in indoctrinator into fiction and ignorance.


----------



## Unkotare

Denial doesn't strengthen your weak attempt at revision.


----------



## JakeStarkey

CSA was a treasonous governing entity.

It was executed by the North.  I can never be resurrected.


----------



## James Everett

Unkotare said:


> Denial doesn't strengthen your weak attempt at revision.


The facts are the facts, and the facts show proof, You have no facts, you cite nothing to prove your fiction, because it is just that fiction. I have cited the truth backed by facts. YOU? Well nothing but accusation with no factual evidence to prove you case, hence the court of logic and truth deny your false claims. Case dismissed.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> CSA was a treasonous governing entity.
> 
> It was executed by the North.  I can never be resurrected.


Yes, and Russia once occupied Poland via war, destroyed Poland's government, and of course Poland could never be resurrected either, nor could East and West Germany be resurrected as one either: Right JAKE?
Never say Never.


----------



## JakeStarkey

James Everett said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> CSA was a treasonous governing entity.  It was executed by the North.  I can never be resurrected.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and Russia once occupied Poland via war, destroyed Poland's government, and of course Poland could never be resurrected either, nor could East and West Germany be resurrected as one either: Right JAKE?  Never say Never.
Click to expand...

Poland was legitimate, the CSA never.  Study the fallacy of false comparison.  You are so easy to do deal with.  A better comparison would be the subjugation of the various French duchies to the kingdom or the various principalities, dukedoms, and other powers to the Emperor of Germany.  They were all, respectively, of one 'nation' generally and will never be resurrected, nor the CSA for that reason.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> CSA was a treasonous governing entity.  It was executed by the North.  I can never be resurrected.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and Russia once occupied Poland via war, destroyed Poland's government, and of course Poland could never be resurrected either, nor could East and West Germany be resurrected as one either: Right JAKE?  Never say Never.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Poland was legitimate, the CSA never.  Study the fallacy of false comparison.  You are so easy to do deal with.  A better comparison would be the subjugation of the various French duchies to the kingdom or the various principalities, dukedoms, and other powers to the Emperor of Germany.  They were all, respectively, of one 'nation' generally and will never be resurrected, nor the CSA for that reason.
Click to expand...

Your confusion is evident, as you confuse a Union/Confederacy of States as a single "nation" another comparison would be the United Nations, as that to is a union/confederacy of sovereign nations under a charter.
You see the union as it is since Lincoln's rebellion as a consolidation, rather than the union that it was. States are NOT duchies. A duchies is a territory, The States are NOT territories of the National government. 
Your comparison is a false comparison.
Talk about being easy to deal with. 
For the first time you attempt to post something of relevance to the discussion and make a fool of yourself in the attempt.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> CSA was a treasonous governing entity.  It was executed by the North.  I can never be resurrected.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and Russia once occupied Poland via war, destroyed Poland's government, and of course Poland could never be resurrected either, nor could East and West Germany be resurrected as one either: Right JAKE?  Never say Never.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Poland was legitimate, the CSA never.  Study the fallacy of false comparison.  You are so easy to do deal with.  A better comparison would be the subjugation of the various French duchies to the kingdom or the various principalities, dukedoms, and other powers to the Emperor of Germany.  They were all, respectively, of one 'nation' generally and will never be resurrected, nor the CSA for that reason.
Click to expand...

I should also add Alexander Hamilton's words in the CONstitutional debates #32....
"An entire consolidation of the States into one complete national sovereignty would imply an entire subordination of the parts; and whatever powers might remain in them, would be altogether dependent on the general will. But as the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty"
The power to secede was retained by the States in the tenth amendment to YOUR CONstitution, hence not dependent on the general will.
And I repeat.....
For the first time you attempt to post something of relevance to the discussion and make a fool of yourself in the attempt.


----------



## JakeStarkey

James, you cannot have your own definitions and terms and facts.

You cannot recreate a history that never existed.

Your harmless obsession remains irrelevant to anything real, but it keeps you busy with a therapy that cannot hurt anyone.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> James, you cannot have your own definitions and terms and facts.
> 
> You cannot recreate a history that never existed.
> 
> Your harmless obsession remains irrelevant to anything real, but it keeps you busy with a therapy that cannot hurt anyone.


I challenge YOU to show one definition that I have used, that is incorrect, or my own. I will prove you wrong every time. As you may recall, I refer to proper definitions using Johnson's Dictionary of the English language (1755) edition, which contains the definitions that the founders would have considered.
You are in way above the limits of your indoctrination.


----------



## Unkotare

James Everett said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Denial doesn't strengthen your weak attempt at revision.
> 
> 
> 
> The facts are the facts, ...
Click to expand...



And the fact is that the traitorous confederate dogs violated the law of the land (according to the Supreme Court, if not LARPer losers like you) and were brought to heel more gently than they deserved.


----------



## James Everett

Unkotare said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Denial doesn't strengthen your weak attempt at revision.
> 
> 
> 
> The facts are the facts, ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And the fact is that the traitorous confederate dogs violated the law of the land (according to the Supreme Court, if not LARPer losers like you) and were brought to heel more gently than they deserved.
Click to expand...

Please show the SCOTUS opinion citing this violation of the "law of the land" to which you refer.
You cannot just post BS and expect it to go unchallenged.
I will await your citation.


----------



## Unkotare

Let's ask Justice Scalia:

"I am afraid I cannot be of much help with your problem, principally because I cannot imagine that such a question could ever reach the Supreme Court. To begin with, the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede.(Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, “one Nation, indivisible.”) Secondly, I find it difficult to envision who the parties to this lawsuit might be. Is the State suing the United States for a declaratory judgment? But the United States cannot be sued without its consent, and it has not consented to this sort of suit. "


Scalia There Is No Right to Secede New York Personal Injury Law Blog


----------



## Unkotare

Texas v. White LII Legal Information Institute

"The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And, when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union.""


----------



## Unkotare

"Considered as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention, and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give [p701] effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union."


----------



## Unkotare

" Authority to suppress rebellion is found in the power to suppress insurrection and carry on war, and authority to provide for the restoration of State governments, under the Constitution, when subverted and overthrown, is derived from the obligation of the United States to guarantee to every State in the Union a republican form of government. The latter, indeed, in the case of a rebellion which involves the government of a State, and, for the time, excludes the National authority from its limits, seems to be a necessary complement to the other."


----------



## Unkotare

"The Court held that individual states could not unilaterally secede from the Union"


Texas v. White The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law


----------



## James Everett

Unkotare said:


> Texas v. White LII Legal Information Institute
> 
> "The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And, when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union.""


I already explained to you that you should NOT try and pass this BS off as a case denying a State the right to secede, as it is just that BS. The case was over bonds, not secession. There were no arguments made before that Kangaroo court regarding secession.
Fact is, there has never been a court case where arguments were made on the right of States to withdraw from the Union. Without the opportunity for both sides to present their arguments on the issue, just dicta alone from the Chief Justice does not establish a precedent setting opinion of the Court. This fact alone should put an end to the use of Texas v. White to refute the right of States to withdraw from the Union, but even so, there are other problems with Texas v. White that need to be exposed.

There was also a serious conflict of interest and lack of impartiality by the Chief justice in his writing of the majority opinion. There were five Lincoln appointees sitting on the bench when Chief Justice Chase offered his opinion on secession, but the Chief justice was the only Justice intimately entwined with the Lincoln administration and its policies regarding secession. He certainly should have recused himself if he was going to opine from the Bench on Lincoln’s view of secession.

Chief Justice Chase was an integral part of the Lincoln administration and served as Treasury Secretary from 1861 until 1864, after which Lincoln nominated him as the Chief Justice of the United States. While in the Lincoln administration, Chase was one of only two cabinet members offering support for Lincoln’s plan to resupply Fort Sumter.

As Doris Kearns Goodwin recounts on page 336 of her book Team of Rivals, Secretary Chase suggested that Lincoln consider, “The organization of actual government by the seven seceded states as an accomplished revolution—accomplished through the complicity of the late admn—& letting that confederacy try its experiment.” As Secretary, Chase seemed to support the idea that, as he referred to them, “the seceded seven states” had organized an “actual government.” Nevertheless, as Chief Justice, he perhaps looked to find some justification for the death and destruction perpetuated by an administration of which he was intimately involved. There can be no doubt that the Chief Justice should have recused himself from inserting an opinion of the court on the constitutionality of secession—the core issue of Lincoln’s administration, of which he was a key collaborator.

It is interesting that in Justice Chase’s opinion, he again used the term “the seceded states” as he did in his advice to Lincoln on Fort Sumter. Not to make too much of this phrase, but Lincoln seemed to take great care not to use the “seceded states” phrase, for in doing so it could be taken as an admission that the States had indeed seceded. Further evidence that Chase believed secession had occurred can also be found in his opinion on this case when he wrote, “The relations of Texas to the Union were broken up, and new relations to a new government were established for them.” Here again, he seemed to be saying that Texas had indeed “broken up” its relations with the Union and joined another government—in other words, they had seceded.

Despite Chief Justice Chase’s clear bias regarding the issue of secession, there were also problems with the underlying facts of his ruling. Not surprisingly, for someone intimately involved with Lincoln’s administration, his opinion parroted one of Lincoln’s arguments—the thoroughly debunked theory of, “a more perfect and perpetual Union.”

Chase claimed, “The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States.” However, he failed to mention or explain the secession of nine of these original States from their first union (the Articles of Confederation); the only union the States ever proclaimed to be perpetual. There can be no doubt that our first Union under the Articles of Confederation, although claiming to be perpetual, or our current Union under the Constitution, without any such claim of being perpetual, were neither perpetual nor indissoluble.

It was also odd that for someone as well versed in the law as was the Chief Justice, to use a phrase found in the preamble of our Constitution, “a more perfect union,” upon which he based his claim of a perpetual union. Odd because preambles and headings are rarely used to form legal opinions.

This ruling also claimed the, “Authority to suppress rebellion is found in the power to suppress insurrection and carry on war, and authority to provide for the restoration of State governments, under the Constitution, when subverted and overthrown, is derived from the obligation of the United States to guarantee to every State in the Union a republican form of government.” But Chase’s opinion conveniently leaves out the constitutional requirement for the “Application of the Legislature” in the suppression of domestic violence, the constitutional protection against invasion, and the fact that the seceded States had a “republican form of government” under their newly constituted government.

Another canard promoted in the Court’s opinion claims, “War having become necessary to complete the purposed destruction by the South of the Federal government, Texas joined the other Southern States, and made war upon the United States…” This is pure nonsense since even those deniers of the right of secession understand that the South was not attempting to wage war against the United States—they simply wanted to be left alone.

Finally, the United States Supreme Court, as an impartial arbiter on disputes involving the interpretation of the Constitution, has lost all credibility. Who can deny that politics plays the most prominent of roles in the nomination of Supreme Court Justices as well as their confirmation. Republicans and Democrats both work to insure that new Justices look favorably on their issues when they are seated on the Court. If one needs any evidence of the extreme political nature of the Supreme Court today, all they need do is look at the number of 5-4 decisions on issues of import—with the same Justices split ideological between liberal and conservative views.

The opinions rendered in this case had many flaws when it came to deciding the constitutionality of secession, and any one of the more serious problems found in the majority’s opinion should be enough to remove the cloak of respectability from this dubious opinion. While there was no evidence of such, some believe this case was manufactured for the sole purpose of legitimizing the Civil War. But, speculation aside, it does appear that so soon after the Civil War there was desperation by those involved in the horrific and unconstitutional actions of the Lincoln administration, including Chief Justice Chase, to look for any opportunity that might justify their misdeeds. Texas v. White offered that opportunity, regardless of the convoluted and flawed opinion of the Court’s majority.


----------



## James Everett

Unkotare said:


> "The Court held that individual states could not unilaterally secede from the Union"
> 
> 
> Texas v. White The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law


As stated this opinion was not over secession and no arguments were made regarding secession.
As the Kangaroo court opinion reads from your own link.....
"
Conclusion 

In a 5-to-3 decision, the Court held that Texas did indeed have the right to bring suit and that individuals such as White had no claim to the bonds in question. The Court held that individual states could not unilaterally secede from the Union and that the acts of the insurgent Texas legislature--even if ratified by a majority of Texans--were "absolutely null." Even during the period of rebellion, however, the Court found that Texas continued to be a state.

This is easily defeated in a case concerning secession.....
If As the Kangaroo court found.....
"the Court found that Texas continued to be a state."
*Then it would be a little difficult for the State of Texas to be Re-admitted as was required by your government, if Texas never left the union.* 
Now do you see how easily your indoctrination concerning Texas v White is easily exposed with one simple statement of FACT, not to mention many many more that would be exposed if the case ever were actually brought before a legitimate unbiased court?


----------



## Unkotare

Texas v. White legal definition of Texas v. White 

"Chief Justice salmon p. chase,in his majority opinion,held that the Constitution "in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States.""


----------



## JakeStarkey

Unkotare has completely eviscerated James' nonsense.


----------



## Unkotare

Here we see the pathetic wannabe revisionist simply denying reality and insisting upon 'disqualifying' and closing his eyes to the actual facts and findings of history that might be inconvenient to his infantile attempts at playing historian. 

You have lost as surely as the confederate traitors did with their attempt at illegal secession in the name of evil.


----------



## James Everett

Unkotare said:


> Let's ask Justice Scalia:
> 
> "I am afraid I cannot be of much help with your problem, principally because I cannot imagine that such a question could ever reach the Supreme Court. To begin with, the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede.(Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, “one Nation, indivisible.”) Secondly, I find it difficult to envision who the parties to this lawsuit might be. Is the State suing the United States for a declaratory judgment? But the United States cannot be sued without its consent, and it has not consented to this sort of suit. "
> 
> 
> Scalia There Is No Right to Secede New York Personal Injury Law Blog


Again, We see that YOUR so called Justice referred to the issue as being settled by war, NOT LAW.
He was deflecting because just as was the case 140 years ago. 
The BS pledge of allegiance wasn't penned until 1892, lon after secession, this is tantamount to ex post facto.
As we see Scalia is stating that the U.S. Kangaroo court would not hear such a case. Why? because the truth would be exposed. The issue is above the SCOTUS and beyond its jurisdiction as its jurisdiction is limited in Article III section 2.


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> Let's ask Justice Scalia:
> 
> "I am afraid I cannot be of much help with your problem, principally because I cannot imagine that such a question could ever reach the Supreme Court. To begin with, the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede.(Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, “one Nation, indivisible.”) Secondly, I find it difficult to envision who the parties to this lawsuit might be. Is the State suing the United States for a declaratory judgment? But the United States cannot be sued without its consent, and it has not consented to this sort of suit. "
> 
> 
> Scalia There Is No Right to Secede New York Personal Injury Law Blog




*ahem*


----------



## RKMBrown

James Everett said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's ask Justice Scalia:
> 
> "I am afraid I cannot be of much help with your problem, principally because I cannot imagine that such a question could ever reach the Supreme Court. To begin with, the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede.(Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, “one Nation, indivisible.”) Secondly, I find it difficult to envision who the parties to this lawsuit might be. Is the State suing the United States for a declaratory judgment? But the United States cannot be sued without its consent, and it has not consented to this sort of suit. "
> 
> 
> Scalia There Is No Right to Secede New York Personal Injury Law Blog
> 
> 
> 
> Again, We see that YOUR so called Justice referred to the issue as being settled by war, NOT LAW.
> He was deflecting because just as was the case 140 years ago.
> The BS pledge of allegiance wasn't penned until 1892, lon after secession, this is tantamount to ex post facto.
> As we see Scalia is stating that the U.S. Kangaroo court would not hear such a case. Why? because the truth would be exposed. The issue is above the SCOTUS and beyond its jurisdiction as its jurisdiction is limited in Article III section 2.
Click to expand...

You're wasting your breath.  Unk is too busy humping his table leg to even try to understand your explanation.


----------



## James Everett

Unkotare said:


> " Authority to suppress rebellion is found in the power to suppress insurrection and carry on war, and authority to provide for the restoration of State governments, under the Constitution, when subverted and overthrown, is derived from the obligation of the United States to guarantee to every State in the Union a republican form of government. The latter, indeed, in the case of a rebellion which involves the government of a State, and, for the time, excludes the National authority from its limits, seems to be a necessary complement to the other."


Your problem here is that there was no insurrection. Insurrection is defined as rebellion, rebellion is defined as insurrection against lawful authority, and as we both KNOW, neither YOU nor YOUR SCOTUS can cite a law that states that Secession is illegal or unlawful, or that grants the U.S. the power to prevent a State from exercising its individual retained power.
Here we refer to the tenth amendment to YOUR CONstitution.....
"*The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people*."
If no power was delegated by the State governments to the United States (THE STATES IN UNION COLLECTIVELY) then that power is retained by each State individually, and as you or YOUR SCOTUS can cite no law against secession, or a power delegated to the U.S. to prevent that legal and lawful act, then that POWER is retained by each individual State.


----------



## Unkotare

"_When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into *an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State*. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States."

-Salmon P. Chase_


----------



## James Everett

Unkotare said:


> " Authority to suppress rebellion is found in the power to suppress insurrection and carry on war, and authority to provide for the restoration of State governments, under the Constitution, when subverted and overthrown, is derived from the obligation of the United States to guarantee to every State in the Union a republican form of government. The latter, indeed, in the case of a rebellion which involves the government of a State, and, for the time, excludes the National authority from its limits, seems to be a necessary complement to the other."


Further the States that seceded were no loner part of the union.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> Unkotare has completely eviscerated James' nonsense.


No one takes the Cheerleader shaking his POM POMS seriously JAKE.


----------



## James Everett

RKMBrown said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's ask Justice Scalia:
> 
> "I am afraid I cannot be of much help with your problem, principally because I cannot imagine that such a question could ever reach the Supreme Court. To begin with, the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede.(Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, “one Nation, indivisible.”) Secondly, I find it difficult to envision who the parties to this lawsuit might be. Is the State suing the United States for a declaratory judgment? But the United States cannot be sued without its consent, and it has not consented to this sort of suit. "
> 
> 
> Scalia There Is No Right to Secede New York Personal Injury Law Blog
> 
> 
> 
> Again, We see that YOUR so called Justice referred to the issue as being settled by war, NOT LAW.
> He was deflecting because just as was the case 140 years ago.
> The BS pledge of allegiance wasn't penned until 1892, lon after secession, this is tantamount to ex post facto.
> As we see Scalia is stating that the U.S. Kangaroo court would not hear such a case. Why? because the truth would be exposed. The issue is above the SCOTUS and beyond its jurisdiction as its jurisdiction is limited in Article III section 2.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're wasting your breath.  Unk is too busy humping his table leg to even try to understand your explanation.
Click to expand...

I know. Neither he nor his hump date JAKE are intellectually capable of anything beyond their base indoctrination.... CSAgov.org


----------



## RKMBrown

Unkotare said:


> "_When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States."
> 
> -Salmon P. Chase_


Yeah, and he was a POS.   All the civil war proved is that a murderous president has the power to kill hundreds of thousands of people with little to no resistance from murderous pieces of shit like you who stand by and celebrate, even dance over the graves of dead children.


----------



## Unkotare

James Everett said:


> YOUR so called Justice.





A REAL Justice. Yours as well as mine.


----------



## James Everett

Unkotare said:


> "_When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into *an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State*. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States."
> 
> -Salmon P. Chase_


But secession was indeed accomplished, as we see from the FACT that YOUR U.S. Required conditions for re-admittance, if the States were still part of the union, then re-admission would NOT be required.
However the real cold hard fact is that they never were re-admitted, they were simply forced into a state of exile and replaced with new occupation governments under new CONstitutions. No surrender of the CSA government or Constitution were ever made, and no peace treaty ever concluded between the USA and the CSA, but that is of no consequence to the Yankee who disregard even their own laws and CONstitution.


----------



## Unkotare

RKMBrown said:


> All the civil war proved is that a murderous president has the power to kill hundreds of thousands of people with little to no resistance from murderous pieces of shit like you who stand by and celebrate, even dance over the graves of dead children.





That was an extremely poor attempt at appeal to emotion. You and are fellow loser are extremely logic-deficient.


----------



## James Everett

Unkotare said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOUR so called Justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A REAL Justice. Yours as well as mine.
Click to expand...

Well there is *de jure *and *defacto*, force does not make *de jure* what is *defacto*.


----------



## Unkotare

James Everett said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOUR so called Justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A REAL Justice. Yours as well as mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well there is *de jure *and *defacto*, force does not make *de jure* what is *defacto*.
Click to expand...







Like a dimwitted little kid trying to use terms he doesn't understand!


----------



## James Everett

Unkotare said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOUR so called Justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A REAL Justice. Yours as well as mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well there is *de jure *and *defacto*, force does not make *de jure* what is *defacto*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like a dimwitted little kid trying to use terms he doesn't understand!
Click to expand...

Your childish smiley faces do not help your case. I do understand what I post.
Lets go a little further in your reference to Texas v white and the false assertion that it was a case concerning secession.....
"This U.S. Supreme Court decision is full of contradictions. The most obvious of these is the contention that Texas never ceased to be a state, yet, the people of Texas were denied representation as a state until they agreed to certain "reconstruction" acts of the U.S. Congress. Among those requirements was accepting a new state constitution dictated by the U.S. through armed force. Stalinists did the same thing to coerce independent nations into the "indissoluble Soviet Union."

If Texas never ceased to be a state, then the 1845 Texas constitution would have to be the proper constitution, since it was the constitution in force at the time of the "rebellion." The 1868 "carpet bagger" constitution, and the 1876 constitution, were both ratified under the cloud of armed invasion, and restricted the vote for ratification in defiance of the 1845 constitution, making both those ratification efforts invalid.

Using the U.S. Supreme Court's own decision, the proper state constitution must be the 1845 document, for it was the constitution approved by the people prior to the rebellion."
If you close your eyes and ears to the truth and yell La, la, la, la ,la like a child then the truth escapes you.


----------



## Unkotare

James Everett said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOUR so called Justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A REAL Justice. Yours as well as mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well there is *de jure *and *defacto*, force does not make *de jure* what is *defacto*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like a dimwitted little kid trying to use terms he doesn't understand!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do understand what I post....
Click to expand...



It is clear that you do not.


----------



## James Everett

Unkotare said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOUR so called Justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A REAL Justice. Yours as well as mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well there is *de jure *and *defacto*, force does not make *de jure* what is *defacto*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like a dimwitted little kid trying to use terms he doesn't understand!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do understand what I post....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is clear that you do not.
Click to expand...

There are a great many who disagree with you.


----------



## Unkotare

James Everett said:


> If you close your eyes and ears to the truth...




"The truth" has been legally and historically established. I'll take the facts of history and the findings of US Supreme Court Justices over the wannabe revisionist bullshit of some dimwit on the internet.


----------



## Unkotare

James Everett said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> A REAL Justice. Yours as well as mine.
> 
> 
> 
> Well there is *de jure *and *defacto*, force does not make *de jure* what is *defacto*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like a dimwitted little kid trying to use terms he doesn't understand!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do understand what I post....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is clear that you do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are a great many who disagree with you.
Click to expand...




Lots of voices in your head, wannabe?


----------



## James Everett

Unkotare said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you close your eyes and ears to the truth...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The truth" has been legally and historically established. I'll take the facts of history and the findings of US Supreme Court Justices over the wannabe revisionist bullshit of some dimwit on the internet.
Click to expand...

No, I have posted the facts, you simply choose to accept fiction over facts. Its not the source, its the facts that matter. I have given you facts and citation that dispute the fiction.


----------



## James Everett

Unkotare said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well there is *de jure *and *defacto*, force does not make *de jure* what is *defacto*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like a dimwitted little kid trying to use terms he doesn't understand!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do understand what I post....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is clear that you do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are a great many who disagree with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of voices in your head, wannabe?
Click to expand...

No, I'm not a wannabe, I am.


----------



## Unkotare

James Everett said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like a dimwitted little kid trying to use terms he doesn't understand!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do understand what I post....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is clear that you do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are a great many who disagree with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of voices in your head, wannabe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I'm not a wannabe, I am.
Click to expand...



You_ are_ a dimwit pretending that what he wants to believe about history has anything to do with reality. You're just kidding yourself.


----------



## Unkotare

James Everett said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you close your eyes and ears to the truth...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The truth" has been legally and historically established. I'll take the facts of history and the findings of US Supreme Court Justices over the wannabe revisionist bullshit of some dimwit on the internet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I have posted the facts, you simply choose to accept fiction over facts. Its not the source, its the facts that matter. I have given you facts and citation that dispute the fiction.
Click to expand...



In other words, you want to believe your little imagination has the power to shape reality. It doesn't. I quoted actual Supreme Court Justices and legal findings. You're a bitter little loser playing make-pretend.


----------



## James Everett

Unkotare said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you close your eyes and ears to the truth...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The truth" has been legally and historically established. I'll take the facts of history and the findings of US Supreme Court Justices over the wannabe revisionist bullshit of some dimwit on the internet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I have posted the facts, you simply choose to accept fiction over facts. Its not the source, its the facts that matter. I have given you facts and citation that dispute the fiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you want to believe your little imagination has the power to shape reality. It doesn't. I quoted actual Supreme Court Justices and legal findings. You're a bitter little loser playing make-pretend.
Click to expand...

It's not my imagination, as I have cited the facts which contradict the fiction to which you have been indoctrinated, you choose to follow those who you believe because you are a sheep who look to others as authoritative. I am not a sheep, I do not believe that nine political appointees are more schooled in YOUR CONstitutional system, the founder's or framers intent than do I.
These nine Justices are politically bias, this is why you have "Liberal" and "Conservative" appointees, they have been infected with the same indoctrination as you, and many many others.
I have debated with both sitting and retired CONstitutional lawyers and have found that those with which I have debated could not explain the two systems that were cobbled together to form the original 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, and I doubt that you could either.
If one cannot grasp the very foundation of the system, then one cannot possibly understand how it was suppose to function.
All that these morons were able to describe are the three branches and the separation of powers, and that is base at best.
No I do not recognize politically appointed fools as an authority on understanding much of anything.


----------



## James Everett

Unkotare said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you close your eyes and ears to the truth...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The truth" has been legally and historically established. I'll take the facts of history and the findings of US Supreme Court Justices over the wannabe revisionist bullshit of some dimwit on the internet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I have posted the facts, you simply choose to accept fiction over facts. Its not the source, its the facts that matter. I have given you facts and citation that dispute the fiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you want to believe your little imagination has the power to shape reality. It doesn't. I quoted actual Supreme Court Justices and legal findings. You're a bitter little loser playing make-pretend.
Click to expand...


----------



## Unkotare

James Everett said:


> It's not my imagination, as I have cited the facts which contradict the fiction to which you have been indoctrinated.



You have "cited" nothing. You have laughably attempted to pass off your revisionist nonsense as 'fact' because you merely mentioned your bitter, apologist, anti-reality in the same sentence. Pathetic loser.


----------



## James Everett

Unkotare said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not my imagination, as I have cited the facts which contradict the fiction to which you have been indoctrinated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have "cited" nothing. You have laughably attempted to pass off your revisionist nonsense as 'fact' because you merely mentioned your bitter, apologist, anti-reality in the same sentence. Pathetic loser.
Click to expand...

Oh, thats simply not true and you know it. All alyone need do is schroll through this thread to see that you are not telling the truth.
I have cited YOUR CONstitution, The CONstitutional debated #32, 39, and 62,  Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, I have cited the law: You? well lets face it, the best you could do is cite Texas v White, and attempted to use it as a case on secession rather than what the case actually was about. Clearly you don't understand DICTA.
You are at the same lower level as JAKE STARKEY when it comes to knowledge and understanding.


----------



## Unkotare

James Everett said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not my imagination, as I have cited the facts which contradict the fiction to which you have been indoctrinated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have "cited" nothing. You have laughably attempted to pass off your revisionist nonsense as 'fact' because you merely mentioned your bitter, apologist, anti-reality in the same sentence. Pathetic loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, thats simply not true and you know it. ....
Click to expand...



It is obviously true, and anyone can read this thread to see it for themselves. You have done nothing but make a futile fool of yourself. 


Guess who's job it is to interpret the US Constitution? Guess what that court has had to say about secession, dopey? You don't have to guess, I have quoted it for you many times on this thread.


----------



## James Everett

Unkotare said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not my imagination, as I have cited the facts which contradict the fiction to which you have been indoctrinated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have "cited" nothing. You have laughably attempted to pass off your revisionist nonsense as 'fact' because you merely mentioned your bitter, apologist, anti-reality in the same sentence. Pathetic loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, thats simply not true and you know it. ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is obviously true, and anyone can read this thread to see it for themselves. You have done nothing but make a futile fool of yourself.
> 
> 
> Guess who's job it is to interpret the US Constitution? Guess what that court has had to say about secession, dopey? You don't have to guess, I have quoted it for you many times on this thread.
Click to expand...

Ever hear of _*Buck v. Bell*_, 274 U.S. 200
I suppose you agree with that SCOTUS interpretation of YOUR CONstitution as well?
*The court held that, Ms. Buck was in fact forcibly sterilized, as were tens of thousands of other people across the nation after Buck v. Bell was decided. *
*YOUR SCOTUS opinion...*.
*"It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes."
It was this opinion that legalized the Eugenics programs in YOUR U.S. and the model that Nazi Germany used for its Master Race program.
Sorry, but YOUR SCOTUS opinions on YOUR CONstitution, are well known to be tainted by racism, and political bias. What could one expect from political appointees who interpret such to fit the political desires of the political body which appoint them.
Again concerning Texas v White....
It was not a case concerning secession, I have shown you that, as well as the flaws in that opinion, and the fact that Texas v White would not have any bearing on a case concerning secession. 
In fact when a State secedes YOUR SCOTUS at the point of secession has lost Jurisdiction to hear a case on the subject.
This is the reason that the Secessions of the Southern States have never been brought before the SCOTUS, and why Scalia referred to the war as settling the issue, because the SCOTUS could never hear the case as it has no jurisdiction. What you have is a fictional opinion on secession, and a coverup of the fact that YOUR SCOTUS has no jurisdiction in such case.
Lincoln appointees dominated the court

Chief Justice S.P. Chase of Ohio, a Lincoln appointee, delivered the opinion. Other associate justices and appointing presidents were Samuel Nelson, New York (Tyler); R.C. Grier, Pennsylvania (Polk); N. Clifford, Maine (Buchanan); N.H. Swayne, Ohio (Lincoln); S.F. Miller, Iowa (Lincoln); David Davis, Illinois (Lincoln) and S. J. Field, California (Lincoln).

The heavily dominated Lincoln court heard the case, with Chase delivering the opinion.
It is your choice to accept fiction, NOT mine.
*


----------



## Liminal

James Everett said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> CSA was a treasonous governing entity.  It was executed by the North.  I can never be resurrected.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and Russia once occupied Poland via war, destroyed Poland's government, and of course Poland could never be resurrected either, nor could East and West Germany be resurrected as one either: Right JAKE?  Never say Never.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Poland was legitimate, the CSA never.  Study the fallacy of false comparison.  You are so easy to do deal with.  A better comparison would be the subjugation of the various French duchies to the kingdom or the various principalities, dukedoms, and other powers to the Emperor of Germany.  They were all, respectively, of one 'nation' generally and will never be resurrected, nor the CSA for that reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your confusion is evident, as you confuse a Union/Confederacy of States as a single "nation" another comparison would be the United Nations, as that to is a union/confederacy of sovereign nations under a charter.
> You see the union as it is since Lincoln's rebellion as a consolidation, rather than the union that it was. States are NOT duchies. A duchies is a territory, The States are NOT territories of the National government.
> Your comparison is a false comparison.
> Talk about being easy to deal with.
> For the first time you attempt to post something of relevance to the discussion and make a fool of yourself in the attempt.
Click to expand...


Which other nations recognized Confederate sovereignty?  When you don't have diplomatic recognition from anyone, you only imagine yourself to be a legitimate sovereign nation.


----------



## Liminal

Unkotare said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do understand what I post....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is clear that you do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are a great many who disagree with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of voices in your head, wannabe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I'm not a wannabe, I am.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You_ are_ a dimwit pretending that what he wants to believe about history has anything to do with reality. You're just kidding yourself.
Click to expand...


No, he presents a point of view.    And what does that tell you about our Constitution?  It tells me that the founding fathers didn't do a very good job, because they wrote a document vague enough to be open to interpretation.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Liminal said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is clear that you do not.
> 
> 
> 
> There are a great many who disagree with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of voices in your head, wannabe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I'm not a wannabe, I am.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You_ are_ a dimwit pretending that what he wants to believe about history has anything to do with reality. You're just kidding yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, he presents a point of view.    And what does that tell you about our Constitution?  It tells me that the founding fathers didn't do a very good job, because they wrote a document vague enough to be open to interpretation.
Click to expand...

Which was crushed forever in the Civil War.


----------



## Liminal

JakeStarkey said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are a great many who disagree with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of voices in your head, wannabe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I'm not a wannabe, I am.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You_ are_ a dimwit pretending that what he wants to believe about history has anything to do with reality. You're just kidding yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, he presents a point of view.    And what does that tell you about our Constitution?  It tells me that the founding fathers didn't do a very good job, because they wrote a document vague enough to be open to interpretation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which was crushed forever in the Civil War.
Click to expand...


How can Constitutional questions be settled by a war?  The question remains in some people's minds.  Constitutional issues can only be resolved through constitutional means.  Was there a constitutional amendment passed prohibiting secession?  Were legal mechanisms put in place describing a constitutional process for secession?  If not, then the Constitution remains just vague enough to cause problems in the future.


----------



## James Everett

Liminal said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> CSA was a treasonous governing entity.  It was executed by the North.  I can never be resurrected.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and Russia once occupied Poland via war, destroyed Poland's government, and of course Poland could never be resurrected either, nor could East and West Germany be resurrected as one either: Right JAKE?  Never say Never.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Poland was legitimate, the CSA never.  Study the fallacy of false comparison.  You are so easy to do deal with.  A better comparison would be the subjugation of the various French duchies to the kingdom or the various principalities, dukedoms, and other powers to the Emperor of Germany.  They were all, respectively, of one 'nation' generally and will never be resurrected, nor the CSA for that reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your confusion is evident, as you confuse a Union/Confederacy of States as a single "nation" another comparison would be the United Nations, as that to is a union/confederacy of sovereign nations under a charter.
> You see the union as it is since Lincoln's rebellion as a consolidation, rather than the union that it was. States are NOT duchies. A duchies is a territory, The States are NOT territories of the National government.
> Your comparison is a false comparison.
> Talk about being easy to deal with.
> For the first time you attempt to post something of relevance to the discussion and make a fool of yourself in the attempt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which other nations recognized Confederate sovereignty?  When you don't have diplomatic recognition from anyone, you only imagine yourself to be a legitimate sovereign nation.
Click to expand...

Each State within the Confederacy is itself a nation, Your problem is in the way you have been indoctrinated to view YOUR union of States since Lincoln's rebellion consolidated them into a single entity.
Take a look at the United Nations members: What you will find are member States, as a State is a nation....
http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0LEV7_1IRhViXQAgyInnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTEzM2pkdDNiBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1lIUzAwMl8x/RV=2/RE=1427673718/RO=10/RU=http://www.un.org/en/members//RK=0/RS=0vc5IMqfbAtUEDUCDFdOKJMqqdA-
Our Confederacy is made of member States/nations, each recognized the other, and each member State in our Confederacy recognized the General government of the Confederacy as legitimate, they fought a defensive war under that united government, each member Nation/State government had two appointed representatives within that central body of government.
One of the self evident truths is that.....
"Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the CONSENT of the governed."
Do you deny this self evident truth?
In this denial of this self evident truth; is it your assertion that other governments are required for a government to be legitimate?
Is it your denial that the people who form the government and grant it their just powers who make it legitimate?
Indoctrination is a powerful weapon, it skews reality.....
Niccola Machiavelli,.
*"...[A]llow them [the conquered] to live under their own laws, taking 
tribute of them, and creating within the country a government 
composed of a few who will keep it friendly to you.... A city used to 
liberty can be more easily held by means of its citizens than in any 
other way....
"...[T]hey must at least retain the semblance of the old forms; so that it may seem to 
the people that there has been no change in the institutions, even though in fact they 
are entirely different from the old ones. For the great majority of mankind are 
satisfied with appearances, as though they were realities, and are often even more 
influenced by the things that seem than by those that are.... [The conqueror should] 
not wish that the people... should have occasion to regret the loss of any of their old customs".....*
Joseph Goebbels, once said....
_*“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it."
You may find more truth at......
http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0LEVjet2xZV3FgAYlsnnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTEzM2pkdDNiBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1lIUzAwMl8x/RV=2/RE=1427590190/RO=10/RU=http://www.csagov.org//RK=0/RS=VbKGlE.8tJhHgtfP7WePm84YH6w-
CSAgov.org
News Articles and events...
"How to turn a cow into a goat"*_


----------



## Liminal

James Everett said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> CSA was a treasonous governing entity.  It was executed by the North.  I can never be resurrected.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and Russia once occupied Poland via war, destroyed Poland's government, and of course Poland could never be resurrected either, nor could East and West Germany be resurrected as one either: Right JAKE?  Never say Never.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Poland was legitimate, the CSA never.  Study the fallacy of false comparison.  You are so easy to do deal with.  A better comparison would be the subjugation of the various French duchies to the kingdom or the various principalities, dukedoms, and other powers to the Emperor of Germany.  They were all, respectively, of one 'nation' generally and will never be resurrected, nor the CSA for that reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your confusion is evident, as you confuse a Union/Confederacy of States as a single "nation" another comparison would be the United Nations, as that to is a union/confederacy of sovereign nations under a charter.
> You see the union as it is since Lincoln's rebellion as a consolidation, rather than the union that it was. States are NOT duchies. A duchies is a territory, The States are NOT territories of the National government.
> Your comparison is a false comparison.
> Talk about being easy to deal with.
> For the first time you attempt to post something of relevance to the discussion and make a fool of yourself in the attempt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which other nations recognized Confederate sovereignty?  When you don't have diplomatic recognition from anyone, you only imagine yourself to be a legitimate sovereign nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Each State within the Confederacy is itself a nation, Your problem is in the way you have been indoctrinated to view YOUR union of States since Lincoln's rebellion consolidated them into a single entity.
> Take a look at the United Nations members: What you will find are member States, as a State is a nation....
> http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0LEV7_1IRhViXQAgyInnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTEzM2pkdDNiBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1lIUzAwMl8x/RV=2/RE=1427673718/RO=10/RU=http://www.un.org/en/members//RK=0/RS=0vc5IMqfbAtUEDUCDFdOKJMqqdA-
> Our Confederacy is made of member States/nations, each recognized the other, and each member State in our Confederacy recognized the General government of the Confederacy as legitimate, they fought a defensive war under that united government, each member Nation/State government had two appointed representatives within that central body of government.
> One of the self evident truths is that.....
> "Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the CONSENT of the governed."
> Do you deny this self evident truth?
> In this denial of this self evident truth; is it your assertion that other governments are required for a government to be legitimate?
> Is it your denial that the people who form the government and grant it their just powers who make it legitimate?
> Indoctrination is a powerful weapon, it skews reality.....
> Niccola Machiavelli,.
> *"...[A]llow them [the conquered] to live under their own laws, taking
> tribute of them, and creating within the country a government
> composed of a few who will keep it friendly to you.... A city used to
> liberty can be more easily held by means of its citizens than in any
> other way....
> "...[T]hey must at least retain the semblance of the old forms; so that it may seem to
> the people that there has been no change in the institutions, even though in fact they
> are entirely different from the old ones. For the great majority of mankind are
> satisfied with appearances, as though they were realities, and are often even more
> influenced by the things that seem than by those that are.... [The conqueror should]
> not wish that the people... should have occasion to regret the loss of any of their old customs".....*
> Joseph Goebbels, once said....
> _*“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
> eventually come to believe it."
> You may find more truth at......
> http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0LEVjet2xZV3FgAYlsnnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTEzM2pkdDNiBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1lIUzAwMl8x/RV=2/RE=1427590190/RO=10/RU=http://www.csagov.org//RK=0/RS=VbKGlE.8tJhHgtfP7WePm84YH6w-
> CSAgov.org
> News Articles and events...
> "How to turn a cow into a goat"*_
Click to expand...


Recognizing yourself isn't quite the same as diplomatic recognition.


----------



## James Everett

Liminal said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is clear that you do not.
> 
> 
> 
> There are a great many who disagree with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of voices in your head, wannabe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I'm not a wannabe, I am.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You_ are_ a dimwit pretending that what he wants to believe about history has anything to do with reality. You're just kidding yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, he presents a point of view.    And what does that tell you about our Constitution?  It tells me that the founding fathers didn't do a very good job, because they wrote a document vague enough to be open to interpretation.
Click to expand...

The men who "wrote" Your CONstitution, were not the founders, they were the framers. There was a spit among the founders' over that 1787/1789 CONstitution, Many were federalist's who wished to retain the wholly federal system under the ARticles of Confederation, others were NATIONALISTS (Rats/Ratifiers) who wanted to establish a wholly national government. Because of the federalist, the Nationalists were forced to comprimise, giving YOU the cobbled together system that became YOUR CONstitution, however as a result of Lincoln's rebellion, the federal portion was removed fullfilling the Nationalists dream of a destruction of the union of States under a wholly national government system.
Ask yourself these questions....
What say do the State governments have in legislation today?
What department do the State governments have within the collective of States that they established as a central body between themselves?
Who within that central governing body represent the State governments that make up the fictional United States that is said to exist today?
Can a union of States exist without those State governments being party to that union?
A State is defined as a mode of government, NOT a body of people within a geographical area with defined boundaries: Such is a territory, or a province.


----------



## James Everett

Liminal said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and Russia once occupied Poland via war, destroyed Poland's government, and of course Poland could never be resurrected either, nor could East and West Germany be resurrected as one either: Right JAKE?  Never say Never.
> 
> 
> 
> Poland was legitimate, the CSA never.  Study the fallacy of false comparison.  You are so easy to do deal with.  A better comparison would be the subjugation of the various French duchies to the kingdom or the various principalities, dukedoms, and other powers to the Emperor of Germany.  They were all, respectively, of one 'nation' generally and will never be resurrected, nor the CSA for that reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your confusion is evident, as you confuse a Union/Confederacy of States as a single "nation" another comparison would be the United Nations, as that to is a union/confederacy of sovereign nations under a charter.
> You see the union as it is since Lincoln's rebellion as a consolidation, rather than the union that it was. States are NOT duchies. A duchies is a territory, The States are NOT territories of the National government.
> Your comparison is a false comparison.
> Talk about being easy to deal with.
> For the first time you attempt to post something of relevance to the discussion and make a fool of yourself in the attempt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which other nations recognized Confederate sovereignty?  When you don't have diplomatic recognition from anyone, you only imagine yourself to be a legitimate sovereign nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Each State within the Confederacy is itself a nation, Your problem is in the way you have been indoctrinated to view YOUR union of States since Lincoln's rebellion consolidated them into a single entity.
> Take a look at the United Nations members: What you will find are member States, as a State is a nation....
> http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0LEV7_1IRhViXQAgyInnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTEzM2pkdDNiBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1lIUzAwMl8x/RV=2/RE=1427673718/RO=10/RU=http://www.un.org/en/members//RK=0/RS=0vc5IMqfbAtUEDUCDFdOKJMqqdA-
> Our Confederacy is made of member States/nations, each recognized the other, and each member State in our Confederacy recognized the General government of the Confederacy as legitimate, they fought a defensive war under that united government, each member Nation/State government had two appointed representatives within that central body of government.
> One of the self evident truths is that.....
> "Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the CONSENT of the governed."
> Do you deny this self evident truth?
> In this denial of this self evident truth; is it your assertion that other governments are required for a government to be legitimate?
> Is it your denial that the people who form the government and grant it their just powers who make it legitimate?
> Indoctrination is a powerful weapon, it skews reality.....
> Niccola Machiavelli,.
> *"...[A]llow them [the conquered] to live under their own laws, taking
> tribute of them, and creating within the country a government
> composed of a few who will keep it friendly to you.... A city used to
> liberty can be more easily held by means of its citizens than in any
> other way....
> "...[T]hey must at least retain the semblance of the old forms; so that it may seem to
> the people that there has been no change in the institutions, even though in fact they
> are entirely different from the old ones. For the great majority of mankind are
> satisfied with appearances, as though they were realities, and are often even more
> influenced by the things that seem than by those that are.... [The conqueror should]
> not wish that the people... should have occasion to regret the loss of any of their old customs".....*
> Joseph Goebbels, once said....
> _*“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
> eventually come to believe it."
> You may find more truth at......
> http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0LEVjet2xZV3FgAYlsnnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTEzM2pkdDNiBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1lIUzAwMl8x/RV=2/RE=1427590190/RO=10/RU=http://www.csagov.org//RK=0/RS=VbKGlE.8tJhHgtfP7WePm84YH6w-
> CSAgov.org
> News Articles and events...
> "How to turn a cow into a goat"*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Recognizing yourself isn't quite the same as diplomatic recognition.
Click to expand...

Your indoctrination stands in your way, as you cannot see the forest for the trees.
Each State had diplomatic recognition within the Confederacy, in the form of appointed State representatives called Senators, just as each member State within the United Nations has an appointed diplomat within that union/confederacy of States.
One could view our Southern Confederacy as a united nations.
You must free yourself of the indoctrination.
CSAgov.org


----------



## Unkotare

Liminal said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is clear that you do not.
> 
> 
> 
> There are a great many who disagree with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of voices in your head, wannabe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I'm not a wannabe, I am.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You_ are_ a dimwit pretending that what he wants to believe about history has anything to do with reality. You're just kidding yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, he presents a point of view.    .
Click to expand...



The Point of view of a buffoon who thinks ignorance and insistence can alter reality.


----------



## Unkotare

Liminal said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of voices in your head, wannabe?
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm not a wannabe, I am.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You_ are_ a dimwit pretending that what he wants to believe about history has anything to do with reality. You're just kidding yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, he presents a point of view.    And what does that tell you about our Constitution?  It tells me that the founding fathers didn't do a very good job, because they wrote a document vague enough to be open to interpretation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which was crushed forever in the Civil War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can Constitutional questions be settled by a war?  The question remains in some people's minds.  Constitutional issues can only be resolved through constitutional means.  Was there a constitutional amendment passed prohibiting secession?  Were legal mechanisms put in place describing a constitutional process for secession?  If not, then the Constitution remains just vague enough to cause problems in the future.
Click to expand...



The Supreme court has not been vague on the matter.


----------



## James Everett

Liminal said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of voices in your head, wannabe?
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm not a wannabe, I am.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You_ are_ a dimwit pretending that what he wants to believe about history has anything to do with reality. You're just kidding yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, he presents a point of view.    And what does that tell you about our Constitution?  It tells me that the founding fathers didn't do a very good job, because they wrote a document vague enough to be open to interpretation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which was crushed forever in the Civil War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can Constitutional questions be settled by a war?  The question remains in some people's minds.  Constitutional issues can only be resolved through constitutional means.  Was there a constitutional amendment passed prohibiting secession?  Were legal mechanisms put in place describing a constitutional process for secession?  If not, then the Constitution remains just vague enough to cause problems in the future.
Click to expand...

This is why the restoration cause exists, as it is a legal means to return to the Articles of Confederation in order that we may once again have a union/confederacy of States under a wholly federal system. The Articles were fine for the purpose of a union of States, the 1787/1789 U.S. Constitution sought to create the national system that exists today wherein it hold not only an authority over the individual citizen, but an indefinite supremacy over all persons, and things. In other words a tyranny.


----------



## Liminal

James Everett said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poland was legitimate, the CSA never.  Study the fallacy of false comparison.  You are so easy to do deal with.  A better comparison would be the subjugation of the various French duchies to the kingdom or the various principalities, dukedoms, and other powers to the Emperor of Germany.  They were all, respectively, of one 'nation' generally and will never be resurrected, nor the CSA for that reason.
> 
> 
> 
> Your confusion is evident, as you confuse a Union/Confederacy of States as a single "nation" another comparison would be the United Nations, as that to is a union/confederacy of sovereign nations under a charter.
> You see the union as it is since Lincoln's rebellion as a consolidation, rather than the union that it was. States are NOT duchies. A duchies is a territory, The States are NOT territories of the National government.
> Your comparison is a false comparison.
> Talk about being easy to deal with.
> For the first time you attempt to post something of relevance to the discussion and make a fool of yourself in the attempt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which other nations recognized Confederate sovereignty?  When you don't have diplomatic recognition from anyone, you only imagine yourself to be a legitimate sovereign nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Each State within the Confederacy is itself a nation, Your problem is in the way you have been indoctrinated to view YOUR union of States since Lincoln's rebellion consolidated them into a single entity.
> Take a look at the United Nations members: What you will find are member States, as a State is a nation....
> http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0LEV7_1IRhViXQAgyInnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTEzM2pkdDNiBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1lIUzAwMl8x/RV=2/RE=1427673718/RO=10/RU=http://www.un.org/en/members//RK=0/RS=0vc5IMqfbAtUEDUCDFdOKJMqqdA-
> Our Confederacy is made of member States/nations, each recognized the other, and each member State in our Confederacy recognized the General government of the Confederacy as legitimate, they fought a defensive war under that united government, each member Nation/State government had two appointed representatives within that central body of government.
> One of the self evident truths is that.....
> "Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the CONSENT of the governed."
> Do you deny this self evident truth?
> In this denial of this self evident truth; is it your assertion that other governments are required for a government to be legitimate?
> Is it your denial that the people who form the government and grant it their just powers who make it legitimate?
> Indoctrination is a powerful weapon, it skews reality.....
> Niccola Machiavelli,.
> *"...[A]llow them [the conquered] to live under their own laws, taking
> tribute of them, and creating within the country a government
> composed of a few who will keep it friendly to you.... A city used to
> liberty can be more easily held by means of its citizens than in any
> other way....
> "...[T]hey must at least retain the semblance of the old forms; so that it may seem to
> the people that there has been no change in the institutions, even though in fact they
> are entirely different from the old ones. For the great majority of mankind are
> satisfied with appearances, as though they were realities, and are often even more
> influenced by the things that seem than by those that are.... [The conqueror should]
> not wish that the people... should have occasion to regret the loss of any of their old customs".....*
> Joseph Goebbels, once said....
> _*“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
> eventually come to believe it."
> You may find more truth at......
> http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0LEVjet2xZV3FgAYlsnnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTEzM2pkdDNiBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1lIUzAwMl8x/RV=2/RE=1427590190/RO=10/RU=http://www.csagov.org//RK=0/RS=VbKGlE.8tJhHgtfP7WePm84YH6w-
> CSAgov.org
> News Articles and events...
> "How to turn a cow into a goat"*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Recognizing yourself isn't quite the same as diplomatic recognition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your indoctrination stands in your way, as you cannot see the forest for the trees.
> Each State had diplomatic recognition within the Confederacy, in the form of appointed State representatives called Senators, just as each member State within the United Nations has an appointed diplomat within that union/confederacy of States.
> One could view our Southern Confederacy as a united nations.
> You must free yourself of the indoctrination.
> CSAgov.org
Click to expand...


Oh I see, well then since I've been so thoroughly indoctrinated there's probably no basis for discussion.  My closed mind won't allow it.


----------



## James Everett

Unkotare said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are a great many who disagree with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of voices in your head, wannabe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I'm not a wannabe, I am.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You_ are_ a dimwit pretending that what he wants to believe about history has anything to do with reality. You're just kidding yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, he presents a point of view.    .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Point of view of a buffoon who thinks ignorance and insistence can alter reality.
Click to expand...

Liminal is not a buffoon, Liminal has one thing correct, and that is that YOUR U.S. CONstitution is an abysmal failure. Liminal just need to escape the indoctrination, just as do you.


----------



## Unkotare

We are not a confederacy, we are the UNITED STATES of AMERICA.


----------



## James Everett

Liminal said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your confusion is evident, as you confuse a Union/Confederacy of States as a single "nation" another comparison would be the United Nations, as that to is a union/confederacy of sovereign nations under a charter.
> You see the union as it is since Lincoln's rebellion as a consolidation, rather than the union that it was. States are NOT duchies. A duchies is a territory, The States are NOT territories of the National government.
> Your comparison is a false comparison.
> Talk about being easy to deal with.
> For the first time you attempt to post something of relevance to the discussion and make a fool of yourself in the attempt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which other nations recognized Confederate sovereignty?  When you don't have diplomatic recognition from anyone, you only imagine yourself to be a legitimate sovereign nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Each State within the Confederacy is itself a nation, Your problem is in the way you have been indoctrinated to view YOUR union of States since Lincoln's rebellion consolidated them into a single entity.
> Take a look at the United Nations members: What you will find are member States, as a State is a nation....
> http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0LEV7_1IRhViXQAgyInnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTEzM2pkdDNiBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1lIUzAwMl8x/RV=2/RE=1427673718/RO=10/RU=http://www.un.org/en/members//RK=0/RS=0vc5IMqfbAtUEDUCDFdOKJMqqdA-
> Our Confederacy is made of member States/nations, each recognized the other, and each member State in our Confederacy recognized the General government of the Confederacy as legitimate, they fought a defensive war under that united government, each member Nation/State government had two appointed representatives within that central body of government.
> One of the self evident truths is that.....
> "Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the CONSENT of the governed."
> Do you deny this self evident truth?
> In this denial of this self evident truth; is it your assertion that other governments are required for a government to be legitimate?
> Is it your denial that the people who form the government and grant it their just powers who make it legitimate?
> Indoctrination is a powerful weapon, it skews reality.....
> Niccola Machiavelli,.
> *"...[A]llow them [the conquered] to live under their own laws, taking
> tribute of them, and creating within the country a government
> composed of a few who will keep it friendly to you.... A city used to
> liberty can be more easily held by means of its citizens than in any
> other way....
> "...[T]hey must at least retain the semblance of the old forms; so that it may seem to
> the people that there has been no change in the institutions, even though in fact they
> are entirely different from the old ones. For the great majority of mankind are
> satisfied with appearances, as though they were realities, and are often even more
> influenced by the things that seem than by those that are.... [The conqueror should]
> not wish that the people... should have occasion to regret the loss of any of their old customs".....*
> Joseph Goebbels, once said....
> _*“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
> eventually come to believe it."
> You may find more truth at......
> http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0LEVjet2xZV3FgAYlsnnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTEzM2pkdDNiBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1lIUzAwMl8x/RV=2/RE=1427590190/RO=10/RU=http://www.csagov.org//RK=0/RS=VbKGlE.8tJhHgtfP7WePm84YH6w-
> CSAgov.org
> News Articles and events...
> "How to turn a cow into a goat"*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Recognizing yourself isn't quite the same as diplomatic recognition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your indoctrination stands in your way, as you cannot see the forest for the trees.
> Each State had diplomatic recognition within the Confederacy, in the form of appointed State representatives called Senators, just as each member State within the United Nations has an appointed diplomat within that union/confederacy of States.
> One could view our Southern Confederacy as a united nations.
> You must free yourself of the indoctrination.
> CSAgov.org
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I see, well then since I've been so thoroughly indoctrinated there's probably no basis for discussion.  My closed mind won't allow it.
Click to expand...

A closed mind is like a closed door: It can be reopened.
I am not picking on anyone here, I am simply trying to expose the truth. 
Some simply deny the truth no matter the facts presented. It is no different that the divide and conquer strategy in place via the Repug, and dimwitacrat parties established to act like any sport contention wherein the spectators choose sides. No matter what the facts are the one who knows he is wrong and the facts prove such, he will still defend the position of his team to the point of making a loud mouth fool of himself.


----------



## Unkotare

James Everett said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of voices in your head, wannabe?
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm not a wannabe, I am.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You_ are_ a dimwit pretending that what he wants to believe about history has anything to do with reality. You're just kidding yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, he presents a point of view.    .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Point of view of a buffoon who thinks ignorance and insistence can alter reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liminal is not a buffoon, .
Click to expand...



I was referring to YOU, moron.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Liminal said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of voices in your head, wannabe?
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm not a wannabe, I am.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You_ are_ a dimwit pretending that what he wants to believe about history has anything to do with reality. You're just kidding yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, he presents a point of view.    And what does that tell you about our Constitution?  It tells me that the founding fathers didn't do a very good job, because they wrote a document vague enough to be open to interpretation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which was crushed forever in the Civil War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can Constitutional questions be settled by a war?  The question remains in some people's minds.  Constitutional issues can only be resolved through constitutional means.  Was there a constitutional amendment passed prohibiting secession?  Were legal mechanisms put in place describing a constitutional process for secession?  If not, then the Constitution remains just vague enough to cause problems in the future.
Click to expand...


Because the law said so in statute and the war said so in fact.

There are no moral questions that change that.

There are no emotional feelings that change that.

This thread is merely an intellectual game play, nothing more.  Mental masturbation, just like physical, is sterile in the result.


----------



## JakeStarkey

James Everett said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm not a wannabe, I am.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You_ are_ a dimwit pretending that what he wants to believe about history has anything to do with reality. You're just kidding yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, he presents a point of view.    And what does that tell you about our Constitution?  It tells me that the founding fathers didn't do a very good job, because they wrote a document vague enough to be open to interpretation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which was crushed forever in the Civil War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can Constitutional questions be settled by a war?  The question remains in some people's minds.  Constitutional issues can only be resolved through constitutional means.  Was there a constitutional amendment passed prohibiting secession?  Were legal mechanisms put in place describing a constitutional process for secession?  If not, then the Constitution remains just vague enough to cause problems in the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is why the restoration cause exists, as it is a legal means to return to the Articles of Confederation in order that we may once again have a union/confederacy of States under a wholly federal system. The Articles were fine for the purpose of a union of States, the 1787/1789 U.S. Constitution sought to create the national system that exists today wherein it hold not only an authority over the individual citizen, but an indefinite supremacy over all persons, and things. In other words a tyranny.
Click to expand...

Returing to the ACC is merely mental masturbation: feels good, is sterile.


----------



## JakeStarkey

James cannot accept the truth.


----------



## James Everett

Unkotare said:


> We are not a confederacy, we are the UNITED STATES of AMERICA.


Good grief! Do you even know what you are posting?
A union of States is a Confederacy of States: if not then it is a consolidation into a single State, hence the State of America.
Article I States....
"The Stile of this Confederacy shall be the United States of America"
And if your SCOTUS is correct in that the unions perpetuity was somehow carried over to the new CONstitution, then it remained up until Lincolns rebellion a CONFEDERACY.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You_ are_ a dimwit pretending that what he wants to believe about history has anything to do with reality. You're just kidding yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, he presents a point of view.    And what does that tell you about our Constitution?  It tells me that the founding fathers didn't do a very good job, because they wrote a document vague enough to be open to interpretation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which was crushed forever in the Civil War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can Constitutional questions be settled by a war?  The question remains in some people's minds.  Constitutional issues can only be resolved through constitutional means.  Was there a constitutional amendment passed prohibiting secession?  Were legal mechanisms put in place describing a constitutional process for secession?  If not, then the Constitution remains just vague enough to cause problems in the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is why the restoration cause exists, as it is a legal means to return to the Articles of Confederation in order that we may once again have a union/confederacy of States under a wholly federal system. The Articles were fine for the purpose of a union of States, the 1787/1789 U.S. Constitution sought to create the national system that exists today wherein it hold not only an authority over the individual citizen, but an indefinite supremacy over all persons, and things. In other words a tyranny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Returing to the ACC is merely mental masturbation: feels good, is sterile.
Click to expand...

As we can see, this is the type of base intellect that makes tyranny so simple for tyrants.


----------



## Unkotare

James Everett said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are not a confederacy, we are the UNITED STATES of AMERICA.
> 
> 
> 
> Good grief! Do you even know what you are posting?
> A union of States is a Confederacy of States:
Click to expand...




There you go again, trying to use words you don't understand.


----------



## James Everett

Unkotare said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are not a confederacy, we are the UNITED STATES of AMERICA.
> 
> 
> 
> Good grief! Do you even know what you are posting?
> A union of States is a Confederacy of States:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again, trying to use words you don't understand.
Click to expand...

Its NOT difficult to understand, but easy for YOU to deny....
A union of States is a Confederacy of States: if not then it is a consolidation into a single State, hence the State of America.
Article I States....
*"The Stile of this Confederacy shall be the United States of America"*
And if your SCOTUS is correct in that the unions perpetuity was somehow carried over to the new CONstitution, then it remained up until Lincolns rebellion a CONFEDERACY.
Definition of Confederacy...
*1. A union of persons, parties, or states; a league*

Definition of union...

*1. The act of uniting or the state of being united. *
*2. A combination so formed, especially an alliance or confederation of people, parties, or political entities for mutual interest or benefit. *


----------



## Unkotare

It's too bad you never got the chance to study History or Political Science.


----------



## James Everett

Unkotare said:


> It's too bad you never got the chance to study History or Political Science.


Oh, but you would be wrong, Such studies are what have allowed me to debate far above your head and pay grade so to speak.
You just continue to show your base understanding, hence all left to your sad disposal are these petty insults.
Such will never prove your point or worth.
I have no interest in picking on you, as I only respond to your posts directed to me: such is not my nature to pick on or bully others. You are doing this to yourself.


----------



## JakeStarkey

James, not one person here has failed to destroy your arguments.

You are no towering intellect.

Your knowledge is surpassed by at least five others on this thread.

It is what tis: you are having a fun intellectual pastime that means nothing in and of itself.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> James, not one person here has failed to destroy your arguments.
> 
> You are no towering intellect.
> 
> Your knowledge is surpassed by at least five others on this thread.
> 
> It is what tis: you are having a fun intellectual pastime that means nothing in and of itself.


Again, JAKE,
All anyone need do is read the thread to see the truth. 
You and your lil buddies have been defeated at every turn, and those who recognized this fact have left the field, leaving only cannon fodder. 
No, I do not claim to be a "Towering Intellect" I am only the messenger of truth, to which you have no defense.
You and your friend may lie on the ground bleeding and unable to fight claiming victory, but you have been left behind as casualties by the few that knew they had been defeated, and chose to retreat.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You are a messenger, James, that has failed.  History, time itself, life experiences, and the rest of humanity invalidate any hope for returning to the ACC.  Can't happen.

You are the black knight without arms and legs claiming victory.

That exists only in your head.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> You are a messenger, James, that has failed.  History, time itself, life experiences, and the rest of humanity invalidate any hope for returning to the ACC.  Can't happen.
> 
> You are the black knight without arms and legs claiming victory.
> 
> That exists only in your head.


Oh but, JAKE, the truth is reaching others and the cause is rising day by day. The rest of humanity is of no interest, the interest is only in the people of the Southern Confederate States, they will be the ones to correct history and our course through the future. The divide grows more evident by the day. All one need do is look at that "Red/Blue map to see this FACT. We are a different people from the North, with different values, and morality.
This will not change, your governments hegemony is being exposed to the eyes of our people, you think in short terms, while we in long terms. 
We honour the principles of the founders and wish to return to their form of government under the Articles and common law, wherein one is free to do as one chooses as long as in doing so one does not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of another. The Yankee on the other hand wishes to deny liberty, and govern it not based in freewill, but through a national governing body, wherein it holds authority over not only the individual citizen, but an indefinite supremacy over all persons and things.


----------



## JakeStarkey

"the truth is reaching others and the cause is rising day by day" is not happening.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> "the truth is reaching others and the cause is rising day by day" is not happening.


Good, close your eyes to the truth, it insures that our work is unencumbered.


----------



## JakeStarkey

James Everett said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> "the truth is reaching others and the cause is rising day by day" is not happening.
> 
> 
> 
> Good, close your eyes to the truth, it insures that our work is unencumbered.
Click to expand...


----------



## Unkotare

James Everett said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's too bad you never got the chance to study History or Political Science.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, but you would be wrong, ....
Click to expand...


Doesn't seem so. You present yourself as a buffoon who has read little, understood nothing, and is attempting to fill in the gaps with his own bitter little imagination. You apparently have no idea what a fool you are making of yourself. 

The Articles of Confederation were proven a failure. That's why our current Constitution was written, idiot. We are NOT a "confederation." The Articles of Confederation are NOT coming back. Ever. The traitorous fools who insisted on the Civil War for the sake of the evil of slavery were vile scum who received only a fraction of the punishment they deserved. YOU are a low-life scum for attempting to play the apologist for them.


----------



## Unkotare

James Everett said:


> the truth is reaching others and the cause is rising day by day. ....




What "truth"? What "cause"? What do you play make-believe about ever happening, loser?


----------



## James Everett

Unkotare said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's too bad you never got the chance to study History or Political Science.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, but you would be wrong, ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't seem so. You present yourself as a buffoon who has read little, understood nothing, and is attempting to fill in the gaps with his own bitter little imagination. You apparently have no idea what a fool you are making of yourself.
> 
> The Articles of Confederation were proven a failure. That's why our current Constitution was written, idiot. We are NOT a "confederation." The Articles of Confederation are NOT coming back. Ever. The traitorous fools who insisted on the Civil War for the sake of the evil of slavery were vile scum who received only a fraction of the punishment they deserved. YOU are a low-life scum for attempting to play the apologist for them.
Click to expand...

OK, Lets see how much you know, as compared to me.
What does James Madison Explain in #39?
What does he explain in #62
What does Hamilton explain in #32
What  are the two systems that were cobbled together to form The 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution?
Can you explain which parts represent these two systems and how they were suppose to operate in conjunction.
I will give you 30 MIN. That should be plenty of time: that is if you know anything about that system, or how those two systems were  meant to function as counter acting systems?
GO!!!!
I already know that you don't know or understand squat, such has been apparent to anyone who has a clue.


----------



## James Everett

Unkotare said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> the truth is reaching others and the cause is rising day by day. ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What "truth"? What "cause"? What do you play make-believe about ever happening, loser?
Click to expand...

The Articles were only in effect for six years, and were completely ammendable using the legal process as prescribed in article XIII.
The Articles were just fine for the purpose as intended, however they weren't working for those who wanted a Government of centralized power so as to rival the power, grandeur and splendor of England and France, and from that desire, we have lost our freedom, to that very centralized power. YOUR GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN IN A STATE OF PERPETUAL WAR SINCE 1865, it operates on perpetual warmongering and hegemony, it has taken everything of value from the people. Even confiscating their Gold as currency and replacing it with "Federal reserve notes. YOUR GOVERNMENT IS BANKRUPT, AND YOU ARE CHATTEL PROPERTY.
On March 9, 1933, House Joint Resolution No. 192-10 by the 73rd Congress, was voted into law, which is the Emergency Banking Act.  This Act declared the Treasury of the United States, ‘Bankrupt’, which is an impossible feat since the U. S. Treasury was secretly closed by the Congress twelve years earlier in 1921.  The Emergency Banking Act succeeded in abrogating America’s gold standard and hypothecated all property found within the United States to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Bank.

All Sovereign American Citizens residing within the Republic of States suddenly and falsely were expatriated from their Sovereign American status without their knowledge or consent and their labor, souls, children, property, sweat equity and credit became the financial collateral for the public debt, which had then been converted into a Public Trust, which had been scripted after the ancient Roman Trusts.

“Script” money or [negotiable debt instruments] was issued by a private corporation, which is owned by a group of Sabbatean European Jewish Bankers and which is known to everybody as: “The Federal Reserve System.” These promissory notes were called Federal Reserve Notes and our future treatment by the U.S. Government was to be redefined under USC Title 50, ‘The Trading with the Enemy Act’ in which American citizens are defined as, “an enemy of their government” and this is the reason why Lincoln’s Declaration of War is renewed yearly by Congress and the President!  In the same year President Roosevelt closed THE VIRGINIA COLONY CORPORATION and opened a new Government Corporation called: THE UNITED STATES, INC.
*The Bankruptcy of The United States*
United States Congressional Record, March 17, 1993 Vol. 33, page H-1303

Speaker-Rep. James Traficant, Jr. (Ohio) addressing the House:

*"Mr. Speaker, we are here now in chapter 11.. Members of Congress are
official trustees presiding over the greatest reorganization of any Bankrupt
entity in world history, the U.S. Government. We are setting forth
hopefully, a blueprint for our future. There are some who say it is a
coroner's report that will lead to our demise.

 It is an established fact that the United States Federal Government has
been dissolved by the Emergency Banking Act, March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 1,
Public Law 89-719; declared by President Roosevelt, being bankrupt and
insolvent. H.J.R. 192, 73rd Congress m session June 5, 1933 - Joint
Resolution To Suspend The Gold Standard and Abrogate The Gold Clause
dissolved the Sovereign Authority of the United States and the official
capacities of all United States Governmental Offices, Officers, and
Departments and is further evidence that the United States Federal
Government exists today in name only.
* The receivers of the United States Bankruptcy are the International
Bankers, via the United Nations, the World Bank and the International
Monetary Fund. All United States Offices, Officials, and Departments are now
operating within a de facto status in name only under Emergency War Powers.
With the Constitutional Republican form of Government now dissolved, the
receivers of the Bankruptcy have adopted a new form of government for the
United States. This new form of government is known as a Democracy, being an
established Socialist/Communist order under a new governor for America. This
act was instituted and established by transferring and/or placing the Office
of the Secretary of Treasury to that of the Governor of the International
Monetary Fund. Public Law 94-564, page 8, Section H.R. 13955 reads in part:
"The U.S. Secretary of Treasury receives no compensation for representing
the United States."*

 Gold and silver were such a powerful money during the founding of the
united states of America, that the founding fathers declared that only gold
or silver coins can be "money" in America. Since gold and silver coinage
were heavy and inconvenient for a lot of transactions, they were stored in
banks and a claim check was issued as a money substitute. People traded
their coupons as money, or "currency." Currency is not money, but a money
substitute. Redeemable currency must promise to pay a dollar equivalent in
gold or silver money. Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) make no such promises,
and are not "money." A Federal Reserve Note is a debt obligation of the
federal United States government, not "money?' The federal United States
government and the U.S. Congress were not and have never been authorized by
the Constitution for the united states of America to issue currency of any
kind, but only lawful money, -gold and silver coin.
 It is essential that we comprehend the distinction between real money and
paper money substitute. One cannot get rich by accumulating money
substitutes, one can only get deeper into debt. We the People no longer have
any "money." Most Americans have not been paid any "money" for a very long
time, perhaps not in their entire life. Now do you comprehend why you feel
broke? *


----------



## James Everett

James Everett said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's too bad you never got the chance to study History or Political Science.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, but you would be wrong, ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't seem so. You present yourself as a buffoon who has read little, understood nothing, and is attempting to fill in the gaps with his own bitter little imagination. You apparently have no idea what a fool you are making of yourself.
> 
> The Articles of Confederation were proven a failure. That's why our current Constitution was written, idiot. We are NOT a "confederation." The Articles of Confederation are NOT coming back. Ever. The traitorous fools who insisted on the Civil War for the sake of the evil of slavery were vile scum who received only a fraction of the punishment they deserved. YOU are a low-life scum for attempting to play the apologist for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, Lets see how much you know, as compared to me.
> What does James Madison Explain in #39?
> What does he explain in #62
> What does Hamilton explain in #32
> What  are the two systems that were cobbled together to form The 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution?
> Can you explain which parts represent these two systems and how they were suppose to operate in conjunction.
> I will give you 30 MIN. That should be plenty of time: that is if you know anything about that system, or how those two systems were  meant to function as counter acting systems?
> GO!!!!
> I already know that you don't know or understand squat, such has been apparent to anyone who has a clue.
Click to expand...

You have 15 more minutes, I'm waiting.


----------



## James Everett

Unkotare said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> the truth is reaching others and the cause is rising day by day. ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What "truth"? What "cause"? What do you play make-believe about ever happening, loser?
Click to expand...

Oh, did you jump off line?
Nice cover. I still doubt you will be able, given more time.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You have given us a lot of verbiage meaning . . . nothing, James . . . for your obsession.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> You have given us a lot of verbiage meaning . . . nothing, James . . . for your obsession.


JAKE, I do realize that verbiage is a little much for you, however, I cannot draw pictures for you.
The amusing thing, is that if one of the left wingnuts within your two party duopoly were advocating a return to the Articles using the bases of common law principles wherein one is free to do as one chooses unless one in doing so were infringing on the life, liberty or property of another, you would not be making the childish assertions that you have been making: it is only because we are using our 1861 Confederacy that has you all up in arms.
You are no different than the right wingnuts. 
We call you sheep.


----------



## JakeStarkey

James, you can talk all you want: you have nothing of worth on this thread.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> James, you can talk all you want: you have nothing of worth on this thread.


I am the only one who has had worth on this thread aside from one or two others.
I have offered a valuable lesson for those who are able to comprehend the truth, and no one had to pay a dime.
We will meet again on another THREAD, JAKE, and just as this time and every time before, your Pseudo intellectual comrades will vacate the field leaving you behind as cannon fodder, just as they always have.
You have been abandoned again.


----------



## Unkotare

James Everett said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's too bad you never got the chance to study History or Political Science.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, but you would be wrong, ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't seem so. You present yourself as a buffoon who has read little, understood nothing, and is attempting to fill in the gaps with his own bitter little imagination. You apparently have no idea what a fool you are making of yourself.
> 
> The Articles of Confederation were proven a failure. That's why our current Constitution was written, idiot. We are NOT a "confederation." The Articles of Confederation are NOT coming back. Ever. The traitorous fools who insisted on the Civil War for the sake of the evil of slavery were vile scum who received only a fraction of the punishment they deserved. YOU are a low-life scum for attempting to play the apologist for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, Lets see how much you know, as compared to me....
Click to expand...



Wow...I knew you were stupid, but wow....


You know you're on the internet, right moron?


Holy shit... 


Instead of finding new ways to demonstrate your stupidity, why don't you just tell me if you have ever actually studied any of the topics I mentioned?


----------



## Unkotare

n


James Everett said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> James, you can talk all you want: you have nothing of worth on this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> I am the only one who has had worth on this thread....
Click to expand...


----------



## JakeStarkey

James, like all concrete learners, knows what he knows.

His obsession hurts no one.


----------



## James Everett

Unkotare said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's too bad you never got the chance to study History or Political Science.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, but you would be wrong, ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't seem so. You present yourself as a buffoon who has read little, understood nothing, and is attempting to fill in the gaps with his own bitter little imagination. You apparently have no idea what a fool you are making of yourself.
> 
> The Articles of Confederation were proven a failure. That's why our current Constitution was written, idiot. We are NOT a "confederation." The Articles of Confederation are NOT coming back. Ever. The traitorous fools who insisted on the Civil War for the sake of the evil of slavery were vile scum who received only a fraction of the punishment they deserved. YOU are a low-life scum for attempting to play the apologist for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, Lets see how much you know, as compared to me....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow...I knew you were stupid, but wow....
> 
> 
> You know you're on the internet, right moron?
> 
> 
> Holy shit...
> 
> 
> Instead of finding new ways to demonstrate your stupidity, why don't you just tell me if you have ever actually studied any of the topics I mentioned?
Click to expand...

EVERY ONE. Now I await your answers to my questions. Did you really think I would allow you to deflect away from them?
Here they are again....
*What does James Madison Explain in #39?
What does he explain in #62
What does Hamilton explain in #32
What are the two systems that were cobbled together to form The 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution?
Can you explain which parts represent these two systems and how they were suppose to operate in conjunction.
I will give you 30 MIN. That should be plenty of time: that is if you know anything about that system, or how those two systems were meant to function as counter acting systems?
GO!!!!*


----------



## Unkotare

James Everett said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's too bad you never got the chance to study History or Political Science.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, but you would be wrong, ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't seem so. You present yourself as a buffoon who has read little, understood nothing, and is attempting to fill in the gaps with his own bitter little imagination. You apparently have no idea what a fool you are making of yourself.
> 
> The Articles of Confederation were proven a failure. That's why our current Constitution was written, idiot. We are NOT a "confederation." The Articles of Confederation are NOT coming back. Ever. The traitorous fools who insisted on the Civil War for the sake of the evil of slavery were vile scum who received only a fraction of the punishment they deserved. YOU are a low-life scum for attempting to play the apologist for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, Lets see how much you know, as compared to me....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow...I knew you were stupid, but wow....
> 
> 
> You know you're on the internet, right moron?
> 
> 
> Holy shit...
> 
> 
> Instead of finding new ways to demonstrate your stupidity, why don't you just tell me if you have ever actually studied any of the topics I mentioned?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> EVERY ONE.
Click to expand...



How so?


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> James, like all concrete learners, knows what he knows.
> 
> His obsession hurts no one.


The obsession that which you have with me. You are a troll who follows me like a lil groupie


----------



## James Everett

Unkotare said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, but you would be wrong, ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't seem so. You present yourself as a buffoon who has read little, understood nothing, and is attempting to fill in the gaps with his own bitter little imagination. You apparently have no idea what a fool you are making of yourself.
> 
> The Articles of Confederation were proven a failure. That's why our current Constitution was written, idiot. We are NOT a "confederation." The Articles of Confederation are NOT coming back. Ever. The traitorous fools who insisted on the Civil War for the sake of the evil of slavery were vile scum who received only a fraction of the punishment they deserved. YOU are a low-life scum for attempting to play the apologist for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, Lets see how much you know, as compared to me....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow...I knew you were stupid, but wow....
> 
> 
> You know you're on the internet, right moron?
> 
> 
> Holy shit...
> 
> 
> Instead of finding new ways to demonstrate your stupidity, why don't you just tell me if you have ever actually studied any of the topics I mentioned?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> EVERY ONE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How so?
Click to expand...

How you doing with those questions?


----------



## Unkotare

James Everett said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't seem so. You present yourself as a buffoon who has read little, understood nothing, and is attempting to fill in the gaps with his own bitter little imagination. You apparently have no idea what a fool you are making of yourself.
> 
> The Articles of Confederation were proven a failure. That's why our current Constitution was written, idiot. We are NOT a "confederation." The Articles of Confederation are NOT coming back. Ever. The traitorous fools who insisted on the Civil War for the sake of the evil of slavery were vile scum who received only a fraction of the punishment they deserved. YOU are a low-life scum for attempting to play the apologist for them.
> 
> 
> 
> OK, Lets see how much you know, as compared to me....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow...I knew you were stupid, but wow....
> 
> 
> You know you're on the internet, right moron?
> 
> 
> Holy shit...
> 
> 
> Instead of finding new ways to demonstrate your stupidity, why don't you just tell me if you have ever actually studied any of the topics I mentioned?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> EVERY ONE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How you doing with those questions?
Click to expand...



I'm trying to help you move on from humiliating yourself like that, fool. Instead, why don't you just answer my question?


----------



## James Everett

Unkotare said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, Lets see how much you know, as compared to me....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow...I knew you were stupid, but wow....
> 
> 
> You know you're on the internet, right moron?
> 
> 
> Holy shit...
> 
> 
> Instead of finding new ways to demonstrate your stupidity, why don't you just tell me if you have ever actually studied any of the topics I mentioned?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> EVERY ONE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How you doing with those questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm trying to help you move on from humiliating yourself like that, fool. Instead, why don't you just answer my question?
Click to expand...

You cant answer them can you?
You see, as I stated in the beginning you are far outmatched and in way over your capability.
You see, I have taken this lil thread, that was a jab at the Southern people, and of no value at all, an used it as a teaching tool. Such is what I do.
Again, I am amused that with all your accusations, you have posted nothing of relevance other than insults. YOU have NOTHING.
You have posed no questions, YOU simply deflect from answering mine because you cant.


----------



## Unkotare

James Everett said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow...I knew you were stupid, but wow....
> 
> 
> You know you're on the internet, right moron?
> 
> 
> Holy shit...
> 
> 
> Instead of finding new ways to demonstrate your stupidity, why don't you just tell me if you have ever actually studied any of the topics I mentioned?
> 
> 
> 
> EVERY ONE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How you doing with those questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm trying to help you move on from humiliating yourself like that, fool. Instead, why don't you just answer my question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You cant answer them can you?....
Click to expand...



You really are this stupid? Nobody told you that you are on the internet? Holy shit...


----------



## James Everett

Unkotare said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> EVERY ONE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How you doing with those questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm trying to help you move on from humiliating yourself like that, fool. Instead, why don't you just answer my question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You cant answer them can you?....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You really are this stupid? Nobody told you that you are on the internet? Holy shit...
Click to expand...

Your questions are childishly irrelevant and meaningless. 
I still await those answers to the questions that I asked you. Now as I was the one who asked relevant questions, and asked them first: You answer my questions and the we will address you childish irrelevant questions.
GO.....


----------



## JakeStarkey

James Everett said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> James, like all concrete learners, knows what he knows.
> 
> His obsession hurts no one.
> 
> 
> 
> The obsession that which you have with me. You are a troll who follows me like a lil groupie
Click to expand...

Your response is the typical one who is losing and knows not what else to say.  Several of us have a death grip on the OP and are strangling it to death.  Just let it relax.


----------



## JakeStarkey

James Everett said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> 
> 
> How you doing with those questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm trying to help you move on from humiliating yourself like that, fool. Instead, why don't you just answer my question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You cant answer them can you?....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You really are this stupid? Nobody told you that you are on the internet? Holy shit...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your questions are childishly irrelevant and meaningless.
> I still await those answers to the questions that I asked you. Now as I was the one who asked relevant questions, and asked them first: You answer my questions and the we will address you childish irrelevant questions.
> GO.....
Click to expand...

Your questions, James, are irrelevant, and as such they have been shown to you as being irrelevant.  That you reject their death is irrelevant.  Walk as a shade in your own OP.


----------



## Unkotare

James Everett said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> 
> 
> How you doing with those questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm trying to help you move on from humiliating yourself like that, fool. Instead, why don't you just answer my question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You cant answer them can you?....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You really are this stupid? Nobody told you that you are on the internet? Holy shit...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your questions are childishly irrelevant and meaningless.........
Click to expand...



How so? They are questions about your personal educational history, not things you could Google whether you know the answer or not. Are you getting this yet, fool?

Just answer honestly. It will be OK, really.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> How you doing with those questions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm trying to help you move on from humiliating yourself like that, fool. Instead, why don't you just answer my question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You cant answer them can you?....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You really are this stupid? Nobody told you that you are on the internet? Holy shit...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your questions are childishly irrelevant and meaningless.
> I still await those answers to the questions that I asked you. Now as I was the one who asked relevant questions, and asked them first: You answer my questions and the we will address you childish irrelevant questions.
> GO.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your questions, James, are irrelevant, and as such they have been shown to you as being irrelevant.  That you reject their death is irrelevant.  Walk as a shade in your own OP.
Click to expand...

Neither of you are able to answer them, that does not make them irrelevant, it only shows that you are both to ignorant to answer them, hence you do not have a clue as to the structure of YOUR own CONstitution.
So sad.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You are nothing but a shade walking amongst your failed writings.


----------



## James Everett

Unkotare said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> How you doing with those questions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm trying to help you move on from humiliating yourself like that, fool. Instead, why don't you just answer my question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You cant answer them can you?....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You really are this stupid? Nobody told you that you are on the internet? Holy shit...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your questions are childishly irrelevant and meaningless.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How so? They are questions about your personal educational history, not things you could Google whether you know the answer or not. Are you getting this yet, fool?
> 
> Just answer honestly. It will be OK, really.
Click to expand...

No, I am not stupid, I am far and above your I.Q. level. No, I need no one to tell me that I am on the internet.
Now, answer my question if you can, as I have answered your irrelevant question.
GO.....


----------



## James Everett

Unkotare said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> How you doing with those questions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm trying to help you move on from humiliating yourself like that, fool. Instead, why don't you just answer my question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You cant answer them can you?....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You really are this stupid? Nobody told you that you are on the internet? Holy shit...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your questions are childishly irrelevant and meaningless.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How so? They are questions about your personal educational history, not things you could Google whether you know the answer or not. Are you getting this yet, fool?
> 
> Just answer honestly. It will be OK, really.
Click to expand...

The question that I have posed to you are not so simple as a simple google, So answer them as I have answered YOURS...
We both know that neither YOU nor JAKE are educated enough to answer them, such is the whole point of the exercise.
So one more time....GO !


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> How you doing with those questions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm trying to help you move on from humiliating yourself like that, fool. Instead, why don't you just answer my question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You cant answer them can you?....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You really are this stupid? Nobody told you that you are on the internet? Holy shit...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your questions are childishly irrelevant and meaningless.
> I still await those answers to the questions that I asked you. Now as I was the one who asked relevant questions, and asked them first: You answer my questions and the we will address you childish irrelevant questions.
> GO.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your questions, James, are irrelevant, and as such they have been shown to you as being irrelevant.  That you reject their death is irrelevant.  Walk as a shade in your own OP.
Click to expand...

So JAKE, I missed this showing of yours that my questions are irrelevant, so why don't you repeat this showing of irrelevance right now.
GO.....


----------



## JakeStarkey

For almost 18 pages, experts in the field has rejected his arguments so there are going to be, James, no "just once more."  You are done.  You have shown yourself to be merely an internet shittenpuppy hobbyist.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> For almost 18 pages, experts in the field has rejected his arguments so there are going to be, James, no "just once more."  You are done.  You have shown yourself to be merely an internet shittenpuppy hobbyist.


No JAKE, only pseudo intellectuals have been defeated by the truth that I have conveyed, that is why they vacated the field. No JAKE YOU have done nothing but show yourself for the ignorant that you are.
I will check back shortly, but for now I am leaving the Walking IGNORANT to watch the Walking Dead, I cannot enjoy both amusements at one time.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You are a mere shade.  Allegorically, you are the count being pursued by Inigo Montoya.  There is only one outcome from your silly OP.


----------



## Unkotare

James Everett said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm trying to help you move on from humiliating yourself like that, fool. Instead, why don't you just answer my question?
> 
> 
> 
> You cant answer them can you?....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You really are this stupid? Nobody told you that you are on the internet? Holy shit...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your questions are childishly irrelevant and meaningless.
> I still await those answers to the questions that I asked you. Now as I was the one who asked relevant questions, and asked them first: You answer my questions and the we will address you childish irrelevant questions.
> GO.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your questions, James, are irrelevant, and as such they have been shown to you as being irrelevant.  That you reject their death is irrelevant.  Walk as a shade in your own OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither of you are able to answer them, that does not make them irrelevant,....
Click to expand...


----------



## Unkotare

James Everett said:


> I need no one to tell me that I am on the internet.
> .....




But you don't understand what that means...?


----------



## Unkotare

James Everett said:


> I have answered YOURS.....




Where have you done that?


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> why don't you just tell me if you have ever actually studied any of the topics I mentioned?


----------



## James Everett

Unkotare said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> why don't you just tell me if you have ever actually studied any of the topics I mentioned?
Click to expand...

Is it not obvious to you that I have studied every topic to which we have covered?
You have been unable to answer the basic questions concerning your own CONstitution that I have asked you. 
You and your partner JAKE, have done nothing with regard to showing any knowledge of any of the subjects beyond base indoctrination. All that either of you have resorted to when challenged are childish lil smiley faces and video clips.
Neither of you should post on any thread, but would do well to sit and read what others post in order that you may gain some knowledge o these subjects.


----------



## JakeStarkey

It is obvious that you are in _la la_ on these topics


----------



## Unkotare

James Everett said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> why don't you just tell me if you have ever actually studied any of the topics I mentioned?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is it not obvious to you that I have studied every topic to which we have covered?....
Click to expand...



It's obvious that you haven't really studied them at all. You seem to have read a very little, understood nothing, and presumed to fill in the gaps with your bitter, revisionist nonsense. You only make yourself look more ignorant and ridiculous with each post.


----------



## James Everett

Th


Unkotare said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> why don't you just tell me if you have ever actually studied any of the topics I mentioned?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is it not obvious to you that I have studied every topic to which we have covered?....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's obvious that you haven't really studied them at all. You seem to have read a very little, understood nothing, and presumed to fill in the gaps with your bitter, revisionist nonsense. You only make yourself look more ignorant and ridiculous with each post.
Click to expand...

there are no gaps, I filled in nothing, I simply stated and cited the facts proving you and your buddy JAKE to be lacking in the understanding of YOUR own CONstitution. 
It is the two of you who have been shown to be fools.


----------



## Unkotare

James Everett said:


> Th
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> why don't you just tell me if you have ever actually studied any of the topics I mentioned?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is it not obvious to you that I have studied every topic to which we have covered?....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's obvious that you haven't really studied them at all. You seem to have read a very little, understood nothing, and presumed to fill in the gaps with your bitter, revisionist nonsense. You only make yourself look more ignorant and ridiculous with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there are no gaps, I filled in nothing, I simply stated and cited the facts .
Click to expand...



No, you have referred to things you don't understand and have attempted to twist reality to suit your bitter, ridiculous agenda. You Have also humorously attempted to use terms you don't understand.


----------



## James Everett

Unkotare said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Th
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> why don't you just tell me if you have ever actually studied any of the topics I mentioned?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is it not obvious to you that I have studied every topic to which we have covered?....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's obvious that you haven't really studied them at all. You seem to have read a very little, understood nothing, and presumed to fill in the gaps with your bitter, revisionist nonsense. You only make yourself look more ignorant and ridiculous with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there are no gaps, I filled in nothing, I simply stated and cited the facts .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, you have referred to things you don't understand and have attempted to twist reality to suit your bitter, ridiculous agenda. You Have also humorously attempted to use terms you don't understand.
Click to expand...

By all means, give an example of the use of a term that I don't understand, as well as anything that I have posted that I don't understand. It is you who do not understand his Own Governments CONstitutional system.


----------



## Unkotare

James Everett said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Th
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it not obvious to you that I have studied every topic to which we have covered?....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's obvious that you haven't really studied them at all. You seem to have read a very little, understood nothing, and presumed to fill in the gaps with your bitter, revisionist nonsense. You only make yourself look more ignorant and ridiculous with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there are no gaps, I filled in nothing, I simply stated and cited the facts .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, you have referred to things you don't understand and have attempted to twist reality to suit your bitter, ridiculous agenda. You Have also humorously attempted to use terms you don't understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By all means, give an example of the use of a term that I don't understand....
Click to expand...



Here's one humorous little gem, for example:



James Everett said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOUR so called Justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A REAL Justice. Yours as well as mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well there is *de jure *and *defacto*, force does not make *de jure* what is *defacto*.
Click to expand...


----------



## James Everett

Unkotare said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Th
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it not obvious to you that I have studied every topic to which we have covered?....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's obvious that you haven't really studied them at all. You seem to have read a very little, understood nothing, and presumed to fill in the gaps with your bitter, revisionist nonsense. You only make yourself look more ignorant and ridiculous with each post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there are no gaps, I filled in nothing, I simply stated and cited the facts .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, you have referred to things you don't understand and have attempted to twist reality to suit your bitter, ridiculous agenda. You Have also humorously attempted to use terms you don't understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By all means, give an example of the use of a term that I don't understand....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here's one humorous little gem, for example:
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOUR so called Justice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A REAL Justice. Yours as well as mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well there is *de jure *and *defacto*, force does not make *de jure* what is *defacto*.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Well, let's examine this little gem....
De jure means .....
"By right of law"
De facto means....
"In reality, or fact"
A de facto government is one that is acting as a result of revolution, not by law.
So, Lincoln's rebellion to the lawful authority of YOUR CONstitution, and the installation of governments and the replacement of our State constitutions in true Stalanistic stile via war instead of law, which he and the Yankees were in violation of, does not Dejure make.....
Meaning....
"By right of law"
You ignorant moron.
Hence the governments that were put in place of or de jure governments, which were "by right of law", are de facto, which means..,..
"In reality or right"
Force of arms to replace a government, by right of law=de jure, does not make what is de facto..,,
"A government acting as a result of revolution right" dejure.
Now, do you know what colorable means?
Colorable means something that appears to be real but is not.
Your government being put in place by rebellion to the lawful Authority of YOUR CONstitution a revolutionary act, is de facto.
"By color of law, means by pretending to be law. By color of right, means pretending to be right.
Yeah I would say my wording was a real gem, another gem of truth.
Really, I should be charging you for this valuable education.


----------



## Unkotare

James Everett said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Th
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's obvious that you haven't really studied them at all. You seem to have read a very little, understood nothing, and presumed to fill in the gaps with your bitter, revisionist nonsense. You only make yourself look more ignorant and ridiculous with each post.
> 
> 
> 
> there are no gaps, I filled in nothing, I simply stated and cited the facts .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, you have referred to things you don't understand and have attempted to twist reality to suit your bitter, ridiculous agenda. You Have also humorously attempted to use terms you don't understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By all means, give an example of the use of a term that I don't understand....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here's one humorous little gem, for example:
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOUR so called Justice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A REAL Justice. Yours as well as mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well there is *de jure *and *defacto*, force does not make *de jure* what is *defacto*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, let's examine this little gem....
> De jure means .....
> "By right of law"
> De facto means....
> "In reality, or fact"....
Click to expand...



You were specifically making an ass of yourself regarding Justice Scalia, who "by law" as well as "in fact" IS a Supreme Court Justice. You wanted to sound like a big boy by using terms you have seen but obviously don't really understand. Lincoln was President "by law" and the traitorous confederate 'secession' was "by law" illegal. 

And now you know that.


----------



## James Everett

Unkotare said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Th
> there are no gaps, I filled in nothing, I simply stated and cited the facts .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you have referred to things you don't understand and have attempted to twist reality to suit your bitter, ridiculous agenda. You Have also humorously attempted to use terms you don't understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By all means, give an example of the use of a term that I don't understand....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here's one humorous little gem, for example:
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOUR so called Justice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A REAL Justice. Yours as well as mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well there is *de jure *and *defacto*, force does not make *de jure* what is *defacto*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, let's examine this little gem....
> De jure means .....
> "By right of law"
> De facto means....
> "In reality, or fact"....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You were specifically making an ass of yourself regarding Justice Scalia, who "by law" as well as "in fact" IS a Supreme Court Justice. You wanted to sound like a big boy by using terms you have seen but obviously don't really understand. Lincoln was President "by law" and the traitorous confederate 'secession' was "by law" illegal.
> 
> And now you know that.
Click to expand...

Scalia, simply used a play on words to fool the indoctrinated fool such as you, he never cited law, he, stated, that the war seemed to have decided the issue, which is Not by law, but by unlawful force since neither he nor you can cite a law that states that secession is illegal or unlawful. So YOU, and anyone who believe your fiction are FOOLS as well.
Such an ignorant are you, that you were unable to answer my simple questions concerning your own CONstitution. You have no understanding of it or law.
You thought you knew something bit you know nothing, you thought I didn't understand the term I use, thus challenged me, and made a fool of yourself by exposing that you didn't understand them. As I stated, you are in way way over your education.
Scalia made a fool of you and so have I, because I am able to understand what Scalia was doing with his play on words, yet you were not.
De jure/De facto, colorable,words and their definitions you need to remember.
No secession was not, nor is not illegal, war does not a law make. War is not prescribed by YOUR CONstitution as a legislative act. 
Scalia knows this, fools such as you do not. 
Again, neither you nor SCALIA can cite the law that makes secession illegal, therefore both of you deflect. 
Such won't fly here or in LAW.


----------



## Unkotare

James Everett said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you have referred to things you don't understand and have attempted to twist reality to suit your bitter, ridiculous agenda. You Have also humorously attempted to use terms you don't understand.
> 
> 
> 
> By all means, give an example of the use of a term that I don't understand....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here's one humorous little gem, for example:
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> A REAL Justice. Yours as well as mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well there is *de jure *and *defacto*, force does not make *de jure* what is *defacto*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, let's examine this little gem....
> De jure means .....
> "By right of law"
> De facto means....
> "In reality, or fact"....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You were specifically making an ass of yourself regarding Justice Scalia, who "by law" as well as "in fact" IS a Supreme Court Justice. You wanted to sound like a big boy by using terms you have seen but obviously don't really understand. Lincoln was President "by law" and the traitorous confederate 'secession' was "by law" illegal.
> 
> And now you know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Scalia, simply used a play on words to fool the indoctrinated fool such as yo...
Click to expand...



Your obvious attempt at changing the subject has been noted, dope.


----------



## James Everett

Unkotare said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> By all means, give an example of the use of a term that I don't understand....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's one humorous little gem, for example:
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well there is *de jure *and *defacto*, force does not make *de jure* what is *defacto*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, let's examine this little gem....
> De jure means .....
> "By right of law"
> De facto means....
> "In reality, or fact"....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You were specifically making an ass of yourself regarding Justice Scalia, who "by law" as well as "in fact" IS a Supreme Court Justice. You wanted to sound like a big boy by using terms you have seen but obviously don't really understand. Lincoln was President "by law" and the traitorous confederate 'secession' was "by law" illegal.
> 
> And now you know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Scalia, simply used a play on words to fool the indoctrinated fool such as yo...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your obvious attempt at changing the subject has been noted, dope.
Click to expand...

I didn't change the subject, I explained what you didn't understand, and it was directly in DIRECT response to the subject to which you posted.


----------



## Unkotare

James Everett said:


> neither he nor you can cite a law that states that secession is illegal or unlawful. ...




The US Supreme Court has cited the Constitution. The law of the land, you moron.


----------



## Unkotare

James Everett said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's one humorous little gem, for example:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, let's examine this little gem....
> De jure means .....
> "By right of law"
> De facto means....
> "In reality, or fact"....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You were specifically making an ass of yourself regarding Justice Scalia, who "by law" as well as "in fact" IS a Supreme Court Justice. You wanted to sound like a big boy by using terms you have seen but obviously don't really understand. Lincoln was President "by law" and the traitorous confederate 'secession' was "by law" illegal.
> 
> And now you know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Scalia, simply used a play on words to fool the indoctrinated fool such as yo...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your obvious attempt at changing the subject has been noted, dope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't change the subject, I explained what you didn't understand, and it was directly in DIRECT response to the subject to which you posted.
Click to expand...


You were commenting on Justice Scalia, you ignorant fool.


----------



## Unkotare

James Everett said:


> No secession was not, nor is not illegal, ....





"Considered as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention, and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give [p701] effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law."


You really seem to enjoy making a fool of yourself.


----------



## James Everett

Unkotare said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> No secession was not, nor is not illegal, ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Considered as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention, and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give [p701] effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law."
> 
> 
> You really seem to enjoy making a fool of yourself.
Click to expand...

Note, They did NOT cite the law, or statute, nor did they cite the Article which states that secession is illegal, unlawful,or a violation of YOUR CONstitution. "Considered a transaction under the CONstitution".
Further in their own opinion....
"_*While Texas was controlled by a government hostile to the United States, and in affiliation with a hostile confederation, waging war upon the United States, no suit instituted in her name could be maintained in this court.  It was necessary that the government and the people of the State should be restored to peaceful relations to the United States, under the constitution before such a suit could be prosecuted*_."
Only a fool with closed eyes and mind, willfully ignorant, or blinded by emotion to the point that logic escapes his mental faculties could he not see the contradiction necessary in the Kangaroo court opinion.
Lets review: shall we?
_*"When Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation."
"Considered as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention, and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give [p701] effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law."*_
Yet then the Kangaroo court after stating that.....
*"When Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation."
The Kangaroo court goes on to state that....
It was necessary that the government and the people of the State should be restored to peaceful relations to the United States UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.*
*NOTE HERE THAT THE KANGAROO COURT STATED THAT TEXAS ENTERED INTO AN INDISSOLUBLE UNION, THEN STATES THAT IT WAS NECESSARY TO BRING TEXAS BACK UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.*
*If Texas could not have dissolved its relation with the union, then there was NO NEED TO BRING IT BACK UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.
Nor would TEXAS be required to meet certain conditions to re-enter the union as was required.
The point is that even your KANGAROO court understands that once a State exits the union, it is no longer under the Kangaroo courts jurisdiction, this is why it was stated that....
It was necessary that the government and the people of the State should be restored to peaceful relations to the United States, under the constitution before such a suit could be prosecuted."*
*As long as Texas was out of the union the U.S. Kangaroo court had no jurisdiction, this is why war was necessary to replace the de jure government of Texas via a revolutionary act, outside of LAW.*
*This is why Scalia used the play on words. *
*You see, YOUR government through Lincoln's assistance of the Northern States was in rebellion to the lawful authority of YOUR CONstitution, hence the act was a revolutionary act, meaning YOUR government became  colorable/de facto, The Kangaroo court is part of that government, hence de facto/colorable. It actions and opinions are outside of real law.
This is why we witness the play on words. 
The Kangaroo court never cited LAW concerning secession. 
Do you remember my explanation to you concerning DICTA?
Let us use.....
Pollard's lessee v. Hagan as an example...
The SCOTUS in 1840 cited LAW in their opinion....
"3 Story's Laws 1634-1635. And, by the 2d article of the compact contained in the Ordinance of 1787, which was then in force in the Mississippi territory, among other things, it was provided, that"....
We see NO citation of law in Texas v White, what we see is an opinion based NOT IN LAW, under the U.S. CONstitution, but we do see an opinion based on an assumption in a train of events, NOT in U.S. case law, or Constitutional law. *
_*Earlier courts before Lincoln's rebellion rendered opposing opinions to that of "Texas v White, which was after all a case concerning BONDS, NOT secession.....
Perhaps one of the earliest decisions on this point was United States v. Bevans, 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 336 (1818), which involved a federal prosecution for a murder committed on board the Warship, Independence, anchored in the harbor of Boston, Massachusetts. The defense complained that only the state had jurisdiction to prosecute and argued that the federal Circuit Courts had no jurisdiction of this crime supposedly committed within the federal government's admiralty jurisdiction. In argument before the Supreme Court, counsel for the United States admitted as follows:

"The exclusive jurisdiction which the United States have in forts and dock-yards ceded to them, is derived from the express assent of the states by whom the cessions are made. It could be derived in no other manner; because without it, the authority of the state would be supreme and exclusive therein," 3 Wheat., at 350, 351.

In holding that the State of Massachusetts had jurisdiction over the crime, the Court held:

"What, then, is the extent of jurisdiction which a state possesses?

"We answer, without hesitation, the jurisdiction of a state is co-extensive with its territory; co-extensive with its legislative power," 3 Wheat., at 386, 387.
Sorry but you lose yet again.
*_


----------



## Unkotare

James Everett said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> No secession was not, nor is not illegal, ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Considered as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention, and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give [p701] effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law."
> 
> 
> You really seem to enjoy making a fool of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Note, They did NOT cite the law, or statute
Click to expand...



Did you feel that? That was reality NOT changing because an ignorant fool like you wants to insist on some idiotic revisionism.


----------



## James Everett

Unkotare said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> No secession was not, nor is not illegal, ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Considered as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention, and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give [p701] effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law."
> 
> 
> You really seem to enjoy making a fool of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Note, They did NOT cite the law, or statute
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did you feel that? That was reality NOT changing because an ignorant fool like you wants to insist on some idiotic revisionism.
Click to expand...

Gomer, A transaction under the CONstitution is NOT illegal. Transactions occur every day. There is no CONstitutional mention of a transaction being illegal, nor is there a mention of secession being illegal. For something to be illegal, there must be a law in place stating that such is illegal. Now, cite the law that CONGRESS ever passed that states that secession is illegal, or cite the Constitution wherein a transaction is illegal. 
The ordinances of secession were within operation of law, as a law must be passed making something illegal, otherwise it is lawful and legal. 
Please cite the law, because YOUR SCOTUS has not.
Fiction is NOT reality, it is a fiction to state that something is illegal when no law exists making an act illegal, THAT SIR is REALITY.
Now again, cite the law.
There is no law under the CONstitution stating that secession is illegal therefore Article III section 2. applies.....
_"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution_"
Now, the Kangaroo court must render an opinion on a case based in law, therefore a law must be in place, so again, cite that law. 
The fact is that the States, (Which are by definition under Johnson's dictionary of the English language 1755 edition) which is the definition that both the Founders' and the Framers' would have considered when framing both the 1781, and 1787 Constitutions is ....
"A mode of government",  now YOUR Kangaroo court attempts to redefine just what a State is when rendering their opinion.
The case even were it a case on secession, is so full of contradiction, fictional definitions, not to mention a court of Lincoln appointees which should all have recused themselves, is nothing less than a joke.
Your SCOTUS has no jurisdiction to hear a case on the secessions of the Southern States, as they were at the point of secession no longer under YOUR CONstitution, and YOUR SCOTUS stated so.....
"*It was necessary that the government and the people of the State should be restored to peaceful relations to the United States, under the constitution before such a suit could be prosecuted."*
The propblem that YOUR Court has is that the Southern States were never restored under YOUR CONstitution, as a State is by definition "A MODE OF GOVERNMENT", AND A MODE OF GOVERNMENT IN THE REPUBLICAN FORM, WAS REQUIRED FOR A TERRITORY TO BECOME A MEMBER STATE IN THE UNION. IT FIRST HAD TO BECOME A STATE FROM A TERRITORY, meaning it had to become a form of government to be a State before it could be accepted as a "Member State.
Here again YOUR SCOTUS twisted what a State is in its joke of an opinion. 
The States that left the union were replaced under martial law and occupation with de facto institutions., hence those Confederate States were no longer party to  the union, and no longer under YOUR CONstitution, hence outside of YOUR SCOTUS jurisdiction.


----------



## Unkotare

James Everett said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> No secession was not, nor is not illegal, ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Considered as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention, and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give [p701] effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law."
> 
> 
> You really seem to enjoy making a fool of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Note, They did NOT cite the law, or statute
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did you feel that? That was reality NOT changing because an ignorant fool like you wants to insist on some idiotic revisionism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gomer, A transaction under the CONstitution is NOT illegal. Transactions occur every day. ...
Click to expand...



Go ask an adult to read the quote to you again.


----------



## Unkotare

James Everett said:


> The ordinances of secession were within operation of law...




The US Supreme Court found exactly the opposite, you uneducated buffoon.


----------



## James Everett

Unkotare said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> No secession was not, nor is not illegal, ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Considered as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention, and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give [p701] effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law."
> 
> 
> You really seem to enjoy making a fool of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Note, They did NOT cite the law, or statute
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did you feel that? That was reality NOT changing because an ignorant fool like you wants to insist on some idiotic revisionism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gomer, A transaction under the CONstitution is NOT illegal. Transactions occur every day. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Go ask an adult to read the quote to you again.
Click to expand...

At this point I am feeling a little guilty about picking on you and showing you for the ignorant that you are, therefore I am going to assist you at this point by giving you direction so that you may stop floundering about......
What you need to do at this point is look to YOUR CONstitution and find which Article and section wherein it states that.....
This union is a consolidation of the States into a single entity under a wholly national government system.
Or that a member State within the union may not secede from this union of States.
Or a power delegated by the States to the United States= (the States in union collectively) to prevent an individual State from seceding from the union.
If you are able to do this, then you can get around the tenth amendment which states.....

"_*The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people*_."

If you are unable to find such within and article of YOUR CONstitution, then you may search U.S. law for the  statute and number that states that secession is unlawful or illegal, then you just may have a chance at reality, otherwise you are lost in fiction.

"


----------



## James Everett

Unkotare said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ordinances of secession were within operation of law...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court found exactly the opposite, you uneducated buffoon.
Click to expand...

Again, I have already explained that YOUR SCOTUS is the result of a revolutionary act, and has no jurisdiction outside YOUR CONstitution, and without being able to cite a law or statute in the matter, then it is acting as a Kangaroo court.


----------



## James Everett

Unkotare said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ordinances of secession were within operation of law...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court found exactly the opposite, you uneducated buffoon.
Click to expand...

One cannot win a case in law, without being able to cite a law.


----------



## Ravi

Article IV - The States
Section 3

Clause 1:

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

Clause 2:

The Congress shall have Power


to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.


----------



## James Everett

Ravi said:


> Article IV - The States
> Section 3
> 
> Clause 1:
> 
> New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
> 
> Clause 2:
> 
> The Congress shall have Power
> 
> 
> to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.


Clause I,
This does not address secession, as no new State was erected, within the jurisdiction of a State, unless you refer to YOUR U.S. Erection of West Virginia. 
Once the States seceded, they were no longer party to YOUR U.S. CONstitution, and had any one of them decided after their legal secession decided to erect a new State within the jurisdiction of another they would be free to do as they choose. However such did not occur.
As for clause II...,
A State is NOT a territory, nothing outside the ten miles square of DC was under the jurisdiction of the "federal government", aside from armories, dock yards, forts, and other needful buildings . 
YOUR own SCOTUS rendered several opinions in regard to this, one of many being pollards lesses v Hagan, which stated that once a territory becomes or is formed into a State with its own government, the U.S. Has no municipal jurisdiction within a State, such would be repugnant to the CONstitution.
There are several other such SCOTUS opinions in this regard prior to the YANKEE rebellion.
Your citation does not apply as you wish, YOUR ownSCOTUS has stated such.


----------



## Ravi

James Everett said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Article IV - The States
> Section 3
> 
> Clause 1:
> 
> New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
> 
> Clause 2:
> 
> The Congress shall have Power
> 
> 
> to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
> 
> 
> 
> Clause I,
> This does not address secession, as no new State was erected, within the jurisdiction of a State, unless you refer to YOUR U.S. Erection of West Virginia.
> Once the States seceded, they were no longer party to YOUR U.S. CONstitution, and had any one of them decided after their legal secession decided to erect a new State within the jurisdiction of another they would be free to do as they choose. However such did not occur.
> As for clause II...,
> A State is NOT a territory, nothing outside the ten miles square of DC was under the jurisdiction of the "federal government", aside from armories, dock yards, forts, and other needful buildings .
> YOUR own SCOTUS rendered several opinions in regard to this, one of many being pollards lesses v Hagan, which stated that once a territory becomes or is formed into a State with its own government, the U.S. Has no municipal jurisdiction within a State, such would be repugnant to the CONstitution.
> There are several other such SCOTUS opinions in this regard prior to the YANKEE rebellion.
> Your citation does not apply as you wish, YOUR ownSCOTUS has stated such.
Click to expand...

States were territories before they were accepted as states. They also fall under "other property belonging to the United States."

Sucks to be you.


----------



## James Everett

Ravi said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Article IV - The States
> Section 3
> 
> Clause 1:
> 
> New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
> 
> Clause 2:
> 
> The Congress shall have Power
> 
> 
> to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
> 
> 
> 
> Clause I,
> This does not address secession, as no new State was erected, within the jurisdiction of a State, unless you refer to YOUR U.S. Erection of West Virginia.
> Once the States seceded, they were no longer party to YOUR U.S. CONstitution, and had any one of them decided after their legal secession decided to erect a new State within the jurisdiction of another they would be free to do as they choose. However such did not occur.
> As for clause II...,
> A State is NOT a territory, nothing outside the ten miles square of DC was under the jurisdiction of the "federal government", aside from armories, dock yards, forts, and other needful buildings .
> YOUR own SCOTUS rendered several opinions in regard to this, one of many being pollards lesses v Hagan, which stated that once a territory becomes or is formed into a State with its own government, the U.S. Has no municipal jurisdiction within a State, such would be repugnant to the CONstitution.
> There are several other such SCOTUS opinions in this regard prior to the YANKEE rebellion.
> Your citation does not apply as you wish, YOUR ownSCOTUS has stated such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> States were territories before they were accepted as states. They also fall under "other property belonging to the United States."
> 
> Sucks to be you.
Click to expand...

None of you Yankees know what you are talking about. Once a territory becomes a State, the United States at that point cedes all municipal jurisdiction to that State. The U.S. Does not own a State, the U.S. Was a union of States, neither owning the other either singularly or collectively. You need to read YOUR SCOTUS opinion in the case that I cited, and then I will cite others for you wherein the same opinion was rendered.
 Note to all Yankees.....
Educate yourselves before attempting to contradict me.


----------



## Unkotare

James Everett said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Considered as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention, and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give [p701] effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law."
> 
> 
> You really seem to enjoy making a fool of yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> Note, They did NOT cite the law, or statute
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did you feel that? That was reality NOT changing because an ignorant fool like you wants to insist on some idiotic revisionism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gomer, A transaction under the CONstitution is NOT illegal. Transactions occur every day. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Go ask an adult to read the quote to you again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> At this point I am feeling a little guilty about picking on you
> 
> "
Click to expand...


What you are feeling is embarrassed at being exposed for the ridiculous, ignorant wannabe revisionist that EVERYONE reading this thread sees you for.


----------



## James Everett

Unkotare said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Note, They did NOT cite the law, or statute
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you feel that? That was reality NOT changing because an ignorant fool like you wants to insist on some idiotic revisionism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gomer, A transaction under the CONstitution is NOT illegal. Transactions occur every day. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Go ask an adult to read the quote to you again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> At this point I am feeling a little guilty about picking on you
> 
> "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you are feeling is embarrassed at being exposed for the ridiculous, ignorant wannabe revisionist that EVERYONE reading this thread sees you for.
Click to expand...

What I'm feeling, is that The truth backed by facts, and citation have defeated you and the other Yankees at every turn , and all that you ever had to contribute has been that of the intellect of an eight year old boy making fart noises with his armpit. As I have stated.....
You Yankees need to educate yourselves before attempting to contradict me.


----------



## Unkotare

James Everett said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Article IV - The States
> Section 3
> 
> Clause 1:
> 
> New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
> 
> Clause 2:
> 
> The Congress shall have Power
> 
> 
> to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
> 
> 
> 
> Clause I,
> This does not address secession, as no new State was erected, within the jurisdiction of a State, unless you refer to YOUR U.S. Erection of West Virginia.
> Once the States seceded, they were no longer party to YOUR U.S. CONstitution, and had any one of them decided after their legal secession decided to erect a new State within the jurisdiction of another they would be free to do as they choose. However such did not occur.
> As for clause II...,
> A State is NOT a territory, nothing outside the ten miles square of DC was under the jurisdiction of the "federal government", aside from armories, dock yards, forts, and other needful buildings .
> YOUR own SCOTUS rendered several opinions in regard to this, one of many being pollards lesses v Hagan, which stated that once a territory becomes or is formed into a State with its own government, the U.S. Has no municipal jurisdiction within a State, such would be repugnant to the CONstitution.
> There are several other such SCOTUS opinions in this regard prior to the YANKEE rebellion.
> Your citation does not apply as you wish, YOUR ownSCOTUS has stated such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> States were territories before they were accepted as states. They also fall under "other property belonging to the United States."
> 
> Sucks to be you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None of you Yankees know what you are talking about.....
Click to expand...



A lot of traitorous confederate scum said shit like that right up until a certain afternoon at Appomattox Court House. 


Keep choking on that bile, wannabe idiot.


----------



## Unkotare

James Everett said:


> The truth backed by facts...




You wouldn't know either if they picked you up and drove your ignorant head through the sidewalk, fool.


----------



## Unkotare

James Everett said:


> You Yankees need to educate yourselves....




You never did tell us about any formal education you haven't had on any of the subjects raised here.


----------



## James Everett

Unkotare said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth backed by facts...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You wouldn't know either if they picked you up and drove your ignorant head through the sidewalk, fool.
Click to expand...

You are such a fool.
You have no idea about any of this. Do you really think I care about the heritage BS?
My support of OUR Confederacy has nothing to do with some grand desire to defend my ancestors. 
This is why YOU and so many other ignorant Yankees have fallen victim in these type discussions, YOU all assume to much, and none of you can defeat the legal argument, because you are all undereducated pseudo intellectuals, who debate using childish emotion rather than simple logic. This childish emotional lashing out forces you to deny logic and facts presented, even when the facts are irrefutable. It's akin to standing in the rain and so emotionally pathetic are you Yankees that you would drown rather than admit it is raining, when the fact that you are drowning is irrefutable. 
I know the truth, I present the truth backed by fact and citation, yet you Yankees are so guided by emotion that you make fools of yourselves and deny it just as you would while drowning in the rain that you insist doesn't exist.
I really hate it for you that you have become so embarrassed that you are unable to let go, but I cannot save you from drowning in your emotional ignorance, I can only tell you that it is raining.
You cannot defeat our legal case by screaming slavery, by insulting the dead, or claiming victory while drowning in the wetness of your own emotional ignorance.


----------



## Unkotare

James Everett said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth backed by facts...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You wouldn't know either if they picked you up and drove your ignorant head through the sidewalk, fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are such a fool.
> You have no idea about any of this. ...
Click to expand...



I have actually studied this, have actually taught this, and am not playing wannabe revisionist like you, fool.


----------



## Unkotare

James Everett said:


> My support of OUR Confederacy ....



There is no such thing.


----------



## Unkotare

James Everett said:


> You cannot defeat our legal case....




There is no "our" for you here, loser. You are lost, ignorant, and alone.


----------



## James Everett

Unkotare said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> You Yankees need to educate yourselves....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You never did tell us about any formal education you haven't had on any of the subjects raised here.
Click to expand...

You never did answer my questions, which clearly shows that my education on these subjects far exceed yours.
You do realize that there is no such thing as a formal education: Right?
What you are attempting to ask is where I received my education. But yet again, you are unable to even pose a proper question because of your ignorance..


----------



## Unkotare

James Everett said:


> I know the truth,....




All you "know" is your ignorant, futile fantasy, loser.


----------



## Unkotare

James Everett said:


> You do realize that there is no such thing as a formal education: Right?....



Which likely means you dropped out of high school, and are trying to convince yourself that acting like a fool on the internet passes for an education.


----------



## James Everett

Unkotare said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that there is no such thing as a formal education: Right?....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which likely means you dropped out of high school, and are trying to convince yourself that acting like a fool on the internet passes for an education.
Click to expand...

It is amusing that you are now lashing out and attempting to divert your lack of education.
Allow me to fill you in.....
I am a totally self-educated man. Though my childhood education has been very limited, I learned much from books.
It was hard to find a good teacher, most focused on U.S. indoctrination, and good schools are rare.
When I did finally find a good school, I was happy to walk the four long miles to school and always arrived at school early.
I received most of my education from the books I read. As I grew up, I became fascinated with books. I loved to read every minute of my spare time. When I went out to plow a field, I put a book under my shirt and read at the end of rows when the horses were resting.
My childhood education was poor, but that did not matter. With determination and my love for reading, I became one of the greatest presidents of all time. When I was young I stood in doorways and on tree stumps and imitated speakers. I had no idea that someday I would be speaking to not only a country, but the world.
It was always amusing to me that idiots would ask me about my "formal education" and make statements such as ,.....
"Which likely means you dropped out of high school, and are trying to convince yourself that acting like a fool on the internet passes for an education."
I have become known as "Honest James".


----------



## Unkotare

And the fool continues to reveal himself more and more... ^^^


...and he thinks he's being 'clever' about it...


----------



## Unkotare

Anyone reading this thread can see for themselves...


----------



## James Everett

Unkotare said:


> Anyone reading this thread can see for themselves...


Yes, anyone who reads this thread MAY see for themselves, who is far and above in education than the other.
You have been way above your education in this discussion and such is evident. But the fact is not simply that I have shewn you for a fool, but rather that what I have posted is truth and exposes the indoctrination that you and all other Yankees have suffered.
Please, PLEASE, before any YANKEE attempts to contradict me on these matters, EDUCATE YOURSELVES, Indoctrination is NOT education!!!


----------



## James Everett

Unkotare said:


> And the fool continues to reveal himself more and more... ^^^
> 
> 
> ...and he thinks he's being 'clever' about it...


Oh lil fellow, I was being clever.
I have just shewn that YOU are attempting to divert from the FACT that your education on the subject at hand is base at best, and you worship a man who's "formal education" as you ignorantly stated it, was not that of his counterpart in OUR Confederate government.
I have simply shewn you yet again for the fool that YOU are, and it was damn clever!


----------



## Unkotare

James Everett said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the fool continues to reveal himself more and more... ^^^
> 
> 
> ...and he thinks he's being 'clever' about it...
> 
> 
> 
> I was being clever.....
Click to expand...



Swing and a miss, clown.


----------



## James Everett

Unkotare said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the fool continues to reveal himself more and more... ^^^
> 
> 
> ...and he thinks he's being 'clever' about it...
> 
> 
> 
> I was being clever.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Swing and a miss, clown.
Click to expand...

No, just another one knocked out of the park, and above your intellect.


----------



## boedicca

So Raving starts a thread to point out how White Southern Democrats made slavery legal.

The honesty is quite surprising, and refreshing!


----------



## James Everett

boedicca said:


> So Raving starts a thread to point out how White Southern Democrats made slavery legal.
> 
> The honesty is quite surprising, and refreshing!


Ravi, 
Is just another Yankee pseudo intellectual with base intellect. Just another victim of U.S. Indoctrination. These victims are easily exploited to expose the truth that has been hidden for far to long.


----------



## Unkotare

James Everett said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the fool continues to reveal himself more and more... ^^^
> 
> 
> ...and he thinks he's being 'clever' about it...
> 
> 
> 
> I was being clever.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Swing and a miss, clown.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, just another one knocked out of the park, and above your intellect.
Click to expand...



Your painfully obvious insecurity is a cry for help. Cry somewhere else, because I don't give a shit, you uneducated buffoon.


----------



## James Everett

Unkotare said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the fool continues to reveal himself more and more... ^^^
> 
> 
> ...and he thinks he's being 'clever' about it...
> 
> 
> 
> I was being clever.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Swing and a miss, clown.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, just another one knocked out of the park, and above your intellect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your painfully obvious insecurity is a cry for help. Cry somewhere else, because I don't give a shit, you uneducated buffoon.
Click to expand...

Sweetie,
It was you who showed up late for this party, and jumped in before you realized you were in way over your head. Uneducated? Not I .
It is you who have yet been able to name the two opposing system that establish the foundation of the Framers' 1787 CONstitution, or explain how the two opposing systems where to function. The best you are likely to do is simply repeat the base indoctrination of the "checks and balances". How pathetic, yet you accuse me of being uneducated. That really is hilarious.


----------



## Unkotare

James Everett said:


> Uneducated? Not I .....





You've already admitted to it. I know you live for revisionism, but wait a century or so first.


----------



## James Everett

Unkotare said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uneducated? Not I .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've already admitted to it. I know you live for revisionism, but wait a century or so first.
Click to expand...

Oh, but truth is not revisionism, it's simply the truth.  A century, maybe, two years, maybe, ten years, perhaps. Only time will tell. But the truth has had over 200 years of indoctrination piled on top to cover it, but truth always rises.


----------



## Unkotare

And you wouldn't know the truth if it bitch-slapped you up and down the street all day.


----------



## James Everett

Unkotare said:


> And you wouldn't know the truth if it bitch-slapped you up and down the street all day.


Oh, the truth already bitch slapped me in the face, I was simply willing to accept it. This may be hard for you to believe, but once I was as ignorant to the truth as you. I,like you had no idea what those two opposing systems were that form the foundation of both the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, and our CSA constitution, I then had to drop the indoctrination of decades of U.S. miseducation, in order to begin a real education based in the understanding of the omitted facts that are associated with indoctrination.
The fact is that both of those Constitutions were infected with a fatal flaw in protecting individual liberty. The only remedy is to return to the Articles of Confederation. 
You would do well to educate yourself concerning these truths.


----------



## Unkotare

The Articles of Confederation were a failure. That's why they had to be replaced. They are never coming back, no matter how much some uneducated idiot on the internet wishes otherwise.

Deal with it, or continue to make a fool of yourself this way.


----------



## James Everett

Unkotare said:


> The Articles of Confederation were a failure. That's why they had to be replaced. They are never coming back, no matter how much some uneducated idiot on the internet wishes otherwise.
> 
> Deal with it, or continue to make a fool of yourself this way.


Why do you keep offering me the opportunity to expose your ignorance? 
Are you just that foolish?
Can you answer these questions?
What was the purpose of the Articles of Confederation?
How long were they in operation?
Why were they a failure?
Think before you answer, (that is if you are able) remember you are in over your head, and these are trick questions posed to simply show further your absolute pathetic ignorance and indoctrination.
I somehow doubt you are able to answer them, as you were not even able to answer my other simple questions.

But please do try.


----------



## JakeStarkey

James is just _adorable_ yammering on about the ACC, etc.

He is occupied and doing badly.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> James is just _adorable_ yammering on about the ACC, etc.
> 
> He is occupied and doing badly.


Still not educated enough to answer those simple questions, are you JAKE?


----------



## JakeStarkey

James Everett said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> James is just _adorable_ yammering on about the ACC, etc.
> 
> He is occupied and doing badly.
> 
> 
> 
> Still not educated enough to answer those simple questions, are you JAKE?
Click to expand...

Of course they have in thread after thread, and you stand there with your hands over your ears singing "Nah nah nah nah," over and over.  You are in denial.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> James is just _adorable_ yammering on about the ACC, etc.
> 
> He is occupied and doing badly.
> 
> 
> 
> Still not educated enough to answer those simple questions, are you JAKE?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course they have in thread after thread, and you stand there with your hands over your ears singing "Nah nah nah nah," over and over.  You are in denial.
Click to expand...

Actually, JAKE, no one has answered any of them. 
I challenge YOU, or anyone else to answer them.
If in fact even one of these two simple questions have been answered, I challenge YOU to point to them, otherwise YOU are a LIAR.
Here they are again.....
What are the two systems that were cobbled together to form the foundation of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution?
Can you please explain these two systems and their operation within YOUR 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution?
These  are actually simple questions if you understand YOUR own CONstitutional system.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Um . . . you are still in denial, James, aren't you?

You would be the actual murderer on the trap door of the gallows screaming "I didn't do it" as you began your descent into hell.

Keep posting here: this is the best education for the rest of the Board as your silliness is over and over corrected and the true narrative taught.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> Um . . . you are still in denial, James, aren't you?
> 
> You would be the actual murderer on the trap door of the gallows screaming "I didn't do it" as you began your descent into hell.
> 
> Keep posting here: this is the best education for the rest of the Board as your silliness is over and over corrected and the true narrative taught.


Well, well, Jake, you are indeed a liar, as you cannot direct anyone to a single point where anyone has answered those two simple questions, yet you claim that they have been answered many times. LIAR, LIAR.
And still you cant answer those two simple questions can you JAKE?
Posting a bunch of BS as you do, does not hide the fact that you have no understanding of YOUR own CONstitutional system. Until you understand it, you really should stay out of any discussion of it other than as a silent ignorant learning from others.


----------



## JakeStarkey

James is now gurging on his own vomit.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> James is now gurging on his own vomit.


WOW!!! JAKE, you really got me with that one.


----------



## JakeStarkey

James, that is what you are doing.  Competently corrected by professionals of your errors, you keep on with immoral stubbornness insisting that left if right, up is down, and the southern states are occupied.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> James, that is what you are doing.  Competently corrected by professionals of your errors, you keep on with immoral stubbornness insisting that left if right, up is down, and the southern states are occupied.


JAKE, 
Still waiting on you or anyone else to answer those two questions.
You are diverting again, and as I have proven using documented citation, our Southern State governments were replaced using the same tactic that Stalin later used when he INCORPORATED States into the former Soviet Union.
Both in legal terms are occupation.
You offer nothing in the form of citation to rebut these facts, all you are able to do is state that "professionals correct my errors" yet even here you offer no citation of this alleged correction.
You are simply two ignorant to apply fact to fiction.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You are gurging, James: they have been appropriately answered.

The only occupation going on are by the voices in your head.


----------



## James Everett

JakeStarkey said:


> You are gurging, James: they have been appropriately answered.
> 
> The only occupation going on are by the voices in your head.


JAKE,
I'm certain that you don't realize this, but other ignorants who attempt to dispute the facts that I present, are so pleased when you join in, as it offers them the opportunity to run for cover in a pathetic attempt to save face. You, JAKE STARKEY are used by others as cannon fodder, while they quietly retreat from the field with their tails tucked in shame.
I hate that they use you thus, however I see why they do as they do: it really is a punk move to use you that way, but then what do you expect from a Yankee other than punk moves?


----------



## Ravi

Any dispute that the Confederates legalized slavery?


----------



## James Everett

Ravi said:


> Any dispute that the Confederates legalized slavery?


The Confederacy did not legalize slavery on the U.S. As slavey was already legal in the U.S, up until 1865. And post 1865, your U,S. Government continued its crusade to exterminate the Native American Indian. So, your question is yes, our CSA made slavey as legal as it existed LEGALY under your U.S. Government from 1789 until 1865, which was legal under YOUR U.S. CONstitution During the same years as it was under our CSA constitution.


----------



## Ravi

James Everett said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any dispute that the Confederates legalized slavery?
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederacy did not legalize slavery on the U.S. As slavey was already legal in the U.S, up until 1865. And post 1865, your U,S. Government continued its crusade to exterminate the Native American Indian. So, your question is yes, our CSA made slavey as legal as it existed LEGALY under your U.S. Government from 1789 until 1865, which was legal under YOUR U.S. CONstitution During the same years as it was under our CSA constitution.
Click to expand...

Native Americans weren't slaves.


----------



## Ravi

And the Confederates legalized slavery.


----------



## James Everett

Ravi said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any dispute that the Confederates legalized slavery?
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederacy did not legalize slavery on the U.S. As slavey was already legal in the U.S, up until 1865. And post 1865, your U,S. Government continued its crusade to exterminate the Native American Indian. So, your question is yes, our CSA made slavey as legal as it existed LEGALY under your U.S. Government from 1789 until 1865, which was legal under YOUR U.S. CONstitution During the same years as it was under our CSA constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Native Americans weren't slaves.
Click to expand...

No, they were considered of no value to YOUR government, they were considered on the same level as a rodent to be exterminated.


----------



## James Everett

Ravi said:


> And the Confederates legalized slavery.


As was slavery legal under YOUR U.S. CONstitution.


----------



## Ravi

James Everett said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any dispute that the Confederates legalized slavery?
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederacy did not legalize slavery on the U.S. As slavey was already legal in the U.S, up until 1865. And post 1865, your U,S. Government continued its crusade to exterminate the Native American Indian. So, your question is yes, our CSA made slavey as legal as it existed LEGALY under your U.S. Government from 1789 until 1865, which was legal under YOUR U.S. CONstitution During the same years as it was under our CSA constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Native Americans weren't slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, they were considered of no value to YOUR government, they were considered on the same level as a rodent to be exterminated.
Click to expand...

No argument there. But then again I don't pretend that the USA was a noble venture like you pretend the Confederacy was.


----------



## Ravi

James Everett said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the Confederates legalized slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> As was slavery legal under YOUR U.S. CONstitution.
Click to expand...

No, it wasn't.


----------



## James Everett

Ravi said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any dispute that the Confederates legalized slavery?
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederacy did not legalize slavery on the U.S. As slavey was already legal in the U.S, up until 1865. And post 1865, your U,S. Government continued its crusade to exterminate the Native American Indian. So, your question is yes, our CSA made slavey as legal as it existed LEGALY under your U.S. Government from 1789 until 1865, which was legal under YOUR U.S. CONstitution During the same years as it was under our CSA constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Native Americans weren't slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, they were considered of no value to YOUR government, they were considered on the same level as a rodent to be exterminated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No argument there. But then again I don't pretend that the USA was a noble venture like you pretend the Confederacy was.
Click to expand...

You are sadly mistaken, I find the Confederate Constitution every bit as flawed and repugnant to individual liberty as YOUR U.S. CONstitution. Our cause is simply to use the fact that the Southern States legally seceded to restore our Southern Confederacy, and then use the legal amendment process to return to the Founders' intent under the Articles if Confederation.


----------



## James Everett

Ravi said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the Confederates legalized slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> As was slavery legal under YOUR U.S. CONstitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it wasn't.
Click to expand...

Yes it was legal under YOUR U.S. CONstitution from 1789 until 1865, when the 13th amendment was added to YOUR U.S. CONstitution making it illegal. What should be noted here is that YOUR CONstitution had a legal legislative avenue to make slavery illegal in the U.S. Even after the Southern States seceded but never utilized that legal process, but instead chose to prosecute a war in rebellion to the legal authority of their U.S. CONstitution.


----------



## James Everett

Ravi said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the Confederates legalized slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> As was slavery legal under YOUR U.S. CONstitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it wasn't.
Click to expand...

You see, Ravi, when one is driven by pure emotion, whether that emotion be anger, hatred, blind dedication to a government, or even love, without logic, one becomes a pawn to be used by those in control of those emotion, or those in power who use misguided emotions to expand their power and jurisdiction.
One must use logic, to control emotions.In your current perversion of the Founders' system under the Articles, and the Framers system, under YOUR U.S. CONstitution wherein a two party duopoly has taken the place of the union of State governments, and use emotional strings absent of logic to divide and conquer the individual in order that that individual become emotionally attached to one of two a political party's or a label such as "conservative", "Liberal" "Left wing", "Right wing", etc, those in power use those blind emotions in order to increase their power and jurisdiction. Slavery is used in just such a way, wherein logic is abandoned, allowing one to choose a side, based on emotion rather than using legal logic. One people are noted as oppressed, while another is conveniently left out by those who slaughtered and oppressed in order to use the emotions of the people in order to gain power and jurisdiction over them.


----------



## JakeStarkey

James, you are our cannon fodder for shooting down your fake soldiers.

But . . . truce for Easter. I appreciate your passion for your cause.


----------



## Unkotare

James Everett said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Articles of Confederation were a failure. That's why they had to be replaced. They are never coming back, no matter how much some uneducated idiot on the internet wishes otherwise.
> 
> Deal with it, or continue to make a fool of yourself this way.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you keep offering me the opportunity to expose your ignorance?.....
Click to expand...



You keep taking opportunities to reveal your ignorance, JohnnyRebDropOut.


----------



## James Everett

Unkotare said:


> James Everett said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Articles of Confederation were a failure. That's why they had to be replaced. They are never coming back, no matter how much some uneducated idiot on the internet wishes otherwise.
> 
> Deal with it, or continue to make a fool of yourself this way.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you keep offering me the opportunity to expose your ignorance?.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You keep taking opportunities to reveal your ignorance, JohnnyRebDropOut.
Click to expand...

Unk,
You ignorant Yankee.......
You are such a fool. The Articles were fine for the purpose of a union of States, however they did not suit the desires then just as today, for those who want a powerful national government to deny individual liberty while policing the rest of the world through hegemony and a state of perpetual war. No, the Articles were fine for a union/confederacy of States, but not so well for those who want government meddling in every aspect of their lives.


----------

