# The Civil War



## TrumpSucks

The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?


----------



## gtopa1

TrumpSucks said:


> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?


The end of slavery was one of the eventual outcomes of the war. Odd that every other country that had slaves was able to ban slavery without killing a million of its own citizens...UK and France for example. 

No you silly person; the Civil War was about $....as usual. 

Make no mistake; that slavery was ended was a good thing and overdue. You must also be aware that the North DESTROYED the South's ECONOMY. No money for reparations. 

Greg


----------



## Thoth001

TrumpSucks said:


> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?











						Why the Civil War Wasn’t About Slavery - LewRockwell
					

From the 1870s to the late 1950s, there was an unofficial truce between the North and South. Each side recognized and saluted the courage of the other; it was conceded that the North fought to preserve the Union and because Old Glory had been fired on, and the Southerner fought for liberty and...




					www.lewrockwell.com
				








__





						Why the Civil War Wasn’t About Slavery – Abbeville Institute
					






					www.abbevilleinstitute.org
				












						How We Know The So-Called “Civil War” Was Not Over Slavery |
					






					www.paulcraigroberts.org
				






			https://dixieoutfitters.com/2020/06/22/how-taxes-caused-the-civil-war-not-slavery/


----------



## Oz and the Orchestra

TrumpSucks said:


> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?


Only it wasn't.
If Lincoln had stated that he was going to ban slavery and emancipate the slaves and the South refused. Then you could say it was fought over slavery but that never happened. Lincoln had no intention of banning slavery. It was just that as Sherman had pushed deep into Georgia it was a smart military tactic to cause maximum disruption.

And I'm as left-wing as you can get.


----------



## gtopa1

Oz and the Orchestra said:


> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> Only it wasn't.
> If Lincoln had stated that he was going to ban slavery and emancipate the slaves and the South refused. Then you could say it was fought over slavery but that never happened. Lincoln had no intention of banning slavery. It was just that as Sherman had pushed deep into Georgia it was a smart military tactic to cause maximum disruption.
> 
> And I'm as left-wing as you can get.
Click to expand...

There's an old movie about the life of Lincoln where he ties a cart to the end of a village "tug-o-war" to beat his opponents when his side was losing. The lecturer was surprised when I connected the "wagon" with "slavery" as an issue. What was the film trying to tell us?? (ps: I was there for the free movie with a lass; not the humanities course). 

Greg


----------



## Jets

Slavery was one of the main causes of the civil war. However, it was not the sole one.


----------



## forkup

gtopa1 said:


> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> The end of slavery was one of the eventual outcomes of the war. Odd that every other country that had slaves was able to ban slavery without killing a million of its own citizens...UK and France for example.
> 
> No you silly person; the Civil War was about $....as usual.
> 
> Make no mistake; that slavery was ended was a good thing and overdue. You must also be aware that the North DESTROYED the South's ECONOMY. No money for reparations.
> 
> Greg
Click to expand...

Uhm, that's a non-answer if I've ever heard one not to mention I recognise at least 2 logical fallacies.

Wether or not other countries were capable of abolishing slavery has absolutely no bearing on whether or not the US was. That's a red herring.

The same goes for your "it was about money" 

The fact of the matter was that their was 1 and only 1 reason for the civil war and that was slavery. Specifically the issue of slavery being allowed to expand into new territories. An issue that caused the South to secede when Lincoln was elected.


----------



## forkup

Jets said:


> Slavery was one of the main causes of the civil war. However, it was not the sole one.


Name a specific other one please?


----------



## TrumpSucks

gtopa1 said:


> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> The end of slavery was one of the eventual outcomes of the war. Odd that every other country that had slaves was able to ban slavery without killing a million of its own citizens...UK and France for example.
> 
> No you silly person; the Civil War was about $....as usual.
> 
> Make no mistake; that slavery was ended was a good thing and overdue. You must also be aware that the North DESTROYED the South's ECONOMY. No money for reparations.
> 
> Greg
Click to expand...

The North destroyed the South's economy because the South made war upon the North. Remember Fort Sumpter?


----------



## initforme

Slave owners were people of illl repute.  Too lazy to do the work themselves and too cheap to actually pay for labor.   To believe another human could actually be property is unfathomable.  To use lashing and whipping to control a group of people was inhumane and repugnant.


----------



## forkup

TrumpSucks said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> The end of slavery was one of the eventual outcomes of the war. Odd that every other country that had slaves was able to ban slavery without killing a million of its own citizens...UK and France for example.
> 
> No you silly person; the Civil War was about $....as usual.
> 
> Make no mistake; that slavery was ended was a good thing and overdue. You must also be aware that the North DESTROYED the South's ECONOMY. No money for reparations.
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The North destroyed the South's economy because the South made war upon the North. Remember Fort Sumpter?
Click to expand...

I do remember. Do you remember that they shot at Sumpter because they seceded from the Union? Do you remember the reason they did that?


----------



## Quasar44

TrumpSucks said:


> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?


No , the CW was about keeping slavery from the South’s perspective 
 From the North : they did not want to lose the $$$ in the vast agricultural of the south


----------



## TrumpSucks

forkup said:


> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> The end of slavery was one of the eventual outcomes of the war. Odd that every other country that had slaves was able to ban slavery without killing a million of its own citizens...UK and France for example.
> 
> No you silly person; the Civil War was about $....as usual.
> 
> Make no mistake; that slavery was ended was a good thing and overdue. You must also be aware that the North DESTROYED the South's ECONOMY. No money for reparations.
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The North destroyed the South's economy because the South made war upon the North. Remember Fort Sumpter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do remember. Do you remember that they shot at Sumpter because they seceded from the Union? Do you remember the reason they did that?
Click to expand...

Yes, it was because they wanted to keep their slaves.


----------



## Votto

TrumpSucks said:


> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?


If it was only about slavery, why did Lincoln offer to make slavery a Constitutional right so long as the Southern states came back into the Union?


----------



## Batcat

That largely depends on when and where you grew up.

I grew up in the North in the 1950s and 1960s. Therefore the Civil War was about slavery.

Had I grown up in the South I would have learned it was about states rights and was a war of northern aggression.


.


----------



## forkup

TrumpSucks said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> The end of slavery was one of the eventual outcomes of the war. Odd that every other country that had slaves was able to ban slavery without killing a million of its own citizens...UK and France for example.
> 
> No you silly person; the Civil War was about $....as usual.
> 
> Make no mistake; that slavery was ended was a good thing and overdue. You must also be aware that the North DESTROYED the South's ECONOMY. No money for reparations.
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The North destroyed the South's economy because the South made war upon the North. Remember Fort Sumpter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do remember. Do you remember that they shot at Sumpter because they seceded from the Union? Do you remember the reason they did that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it was because they wanted to keep their slaves.
Click to expand...

LOL sorry just noticed we are in agreement. My bad.


----------



## TrumpSucks

initforme said:


> Slave owners were people of illl repute.  Too lazy to do the work themselves and too cheap to actually pay for labor.   To believe another human could actually be property is unfathomable.  To use lashing and whipping to control a group of people was inhumane and repugnant.


Oh, yes, slave owners were people of ill repute! That is completely ridiculous. If you're seriously going to advance that position, you'd better put forward some evidence...


----------



## gtopa1

forkup said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> The end of slavery was one of the eventual outcomes of the war. Odd that every other country that had slaves was able to ban slavery without killing a million of its own citizens...UK and France for example.
> 
> No you silly person; the Civil War was about $....as usual.
> 
> Make no mistake; that slavery was ended was a good thing and overdue. You must also be aware that the North DESTROYED the South's ECONOMY. No money for reparations.
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uhm, that's a non-answer if I've ever heard one not to mention I recognise at least 2 logical fallacies.
> 
> Wether or not other countries were capable of abolishing slavery has absolutely no bearing on whether or not the US was. That's a red herring.
> 
> The same goes for your "it was about money"
> 
> The fact of the matter was that their was 1 and only 1 reason for the civil war and that was slavery. Specifically the issue of slavery being allowed to expand into new territories. An issue that caused the South to secede when Lincoln was elected.
Click to expand...

Nope. you are wrong. 

You from Yorkshire by any chance??

Greg


----------



## TrumpSucks

Batcat said:


> That largely depends on when and where you grew up.
> 
> I grew up in the North in the 1950s and 1960s. Therefore the Civil War was about slavery.
> 
> Had I grown up in the South I would have learned it was about states rights and was a war of northern aggression.
> 
> 
> .


Yeah, well, the facts are the facts -- and this was the era before alternative facts.


----------



## TrumpSucks

Votto said:


> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> If it was only about slavery, why did Lincoln offer to make slavery a Constitutional right so long as the Southern states came back into the Union?
Click to expand...

When did Lincoln do that?


----------



## Jets

forkup said:


> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was one of the main causes of the civil war. However, it was not the sole one.
> 
> 
> 
> Name a specific other one please?
Click to expand...


Apologies, that should have read”slavery was the main cause, not the sole one”


----------



## occupied

There was a practice civil war most people seem to have conveniently forgotten. Today it is called "bleeding Kansas" and it was undeniably over slavery or rather the expansion of slavery into the western states. After what happened there when the "Missouri border ruffians" tried to force Kansans to accept slavery or die the battle lines for the civil war were drawn in blood before it officially started. The south saw a market for their excess slaves in the west but the north had slammed the door on slavery expanding outside the slave states or slaves being exported.


----------



## initforme

Buying a human and treating him or her as property.  What more do you want as evidence.


----------



## Votto

TrumpSucks said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> If it was only about slavery, why did Lincoln offer to make slavery a Constitutional right so long as the Southern states came back into the Union?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When did Lincoln do that?
Click to expand...

Corwin Amendment - Wikipedia 

Wakey, wakey


----------



## TrumpSucks

Wow! Clearly, The Civil War is still a hot topic, 150 years later. That's sad. But at least we're talking about it...


----------



## Votto

Batcat said:


> That largely depends on when and where you grew up.
> 
> I grew up in the North in the 1950s and 1960s. Therefore the Civil War was about slavery.
> 
> Had I grown up in the South I would have learned it was about states rights and was a war of northern aggression.
> 
> 
> .


Because the Southern states turned down Lincoln's offer of making slavery Constitutional.

Then it became a matter of the Southern states simply wanting nothing more to do with the North.


----------



## Correll

TrumpSucks said:


> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?




YOu are very brave fighting a war that better men won for you before you were born.


----------



## Votto

TrumpSucks said:


> Wow! Clearly, The Civil War is still a hot topic, 150 years later. That's sad. But at least we're talking about it...


It's important to talk about history because democrat controlled schools don't want you do know any of it, just like they failed to teach you about the Corwin Act.

No, you probably were even taught Lincoln was a democrat.  LOL.

The public schools don't want you to know history because the more you know about history, the more you see their folly and vote against them.


----------



## forkup

Votto said:


> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> If it was only about slavery, why did Lincoln offer to make slavery a Constitutional right so long as the Southern states came back into the Union?
Click to expand...

If it wasn't only about slavery why would Lincoln think that promise would work?


----------



## Quasar44

Batcat said:


> That largely depends on when and where you grew up.
> 
> I grew up in the North in the 1950s and 1960s. Therefore the Civil War was about slavery.
> 
> Had I grown up in the South I would have learned it was about states rights and was a war of northern aggression.
> 
> 
> .


I grew up in the North but I would have never fought for the Khmer Rouge union army


----------



## Quasar44

forkup said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> If it was only about slavery, why did Lincoln offer to make slavery a Constitutional right so long as the Southern states came back into the Union?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it wasn't only about slavery why would Lincoln think that promise would work?
Click to expand...

Lincoln never even mentioned slavery until later in the war


----------



## forkup

gtopa1 said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> The end of slavery was one of the eventual outcomes of the war. Odd that every other country that had slaves was able to ban slavery without killing a million of its own citizens...UK and France for example.
> 
> No you silly person; the Civil War was about $....as usual.
> 
> Make no mistake; that slavery was ended was a good thing and overdue. You must also be aware that the North DESTROYED the South's ECONOMY. No money for reparations.
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uhm, that's a non-answer if I've ever heard one not to mention I recognise at least 2 logical fallacies.
> 
> Wether or not other countries were capable of abolishing slavery has absolutely no bearing on whether or not the US was. That's a red herring.
> 
> The same goes for your "it was about money"
> 
> The fact of the matter was that their was 1 and only 1 reason for the civil war and that was slavery. Specifically the issue of slavery being allowed to expand into new territories. An issue that caused the South to secede when Lincoln was elected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. you are wrong.
> 
> You from Yorkshire by any chance??
> 
> Greg
Click to expand...

Why would you think I'm from Yorkshire? I'm Belgian actually.


----------



## Votto

forkup said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> If it was only about slavery, why did Lincoln offer to make slavery a Constitutional right so long as the Southern states came back into the Union?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it wasn't only about slavery why would Lincoln think that promise would work?
Click to expand...

The point is that the North would have allowed slavery to keep their power over the South.

So Lincoln sending in the troops was more about power, even though slavery was one of the triggers.


----------



## initforme

Why didn't the plantation owners simply hire workers at a fair wage?  Why did the lazy owners need slaves?


----------



## forkup

Quasar44 said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> If it was only about slavery, why did Lincoln offer to make slavery a Constitutional right so long as the Southern states came back into the Union?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it wasn't only about slavery why would Lincoln think that promise would work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln never even mentioned slavery until later in the war
Click to expand...

He mentioned it way before then. Abolishing slavery wasnpart of his acceptance speech and his stance on it was the catalyst for secession.


----------



## TrumpSucks

Votto said:


> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> If it was only about slavery, why did Lincoln offer to make slavery a Constitutional right so long as the Southern states came back into the Union?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When did Lincoln do that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Corwin Amendment - Wikipedia
> 
> Wakey, wakey
Click to expand...

OK, but Lincoln didn't "offer" to make slavery a Constitutional right. He said that he would not object to making the Corwin Amendment law, which could be interpreted as making slavery legal. In any case, the amendment wasn't passed. And Lincoln's primary objective ALWAYS was preserving the Union. He hated slavery, yes, but if he could have preserved the Union by not freeing any slaves, he would have done it.


----------



## Quasar44

forkup said:


> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> If it was only about slavery, why did Lincoln offer to make slavery a Constitutional right so long as the Southern states came back into the Union?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it wasn't only about slavery why would Lincoln think that promise would work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln never even mentioned slavery until later in the war
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He mentioned it way before then. Abolishing slavery wasnpart of his acceptance speech and his stance on it was the catalyst for secession.
Click to expand...

Abe wanted slavery to naturally disappear 
He just did not want it in the new states from the Mexican war


----------



## Quasar44

Abe was a tyrant who violated the constitution and had 700,000 innocent folks killed
I prefer Washington and Jefferson


----------



## forkup

Votto said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> If it was only about slavery, why did Lincoln offer to make slavery a Constitutional right so long as the Southern states came back into the Union?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it wasn't only about slavery why would Lincoln think that promise would work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point is that the North would have allowed slavery to keep their power over the South.
> 
> So Lincoln sending in the troops was more about power, even though slavery was one of the triggers.
Click to expand...

The point is that when given the choice between the Union and allowing slavery to persist, Licoln was prepared early in his presidency to compromise. That doesn't change the fact that the idea that slavery wasn't the root cause of the civil war is ludicrous.


----------



## occupied

Another part of the history that seems to have been forgotten is what the south said they wanted. They had some grand plans. Since they had depleted their soil slavery had been a losing proposition for some time but they had a way to keep it. Instead of using slaves to grow crops they would grow slaves for export. They foresaw selling slaves to the west and to the entirety of Mexico and South America which they thought we should annex by force. Turns out the North was not too hot on all that.


----------



## gtopa1

forkup said:


> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> The end of slavery was one of the eventual outcomes of the war. Odd that every other country that had slaves was able to ban slavery without killing a million of its own citizens...UK and France for example.
> 
> No you silly person; the Civil War was about $....as usual.
> 
> Make no mistake; that slavery was ended was a good thing and overdue. You must also be aware that the North DESTROYED the South's ECONOMY. No money for reparations.
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The North destroyed the South's economy because the South made war upon the North. Remember Fort Sumpter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do remember. Do you remember that they shot at Sumpter because they seceded from the Union? Do you remember the reason they did that?
Click to expand...

Yes; it was then Sth Carolina so a part of the Confederate States; the Union soldiers were trespassing. Re-inforcing the fort was an act of war. Also, Ft Sumter was about 85 Union Troops of whom 84 survived....ONE died when his cannon blew up!!!

btw: your buddy Marx said:

"In October 1861 Marx, who was living in Primrose Hill, summed up the view of the British press: ‘The war between the North and South is a tariff war. The war is, further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery and in fact turns on Northern lust for sovereignty.’ That view was shared by Charles Dickens, who wrote: ‘The Northern onslaught upon slavery is no more than a piece of specious humbug disguised to conceal its desire for economic control of the United States.’"






						The American Civil War: A North-South Divide | History Today
					






					www.historytoday.com
				






Greg


----------



## forkup

Jets said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was one of the main causes of the civil war. However, it was not the sole one.
> 
> 
> 
> Name a specific other one please?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apologies, that should have read”slavery was the main cause, not the sole one”
Click to expand...

The problem I have is that all the other causes you are I would be willing to name will all boil down to slavery. War never ever breaks out over one particular reason. The US civil war has probably one of the most straightforward root causes in history.


----------



## gtopa1

occupied said:


> Another part of the history that seems to have been forgotten is what the south said they wanted. They had some grand plans. Since they had depleted their soil slavery had been a losing proposition for some time but they had a way to keep it. Instead of using slaves to grow crops they would grow slaves for export. They foresaw selling slaves to the west and to the entirety of Mexico and South America which they thought we should annex by force. Turns out the North was not too hot on all that.


sauce?????

Greg


----------



## initforme

How did the south justify slavery?


----------



## gtopa1

occupied said:


> Another part of the history that seems to have been forgotten is what the south said they wanted. They had some grand plans. Since they had depleted their soil slavery had been a losing proposition for some time but they had a way to keep it. Instead of using slaves to grow crops they would grow slaves for export. They foresaw selling slaves to the west and to the entirety of Mexico and South America which they thought we should annex by force. Turns out the North was not too hot on all that.


I think I heard that somewhere but was it ever actually a policy? I have yet to see that it was. be a good chap and dig up that source if possible. 

Greg


----------



## forkup

gtopa1 said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> The end of slavery was one of the eventual outcomes of the war. Odd that every other country that had slaves was able to ban slavery without killing a million of its own citizens...UK and France for example.
> 
> No you silly person; the Civil War was about $....as usual.
> 
> Make no mistake; that slavery was ended was a good thing and overdue. You must also be aware that the North DESTROYED the South's ECONOMY. No money for reparations.
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The North destroyed the South's economy because the South made war upon the North. Remember Fort Sumpter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do remember. Do you remember that they shot at Sumpter because they seceded from the Union? Do you remember the reason they did that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes; it was then Sth Carolina so a part of the Confederate States; the Union soldiers were trespassing. Re-inforcing the fort was an act of war. Also, Ft Sumter was about 85 Union Troops of whom 84 survived....ONE died when his cannon blew up!!!
> 
> btw: your buddy Marx said:
> 
> "In October 1861 Marx, who was living in Primrose Hill, summed up the view of the British press: ‘The war between the North and South is a tariff war. The war is, further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery and in fact turns on Northern lust for sovereignty.’ That view was shared by Charles Dickens, who wrote: ‘The Northern onslaught upon slavery is no more than a piece of specious humbug disguised to conceal its desire for economic control of the United States.’"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The American Civil War: A North-South Divide | History Today
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.historytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Greg
Click to expand...

And what made South Carolima decide they didn't want to be part of the Union anymore?


----------



## Jets

forkup said:


> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was one of the main causes of the civil war. However, it was not the sole one.
> 
> 
> 
> Name a specific other one please?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apologies, that should have read”slavery was the main cause, not the sole one”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem I have is that all the other causes you are I would be willing to name will all boil down to slavery. War never ever breaks out over one particular reason. The US civil war has probably one of the most straightforward root causes in history.
Click to expand...


That was the point I was trying to make, as you correctly stated,war does not break out over one particular reason. The issues may all connect to one main one, but it does not mean they are all one and the same.


----------



## gtopa1

initforme said:


> How did the south justify slavery?


The same way the North did prior to 1861. You know some slave owning states joined 'The North", don't you??



Greg


----------



## initforme

Yes I do.  And I have zero respect for any of the slave owning lazy men.


----------



## occupied

gtopa1 said:


> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another part of the history that seems to have been forgotten is what the south said they wanted. They had some grand plans. Since they had depleted their soil slavery had been a losing proposition for some time but they had a way to keep it. Instead of using slaves to grow crops they would grow slaves for export. They foresaw selling slaves to the west and to the entirety of Mexico and South America which they thought we should annex by force. Turns out the North was not too hot on all that.
> 
> 
> 
> sauce?????
> 
> Greg
Click to expand...

Here's the article by Marx you quoted. One of the finest contemporary examinations of the Question.

Karl Marx - The American Civil War


----------



## Correll

forkup said:


> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was one of the main causes of the civil war. However, it was not the sole one.
> 
> 
> 
> Name a specific other one please?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apologies, that should have read”slavery was the main cause, not the sole one”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem I have is that all the other causes you are I would be willing to name will all boil down to slavery. War never ever breaks out over one particular reason. The US civil war has probably one of the most straightforward root causes in history.
Click to expand...



Why did Lincoln lie about it then?


----------



## forkup

Jets said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was one of the main causes of the civil war. However, it was not the sole one.
> 
> 
> 
> Name a specific other one please?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apologies, that should have read”slavery was the main cause, not the sole one”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem I have is that all the other causes you are I would be willing to name will all boil down to slavery. War never ever breaks out over one particular reason. The US civil war has probably one of the most straightforward root causes in history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was the point I was trying to make, as you correctly stated,war does not break out over one particular reason. The issues may all connect to one main one, but it does not mean they are all one and the same.
Click to expand...

If they all connect to the same one the other reasons aren't all that relevant and for the purpose of revisionism distracting at the least and dishonest at worst. 

I usually appluad nuance I really do but to often in this narrative its used as a justification for starting a war in order to preserve something that was recognised as reprehensible even at that time.


----------



## Correll

forkup said:


> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was one of the main causes of the civil war. However, it was not the sole one.
> 
> 
> 
> Name a specific other one please?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apologies, that should have read”slavery was the main cause, not the sole one”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem I have is that all the other causes you are I would be willing to name will all boil down to slavery. War never ever breaks out over one particular reason. The US civil war has probably one of the most straightforward root causes in history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was the point I was trying to make, as you correctly stated,war does not break out over one particular reason. The issues may all connect to one main one, but it does not mean they are all one and the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they all connect to the same one the other reasons aren't all that relevant and for the purpose of revisionism distracting at the least and dishonest at worst.
> 
> I usually appluad nuance I really do but to often in this narrative its used as a justification for starting a war in order to preserve something that was recognised as reprehensible even at that time.
Click to expand...



Why did Lincoln lie about that then?


----------



## gtopa1

forkup said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> The end of slavery was one of the eventual outcomes of the war. Odd that every other country that had slaves was able to ban slavery without killing a million of its own citizens...UK and France for example.
> 
> No you silly person; the Civil War was about $....as usual.
> 
> Make no mistake; that slavery was ended was a good thing and overdue. You must also be aware that the North DESTROYED the South's ECONOMY. No money for reparations.
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The North destroyed the South's economy because the South made war upon the North. Remember Fort Sumpter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do remember. Do you remember that they shot at Sumpter because they seceded from the Union? Do you remember the reason they did that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes; it was then Sth Carolina so a part of the Confederate States; the Union soldiers were trespassing. Re-inforcing the fort was an act of war. Also, Ft Sumter was about 85 Union Troops of whom 84 survived....ONE died when his cannon blew up!!!
> 
> btw: your buddy Marx said:
> 
> "In October 1861 Marx, who was living in Primrose Hill, summed up the view of the British press: ‘The war between the North and South is a tariff war. The war is, further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery and in fact turns on Northern lust for sovereignty.’ That view was shared by Charles Dickens, who wrote: ‘The Northern onslaught upon slavery is no more than a piece of specious humbug disguised to conceal its desire for economic control of the United States.’"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The American Civil War: A North-South Divide | History Today
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.historytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what made South Carolima decide they didn't want to be part of the Union anymore?
Click to expand...

$$$$$$$$

As Marx said; it was a TARIFF WAR. do look it up. Remember that the North's Industrial base had tremendous clout and paid few taxes. 



> In May of 1860 the U. S. Congress passed the Morrill Tariff Bill (named for Republican Congressman and steel manufacturer, *Justin S. Morrill* of Vermont) raising the average tariff from about 15% to 37% with increases to 47% within three years. Although this was remarkably reminiscent of the Tariffs of Abomination which had led in 1832 to a constitutional crisis and threats of secession and armed force, the U. S. House of Representatives passed the Bill 105 to 64. Out of 40 Southern Congressmen only one Tennessee Congressman voted for it.
> 
> U. S. tariff revenues already fell disproportionately on the South, accounting for 87% of the total even before the Morrill Tariff. While the tariff protected Northern industrial interests, it raised the cost of living and commerce in the South substantially. It also reduced the trade value of their agricultural exports to Europe. These combined to place a severe economic hardship on many Southern states. Even more galling was that 80% or more of these tax revenues were expended on Northern public works and industrial subsidies, thus further enriching the North at the expense of the South.
> 
> In the 1860 election, Lincoln, a former Whig and great admirer of Henry Clay, campaigned for the high protective tariff provisions of the Morrill Tariff, which had also been incorporated into the Republican Party Platform. Thaddeus Stevens, the most powerful Republican in Congress and one of the co-sponsors of the Morrill Tariff, told an audience in New York City on September 27, 1860, that the two most important issues of the Presidential campaign were preventing the extension of slavery to new states and an increase in the tariff, but that the most important of the two was increasing the tariff. Stevens, a Pennsylvania iron manufacturer, was also one of the most radical abolitionists in Congress. He told the New York audience that the tariff would enrich the northeastern states and impoverish the southern and western states, but that it was essential for advancing national greatness and the prosperity of industrial workers. Stevens, who would become virtually the “boss’ of America after the assassination of Lincoln, advised the crowd that if Southern leaders objected, they would be rounded up and hanged.
> 
> *Two days* before Lincoln’s election in November of 1860, an editorial in the _Charleston Mercury_ summed up the feeling of South Carolina on the impending national crisis:
> 
> “_The real causes of dissatisfaction in the South with the North, are in the unjust taxation and expenditure of the taxes by the Government of the United States, and in the revolution the North has effected in this government, from a confederated republic, to a national sectional despotism_.”











						True causes of the Uncivil War: Understanding the Morrill Tariff
					

“The Northern onslaught upon slavery is no more than a piece of specious humbug disguised to conceal its desire for economic control of the United States.” ~ Charles Dickens Most Americans believe …



					metropolis.cafe
				




Marx was of course a pos, but probably right on this. 

btw: I am NOT rusted on wrt causes.....but in EVERY War/Revolution I've looked at over the years, the root has been $ and the justifications by the winners after the event were MORAL issues. The problem is trying, as the DemoKKKrats are doing, demonising others using some historic canards. 

Greg


----------



## forkup

Correll said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was one of the main causes of the civil war. However, it was not the sole one.
> 
> 
> 
> Name a specific other one please?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apologies, that should have read”slavery was the main cause, not the sole one”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem I have is that all the other causes you are I would be willing to name will all boil down to slavery. War never ever breaks out over one particular reason. The US civil war has probably one of the most straightforward root causes in history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was the point I was trying to make, as you correctly stated,war does not break out over one particular reason. The issues may all connect to one main one, but it does not mean they are all one and the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they all connect to the same one the other reasons aren't all that relevant and for the purpose of revisionism distracting at the least and dishonest at worst.
> 
> I usually appluad nuance I really do but to often in this narrative its used as a justification for starting a war in order to preserve something that was recognised as reprehensible even at that time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why did Lincoln lie about that then?
Click to expand...

What specifically is "that" if you want me to respond?


----------



## Batcat

initforme said:


> Why didn't the plantation owners simply hire workers at a fair wage?  Why did the lazy owners need slaves?



You can breed and sell slaves. You can’t do that with workers.



> Measuring Slavery in 2016 Dollars*
> *by
> 
> Samuel H. Williamson
> Miami University
> MeasuringWorth
> sam@mswth.org
> 
> and
> 
> Louis P. Cain
> Loyola University Chicago
> Northwestern University
> lcain@northwestern.edu*​
> ***snip***
> ​The demand for a slave is a derived demand, as is that for any productive resource. It is derived from the demand for the output that resource helps to produce. There was an active market for slaves throughout the antebellum period, meaning that slave owners believed the purchase of a slave would prove to be a profitable expenditure, even though that expenditure required a considerable amount of money3. As we will explain below, at the time the South seceded from the Union, the purchase of a single slave represented as much as $150,000 and more in today's prices. This was twice the average of 14 years earlier, indicating a sustained growth in the demand for slaves. Economists would say that these observations alone indicate that the profitability of "investing" in a slave was increasing substantially.
> 
> Why would a slave have so much value? A short answer is the value of a slave is the value of the expected output or services the slave can generate minus the costs of maintaining that person (i.e., food, clothing, shelter, etc.) over his or her lifetime.4. A quick list of the data that have to be considered in determining the value of a slave's expected revenue would include sex, age, location, how much he or she is likely to produce (a factor that included a slave's health and physical condition), and the price of the output in the market. For a female slave, an additional thing to consider would be the value of the children she might bear.
> 
> In addition, there is considerable evidence that slaves were worked harder than free labor in Southern agriculture; what slaves could be induced to produce in bondage was greater than what they could be expected to produce with the freedom to make their own choice of labor or leisure.
> 
> 
> https://www.measuringworth.com/slavery.php


----------



## occupied

gtopa1 said:


> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another part of the history that seems to have been forgotten is what the south said they wanted. They had some grand plans. Since they had depleted their soil slavery had been a losing proposition for some time but they had a way to keep it. Instead of using slaves to grow crops they would grow slaves for export. They foresaw selling slaves to the west and to the entirety of Mexico and South America which they thought we should annex by force. Turns out the North was not too hot on all that.
> 
> 
> 
> I think I heard that somewhere but was it ever actually a policy? I have yet to see that it was. be a good chap and dig up that source if possible.
> 
> Greg
Click to expand...

Already posted a source but there used to be these things called "Books" people used to read before the internet. Turns out I can't remember where I got every single fact I've ever read.


----------



## Correll

forkup said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was one of the main causes of the civil war. However, it was not the sole one.
> 
> 
> 
> Name a specific other one please?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apologies, that should have read”slavery was the main cause, not the sole one”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem I have is that all the other causes you are I would be willing to name will all boil down to slavery. War never ever breaks out over one particular reason. The US civil war has probably one of the most straightforward root causes in history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was the point I was trying to make, as you correctly stated,war does not break out over one particular reason. The issues may all connect to one main one, but it does not mean they are all one and the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they all connect to the same one the other reasons aren't all that relevant and for the purpose of revisionism distracting at the least and dishonest at worst.
> 
> I usually appluad nuance I really do but to often in this narrative its used as a justification for starting a war in order to preserve something that was recognised as reprehensible even at that time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why did Lincoln lie about that then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What specifically is "that" if you want me to respond?
Click to expand...



YOu made a point. My reply was addressing your point.


"That", was a reference to your point.



I understand that this is very alien to you. 



Now, to take this back to my point.



Why did Lincoln lie about that then?



(i hope you were able to follow that. I know it was a lot of information and very complex, what with you saying something and me asking you a question about it)


----------



## occupied

gtopa1 said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> The end of slavery was one of the eventual outcomes of the war. Odd that every other country that had slaves was able to ban slavery without killing a million of its own citizens...UK and France for example.
> 
> No you silly person; the Civil War was about $....as usual.
> 
> Make no mistake; that slavery was ended was a good thing and overdue. You must also be aware that the North DESTROYED the South's ECONOMY. No money for reparations.
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The North destroyed the South's economy because the South made war upon the North. Remember Fort Sumpter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do remember. Do you remember that they shot at Sumpter because they seceded from the Union? Do you remember the reason they did that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes; it was then Sth Carolina so a part of the Confederate States; the Union soldiers were trespassing. Re-inforcing the fort was an act of war. Also, Ft Sumter was about 85 Union Troops of whom 84 survived....ONE died when his cannon blew up!!!
> 
> btw: your buddy Marx said:
> 
> "In October 1861 Marx, who was living in Primrose Hill, summed up the view of the British press: ‘The war between the North and South is a tariff war. The war is, further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery and in fact turns on Northern lust for sovereignty.’ That view was shared by Charles Dickens, who wrote: ‘The Northern onslaught upon slavery is no more than a piece of specious humbug disguised to conceal its desire for economic control of the United States.’"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The American Civil War: A North-South Divide | History Today
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.historytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what made South Carolima decide they didn't want to be part of the Union anymore?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> $$$$$$$$
> 
> As Marx said; it was a TARIFF WAR. do look it up. Remember that the North's Industrial base had tremendous clout and paid few taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In May of 1860 the U. S. Congress passed the Morrill Tariff Bill (named for Republican Congressman and steel manufacturer, *Justin S. Morrill* of Vermont) raising the average tariff from about 15% to 37% with increases to 47% within three years. Although this was remarkably reminiscent of the Tariffs of Abomination which had led in 1832 to a constitutional crisis and threats of secession and armed force, the U. S. House of Representatives passed the Bill 105 to 64. Out of 40 Southern Congressmen only one Tennessee Congressman voted for it.
> 
> U. S. tariff revenues already fell disproportionately on the South, accounting for 87% of the total even before the Morrill Tariff. While the tariff protected Northern industrial interests, it raised the cost of living and commerce in the South substantially. It also reduced the trade value of their agricultural exports to Europe. These combined to place a severe economic hardship on many Southern states. Even more galling was that 80% or more of these tax revenues were expended on Northern public works and industrial subsidies, thus further enriching the North at the expense of the South.
> 
> In the 1860 election, Lincoln, a former Whig and great admirer of Henry Clay, campaigned for the high protective tariff provisions of the Morrill Tariff, which had also been incorporated into the Republican Party Platform. Thaddeus Stevens, the most powerful Republican in Congress and one of the co-sponsors of the Morrill Tariff, told an audience in New York City on September 27, 1860, that the two most important issues of the Presidential campaign were preventing the extension of slavery to new states and an increase in the tariff, but that the most important of the two was increasing the tariff. Stevens, a Pennsylvania iron manufacturer, was also one of the most radical abolitionists in Congress. He told the New York audience that the tariff would enrich the northeastern states and impoverish the southern and western states, but that it was essential for advancing national greatness and the prosperity of industrial workers. Stevens, who would become virtually the “boss’ of America after the assassination of Lincoln, advised the crowd that if Southern leaders objected, they would be rounded up and hanged.
> 
> *Two days* before Lincoln’s election in November of 1860, an editorial in the _Charleston Mercury_ summed up the feeling of South Carolina on the impending national crisis:
> 
> “_The real causes of dissatisfaction in the South with the North, are in the unjust taxation and expenditure of the taxes by the Government of the United States, and in the revolution the North has effected in this government, from a confederated republic, to a national sectional despotism_.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True causes of the Uncivil War: Understanding the Morrill Tariff
> 
> 
> “The Northern onslaught upon slavery is no more than a piece of specious humbug disguised to conceal its desire for economic control of the United States.” ~ Charles Dickens Most Americans believe …
> 
> 
> 
> metropolis.cafe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marx was of course a pos, but probably right on this.
> 
> btw: I am NOT rusted on wrt causes.....but in EVERY War/Revolution I've looked at over the years, the root has been $ and the justifications by the winners after the event were MORAL issues. The problem is trying, as the DemoKKKrats are doing, demonising others using some historic canards.
> 
> Greg
Click to expand...

Marx was certain the war was over slavery. You didn't read the link I gave you.


----------



## forkup

gtopa1 said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> The end of slavery was one of the eventual outcomes of the war. Odd that every other country that had slaves was able to ban slavery without killing a million of its own citizens...UK and France for example.
> 
> No you silly person; the Civil War was about $....as usual.
> 
> Make no mistake; that slavery was ended was a good thing and overdue. You must also be aware that the North DESTROYED the South's ECONOMY. No money for reparations.
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The North destroyed the South's economy because the South made war upon the North. Remember Fort Sumpter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do remember. Do you remember that they shot at Sumpter because they seceded from the Union? Do you remember the reason they did that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes; it was then Sth Carolina so a part of the Confederate States; the Union soldiers were trespassing. Re-inforcing the fort was an act of war. Also, Ft Sumter was about 85 Union Troops of whom 84 survived....ONE died when his cannon blew up!!!
> 
> btw: your buddy Marx said:
> 
> "In October 1861 Marx, who was living in Primrose Hill, summed up the view of the British press: ‘The war between the North and South is a tariff war. The war is, further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery and in fact turns on Northern lust for sovereignty.’ That view was shared by Charles Dickens, who wrote: ‘The Northern onslaught upon slavery is no more than a piece of specious humbug disguised to conceal its desire for economic control of the United States.’"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The American Civil War: A North-South Divide | History Today
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.historytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what made South Carolima decide they didn't want to be part of the Union anymore?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> $$$$$$$$
> 
> As Marx said; it was a TARIFF WAR. do look it up. Remember that the North's Industrial base had tremendous clout and paid few taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In May of 1860 the U. S. Congress passed the Morrill Tariff Bill (named for Republican Congressman and steel manufacturer, *Justin S. Morrill* of Vermont) raising the average tariff from about 15% to 37% with increases to 47% within three years. Although this was remarkably reminiscent of the Tariffs of Abomination which had led in 1832 to a constitutional crisis and threats of secession and armed force, the U. S. House of Representatives passed the Bill 105 to 64. Out of 40 Southern Congressmen only one Tennessee Congressman voted for it.
> 
> U. S. tariff revenues already fell disproportionately on the South, accounting for 87% of the total even before the Morrill Tariff. While the tariff protected Northern industrial interests, it raised the cost of living and commerce in the South substantially. It also reduced the trade value of their agricultural exports to Europe. These combined to place a severe economic hardship on many Southern states. Even more galling was that 80% or more of these tax revenues were expended on Northern public works and industrial subsidies, thus further enriching the North at the expense of the South.
> 
> In the 1860 election, Lincoln, a former Whig and great admirer of Henry Clay, campaigned for the high protective tariff provisions of the Morrill Tariff, which had also been incorporated into the Republican Party Platform. Thaddeus Stevens, the most powerful Republican in Congress and one of the co-sponsors of the Morrill Tariff, told an audience in New York City on September 27, 1860, that the two most important issues of the Presidential campaign were preventing the extension of slavery to new states and an increase in the tariff, but that the most important of the two was increasing the tariff. Stevens, a Pennsylvania iron manufacturer, was also one of the most radical abolitionists in Congress. He told the New York audience that the tariff would enrich the northeastern states and impoverish the southern and western states, but that it was essential for advancing national greatness and the prosperity of industrial workers. Stevens, who would become virtually the “boss’ of America after the assassination of Lincoln, advised the crowd that if Southern leaders objected, they would be rounded up and hanged.
> 
> *Two days* before Lincoln’s election in November of 1860, an editorial in the _Charleston Mercury_ summed up the feeling of South Carolina on the impending national crisis:
> 
> “_The real causes of dissatisfaction in the South with the North, are in the unjust taxation and expenditure of the taxes by the Government of the United States, and in the revolution the North has effected in this government, from a confederated republic, to a national sectional despotism_.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True causes of the Uncivil War: Understanding the Morrill Tariff
> 
> 
> “The Northern onslaught upon slavery is no more than a piece of specious humbug disguised to conceal its desire for economic control of the United States.” ~ Charles Dickens Most Americans believe …
> 
> 
> 
> metropolis.cafe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marx was of course a pos, but probably right on this.
> 
> btw: I am NOT rusted on wrt causes.....but in EVERY War/Revolution I've looked at over the years, the root has been $ and the justifications by the winners after the event were MORAL issues. The problem is trying, as the DemoKKKrats are doing, demonising others using some historic canards.
> 
> Greg
Click to expand...

You know, you can claim that everybody dies because of the fact that the brain stops functioning . It's true for someone who has a heart attack or of someone who is beheaded. The problem is that its so generic a reason as to become useless. The same can be said about saying all wars are about money.


----------



## forkup

Correll said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was one of the main causes of the civil war. However, it was not the sole one.
> 
> 
> 
> Name a specific other one please?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apologies, that should have read”slavery was the main cause, not the sole one”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem I have is that all the other causes you are I would be willing to name will all boil down to slavery. War never ever breaks out over one particular reason. The US civil war has probably one of the most straightforward root causes in history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was the point I was trying to make, as you correctly stated,war does not break out over one particular reason. The issues may all connect to one main one, but it does not mean they are all one and the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they all connect to the same one the other reasons aren't all that relevant and for the purpose of revisionism distracting at the least and dishonest at worst.
> 
> I usually appluad nuance I really do but to often in this narrative its used as a justification for starting a war in order to preserve something that was recognised as reprehensible even at that time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why did Lincoln lie about that then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What specifically is "that" if you want me to respond?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOu made a point. My reply was addressing your point.
> 
> 
> "That", was a reference to your point.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that this is very alien to you.
> 
> 
> 
> Now, to take this back to my point.
> 
> 
> 
> Why did Lincoln lie about that then?
> 
> 
> 
> (i hope you were able to follow that. I know it was a lot of information and very complex, what with you saying something and me asking you a question about it)
Click to expand...

The concept of replying to a well conceived counter argument is not alien to me. Since yours wasn't I asked you to clarify the specific lie "that" signifies. Since you won't and only want to be condescending I feel no need to spend time on you.


----------



## Correll

forkup said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was one of the main causes of the civil war. However, it was not the sole one.
> 
> 
> 
> Name a specific other one please?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apologies, that should have read”slavery was the main cause, not the sole one”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem I have is that all the other causes you are I would be willing to name will all boil down to slavery. War never ever breaks out over one particular reason. The US civil war has probably one of the most straightforward root causes in history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was the point I was trying to make, as you correctly stated,war does not break out over one particular reason. The issues may all connect to one main one, but it does not mean they are all one and the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they all connect to the same one the other reasons aren't all that relevant and for the purpose of revisionism distracting at the least and dishonest at worst.
> 
> I usually appluad nuance I really do but to often in this narrative its used as a justification for starting a war in order to preserve something that was recognised as reprehensible even at that time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why did Lincoln lie about that then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What specifically is "that" if you want me to respond?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOu made a point. My reply was addressing your point.
> 
> 
> "That", was a reference to your point.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that this is very alien to you.
> 
> 
> 
> Now, to take this back to my point.
> 
> 
> 
> Why did Lincoln lie about that then?
> 
> 
> 
> (i hope you were able to follow that. I know it was a lot of information and very complex, what with you saying something and me asking you a question about it)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The concept of replying to a well conceived counter argument is not alien to me. Since yours wasn't I asked you to clarify the specific lie "that" signifies. Since you won't and only want to be condescending I feel no need to spend time on you.
Click to expand...



Ok, I will spell it out for you


Why did lincoln lie ABOUT THE CAUSE OF THE CIVIL WAR BEING ABOUT SLAVERY?


----------



## TheParser

TrumpSucks said:


> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?



I do not know much about the Civil War or the War Between the States.

I have read, however, that not a few young men in the North did not want to fight in order to abolish slavery.

I also understand it was perfectly legal to pay someone else to take one's place if drafted.

I think, for example, there were draft riots in New York City.

Eventually, of course, enough young men in the Northern states were drafted or volunteered in order to win the war.

And, I think, many of those young men felt that they were fighting to keep the Union together rather than to liberate the slaves. This is the position that President Lincoln at first articulated himself, though he later changed his position.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

Quasar44 said:


> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> No , the CW was about keeping slavery from the South’s perspective
> From the North : they did not want to lose the $$$ in the vast agricultural of the south
Click to expand...

Also the plan of the Confederates was that when the push into the new west was going to happen, the Southern White Democrats, wants to keep slaves and have them go into the new territory also.   When you treat black people like an animal, then you deserve to be punished.  But just look at what BLM/ANTIFA are doing today, burning, looting and murdering minority businesses, just like the KKK did after Reconstruction.


----------



## Jets

forkup said:


> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was one of the main causes of the civil war. However, it was not the sole one.
> 
> 
> 
> Name a specific other one please?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apologies, that should have read”slavery was the main cause, not the sole one”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem I have is that all the other causes you are I would be willing to name will all boil down to slavery. War never ever breaks out over one particular reason. The US civil war has probably one of the most straightforward root causes in history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was the point I was trying to make, as you correctly stated,war does not break out over one particular reason. The issues may all connect to one main one, but it does not mean they are all one and the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they all connect to the same one the other reasons aren't all that relevant and for the purpose of revisionism distracting at the least and dishonest at worst.
> 
> I usually appluad nuance I really do but to often in this narrative its used as a justification for starting a war in order to preserve something that was recognised as reprehensible even at that time.
Click to expand...


I understand that, but not everyone is attempting to revise history by acknowledging nuances. When someone states “The civil war was all about slavery”, that isn’t painting the entire picture.  Not saying it’s incorrect, just not complete.


----------



## gipper

TrumpSucks said:


> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?


You shouldn’t post an OP when you know nothing about the topic.  Chalk this up as a learning experience.


----------



## TheGreenHornet

TrumpSucks said:


> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?



*LET'S SAY "WAR BETWEEN THE STATES"*
*The Conflict (1861-1865) between the Northern States (The Union) and the Southern States which seceded from the Union to form the Confederate States has been given many names.
The official Union designation was "The War of the Rebellion." Other names have been "The War of Secession" and "The War for Southern Independence." In the South, the conflict is called "The War Between the States." The Congress of the United States used the term, "War Between the States" in two measures enacted into law; one measure became Public Law 834 in 1950, and a Resolution, H.580 was adopted by the House in 1944. The term "War Between the States" has been used in various reports on bills during the 70th, 71st, 72nd, 74th, 80th and 81st Congresses.
The name "Civil War" has also been widely accepted, no doubt because it is short. Actually the term "Civil War" is misleading and inexact. The war was not a class struggle, but a sectional combat, having its roots in such complex political, economic, social and psychological elements that it is difficult for historians to agree on all its basic causes.
The fact that for four years the Confederacy maintained an entirely separate government (with its own currency, commerce, army and navy) established the Confederate States of America as a separate nation.
This nation, the Confederate States of America, levied and collected revenue, enlisted its armies and issued cotton bonds which were accepted in foreign commercial marts.
Its navy, though small, fought brilliantly, and introduced with the Virginia (Merrimac) a new type of warship, the ironclad.
The Confederate Flag, "The Stars and Bars" was recognized all over the world as belonging to a nation other than the United States of America.
The "War Between the States" does not imply a war between individual states. The noun, "States," is used in its collective sense. the official titles of the contending parties during the conflict were the "United States" and the "Confederate States."
Therefore, since the war was between two groups of states, the United States and the Confederate States - two separate nations - the most exact name for that great conflict of the 1860's is "War Between the States."



			Let's Say "War Between the States"
		

*


----------



## TheGreenHornet

gtopa1 said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> The end of slavery was one of the eventual outcomes of the war. Odd that every other country that had slaves was able to ban slavery without killing a million of its own citizens...UK and France for example.
> 
> No you silly person; the Civil War was about $....as usual.
> 
> Make no mistake; that slavery was ended was a good thing and overdue. You must also be aware that the North DESTROYED the South's ECONOMY. No money for reparations.
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The North destroyed the South's economy because the South made war upon the North. Remember Fort Sumpter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do remember. Do you remember that they shot at Sumpter because they seceded from the Union? Do you remember the reason they did that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes; it was then Sth Carolina so a part of the Confederate States; the Union soldiers were trespassing. Re-inforcing the fort was an act of war. Also, Ft Sumter was about 85 Union Troops of whom 84 survived....ONE died when his cannon blew up!!!
> 
> btw: your buddy Marx said:
> 
> "In October 1861 Marx, who was living in Primrose Hill, summed up the view of the British press: ‘The war between the North and South is a tariff war. The war is, further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery and in fact turns on Northern lust for sovereignty.’ That view was shared by Charles Dickens, who wrote: ‘The Northern onslaught upon slavery is no more than a piece of specious humbug disguised to conceal its desire for economic control of the United States.’"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The American Civil War: A North-South Divide | History Today
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.historytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Greg
Click to expand...


What the War Between The States was really about........https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/07/no_author/why-the-civil-war-wasnt-about-slavery/Why the Civil War Wasn’t About Slavery - LewRockwell


----------



## rightwinger

Any reason you give for the Civil War always comes down to slavery.

The South panicked when Lincoln was elected
Lincolns going to take our slaves. 
Best Lincoln could have done was stop the expansion of slavery


----------



## TheGreenHornet

rightwinger said:


> Any reason you give for the Civil War always comes down to slavery.
> 
> The South panicked when Lincoln was elected
> Lincolns going to take our slaves.
> Best Lincoln could have done was stop the expansion of slavery











						Everything You Know About the Civil War Is Wrong
					

It’s perhaps the most misunderstood event in the history of the United States




					medium.com


----------



## TheGreenHornet

“Wages Slavery and Chattel Slavery"
					






					teachingamericanhistory.org


----------



## forkup

Jets said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was one of the main causes of the civil war. However, it was not the sole one.
> 
> 
> 
> Name a specific other one please?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apologies, that should have read”slavery was the main cause, not the sole one”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem I have is that all the other causes you are I would be willing to name will all boil down to slavery. War never ever breaks out over one particular reason. The US civil war has probably one of the most straightforward root causes in history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was the point I was trying to make, as you correctly stated,war does not break out over one particular reason. The issues may all connect to one main one, but it does not mean they are all one and the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they all connect to the same one the other reasons aren't all that relevant and for the purpose of revisionism distracting at the least and dishonest at worst.
> 
> I usually appluad nuance I really do but to often in this narrative its used as a justification for starting a war in order to preserve something that was recognised as reprehensible even at that time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand that, but not everyone is attempting to revise history by acknowledging nuances. When someone states “The civil war was all about slavery”, that isn’t painting the entire picture.  Not saying it’s incorrect, just not complete.
Click to expand...

Interpreting history by nature is subjective and determining cause and effect is difficult to establish. Completeness in that respect can stand in the way of accuracy.

I could for instance claim that one of the reasons WW2 broke out, was because Britain and France declared war on Germany after they invaded Poland. I would be factually correct, yet I think you wouldn't give me high marks for accuracy. You could make a compelling case for other reasons for WW2, the one I described would not be one of them.

The civil war is way more straightforward than WW2 in causality.


----------



## rightwinger

TheGreenHornet said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any reason you give for the Civil War always comes down to slavery.
> 
> The South panicked when Lincoln was elected
> Lincolns going to take our slaves.
> Best Lincoln could have done was stop the expansion of slavery
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Lincoln and Slavery
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Abraham Lincoln Thought About Slavery
> 
> 
> The 16th U.S. president was firm in believing slavery was morally wrong, but his views on racial equality were sometimes more complicated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.history.com
Click to expand...

Lincoln was a political pragmatist
He was morally opposed to slavery but knew he was limited in what he could do.
Almost nobody believed in racial equality back then.


----------



## TheGreenHornet

__





						Documenting the American South, or, The Southern Experience in 19-th Century America.
					





					www.docsouth.unc.edu


----------



## gipper

TheGreenHornet said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Documenting the American South, or, The Southern Experience in 19-th Century America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.docsouth.unc.edu


Good column, but I knew all that. The following summarizes it:
_Viewing the Civil War as a crusade to end slavery is simply not correct; abolitionists never accounted for more than a sizable minority in the North. The cause of war in 1861 wasn’t slavery. It was about the loss of millions in tax revenues.

In reality, it wasn’t even a Civil War. The Confederate states had no aspirations to rule the Union any more than George Washington sought control over Great Britain in 1776. In both the American Revolutionary War and the Civil War, independence was the goal.

The idea that the Civil War was some sort of a morality play about freeing Southern slaves is an ideological distortion that obfuscates many of the atrocities that occurred during and after the war._


----------



## TheGreenHornet

gipper said:


> TheGreenHornet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Documenting the American South, or, The Southern Experience in 19-th Century America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.docsouth.unc.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good column, but I knew all that. The following summarizes it:
> _Viewing the Civil War as a crusade to end slavery is simply not correct; abolitionists never accounted for more than a sizable minority in the North. The cause of war in 1861 wasn’t slavery. It was about the loss of millions in tax revenues.
> 
> In reality, it wasn’t even a Civil War. The Confederate states had no aspirations to rule the Union any more than George Washington sought control over Great Britain in 1776. In both the American Revolutionary War and the Civil War, independence was the goal.
> 
> The idea that the Civil War was some sort of a morality play about freeing Southern slaves is an ideological distortion that obfuscates many of the atrocities that occurred during and after the war._
Click to expand...






__





						Real reasons for the Civil War
					

This is well-reasoned document concerning the reasons the Civil War occurred.   Many people think the Civil War of 1860-1865 was fought over...




					ntlconsulting.blogspot.com


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

TrumpSucks said:


> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?


good lord you are a dumb fuck.

Slavery was the central issue. Everybody knows that. Although states were fighting for their own rights, everyone of their declarations stated that they had the right to continue their slavery.

Now shut the fuck up you goddamn idiot.

The current Civil War we're engaged in, which was started by you communist faggots has nothing to do with any slavery but that of white men.

Now go fuck yourself.


----------



## schmidlap

Votto said:


> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> If it was only about slavery, why did Lincoln offer to make slavery a Constitutional right so long as the Southern states came back into the Union?
Click to expand...

The compromise Lincoln offered to the states rebelling against the U.S. in order to preserve the Union (Lincoln's primary goal) _was _about slavery. After the slave states rejected Lincoln's offer, abolition of slavery became a more important objective in the war.

*HARPER'S WEEKLY.*​MARCH 22, 1862.​
_THE President last week sent in to Congress a Message recommending the passage of the following or a similar resolution :_​
_Resolved, That the United States ought to co-operate with any State which may adopt a gradual abolishment of slavery, giving to such State pecuniary aid, to be used by such State in its discretion to compensate for the inconveniences, public and private, produced by such change of system._​​_This Message has been applauded with equal fervor by the opponents and by the supporters of slavery. It is equally approved by the Herald and by the Tribune, by the Evening Post and by the Journal of Commerce._​​_The old friends of slavery commend it because it recognizes the right of the Southern slave-owners to their slave property, and the exclusive right of the slave States to regulate or abolish the institution within their limits._​​_The friends of freedom rejoice at it because it places the United States Government squarely on the record as preferring freedom to slavery, in the abstract, and as looking forward, in some future time, and in some yet undetermined way, to the abolition of slavery, and the emancipation of the negro race..._​​





						Lincoln Offers Slavery Compromise
					

In this Harper's Weekly newspaper, Abraham Lincoln Offers a Slavery Compromise to the Southern States



					www.sonofthesouth.net
				



​


----------



## Jets

Whats interesting is that many people think the Emancipation Proclamation banned all slavery...


----------



## there4eyeM

Slavery was inextricable from the economic questions, so it is false to try to separate the two. The South was addicted and couldn't change while the rest of the country couldn't continue with it. The South would not accept legal resolution, so chose illegal. Partisans may not agree, but you know what opinions are like.


----------



## TheGreenHornet

The North does not get to redefine, in the middle of the war, its reason for going to war. What the North proclaimed in the _beginning,_ stands, as its reason for going to war -- and it is unchangeable. War measures halfway through the war, such as the Emancipation Proclamation that freed no slaves (and prevented close to a million slaves from achieving their freedom), have nothing to do with why the North went to war in the first place.


There would have been no American slavery without black tribal chieftains in Africa, and British and Yankee slave traders.

The reason the South gets all the blame is because of a half-century of political correctness in which only one side of the story has been told because, if you tell the Southern side, even in a scholarly manner, you open yourself up to charges of being a racist and member of the KKK who wishes we still had slavery.
Esteemed historian, Eugene D. Genovese, writes:



> To speak positively about any part of this Southern tradition is to invite charges of being a racist and an apologist for slavery and segregation. *We are witnessing a cultural and political atrocity *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> an increasingly successful campaign by the media and an academic elite to strip young white Southerners, and arguably black Southerners as well, of their heritage, and therefore, their identity. They are being taught to forget their forebears or to remember them with shame.













						The North Did Not Go to War to End Slavery - "Everyone should do all in his power to collect and disseminate the truth, in hope that it may find a place in history and descend to posterity."-Robert E. Lee - Southern History and American History Books
					

The North Did Not Go to War to End Slavery by Gene Kizer, Jr. If they had, they would have started by passing a constitution amendment abolishing slavery. They did the opposite. They overwhelmingly passed the Corwin Amendment, which left black people in slavery forever, even beyond the reach of...




					www.charlestonathenaeumpress.com


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

TheGreenHornet said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> The end of slavery was one of the eventual outcomes of the war. Odd that every other country that had slaves was able to ban slavery without killing a million of its own citizens...UK and France for example.
> 
> No you silly person; the Civil War was about $....as usual.
> 
> Make no mistake; that slavery was ended was a good thing and overdue. You must also be aware that the North DESTROYED the South's ECONOMY. No money for reparations.
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The North destroyed the South's economy because the South made war upon the North. Remember Fort Sumpter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do remember. Do you remember that they shot at Sumpter because they seceded from the Union? Do you remember the reason they did that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes; it was then Sth Carolina so a part of the Confederate States; the Union soldiers were trespassing. Re-inforcing the fort was an act of war. Also, Ft Sumter was about 85 Union Troops of whom 84 survived....ONE died when his cannon blew up!!!
> 
> btw: your buddy Marx said:
> 
> "In October 1861 Marx, who was living in Primrose Hill, summed up the view of the British press: ‘The war between the North and South is a tariff war. The war is, further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery and in fact turns on Northern lust for sovereignty.’ That view was shared by Charles Dickens, who wrote: ‘The Northern onslaught upon slavery is no more than a piece of specious humbug disguised to conceal its desire for economic control of the United States.’"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The American Civil War: A North-South Divide | History Today
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.historytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the War Between The States was really about........https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/07/no_author/why-the-civil-war-wasnt-about-slavery/Why the Civil War Wasn’t About Slavery - LewRockwell
Click to expand...

You had Southern White Democrats who thought black people were sub human and shouldnt be allowed to be free.  That thought has continued by the Democrat party even today.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

initforme said:


> Slave owners were people of illl repute.  Too lazy to do the work themselves and too cheap to actually pay for labor.   To believe another human could actually be property is unfathomable.  To use lashing and whipping to control a group of people was inhumane and repugnant.



World history reveals that over the course of human history, freedom was far more the rarity than the rule.

We are actually headed back to the more natural state of human slavery as we speak.


----------



## TheGreenHornet

BasicHumanUnit said:


> initforme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slave owners were people of illl repute.  Too lazy to do the work themselves and too cheap to actually pay for labor.   To believe another human could actually be property is unfathomable.  To use lashing and whipping to control a group of people was inhumane and repugnant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slaves did not come cheap....they were very valuable and a Plantation Owner's wealth was measured by how many slaves he had.
> 
> Slavery was not invented by Southern Plantation Owners....it had been a legal institution for thousands of years.....quite a step upward for African Negroes in fact....before they started selling slaves(who were considered booty by a chief who had defeated another tribe)they were executed or eaten.
> 
> Those who were sold into slavery and were sent to America were very fortunate indeed....not only escaping death at the hand of a tribal chief but lucky also in that they were not sent to S. America where the great majority of them went....where they were treated  very inhumanely.
> 
> On Southern plantations they were well cared for.....good heathy food, clothing,  and housing all provided free....many of them became Christians had families and lived to be quite old.
> 
> They were allowed to raise some crops of their own which they could sell or use to barter with.  Those that were freed later on during the war grew very nostalgic in their old age for the Plantation Life.
> 
> _After work was done, the slaves would smoke, sing, tell ghost stories, dance, play music with homemade fiddles. Saturday was work day like any other day. We had all legal holidays. Christmas morning we went to the big house and got presents and had a big time all day. At corn shucking all the slaves from other plantations would come to the barn, the fiddler would sit on top of the highest barrel of corn, and play all kinds of songs. When we wanted to meet at night we had an old conk, we blew that. We all would meet on the Potomac River and sing across the river to the slaves in Virginia, and they would sing back to us. — James V. Deane, enslaved in Maryland_
> 
> Irving E. Lowry......former slave.......
> *"Born a slave in 1850 and nineteen years later admitted as the first student to Claflin University, the author downplays the brutality of slave life, offering instead a series of sketches of plantation life, including descriptions of possum hunting, log rolling, corn shucking, church services, and Christmas celebrations." - H-CivWar
> "South Carolina native, former slave, Methodist Episcopal Church minister, educator, and author Irving Lowery promoted holiness across the state." -The Fire Spreads, Holiness and Pentecostalism in the American South (2010)*
> 
> In 1911, former South Carolina slave Irving E. Lowery (1850–1929) published a book on his "Life on the Old Plantation in Ante-Bellum Days."
> 
> He opens his book by recalling “the wonderful old plantation” on which he lived with forty other. He goes on to tell the story of a pastoral life where the barns were “full to overflowing” with sustenance, the fruit trees and grape vines were laden with fruit, and the cattle grazed leisurely under “a large and beautiful walnut tree”. His fellow slaves were identified as “a fine-looking set of human beings” which, thanks to the Christian traits of John Frierson, the plantation owner of Pudden Swamp, were “warmly clad, well fed and humanely treated”.
> 
> The slave-owner's treatment clearly paid off, as “such things as bloodhounds and slave traders were scarce in that community ... it was a rare thing for slaves to be bought and sold in that neighborhood”. The narrative ends with Lowery writing of “The Breaking Up of the Old Plantation” when, on “a beautiful spring day” in 1865, Frierson stood before his slaves, telling them that “you are no longer my slaves, but you all are now free,” concluding with the wish that they would remain “friends and good neighbors” whether they would decide to work for him or try to make it on their own.
> Lowey would eventually leave the plantation and become a teacher and Methodist minister completing his education at Claflin and Wesleyan Academy in Massachusetts before going back south to teach and preach.
Click to expand...


----------



## gtopa1

occupied said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> The end of slavery was one of the eventual outcomes of the war. Odd that every other country that had slaves was able to ban slavery without killing a million of its own citizens...UK and France for example.
> 
> No you silly person; the Civil War was about $....as usual.
> 
> Make no mistake; that slavery was ended was a good thing and overdue. You must also be aware that the North DESTROYED the South's ECONOMY. No money for reparations.
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The North destroyed the South's economy because the South made war upon the North. Remember Fort Sumpter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do remember. Do you remember that they shot at Sumpter because they seceded from the Union? Do you remember the reason they did that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes; it was then Sth Carolina so a part of the Confederate States; the Union soldiers were trespassing. Re-inforcing the fort was an act of war. Also, Ft Sumter was about 85 Union Troops of whom 84 survived....ONE died when his cannon blew up!!!
> 
> btw: your buddy Marx said:
> 
> "In October 1861 Marx, who was living in Primrose Hill, summed up the view of the British press: ‘The war between the North and South is a tariff war. The war is, further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery and in fact turns on Northern lust for sovereignty.’ That view was shared by Charles Dickens, who wrote: ‘The Northern onslaught upon slavery is no more than a piece of specious humbug disguised to conceal its desire for economic control of the United States.’"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The American Civil War: A North-South Divide | History Today
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.historytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what made South Carolima decide they didn't want to be part of the Union anymore?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> $$$$$$$$
> 
> As Marx said; it was a TARIFF WAR. do look it up. Remember that the North's Industrial base had tremendous clout and paid few taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In May of 1860 the U. S. Congress passed the Morrill Tariff Bill (named for Republican Congressman and steel manufacturer, *Justin S. Morrill* of Vermont) raising the average tariff from about 15% to 37% with increases to 47% within three years. Although this was remarkably reminiscent of the Tariffs of Abomination which had led in 1832 to a constitutional crisis and threats of secession and armed force, the U. S. House of Representatives passed the Bill 105 to 64. Out of 40 Southern Congressmen only one Tennessee Congressman voted for it.
> 
> U. S. tariff revenues already fell disproportionately on the South, accounting for 87% of the total even before the Morrill Tariff. While the tariff protected Northern industrial interests, it raised the cost of living and commerce in the South substantially. It also reduced the trade value of their agricultural exports to Europe. These combined to place a severe economic hardship on many Southern states. Even more galling was that 80% or more of these tax revenues were expended on Northern public works and industrial subsidies, thus further enriching the North at the expense of the South.
> 
> In the 1860 election, Lincoln, a former Whig and great admirer of Henry Clay, campaigned for the high protective tariff provisions of the Morrill Tariff, which had also been incorporated into the Republican Party Platform. Thaddeus Stevens, the most powerful Republican in Congress and one of the co-sponsors of the Morrill Tariff, told an audience in New York City on September 27, 1860, that the two most important issues of the Presidential campaign were preventing the extension of slavery to new states and an increase in the tariff, but that the most important of the two was increasing the tariff. Stevens, a Pennsylvania iron manufacturer, was also one of the most radical abolitionists in Congress. He told the New York audience that the tariff would enrich the northeastern states and impoverish the southern and western states, but that it was essential for advancing national greatness and the prosperity of industrial workers. Stevens, who would become virtually the “boss’ of America after the assassination of Lincoln, advised the crowd that if Southern leaders objected, they would be rounded up and hanged.
> 
> *Two days* before Lincoln’s election in November of 1860, an editorial in the _Charleston Mercury_ summed up the feeling of South Carolina on the impending national crisis:
> 
> “_The real causes of dissatisfaction in the South with the North, are in the unjust taxation and expenditure of the taxes by the Government of the United States, and in the revolution the North has effected in this government, from a confederated republic, to a national sectional despotism_.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True causes of the Uncivil War: Understanding the Morrill Tariff
> 
> 
> “The Northern onslaught upon slavery is no more than a piece of specious humbug disguised to conceal its desire for economic control of the United States.” ~ Charles Dickens Most Americans believe …
> 
> 
> 
> metropolis.cafe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marx was of course a pos, but probably right on this.
> 
> btw: I am NOT rusted on wrt causes.....but in EVERY War/Revolution I've looked at over the years, the root has been $ and the justifications by the winners after the event were MORAL issues. The problem is trying, as the DemoKKKrats are doing, demonising others using some historic canards.
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marx was certain the war was over slavery. You didn't read the link I gave you.
Click to expand...

Marx stated that the media of the time: The Times, The Economist etc.... were of the opinion that it was a tariff war. He was right on that. The rest.....as I said; Marx was a pos. 

Greg


----------



## Indeependent

TrumpSucks said:


> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?


The Jews in Europe were not uneducated and sold by their parents into slavery.
The Jews ran businesses and were doing quite well.
Germany actually admitted such and has been giving reparations.


----------



## Oz and the Orchestra

Batcat said:


> That largely depends on when and where you grew up.
> 
> I grew up in the North in the 1950s and 1960s. Therefore the Civil War was about slavery.
> 
> Had I grown up in the South I would have learned it was about states rights and was a war of northern aggression.
> 
> 
> .


I was brought up here in England so my American Civil War education didn't take place at school but during breaks in the playground. In 1965 and at the age of ten a set of ACW News trading cards by Topps, became all the rage with schoolkids all over the UK.

















Numbered from *1 The Angry Man  *John Brown's assault at Harpers Ferry. To -
*88. The War Ends.   *General Robert E Lee signing the instrument of surrender at Appomattox Court House to General Ulysses S Grant.

It really was a fantastic way of educating primary school kids. You got chewing gum, five trading cards, and two Confederate States of America banknotes.
The trading cards were really good quality. Very explicit and gory scenes (would never be allowed now) in bright bold colours. On the back a very detailed story of the scene in the form of a front-page newspaper exclusive.
I was the first at my school to get the set. It also inspired me to win the school's first prize in the Brooke Bond Travel Scholarship Art Competition with my painting of a depiction of the Battle of Gettysburg. It also inspired me to go on and study the Civil War through the library which developed into a lifelong interest.

Topps followed up with a WWll trading card collection. I already knew a lot about that as my dad was in the RAF and had an extensive library. I remember the most sought-after cards in that collection had been banned and featured two cards that depicted US servicemen being tortured by Japanese guards.
Obviously, Topps was a US company and I've often wondered if the ACW trading card 
craze was as big with you guys in the US as it was here?

Anyone remember the cards?


----------



## gipper

Oz and the Orchestra said:


> Batcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> That largely depends on when and where you grew up.
> 
> I grew up in the North in the 1950s and 1960s. Therefore the Civil War was about slavery.
> 
> Had I grown up in the South I would have learned it was about states rights and was a war of northern aggression.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> I was brought up here in England so my American Civil War education didn't take place at school but during breaks in the playground. In 1965 and at the age of ten a set of ACW News trading cards by Topps, became all the rage with schoolkids all over the UK.
> 
> View attachment 461186View attachment 461187
> View attachment 461188View attachment 461189
> View attachment 461192View attachment 461193
> 
> Numbered from *1 The Angry Man  *John Brown's assault at Harpers Ferry. To -
> *88. The War Ends.   *General Robert E Lee signing the instrument of surrender at Appomattox Court House to General Ulysses S Grant.
> 
> It really was a fantastic way of educating primary school kids. You got chewing gum, five trading cards, and two Confederate States of America banknotes.
> The trading cards were really good quality. Very explicit and gory scenes (would never be allowed now) in bright bold colours. On the back a very detailed story of the scene in the form of a front-page newspaper exclusive.
> I was the first at my school to get the set. It also inspired me to win the school's first prize in the Brooke Bond Travel Scholarship Art Competition with my painting of a depiction of the Battle of Gettysburg. It also inspired me to go on and study the Civil War through the library which developed into a lifelong interest.
> 
> Topps followed up with a WWll trading card collection. I already knew a lot about that as my dad was in the RAF and had an extensive library. I remember the most sought-after cards in that collection had been banned and featured two cards that depicted US servicemen being tortured by Japanese guards.
> Obviously, Topps was a US company and I've often wondered if the ACW trading card
> craze was as big with you guys in the US as it was here?
> 
> Anyone remember the cards?
Click to expand...

I’ve studied the War of Northern Aggression since I was a little boy (a long time). I’ve visited every major battlefield and historical site. It was a terrible war that never should have occurred, had we had competent leadership. Many members of my Dad’s family fought in the war for the North, though they resided in eastern Tennessee. I have a photograph somewhere of the headstone of one of my ancestors who died outside Atlanta in 1864, at the age of 19.  He was in Sherman’s army. 

I’ve never seen the Topps trading cards you mention.


----------



## Batcat

Oz and the Orchestra said:


> Batcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> That largely depends on when and where you grew up.
> 
> I grew up in the North in the 1950s and 1960s. Therefore the Civil War was about slavery.
> 
> Had I grown up in the South I would have learned it was about states rights and was a war of northern aggression.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> I was brought up here in England so my American Civil War education didn't take place at school but during breaks in the playground. In 1965 and at the age of ten a set of ACW News trading cards by Topps, became all the rage with schoolkids all over the UK.
> 
> View attachment 461186View attachment 461187
> View attachment 461188View attachment 461189
> View attachment 461192View attachment 461193
> 
> Numbered from *1 The Angry Man  *John Brown's assault at Harpers Ferry. To -
> *88. The War Ends.   *General Robert E Lee signing the instrument of surrender at Appomattox Court House to General Ulysses S Grant.
> 
> It really was a fantastic way of educating primary school kids. You got chewing gum, five trading cards, and two Confederate States of America banknotes.
> The trading cards were really good quality. Very explicit and gory scenes (would never be allowed now) in bright bold colours. On the back a very detailed story of the scene in the form of a front-page newspaper exclusive.
> I was the first at my school to get the set. It also inspired me to win the school's first prize in the Brooke Bond Travel Scholarship Art Competition with my painting of a depiction of the Battle of Gettysburg. It also inspired me to go on and study the Civil War through the library which developed into a lifelong interest.
> 
> Topps followed up with a WWll trading card collection. I already knew a lot about that as my dad was in the RAF and had an extensive library. I remember the most sought-after cards in that collection had been banned and featured two cards that depicted US servicemen being tortured by Japanese guards.
> Obviously, Topps was a US company and I've often wondered if the ACW trading card
> craze was as big with you guys in the US as it was here?
> 
> Anyone remember the cards?
Click to expand...


----------



## Batcat

Oz and the Orchestra said:


> Batcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> That largely depends on when and where you grew up.
> 
> I grew up in the North in the 1950s and 1960s. Therefore the Civil War was about slavery.
> 
> Had I grown up in the South I would have learned it was about states rights and was a war of northern aggression.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> I was brought up here in England so my American Civil War education didn't take place at school but during breaks in the playground. In 1965 and at the age of ten a set of ACW News trading cards by Topps, became all the rage with schoolkids all over the UK.
> 
> View attachment 461186View attachment 461187
> View attachment 461188View attachment 461189
> View attachment 461192View attachment 461193
> 
> Numbered from *1 The Angry Man  *John Brown's assault at Harpers Ferry. To -
> *88. The War Ends.   *General Robert E Lee signing the instrument of surrender at Appomattox Court House to General Ulysses S Grant.
> 
> It really was a fantastic way of educating primary school kids. You got chewing gum, five trading cards, and two Confederate States of America banknotes.
> The trading cards were really good quality. Very explicit and gory scenes (would never be allowed now) in bright bold colours. On the back a very detailed story of the scene in the form of a front-page newspaper exclusive.
> I was the first at my school to get the set. It also inspired me to win the school's first prize in the Brooke Bond Travel Scholarship Art Competition with my painting of a depiction of the Battle of Gettysburg. It also inspired me to go on and study the Civil War through the library which developed into a lifelong interest.
> 
> Topps followed up with a WWll trading card collection. I already knew a lot about that as my dad was in the RAF and had an extensive library. I remember the most sought-after cards in that collection had been banned and featured two cards that depicted US servicemen being tortured by Japanese guards.
> Obviously, Topps was a US company and I've often wondered if the ACW trading card
> craze was as big with you guys in the US as it was here?
> 
> Anyone remember the cards?
Click to expand...


Those trading cards sound like a good educational tool.


----------



## BlindBoo

The South tried to leave the Union to keep the institution of Chattel Slavery of the Negro race not only alive forever, but also expanding into new territories.

The Union was not going to let that happen without a fight.

It was all about slavery in perpetuity, selling children!


----------



## Unkotare

gtopa1 said:


> ...No money for reparations.
> 
> Greg




??????


----------



## Oz and the Orchestra

gipper said:


> Oz and the Orchestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Batcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> That largely depends on when and where you grew up.
> 
> I grew up in the North in the 1950s and 1960s. Therefore the Civil War was about slavery.
> 
> Had I grown up in the South I would have learned it was about states rights and was a war of northern aggression.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> I was brought up here in England so my American Civil War education didn't take place at school but during breaks in the playground. In 1965 and at the age of ten a set of ACW News trading cards by Topps, became all the rage with schoolkids all over the UK.
> 
> View attachment 461186View attachment 461187
> View attachment 461188View attachment 461189
> View attachment 461192View attachment 461193
> 
> Numbered from *1 The Angry Man  *John Brown's assault at Harpers Ferry. To -
> *88. The War Ends.   *General Robert E Lee signing the instrument of surrender at Appomattox Court House to General Ulysses S Grant.
> 
> It really was a fantastic way of educating primary school kids. You got chewing gum, five trading cards, and two Confederate States of America banknotes.
> The trading cards were really good quality. Very explicit and gory scenes (would never be allowed now) in bright bold colours. On the back a very detailed story of the scene in the form of a front-page newspaper exclusive.
> I was the first at my school to get the set. It also inspired me to win the school's first prize in the Brooke Bond Travel Scholarship Art Competition with my painting of a depiction of the Battle of Gettysburg. It also inspired me to go on and study the Civil War through the library which developed into a lifelong interest.
> 
> Topps followed up with a WWll trading card collection. I already knew a lot about that as my dad was in the RAF and had an extensive library. I remember the most sought-after cards in that collection had been banned and featured two cards that depicted US servicemen being tortured by Japanese guards.
> Obviously, Topps was a US company and I've often wondered if the ACW trading card
> craze was as big with you guys in the US as it was here?
> 
> Anyone remember the cards?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’ve studied the War of Northern Aggression since I was a little boy (a long time). I’ve visited every major battlefield and historical site. It was a terrible war that never should have occurred, had we had competent leadership. Many members of my Dad’s family fought in the war for the North, though they resided in eastern Tennessee. I have a photograph somewhere of the headstone of one of my ancestors who died outside Atlanta in 1864, at the age of 19.  He was in Sherman’s army.
> 
> I’ve never seen the Topps trading cards you mention.
Click to expand...

As a teenager visiting the battlefields Bull Run. Gettysburg, Chickamauga etc was my top holiday ambition but regrettably, I never got to do it mainly because I couldn't find anyone interested enough to accompany me.
Yes, it cost I think around 800,000 lives. I remember I read that the accuracy of rifles had improved greatly from previous wars.
Do you have any letters or handed-down stories from your Dad's family members? 
I'm sure I won't be the only one very interested in reading them.

Here is a link where you can view the entire Topps Trading Card Collection. -









						Topps Civil War Cards
					

Topps Civil War News



					www.civilwarcollector.ca


----------



## Oz and the Orchestra

Batcat said:


> Oz and the Orchestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Batcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> That largely depends on when and where you grew up.
> 
> I grew up in the North in the 1950s and 1960s. Therefore the Civil War was about slavery.
> 
> Had I grown up in the South I would have learned it was about states rights and was a war of northern aggression.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> I was brought up here in England so my American Civil War education didn't take place at school but during breaks in the playground. In 1965 and at the age of ten a set of ACW News trading cards by Topps, became all the rage with schoolkids all over the UK.
> 
> View attachment 461186View attachment 461187
> View attachment 461188View attachment 461189
> View attachment 461192View attachment 461193
> 
> Numbered from *1 The Angry Man  *John Brown's assault at Harpers Ferry. To -
> *88. The War Ends.   *General Robert E Lee signing the instrument of surrender at Appomattox Court House to General Ulysses S Grant.
> 
> It really was a fantastic way of educating primary school kids. You got chewing gum, five trading cards, and two Confederate States of America banknotes.
> The trading cards were really good quality. Very explicit and gory scenes (would never be allowed now) in bright bold colours. On the back a very detailed story of the scene in the form of a front-page newspaper exclusive.
> I was the first at my school to get the set. It also inspired me to win the school's first prize in the Brooke Bond Travel Scholarship Art Competition with my painting of a depiction of the Battle of Gettysburg. It also inspired me to go on and study the Civil War through the library which developed into a lifelong interest.
> 
> Topps followed up with a WWll trading card collection. I already knew a lot about that as my dad was in the RAF and had an extensive library. I remember the most sought-after cards in that collection had been banned and featured two cards that depicted US servicemen being tortured by Japanese guards.
> Obviously, Topps was a US company and I've often wondered if the ACW trading card
> craze was as big with you guys in the US as it was here?
> 
> Anyone remember the cards?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those trading cards sound like a good educational tool.
Click to expand...

Yea they really were - I've posted a link where you can view them all.
I'm trying to find a site that shows the ACW News on the other side of the picture cards.


----------



## rightwinger

schmidlap said:


> _Resolved, That the United States ought to co-operate with any State which may adopt a gradual abolishment of slavery, giving to such State pecuniary aid, to be used by such State in its discretion to compensate for the inconveniences, public and private, produced by such change of system._



Lincoln offered compensation for freed slaves.
By turning it down, slave owners ended up with nothing and 300,000 dead


----------



## rightwinger

there4eyeM said:


> Slavery was inextricable from the economic questions, so it is false to try to separate the two. The South was addicted and couldn't change while the rest of the country couldn't continue with it. The South would not accept legal resolution, so chose illegal. Partisans may not agree, but you know what opinions are like.



Slavery would have eventually ended on its own but would have probably lasted another 25 years as it was slowly phased out.  Slave owners would have been compensated for their lost “property”. Rather than freedom, an Apartheid type system probably would have been instituted. 

By seceding and going to war against the US, Slavery ended in four years and slave owners got nothing but ruined plantations


----------



## gipper

Oz and the Orchestra said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oz and the Orchestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Batcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> That largely depends on when and where you grew up.
> 
> I grew up in the North in the 1950s and 1960s. Therefore the Civil War was about slavery.
> 
> Had I grown up in the South I would have learned it was about states rights and was a war of northern aggression.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> I was brought up here in England so my American Civil War education didn't take place at school but during breaks in the playground. In 1965 and at the age of ten a set of ACW News trading cards by Topps, became all the rage with schoolkids all over the UK.
> 
> View attachment 461186View attachment 461187
> View attachment 461188View attachment 461189
> View attachment 461192View attachment 461193
> 
> Numbered from *1 The Angry Man  *John Brown's assault at Harpers Ferry. To -
> *88. The War Ends.   *General Robert E Lee signing the instrument of surrender at Appomattox Court House to General Ulysses S Grant.
> 
> It really was a fantastic way of educating primary school kids. You got chewing gum, five trading cards, and two Confederate States of America banknotes.
> The trading cards were really good quality. Very explicit and gory scenes (would never be allowed now) in bright bold colours. On the back a very detailed story of the scene in the form of a front-page newspaper exclusive.
> I was the first at my school to get the set. It also inspired me to win the school's first prize in the Brooke Bond Travel Scholarship Art Competition with my painting of a depiction of the Battle of Gettysburg. It also inspired me to go on and study the Civil War through the library which developed into a lifelong interest.
> 
> Topps followed up with a WWll trading card collection. I already knew a lot about that as my dad was in the RAF and had an extensive library. I remember the most sought-after cards in that collection had been banned and featured two cards that depicted US servicemen being tortured by Japanese guards.
> Obviously, Topps was a US company and I've often wondered if the ACW trading card
> craze was as big with you guys in the US as it was here?
> 
> Anyone remember the cards?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’ve studied the War of Northern Aggression since I was a little boy (a long time). I’ve visited every major battlefield and historical site. It was a terrible war that never should have occurred, had we had competent leadership. Many members of my Dad’s family fought in the war for the North, though they resided in eastern Tennessee. I have a photograph somewhere of the headstone of one of my ancestors who died outside Atlanta in 1864, at the age of 19.  He was in Sherman’s army.
> 
> I’ve never seen the Topps trading cards you mention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As a teenager visiting the battlefields Bull Run. Gettysburg, Chickamauga etc was my top holiday ambition but regrettably, I never got to do it mainly because I couldn't find anyone interested enough to accompany me.
> Yes, it cost I think around 800,000 lives. I remember I read that the accuracy of rifles had improved greatly from previous wars.
> Do you have any letters or handed-down stories from your Dad's family members?
> I'm sure I won't be the only one very interested in reading them.
> 
> Here is a link where you can view the entire Topps Trading Card Collection. -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Topps Civil War Cards
> 
> 
> Topps Civil War News
> 
> 
> 
> www.civilwarcollector.ca
Click to expand...

The only story that comes to mind is a relative who was a preacher. Many of my ancestors were devout Christians and abolitionists. The preacher had been railing against slavery in his sermons. The local Confederates got tired of it and arrested him. They tied him up behind a horse and dragged him to town for prosecution. It was several miles. He was an older man and over weight. He died on the way. Probably a heart attack.

We don’t know how many in my family fought, but it had to be a fairly large number. Probably over 20. All for the north, as far as I know. I’ve visited some of their gravesites. Most of the them are uncared for and badly deteriorated. One ancestor was a major in the Union army. His grave stone was replaced by a local historical society in the 70s. It still looks good. He survived the war, but was wounded several times. Came home to his wife and kids, but died in 1869. I believe he was only 29.


----------



## initforme

Some try to say slavery was not so bad.   Uhhhh, would you work for no wages under the threat of being beaten.  The more I research the more angry I become at the repugnant anti Christian slave owners and I'm as white as it gets.


----------



## Oz and the Orchestra

gipper said:


> Oz and the Orchestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oz and the Orchestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Batcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> That largely depends on when and where you grew up.
> 
> I grew up in the North in the 1950s and 1960s. Therefore the Civil War was about slavery.
> 
> Had I grown up in the South I would have learned it was about states rights and was a war of northern aggression.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> I was brought up here in England so my American Civil War education didn't take place at school but during breaks in the playground. In 1965 and at the age of ten a set of ACW News trading cards by Topps, became all the rage with schoolkids all over the UK.
> 
> View attachment 461186View attachment 461187
> View attachment 461188View attachment 461189
> View attachment 461192View attachment 461193
> 
> Numbered from *1 The Angry Man  *John Brown's assault at Harpers Ferry. To -
> *88. The War Ends.   *General Robert E Lee signing the instrument of surrender at Appomattox Court House to General Ulysses S Grant.
> 
> It really was a fantastic way of educating primary school kids. You got chewing gum, five trading cards, and two Confederate States of America banknotes.
> The trading cards were really good quality. Very explicit and gory scenes (would never be allowed now) in bright bold colours. On the back a very detailed story of the scene in the form of a front-page newspaper exclusive.
> I was the first at my school to get the set. It also inspired me to win the school's first prize in the Brooke Bond Travel Scholarship Art Competition with my painting of a depiction of the Battle of Gettysburg. It also inspired me to go on and study the Civil War through the library which developed into a lifelong interest.
> 
> Topps followed up with a WWll trading card collection. I already knew a lot about that as my dad was in the RAF and had an extensive library. I remember the most sought-after cards in that collection had been banned and featured two cards that depicted US servicemen being tortured by Japanese guards.
> Obviously, Topps was a US company and I've often wondered if the ACW trading card
> craze was as big with you guys in the US as it was here?
> 
> Anyone remember the cards?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’ve studied the War of Northern Aggression since I was a little boy (a long time). I’ve visited every major battlefield and historical site. It was a terrible war that never should have occurred, had we had competent leadership. Many members of my Dad’s family fought in the war for the North, though they resided in eastern Tennessee. I have a photograph somewhere of the headstone of one of my ancestors who died outside Atlanta in 1864, at the age of 19.  He was in Sherman’s army.
> 
> I’ve never seen the Topps trading cards you mention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As a teenager visiting the battlefields Bull Run. Gettysburg, Chickamauga etc was my top holiday ambition but regrettably, I never got to do it mainly because I couldn't find anyone interested enough to accompany me.
> Yes, it cost I think around 800,000 lives. I remember I read that the accuracy of rifles had improved greatly from previous wars.
> Do you have any letters or handed-down stories from your Dad's family members?
> I'm sure I won't be the only one very interested in reading them.
> 
> Here is a link where you can view the entire Topps Trading Card Collection. -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Topps Civil War Cards
> 
> 
> Topps Civil War News
> 
> 
> 
> www.civilwarcollector.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only story that comes to mind is a relative who was a preacher. Many of my ancestors were devout Christians and abolitionists. The preacher had been railing against slavery in his sermons. The local Confederates got tired of it and arrested him. They tied him up behind a horse and dragged him to town for prosecution. It was several miles. He was an older man and over weight. He died on the way. Probably a heart attack.
> 
> We don’t know how many in my family fought, but it had to be a fairly large number. Probably over 20. All for the north, as far as I know. I’ve visited some of their gravesites. Most of the them are uncared for and badly deteriorated. One ancestor was a major in the Union army. His grave stone was replaced by a local historical society in the 70s. It still looks good. He survived the war, but was wounded several times. Came home to his wife and kids, but died in 1869. I believe he was only 29.
Click to expand...

It must have been difficult for your family to remain loyal and continue to support the Union when Tennesee seceded. I know there were eastern counties that tried to remain loyal but they were deep inside Confederate territory.
A copper in the UK got dragged by the ankle after catching gypsies red-handed attempting to steal a Quad Bike. Trying to get away they released the bike but left the rope Lasoo trailing. The copper who was young and with an athletic build got his ankle caught and dragged for around a mile. They couldn't do more than about 35mph on the rough country trail that was full of potholes but the copper suffered massive internal injuries and was dead before they finally stopped. So an older overweight guy would not have much chance of being dragged several miles even going considerably slower. They must have known it would kill him.
You no doubt watched the Ken Burns American Civil War series. You'd think it would be near impossible to make an entire series just using still photo's but it was the personal letters they readout that made it for me.
They used to write really deep passionate and emotional letters in those days and very few that didn't mention God.
Apparently, if a soldier got shot and could sit up the first thing he'd been told to do was check that the bullet hadn't made contact with any vital organs. If it had he knew that he would die from the infection.

 Anyway thanks for that it was really interesting.


----------



## bdtex

TrumpSucks said:


> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?


Money and political power was the bottom line.


----------



## bdtex

Quasar44 said:


> From the North : they did not want to lose the $$$ in the vast agricultural of the south


They didn't want more slavery states with 2 Senate seats each and a tbd number of House seats each. It was about $$$ and political power.


----------



## TheGreenHornet

initforme said:


> Some try to say slavery was not so bad.   Uhhhh, would you work for no wages under the threat of being beaten.  The more I research the more angry I become at the repugnant anti Christian slave owners and I'm as white as it gets.



The slaves were provided with all the necessities and very few were whipped....and never to the extent many think.   Slaves were very valuable property and no sane person would do anything harmful to his property.

The Slaves did know if they misbehaved or refused to work they would be subjected to disciplinary actions.

Also....many if not most slaves were allowed to have a patch of ground to grow their own produce ....which they could sell or use for barter purposes.

Fort the most part Slavery in the Southern U.S.  was very humane. 

Even after the slaves were freed most remained on the same plantation under a system known as share-cropping.

When you read the memoirs of former slaves you see many if not most had very fond memories of life on the old plantation....and of their former mastahs.





__





						Lowery, Irving E, b. 1850. "Life on the Old Plantation in Ante-bellum Days ..."
					





					docsouth.unc.edu


----------



## TrumpSucks

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> good lord you are a dumb fuck.
> 
> Slavery was the central issue. Everybody knows that. Although states were fighting for their own rights, everyone of their declarations stated that they had the right to continue their slavery.
> 
> Now shut the fuck up you goddamn idiot.
> 
> The current Civil War we're engaged in, which was started by you communist faggots has nothing to do with any slavery but that of white men.
> 
> Now go fuck yourself.
Click to expand...

Wow, I never had anyone who basically agreed with what I said, be so ASININE about it. And just try to shut me up, Bootney (?). I'm not a communist faggot but I'm probably friends with some. (I don't pry, and I don't care. Is that the worst insult you can think of?)

And yes, you white men are the most pathetic victims on the planet. Boo hoo!


----------



## fncceo

TrumpSucks said:


> It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States.



It wasn't a war between the states?




They've been lying to us in school all those years.


----------



## TrumpSucks

andaronjim said:


> TheGreenHornet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> The end of slavery was one of the eventual outcomes of the war. Odd that every other country that had slaves was able to ban slavery without killing a million of its own citizens...UK and France for example.
> 
> No you silly person; the Civil War was about $....as usual.
> 
> Make no mistake; that slavery was ended was a good thing and overdue. You must also be aware that the North DESTROYED the South's ECONOMY. No money for reparations.
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The North destroyed the South's economy because the South made war upon the North. Remember Fort Sumpter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do remember. Do you remember that they shot at Sumpter because they seceded from the Union? Do you remember the reason they did that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes; it was then Sth Carolina so a part of the Confederate States; the Union soldiers were trespassing. Re-inforcing the fort was an act of war. Also, Ft Sumter was about 85 Union Troops of whom 84 survived....ONE died when his cannon blew up!!!
> 
> btw: your buddy Marx said:
> 
> "In October 1861 Marx, who was living in Primrose Hill, summed up the view of the British press: ‘The war between the North and South is a tariff war. The war is, further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery and in fact turns on Northern lust for sovereignty.’ That view was shared by Charles Dickens, who wrote: ‘The Northern onslaught upon slavery is no more than a piece of specious humbug disguised to conceal its desire for economic control of the United States.’"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The American Civil War: A North-South Divide | History Today
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.historytoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the War Between The States was really about........https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/07/no_author/why-the-civil-war-wasnt-about-slavery/Why the Civil War Wasn’t About Slavery - LewRockwell
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You had Southern White Democrats who thought black people were sub human and shouldnt be allowed to be free.  That thought has continued by the Democrat party even today.
> View attachment 461146
Click to expand...

That was true of the Democratic Party in the 1860s. That was NOT true of the Democratic Party of the 1960s. Don't be ridiculous.


----------



## TrumpSucks

Indeependent said:


> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews in Europe were not uneducated and sold by their parents into slavery.
> The Jews ran businesses and were doing quite well.
> Germany actually admitted such and has been giving reparations.
Click to expand...

I don't understand what you mean by your post. "The Jews in Europe were not uneducated..." OK, that means that the Jews WERE educated. You go on to state, "...and sold by their parents into slavery." Now, do you mean that they were NOT sold by their parents into slavery? Because the first part of your sentence is predicated on "not" so it would imply that "not" would apply to the second part of your sentence as well. But one could also interpret your sentence to mean that Jews were sold into slavery by their parents. Which is it?


----------



## TrumpSucks

fncceo said:


> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't a war between the states?
> 
> View attachment 462175
> They've been lying to us in school all those years.
Click to expand...

A civil war is defined as "a war between citizens of the same country." Seems plain enough.


----------



## TrumpSucks

bdtex said:


> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> Money and political power was the bottom line.
Click to expand...

When your avatar is Jefferson Davis, that says a lot about your position.


----------



## fncceo

TrumpSucks said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't a war between the states?
> 
> View attachment 462175
> They've been lying to us in school all those years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A civil war is defined as "a war between citizens of the same country." Seems plain enough.
Click to expand...


So, just to be clear, those citizens WEREN'T from different states?


----------



## bripat9643

TrumpSucks said:


> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?


It actually was not a Civil War.  The Confederacy was not trying to win control of the federal government.  They just wanted to be left alone. It also wasn't all about slavery.   A significant number of Union states still had slavery, moron.  I could spend all day tearing your claim into pieces, but I have better things to do.


----------



## fncceo

TrumpSucks said:


> But one could also interpret your sentence to mean that Jews were sold into slavery by their parents.



I was forced to go to Hebrew School for six years!  So, yeah.


----------



## bripat9643

Jets said:


> Slavery was one of the main causes of the civil war. However, it was not the sole one.


It wasn't even the "main cause."


----------



## bripat9643

TrumpSucks said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> If it was only about slavery, why did Lincoln offer to make slavery a Constitutional right so long as the Southern states came back into the Union?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When did Lincoln do that?
Click to expand...

The Corwin Amendment, numskull.


----------



## bripat9643

TrumpSucks said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> The end of slavery was one of the eventual outcomes of the war. Odd that every other country that had slaves was able to ban slavery without killing a million of its own citizens...UK and France for example.
> 
> No you silly person; the Civil War was about $....as usual.
> 
> Make no mistake; that slavery was ended was a good thing and overdue. You must also be aware that the North DESTROYED the South's ECONOMY. No money for reparations.
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The North destroyed the South's economy because the South made war upon the North. Remember Fort Sumpter?
Click to expand...

Nope.  Lincoln made war on the South.  Ft Sumter was SC territory.


----------



## there4eyeM

Slavery was the basis of the problem that led to the war in America between 1861 and 1865 (call it what you wish).


----------



## fncceo

there4eyeM said:


> call it what you wish



The Brutal Yankee Invasion of the Peaceful South!


----------



## TrumpSucks

fncceo said:


> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't a war between the states?
> 
> View attachment 462175
> They've been lying to us in school all those years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A civil war is defined as "a war between citizens of the same country." Seems plain enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, just to be clear, those citizens WEREN'T from different states?
Click to expand...

Some were, but they were ALL from the same country, idiot. Please don't respond any further because it's a waste of time.


----------



## bripat9643

forkup said:


> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> The end of slavery was one of the eventual outcomes of the war. Odd that every other country that had slaves was able to ban slavery without killing a million of its own citizens...UK and France for example.
> 
> No you silly person; the Civil War was about $....as usual.
> 
> Make no mistake; that slavery was ended was a good thing and overdue. You must also be aware that the North DESTROYED the South's ECONOMY. No money for reparations.
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The North destroyed the South's economy because the South made war upon the North. Remember Fort Sumpter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do remember. Do you remember that they shot at Sumpter because they seceded from the Union? Do you remember the reason they did that?
Click to expand...

So you admit that Fort Sumter was part of SC when the later fired on it to kick out the Union trespassers.


----------



## bripat9643

TrumpSucks said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't a war between the states?
> 
> View attachment 462175
> They've been lying to us in school all those years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A civil war is defined as "a war between citizens of the same country." Seems plain enough.
Click to expand...

Southerners were not citizens of the Unites States after they seceded.


----------



## TrumpSucks

bripat9643 said:


> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> It actually was not a Civil War.  The Confederacy was not trying to win control of the federal government.  They just wanted to be left alone. It also wasn't all about slavery.   A significant number of Union states still had slavery, moron.  I could spend all day tearing your claim into pieces, but I have better things to do.
Click to expand...

Hey, when the Civil War began, slavery was legal in much of the United States. But as I've posted elsewhere, a civil war is "a war between citizens of the same country." The definition does NOT include the ambition to overthrow the government, or the desire to be left alone. It's a war between citizens of the same country, period.


----------



## TrumpSucks

bripat9643 said:


> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't a war between the states?
> 
> View attachment 462175
> They've been lying to us in school all those years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A civil war is defined as "a war between citizens of the same country." Seems plain enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Southerners were not citizens of the Unites States after the seceded.
Click to expand...

That's only if you assume that a state has the right to secede on its own. I think that a state could secede if most of the rest of the country agreed to it, but otherwise, no.


----------



## there4eyeM

fncceo said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> call it what you wish
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brutal Yankee Invasion of the Peaceful South!
Click to expand...

The South just misinterpreted U.S. Army maneuvers on U.S. territory, that's all. A mere dust up over details.


----------



## TrumpSucks

TrumpSucks said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't a war between the states?
> 
> View attachment 462175
> They've been lying to us in school all those years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A civil war is defined as "a war between citizens of the same country." Seems plain enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Southerners were not citizens of the Unites States after the seceded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's only if you assume that a state has the right to secede on its own. I think that a state could secede if most of the rest of the country agreed to it, but otherwise, no.
Click to expand...

And by the way, if Texas wants to secede, I'd support that!!!


----------



## bripat9643

TrumpSucks said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> It actually was not a Civil War.  The Confederacy was not trying to win control of the federal government.  They just wanted to be left alone. It also wasn't all about slavery.   A significant number of Union states still had slavery, moron.  I could spend all day tearing your claim into pieces, but I have better things to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, when the Civil War began, slavery was legal in much of the United States. But as I've posted elsewhere, a civil war is "a war between citizens of the same country." The definition does NOT include the ambition to overthrow the government, or the desire to be left alone. It's a war between citizens of the same country, period.
Click to expand...

Actually, the definition does include the ambition to overthrow the government, especially when we're talking about a confederation of states.

AFter the confederaate states seceded, they were no long part of the United States, so your definition doesn't apply


----------



## TrumpSucks

bripat9643 said:


> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> The end of slavery was one of the eventual outcomes of the war. Odd that every other country that had slaves was able to ban slavery without killing a million of its own citizens...UK and France for example.
> 
> No you silly person; the Civil War was about $....as usual.
> 
> Make no mistake; that slavery was ended was a good thing and overdue. You must also be aware that the North DESTROYED the South's ECONOMY. No money for reparations.
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The North destroyed the South's economy because the South made war upon the North. Remember Fort Sumpter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  Lincoln made war on the South.  Ft Sumter was SC territory.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. It was U.S. Federal Territory, and Lincoln defended it rightly on that basis. To think otherwise is to dismiss Federal authority altogether (which may be what you want to do).


----------



## TrumpSucks

fncceo said:


> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> But one could also interpret your sentence to mean that Jews were sold into slavery by their parents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was forced to go to Hebrew School for six years!  So, yeah.
> 
> View attachment 462177
Click to expand...

I can't argue with that.


----------



## bripat9643

TrumpSucks said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> The end of slavery was one of the eventual outcomes of the war. Odd that every other country that had slaves was able to ban slavery without killing a million of its own citizens...UK and France for example.
> 
> No you silly person; the Civil War was about $....as usual.
> 
> Make no mistake; that slavery was ended was a good thing and overdue. You must also be aware that the North DESTROYED the South's ECONOMY. No money for reparations.
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The North destroyed the South's economy because the South made war upon the North. Remember Fort Sumpter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  Lincoln made war on the South.  Ft Sumter was SC territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense. It was U.S. Federal Territory, and Lincoln defended it rightly on that basis. To think otherwise is to dismiss Federal authority altogether (which may be what you want to do).
Click to expand...

Nope.  The laws of SC were in force within the property.  Lincoln was harboring trespassers and then sent an invasion flotilla.


----------



## there4eyeM

[/QUOTE]
Southerners were not citizens of the Unites States after the seceded.
[/QUOTE]
That's only if you assume that a state has the right to secede on its own. I think that a state could secede if most of the rest of the country agreed to it, but otherwise, no.
[/QUOTE]
The states all signed on to a Perpetual Union. The only legal way to leave would be by modifying the Constitution. That would, necessarily, require a resounding majority of states. The "South" decided to try extra-legal measures. It didn't work.


----------



## TrumpSucks

bripat9643 said:


> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> If it was only about slavery, why did Lincoln offer to make slavery a Constitutional right so long as the Southern states came back into the Union?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When did Lincoln do that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Corwin Amendment, numskull.
Click to expand...

Yes, I've read it, now. Pardon me for not knowing every detail of a war that happened more than 150 years ago. Lincoln was trying to make a deal; it didn't happen. So? I did know that Lincoln did NOT make the elimination of slavery a condition of a settlement early in the Civil War.


----------



## there4eyeM

[/QUOTE]
Yes, I've read it, now. Pardon me for not knowing every detail of a war that happened more than 150 years ago. Lincoln was trying to make a deal; it didn't happen. So? I did know that Lincoln did NOT make the elimination of slavery a condition of a settlement early in the Civil War.
[/QUOTE]
That poster doesn't "pardon", just insults.


----------



## TrumpSucks

bripat9643 said:


> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> The end of slavery was one of the eventual outcomes of the war. Odd that every other country that had slaves was able to ban slavery without killing a million of its own citizens...UK and France for example.
> 
> No you silly person; the Civil War was about $....as usual.
> 
> Make no mistake; that slavery was ended was a good thing and overdue. You must also be aware that the North DESTROYED the South's ECONOMY. No money for reparations.
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The North destroyed the South's economy because the South made war upon the North. Remember Fort Sumpter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  Lincoln made war on the South.  Ft Sumter was SC territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense. It was U.S. Federal Territory, and Lincoln defended it rightly on that basis. To think otherwise is to dismiss Federal authority altogether (which may be what you want to do).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  The laws of SC were in force within the property.  Lincoln was harboring trespassers and then sent an invasion flotilla.
Click to expand...

Federal troops were "trespassers"? On Federal property? That's a stretch. But hey, it's obvious that you'll deploy any bullshit excuse to justify your belief system. I'll never convince you of anything. So WHATEVER!!!!!!!


----------



## there4eyeM

TrumpSucks said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> The end of slavery was one of the eventual outcomes of the war. Odd that every other country that had slaves was able to ban slavery without killing a million of its own citizens...UK and France for example.
> 
> No you silly person; the Civil War was about $....as usual.
> 
> Make no mistake; that slavery was ended was a good thing and overdue. You must also be aware that the North DESTROYED the South's ECONOMY. No money for reparations.
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The North destroyed the South's economy because the South made war upon the North. Remember Fort Sumpter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  Lincoln made war on the South.  Ft Sumter was SC territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense. It was U.S. Federal Territory, and Lincoln defended it rightly on that basis. To think otherwise is to dismiss Federal authority altogether (which may be what you want to do).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  The laws of SC were in force within the property.  Lincoln was harboring trespassers and then sent an invasion flotilla.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Federal troops were "trespassers"? On Federal property? That's a stretch. But hey, it's obvious that you'll deploy any bullshit excuse to justify your belief system. I'll never convince you of anything. So WHATEVER!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

You have finally understood!


----------



## TrumpSucks

bripat9643 said:


> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> It actually was not a Civil War.  The Confederacy was not trying to win control of the federal government.  They just wanted to be left alone. It also wasn't all about slavery.   A significant number of Union states still had slavery, moron.  I could spend all day tearing your claim into pieces, but I have better things to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, when the Civil War began, slavery was legal in much of the United States. But as I've posted elsewhere, a civil war is "a war between citizens of the same country." The definition does NOT include the ambition to overthrow the government, or the desire to be left alone. It's a war between citizens of the same country, period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, the definition does include the ambition to overthrow the government, especially when we're talking about a confederation of states.
> 
> AFter the confederaate states seceded, they were no long part of the United States, so your definition doesn't apply
Click to expand...

A civil war is not about trying to win control of the federal government. As far as I can find, a civil war is defined as "a war between citizens of the same country." What definition do you claim?


----------



## TrumpSucks

there4eyeM said:


> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> The end of slavery was one of the eventual outcomes of the war. Odd that every other country that had slaves was able to ban slavery without killing a million of its own citizens...UK and France for example.
> 
> No you silly person; the Civil War was about $....as usual.
> 
> Make no mistake; that slavery was ended was a good thing and overdue. You must also be aware that the North DESTROYED the South's ECONOMY. No money for reparations.
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The North destroyed the South's economy because the South made war upon the North. Remember Fort Sumpter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  Lincoln made war on the South.  Ft Sumter was SC territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense. It was U.S. Federal Territory, and Lincoln defended it rightly on that basis. To think otherwise is to dismiss Federal authority altogether (which may be what you want to do).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  The laws of SC were in force within the property.  Lincoln was harboring trespassers and then sent an invasion flotilla.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Federal troops were "trespassers"? On Federal property? That's a stretch. But hey, it's obvious that you'll deploy any bullshit excuse to justify your belief system. I'll never convince you of anything. So WHATEVER!!!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have finally understood!
Click to expand...

So you're happy that I've realized that you are impervious to any logical argument of any kind... ?


----------



## fncceo

TrumpSucks said:


> Some were, but they were ALL from the same country, idiot.



Come on, you're dying to call people names for pointing out your flaws in logic.

It's OK, I don't mind. It just means you're starting to realize you don't make any sense.


----------



## there4eyeM

We could call it "Illexit", short for illegal exit from the Union.


----------



## Mindful

gtopa1 said:


> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> The end of slavery was one of the eventual outcomes of the war. Odd that every other country that had slaves was able to ban slavery without killing a million of its own citizens...UK and France for example.
> 
> No you silly person; the Civil War was about $....as usual.
> 
> Make no mistake; that slavery was ended was a good thing and overdue. You must also be aware that the North DESTROYED the South's ECONOMY. No money for reparations.
> 
> Greg
Click to expand...


Ended in name only. Then came the reality of it.

And then the shameful Jim Crow laws.


----------



## there4eyeM

TrumpSucks said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> The end of slavery was one of the eventual outcomes of the war. Odd that every other country that had slaves was able to ban slavery without killing a million of its own citizens...UK and France for example.
> 
> No you silly person; the Civil War was about $....as usual.
> 
> Make no mistake; that slavery was ended was a good thing and overdue. You must also be aware that the North DESTROYED the South's ECONOMY. No money for reparations.
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The North destroyed the South's economy because the South made war upon the North. Remember Fort Sumpter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  Lincoln made war on the South.  Ft Sumter was SC territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense. It was U.S. Federal Territory, and Lincoln defended it rightly on that basis. To think otherwise is to dismiss Federal authority altogether (which may be what you want to do).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  The laws of SC were in force within the property.  Lincoln was harboring trespassers and then sent an invasion flotilla.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Federal troops were "trespassers"? On Federal property? That's a stretch. But hey, it's obvious that you'll deploy any bullshit excuse to justify your belief system. I'll never convince you of anything. So WHATEVER!!!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have finally understood!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're happy that I've realized that you are impervious to any logical argument of any kind... ?
Click to expand...

You seem to have gotten lost in the thread lines there. My post was saying that you finally understood "pat".


----------



## TrumpSucks

fncceo said:


> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some were, but they were ALL from the same country, idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come on, you're dying to call people names for pointing out your flaws in logic.
> 
> It's OK, I don't mind. It just means you're starting to realize you don't make any sense.
Click to expand...

I don't need an excuse to call people like you names. But this time, I'll resist.


----------



## Mindful

gtopa1 said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> The end of slavery was one of the eventual outcomes of the war. Odd that every other country that had slaves was able to ban slavery without killing a million of its own citizens...UK and France for example.
> 
> No you silly person; the Civil War was about $....as usual.
> 
> Make no mistake; that slavery was ended was a good thing and overdue. You must also be aware that the North DESTROYED the South's ECONOMY. No money for reparations.
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uhm, that's a non-answer if I've ever heard one not to mention I recognise at least 2 logical fallacies.
> 
> Wether or not other countries were capable of abolishing slavery has absolutely no bearing on whether or not the US was. That's a red herring.
> 
> The same goes for your "it was about money"
> 
> The fact of the matter was that their was 1 and only 1 reason for the civil war and that was slavery. Specifically the issue of slavery being allowed to expand into new territories. An issue that caused the South to secede when Lincoln was elected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. you are wrong.
> 
> You from Yorkshire by any chance??
> 
> Greg
Click to expand...


That Civil War?

There’s still a north-south divide in Great Britain.


----------



## there4eyeM

Mindful said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> The end of slavery was one of the eventual outcomes of the war. Odd that every other country that had slaves was able to ban slavery without killing a million of its own citizens...UK and France for example.
> 
> No you silly person; the Civil War was about $....as usual.
> 
> Make no mistake; that slavery was ended was a good thing and overdue. You must also be aware that the North DESTROYED the South's ECONOMY. No money for reparations.
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ended in name only. Then came the reality of it.
> 
> And then the shameful Jim Crow laws.
Click to expand...

Wars don't usually really solve problems. Mostly, they create more.


----------



## fncceo

TrumpSucks said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some were, but they were ALL from the same country, idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come on, you're dying to call people names for pointing out your flaws in logic.
> 
> It's OK, I don't mind. It just means you're starting to realize you don't make any sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't need an excuse to call people like you names. But this time, I'll resist.
Click to expand...


Don't hold yourself in ... you'll explode.  You go, girl!


----------



## fncceo

there4eyeM said:


> Wars don't usually really solve problems.



Sometimes they do ...


----------



## there4eyeM

fncceo said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wars don't usually really solve problems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes they do ...
> 
> View attachment 462180
Click to expand...

Your illustration only underlines what the quoted post tries to say. Attacking symbols looks dramatic, but what does it bring of substance? We still have "rightists" like the Nazis. And who defeated Germany? Stalin? There's a big advance for you!


----------



## fncceo

there4eyeM said:


> And who defeated Germany?



I think these guys had something to do with it..


----------



## there4eyeM

fncceo said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> And who defeated Germany?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think these guys had something to do with it..
> 
> View attachment 462183
Click to expand...

Not taking anything away from them, just stating that having the Wehrmacht destroyed and having the Soviet Army take its place isn't qualitative improvement.


----------



## bripat9643

TrumpSucks said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> The end of slavery was one of the eventual outcomes of the war. Odd that every other country that had slaves was able to ban slavery without killing a million of its own citizens...UK and France for example.
> 
> No you silly person; the Civil War was about $....as usual.
> 
> Make no mistake; that slavery was ended was a good thing and overdue. You must also be aware that the North DESTROYED the South's ECONOMY. No money for reparations.
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The North destroyed the South's economy because the South made war upon the North. Remember Fort Sumpter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  Lincoln made war on the South.  Ft Sumter was SC territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense. It was U.S. Federal Territory, and Lincoln defended it rightly on that basis. To think otherwise is to dismiss Federal authority altogether (which may be what you want to do).
Click to expand...

No it wasn't, turd.  It may have been US property, but it was still part of the territory of South Carolina and governed by the laws of South Carolina.  I know that now we're going to have a long debate where you try to argue that property is the same thing as territory, but of course you will lose.  Try buying a house in Mexico and then telling the local police that you don't have to follow Mexican laws.


----------



## bripat9643

there4eyeM said:


> We could call it "Illexit", short for illegal exit from the Union.


There's no such thing..


----------



## bripat9643

TrumpSucks said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> It actually was not a Civil War.  The Confederacy was not trying to win control of the federal government.  They just wanted to be left alone. It also wasn't all about slavery.   A significant number of Union states still had slavery, moron.  I could spend all day tearing your claim into pieces, but I have better things to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, when the Civil War began, slavery was legal in much of the United States. But as I've posted elsewhere, a civil war is "a war between citizens of the same country." The definition does NOT include the ambition to overthrow the government, or the desire to be left alone. It's a war between citizens of the same country, period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, the definition does include the ambition to overthrow the government, especially when we're talking about a confederation of states.
> 
> AFter the confederaate states seceded, they were no long part of the United States, so your definition doesn't apply
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A civil war is not about trying to win control of the federal government. As far as I can find, a civil war is defined as "a war between citizens of the same country." What definition do you claim?
Click to expand...

The Confederate states were not part of the United States.


----------



## bripat9643

there4eyeM said:


> The states all signed on to a Perpetual Union. The only legal way to leave would be by modifying the Constitution. That would, necessarily, require a resounding majority of states. The "South" decided to try extra-legal measures. It didn't work.


That ended when they tore up the articles of Confederation and signed the Constitution.  Nothing in the Constition says it has to be amended for a state to leave.


----------



## TW2020

TrumpSucks said:


> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?


Had nothing to do with slavery. The south was paying slaves, housing and free health care. They even were offered reparations. Slavery was ending


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> The end of slavery was one of the eventual outcomes of the war. Odd that every other country that had slaves was able to ban slavery without killing a million of its own citizens...UK and France for example.
> 
> No you silly person; the Civil War was about $....as usual.
> 
> Make no mistake; that slavery was ended was a good thing and overdue. You must also be aware that the North DESTROYED the South's ECONOMY. No money for reparations.
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The North destroyed the South's economy because the South made war upon the North. Remember Fort Sumpter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  Lincoln made war on the South.  Ft Sumter was SC territory.
Click to expand...


Complete and total lie.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> The states all signed on to a Perpetual Union. The only legal way to leave would be by modifying the Constitution. That would, necessarily, require a resounding majority of states. The "South" decided to try extra-legal measures. It didn't work.
> 
> 
> 
> That ended when they tore up the articles of Confederation and signed the Constitution.  Nothing in the Constition says it has to be amended for a state to leave.
Click to expand...


The Supreme Court says you are full of shit, stupid.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't a war between the states?
> 
> View attachment 462175
> They've been lying to us in school all those years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A civil war is defined as "a war between citizens of the same country." Seems plain enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Southerners were not citizens of the Unites States after they seceded.
Click to expand...


Yes they were. The so-called secession was illegitimate, illegal, and recognized by exactly 0 nations on this planet earth.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't a war between the states?
> 
> View attachment 462175
> They've been lying to us in school all those years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A civil war is defined as "a war between citizens of the same country." Seems plain enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Southerners were not citizens of the Unites States after they seceded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they were. The so-called secession was illegitimate, illegal, and recognized by exactly 0 nations on this planet earth.
Click to expand...

Prove it.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> The states all signed on to a Perpetual Union. The only legal way to leave would be by modifying the Constitution. That would, necessarily, require a resounding majority of states. The "South" decided to try extra-legal measures. It didn't work.
> 
> 
> 
> That ended when they tore up the articles of Confederation and signed the Constitution.  Nothing in the Constition says it has to be amended for a state to leave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court says you are full of shit, stupid.
Click to expand...

You mean the Supreme Court packed with Lincoln appointees?

<YAWN!>


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't a war between the states?
> 
> View attachment 462175
> They've been lying to us in school all those years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A civil war is defined as "a war between citizens of the same country." Seems plain enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Southerners were not citizens of the Unites States after they seceded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they were. The so-called secession was illegitimate, illegal, and recognized by exactly 0 nations on this planet earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove it.
Click to expand...

It has been proven and demonstrated and documented over and over and over and over and over on this very site, you stupid piece of shit.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> The end of slavery was one of the eventual outcomes of the war. Odd that every other country that had slaves was able to ban slavery without killing a million of its own citizens...UK and France for example.
> 
> No you silly person; the Civil War was about $....as usual.
> 
> Make no mistake; that slavery was ended was a good thing and overdue. You must also be aware that the North DESTROYED the South's ECONOMY. No money for reparations.
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The North destroyed the South's economy because the South made war upon the North. Remember Fort Sumpter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  Lincoln made war on the South.  Ft Sumter was SC territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Complete and total lie.
Click to expand...


Did Lincoln invade Virginia?  

Why yes he did.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> The states all signed on to a Perpetual Union. The only legal way to leave would be by modifying the Constitution. That would, necessarily, require a resounding majority of states. The "South" decided to try extra-legal measures. It didn't work.
> 
> 
> 
> That ended when they tore up the articles of Confederation and signed the Constitution.  Nothing in the Constition says it has to be amended for a state to leave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court says you are full of shit, stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean the Supreme Court packed with Lincoln appointees?
> 
> <YAWN!>
Click to expand...

Oh, so when you don’t like the supreme court it’s not legitimate? So today you are a Democrat, right? Right? Right?


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't a war between the states?
> 
> View attachment 462175
> They've been lying to us in school all those years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A civil war is defined as "a war between citizens of the same country." Seems plain enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Southerners were not citizens of the Unites States after they seceded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they were. The so-called secession was illegitimate, illegal, and recognized by exactly 0 nations on this planet earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has been proven and demonstrated and documented over and over and over and over and over on this very side, you stupid piece of shit.
Click to expand...

You haven't proved jack shit.


----------



## schmidlap

TrumpSucks said:


> It was U.S. Federal Territory, and Lincoln defended it rightly on that basis. To think otherwise is to dismiss Federal authority altogether (which may be what you want to do).


Lincoln deployed U.S. troops on U.S. soil to suppress a regional rebellion, in strict compliance with his Oath of Office.

No nation on earth ever recognized a sovereign nation calling itself _"The Confederate States of America." _


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> The end of slavery was one of the eventual outcomes of the war. Odd that every other country that had slaves was able to ban slavery without killing a million of its own citizens...UK and France for example.
> 
> No you silly person; the Civil War was about $....as usual.
> 
> Make no mistake; that slavery was ended was a good thing and overdue. You must also be aware that the North DESTROYED the South's ECONOMY. No money for reparations.
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The North destroyed the South's economy because the South made war upon the North. Remember Fort Sumpter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  Lincoln made war on the South.  Ft Sumter was SC territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Complete and total lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did Lincoln invade Virginia?
> 
> Why yes he did.
Click to expand...

Absolutely and positively not. You cannot invade your own country. The criminal scum who tried to destroy our nation were eventually given a tiny fraction of what they deserve the punishment. You are a similar kind of scumbag fucking worthless dog and you deserve much worse, but again we will show forbearance.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> The states all signed on to a Perpetual Union. The only legal way to leave would be by modifying the Constitution. That would, necessarily, require a resounding majority of states. The "South" decided to try extra-legal measures. It didn't work.
> 
> 
> 
> That ended when they tore up the articles of Confederation and signed the Constitution.  Nothing in the Constition says it has to be amended for a state to leave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court says you are full of shit, stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean the Supreme Court packed with Lincoln appointees?
> 
> <YAWN!>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, so when you don’t like the supreme court it’s not legitimate? So today you are a Democrat, right? Right? Right?
Click to expand...

The SC is never legitimate.  Occasionally ir rules correctly, but it has no authority to decide what the Constitution means.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't a war between the states?
> 
> View attachment 462175
> They've been lying to us in school all those years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A civil war is defined as "a war between citizens of the same country." Seems plain enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Southerners were not citizens of the Unites States after they seceded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they were. The so-called secession was illegitimate, illegal, and recognized by exactly 0 nations on this planet earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has been proven and demonstrated and documented over and over and over and over and over on this very side, you stupid piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't proved jack shit.
Click to expand...

Study history, you brainless douche.


----------



## bripat9643

schmidlap said:


> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was U.S. Federal Territory, and Lincoln defended it rightly on that basis. To think otherwise is to dismiss Federal authority altogether (which may be what you want to do).
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln deployed U.S. troops on U.S. soil to suppress a regional rebellion, in strict compliance with his Oath of Office.
> 
> No nation on earth ever recognized a sovereign nation calling itself _"The Confederate States of America." _
Click to expand...

It wasn't U.S. soil, nimrod.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't a war between the states?
> 
> View attachment 462175
> They've been lying to us in school all those years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A civil war is defined as "a war between citizens of the same country." Seems plain enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Southerners were not citizens of the Unites States after they seceded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they were. The so-called secession was illegitimate, illegal, and recognized by exactly 0 nations on this planet earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has been proven and demonstrated and documented over and over and over and over and over on this very side, you stupid piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't proved jack shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Study history, you brainless douche.
Click to expand...

I have, especially the history of the Civil War.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't a war between the states?
> 
> View attachment 462175
> They've been lying to us in school all those years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A civil war is defined as "a war between citizens of the same country." Seems plain enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Southerners were not citizens of the Unites States after they seceded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they were. The so-called secession was illegitimate, illegal, and recognized by exactly 0 nations on this planet earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has been proven and demonstrated and documented over and over and over and over and over on this very side, you stupid piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't proved jack shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Study history, you brainless douche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have, especially the history of the Civil War.
Click to expand...

Clearly you have not, you ignorant douche.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> The end of slavery was one of the eventual outcomes of the war. Odd that every other country that had slaves was able to ban slavery without killing a million of its own citizens...UK and France for example.
> 
> No you silly person; the Civil War was about $....as usual.
> 
> Make no mistake; that slavery was ended was a good thing and overdue. You must also be aware that the North DESTROYED the South's ECONOMY. No money for reparations.
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The North destroyed the South's economy because the South made war upon the North. Remember Fort Sumpter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  Lincoln made war on the South.  Ft Sumter was SC territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Complete and total lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did Lincoln invade Virginia?
> 
> Why yes he did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely and positively not. You cannot invade your own country. The criminal scum who tried to destroy our nation were eventually given a tiny fraction of what they deserve the punishment. You are a similar kind of scumbag fucking worthless dog and you deserve much worse, but again we will show forbearance.
Click to expand...

It wasn't Lincoln's country, nimrod.  Lincoln, Grant and Sherman all deserved to be tried as war criminals.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was U.S. Federal Territory, and Lincoln defended it rightly on that basis. To think otherwise is to dismiss Federal authority altogether (which may be what you want to do).
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln deployed U.S. troops on U.S. soil to suppress a regional rebellion, in strict compliance with his Oath of Office.
> 
> No nation on earth ever recognized a sovereign nation calling itself _"The Confederate States of America." _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wasn't U.S. soil, nimrod.
Click to expand...

By every legal and historical measure it was, douche.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't a war between the states?
> 
> View attachment 462175
> They've been lying to us in school all those years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A civil war is defined as "a war between citizens of the same country." Seems plain enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Southerners were not citizens of the Unites States after they seceded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they were. The so-called secession was illegitimate, illegal, and recognized by exactly 0 nations on this planet earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has been proven and demonstrated and documented over and over and over and over and over on this very side, you stupid piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't proved jack shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Study history, you brainless douche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have, especially the history of the Civil War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly you have not, you ignorant douche.
Click to expand...

Clearly I have, you ignorant douche.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> The end of slavery was one of the eventual outcomes of the war. Odd that every other country that had slaves was able to ban slavery without killing a million of its own citizens...UK and France for example.
> 
> No you silly person; the Civil War was about $....as usual.
> 
> Make no mistake; that slavery was ended was a good thing and overdue. You must also be aware that the North DESTROYED the South's ECONOMY. No money for reparations.
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The North destroyed the South's economy because the South made war upon the North. Remember Fort Sumpter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  Lincoln made war on the South.  Ft Sumter was SC territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Complete and total lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did Lincoln invade Virginia?
> 
> Why yes he did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely and positively not. You cannot invade your own country. The criminal scum who tried to destroy our nation were eventually given a tiny fraction of what they deserve the punishment. You are a similar kind of scumbag fucking worthless dog and you deserve much worse, but again we will show forbearance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wasn't Lincoln's country, nimrod.  Lincoln, Grant and Sherman all deserved to be tried as war criminals.
Click to expand...

It was and is the United States of America.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was U.S. Federal Territory, and Lincoln defended it rightly on that basis. To think otherwise is to dismiss Federal authority altogether (which may be what you want to do).
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln deployed U.S. troops on U.S. soil to suppress a regional rebellion, in strict compliance with his Oath of Office.
> 
> No nation on earth ever recognized a sovereign nation calling itself _"The Confederate States of America." _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wasn't U.S. soil, nimrod.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By every legal and historical measure it was, douche.
Click to expand...

Nope.


----------



## TW2020

Any teacher that teaches the war was because of slavery should be hung for treason..


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> The end of slavery was one of the eventual outcomes of the war. Odd that every other country that had slaves was able to ban slavery without killing a million of its own citizens...UK and France for example.
> 
> No you silly person; the Civil War was about $....as usual.
> 
> Make no mistake; that slavery was ended was a good thing and overdue. You must also be aware that the North DESTROYED the South's ECONOMY. No money for reparations.
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The North destroyed the South's economy because the South made war upon the North. Remember Fort Sumpter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  Lincoln made war on the South.  Ft Sumter was SC territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Complete and total lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did Lincoln invade Virginia?
> 
> Why yes he did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely and positively not. You cannot invade your own country. The criminal scum who tried to destroy our nation were eventually given a tiny fraction of what they deserve the punishment. You are a similar kind of scumbag fucking worthless dog and you deserve much worse, but again we will show forbearance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wasn't Lincoln's country, nimrod.  Lincoln, Grant and Sherman all deserved to be tried as war criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was and is the United States of America.
Click to expand...

Nope.


----------



## kaz

TrumpSucks said:


> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?



You don't understand the difference between a means and an end.  "Slavery" wasn't an end.    It was a means to support their economy.  It was evil, but it wasn't an end.   Think about it. They didn't want slaves just to own slaves.   The North was industrial and population was growing and the South was losing its economic engine.

Also, ending slavery wasn't the objective for the North.   Lincoln said if he could end the war and end slavery, he could do it.   If he could end the war and keep slavery, he would do that.

Since the North was focused on subjugating the South and the South was focused on their economic survival, to say the war was only over slavery is obviously wrong.

The North could have demanded the South release their slaves to go to the North and then they could leave, but they didn't offer that


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't a war between the states?
> 
> View attachment 462175
> They've been lying to us in school all those years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A civil war is defined as "a war between citizens of the same country." Seems plain enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Southerners were not citizens of the Unites States after they seceded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they were. The so-called secession was illegitimate, illegal, and recognized by exactly 0 nations on this planet earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has been proven and demonstrated and documented over and over and over and over and over on this very side, you stupid piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't proved jack shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Study history, you brainless douche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have, especially the history of the Civil War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly you have not, you ignorant douche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly I have.....
Click to expand...


Despite zero evidence of any education training or experience in the area. You’re just another idiot with one of those things that everybody has.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was U.S. Federal Territory, and Lincoln defended it rightly on that basis. To think otherwise is to dismiss Federal authority altogether (which may be what you want to do).
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln deployed U.S. troops on U.S. soil to suppress a regional rebellion, in strict compliance with his Oath of Office.
> 
> No nation on earth ever recognized a sovereign nation calling itself _"The Confederate States of America." _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wasn't U.S. soil, nimrod.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By every legal and historical measure it was, douche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.
Click to expand...

Go back to school, brainless.


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't a war between the states?
> 
> View attachment 462175
> They've been lying to us in school all those years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A civil war is defined as "a war between citizens of the same country." Seems plain enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Southerners were not citizens of the Unites States after they seceded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they were. The so-called secession was illegitimate, illegal, and recognized by exactly 0 nations on this planet earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has been proven and demonstrated and documented over and over and over and over and over on this very side, you stupid piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't proved jack shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Study history, you brainless douche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have, especially the history of the Civil War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly you have not, you ignorant douche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly I have.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Despite zero evidence of any education training or experience in the area. You’re just another idiot with one of those things that everybody has.
Click to expand...


The United States was founded on the principle that legitimate government is based on the people recognizing the government as legitimate.

When you say people who were trying to fight a war to leave cannot leave, maybe you can claim they are still subjects of our government, but our government was no longer legitimate by it's own founding documents.

Did you read that part of history?


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was U.S. Federal Territory, and Lincoln defended it rightly on that basis. To think otherwise is to dismiss Federal authority altogether (which may be what you want to do).
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln deployed U.S. troops on U.S. soil to suppress a regional rebellion, in strict compliance with his Oath of Office.
> 
> No nation on earth ever recognized a sovereign nation calling itself _"The Confederate States of America." _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wasn't U.S. soil, nimrod.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By every legal and historical measure it was, douche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go back to school, brainless.
Click to expand...


And unless you're admitting that you're claiming our government was then based on power without legitimacy, you go back and take some history with him


----------



## Unkotare

kaz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't a war between the states?
> 
> View attachment 462175
> They've been lying to us in school all those years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A civil war is defined as "a war between citizens of the same country." Seems plain enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Southerners were not citizens of the Unites States after they seceded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they were. The so-called secession was illegitimate, illegal, and recognized by exactly 0 nations on this planet earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has been proven and demonstrated and documented over and over and over and over and over on this very side, you stupid piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't proved jack shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Study history, you brainless douche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have, especially the history of the Civil War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly you have not, you ignorant douche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly I have.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Despite zero evidence of any education training or experience in the area. You’re just another idiot with one of those things that everybody has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The United States was founded on the principle that legitimate government is based on the people recognizing the government as legitimate.
> 
> When you say people who were trying to fight a war to leave cannot leave, maybe you can claim they are still subjects of our government, but our government was no longer legitimate by it's own founding documents.
> 
> Did you read that part of history?
Click to expand...


If every citizen of the so-called confederate states shared a desire to leave the union, you might have a tiny fraction of an argument to build upon, but they did not and you do not. The traitorous rebels were illegal and illegitimate in every way. They were punished to a tiny fraction of what they deserved, just as assholes today who take up their evil cause  will be let off the hook for far too easily.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

there4eyeM said:


> Your illustration only underlines what the quoted post tries to say. Attacking symbols looks dramatic, but what does it bring of substance? We still have "rightists" like the Nazis. And who defeated Germany? Stalin? There's a big advance for you!


And yet, your ilk does NOTHING but attack symbols.


----------



## rightwinger

TheGreenHornet said:


> initforme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some try to say slavery was not so bad.   Uhhhh, would you work for no wages under the threat of being beaten.  The more I research the more angry I become at the repugnant anti Christian slave owners and I'm as white as it gets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The slaves were provided with all the necessities and very few were whipped....and never to the extent many think.   Slaves were very valuable property and no sane person would do anything harmful to his property.
> 
> The Slaves did know if they misbehaved or refused to work they would be subjected to disciplinary actions.
> 
> Also....many if not most slaves were allowed to have a patch of ground to grow their own produce ....which they could sell or use for barter purposes.
> 
> Fort the most part Slavery in the Southern U.S.  was very humane.
> 
> Even after the slaves were freed most remained on the same plantation under a system known as share-cropping.
> 
> When you read the memoirs of former slaves you see many if not most had very fond memories of life on the old plantation....and of their former mastahs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lowery, Irving E, b. 1850. "Life on the Old Plantation in Ante-bellum Days ..."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> docsouth.unc.edu
Click to expand...

You left off the part where they were singing and dancing because they were so happy


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't a war between the states?
> 
> View attachment 462175
> They've been lying to us in school all those years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A civil war is defined as "a war between citizens of the same country." Seems plain enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Southerners were not citizens of the Unites States after they seceded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they were. The so-called secession was illegitimate, illegal, and recognized by exactly 0 nations on this planet earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has been proven and demonstrated and documented over and over and over and over and over on this very side, you stupid piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't proved jack shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Study history, you brainless douche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have, especially the history of the Civil War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly you have not, you ignorant douche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly I have.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Despite zero evidence of any education training or experience in the area. You’re just another idiot with one of those things that everybody has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The United States was founded on the principle that legitimate government is based on the people recognizing the government as legitimate.
> 
> When you say people who were trying to fight a war to leave cannot leave, maybe you can claim they are still subjects of our government, but our government was no longer legitimate by it's own founding documents.
> 
> Did you read that part of history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If every citizen of the so-called confederate states shared a desire to leave the union, you might have a tiny fraction of an argument to build upon, but they did not and you do not. The traitorous rebels were illegal and illegitimate in every way. They were punished to a tiny fraction of what they deserved, just as assholes today who take up their evil cause  will be let off the hook for far too easily.
Click to expand...


LOL, so you're seriously a history teacher and you don't grasp the role of CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED in our country or the founding documents.

Can you get your money back from whatever school gave you a degree without educating you?

Go back to school, you don't know whit about what you are teaching.

Consent of the governed to you is a "shred" of a point.  And you're a history teacher.  Just wow.

Then you follow that up with they were evil and that justifies forcing them to stay in the United States, because they were evil.    Your arguments get dumber and dumber


----------



## kaz

gtopa1 said:


> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> The end of slavery was one of the eventual outcomes of the war. Odd that every other country that had slaves was able to ban slavery without killing a million of its own citizens...UK and France for example
Click to expand...


What uninsightful examples.   The Brits particularly who as a military power brought most of our slaves here to begin with


----------



## kaz

rightwinger said:


> TheGreenHornet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> initforme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some try to say slavery was not so bad.   Uhhhh, would you work for no wages under the threat of being beaten.  The more I research the more angry I become at the repugnant anti Christian slave owners and I'm as white as it gets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The slaves were provided with all the necessities and very few were whipped....and never to the extent many think.   Slaves were very valuable property and no sane person would do anything harmful to his property.
> 
> The Slaves did know if they misbehaved or refused to work they would be subjected to disciplinary actions.
> 
> Also....many if not most slaves were allowed to have a patch of ground to grow their own produce ....which they could sell or use for barter purposes.
> 
> Fort the most part Slavery in the Southern U.S.  was very humane.
> 
> Even after the slaves were freed most remained on the same plantation under a system known as share-cropping.
> 
> When you read the memoirs of former slaves you see many if not most had very fond memories of life on the old plantation....and of their former mastahs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lowery, Irving E, b. 1850. "Life on the Old Plantation in Ante-bellum Days ..."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> docsouth.unc.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You left off the part where they were singing and dancing because they were so happy
Click to expand...


It's it funny how slavery is your goal


----------



## there4eyeM

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your illustration only underlines what the quoted post tries to say. Attacking symbols looks dramatic, but what does it bring of substance? We still have "rightists" like the Nazis. And who defeated Germany? Stalin? There's a big advance for you!
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, your ilk does NOTHING but attack symbols.
Click to expand...

"My" what?


----------



## fncceo

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't a war between the states?
> 
> View attachment 462175
> They've been lying to us in school all those years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A civil war is defined as "a war between citizens of the same country." Seems plain enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Southerners were not citizens of the Unites States after they seceded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they were. The so-called secession was illegitimate, illegal, and recognized by exactly 0 nations on this planet earth.
Click to expand...


Both Great Britain and France traded with The Confederacy for arms and other supplies.


----------



## TW2020

Doesn’t the green new deal reinstate slavery? If Democrats control your energy they control you


----------



## there4eyeM

As people do not fall up, there is no reason to discuss what to do if it happens..
Joining something in perpetuity means not leaving it. The group would not discuss how to leave.


----------



## Unkotare

fncceo said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't a war between the states?
> 
> View attachment 462175
> They've been lying to us in school all those years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A civil war is defined as "a war between citizens of the same country." Seems plain enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Southerners were not citizens of the Unites States after they seceded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they were. The so-called secession was illegitimate, illegal, and recognized by exactly 0 nations on this planet earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both Great Britain and France traded with The Confederacy for arms and other supplies.
Click to expand...


The Union naval blockade put a stop to that in short order. Both Britain and France refused to recognize the so-called confederacy as an independent state. Britain refused to be scammed into buying cotton from the idiot 'confederates' at inflated prices.


----------



## Unkotare

kaz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't a war between the states?
> 
> View attachment 462175
> They've been lying to us in school all those years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A civil war is defined as "a war between citizens of the same country." Seems plain enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Southerners were not citizens of the Unites States after they seceded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they were. The so-called secession was illegitimate, illegal, and recognized by exactly 0 nations on this planet earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has been proven and demonstrated and documented over and over and over and over and over on this very side, you stupid piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't proved jack shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Study history, you brainless douche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have, especially the history of the Civil War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly you have not, you ignorant douche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly I have.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Despite zero evidence of any education training or experience in the area. You’re just another idiot with one of those things that everybody has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The United States was founded on the principle that legitimate government is based on the people recognizing the government as legitimate.
> 
> When you say people who were trying to fight a war to leave cannot leave, maybe you can claim they are still subjects of our government, but our government was no longer legitimate by it's own founding documents.
> 
> Did you read that part of history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If every citizen of the so-called confederate states shared a desire to leave the union, you might have a tiny fraction of an argument to build upon, but they did not and you do not. The traitorous rebels were illegal and illegitimate in every way. They were punished to a tiny fraction of what they deserved, just as assholes today who take up their evil cause  will be let off the hook for far too easily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, so you're seriously a history teacher and you don't grasp the role of CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED in our country or the founding documents.
> ......
Click to expand...


Consent of who? EVERY state that allegedly joined the so-called confederacy had armed regiments within the states actively fighting against the treason of the rebel dogs. EVERY one.


----------



## Unkotare

kaz said:


> ....
> 
> Then you follow that up with they were evil and that justifies forcing them to stay in the United States, because they were evil.    Your arguments get dumber and dumber



When those idiots occupied part of downtown Seattle this past summer, did you advocate for recognizing CHOP as an independent nation, shitforbrains?


----------



## fncceo

Unkotare said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't a war between the states?
> 
> View attachment 462175
> They've been lying to us in school all those years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A civil war is defined as "a war between citizens of the same country." Seems plain enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Southerners were not citizens of the Unites States after they seceded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they were. The so-called secession was illegitimate, illegal, and recognized by exactly 0 nations on this planet earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both Great Britain and France traded with The Confederacy for arms and other supplies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Union naval blockade put a stop to that in short order. Both Britain and France refused to recognize the so-called confederacy as an independent state. Britain refused to be scammed into buying cotton from the idiot 'confederates' at inflated prices.
Click to expand...


Leading to the re-birth of Egyptian cotton industry.


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't a war between the states?
> 
> View attachment 462175
> They've been lying to us in school all those years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A civil war is defined as "a war between citizens of the same country." Seems plain enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Southerners were not citizens of the Unites States after they seceded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they were. The so-called secession was illegitimate, illegal, and recognized by exactly 0 nations on this planet earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has been proven and demonstrated and documented over and over and over and over and over on this very side, you stupid piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't proved jack shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Study history, you brainless douche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have, especially the history of the Civil War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly you have not, you ignorant douche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly I have.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Despite zero evidence of any education training or experience in the area. You’re just another idiot with one of those things that everybody has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The United States was founded on the principle that legitimate government is based on the people recognizing the government as legitimate.
> 
> When you say people who were trying to fight a war to leave cannot leave, maybe you can claim they are still subjects of our government, but our government was no longer legitimate by it's own founding documents.
> 
> Did you read that part of history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If every citizen of the so-called confederate states shared a desire to leave the union, you might have a tiny fraction of an argument to build upon, but they did not and you do not. The traitorous rebels were illegal and illegitimate in every way. They were punished to a tiny fraction of what they deserved, just as assholes today who take up their evil cause  will be let off the hook for far too easily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, so you're seriously a history teacher and you don't grasp the role of CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED in our country or the founding documents.
> ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Consent of who? EVERY state that allegedly joined the so-called confederacy had armed regiments within the states actively fighting against the treason of the rebel dogs. EVERY one.
Click to expand...


OMG, you're a government history teacher, aren't you?

That's just sad.

So tell me, you actually believe that the funding fathers meant that others can consent on your behalf.   Your great, great grandparents consent is binding on you.

You actually believe that.  And you're a history teacher.

I can't believe you just said that.  Government teachers, what a way to rot the brains of your children


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> Then you follow that up with they were evil and that justifies forcing them to stay in the United States, because they were evil.    Your arguments get dumber and dumber
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When those idiots occupied part of downtown Seattle this past summer, did you advocate for recognizing CHOP as an independent nation, shitforbrains?
Click to expand...


CHOP = State.  They are equivalent.

You seriously just made that argument.

You're seriously a danger to the children in your class.    Quit your job tomorrow if you care about your students at all.

Have you ever read a history book?


----------



## AZrailwhale

Jets said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was one of the main causes of the civil war. However, it was not the sole one.
> 
> 
> 
> Name a specific other one please?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apologies, that should have read”slavery was the main cause, not the sole one”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem I have is that all the other causes you are I would be willing to name will all boil down to slavery. War never ever breaks out over one particular reason. The US civil war has probably one of the most straightforward root causes in history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was the point I was trying to make, as you correctly stated,war does not break out over one particular reason. The issues may all connect to one main one, but it does not mean they are all one and the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they all connect to the same one the other reasons aren't all that relevant and for the purpose of revisionism distracting at the least and dishonest at worst.
> 
> I usually appluad nuance I really do but to often in this narrative its used as a justification for starting a war in order to preserve something that was recognised as reprehensible even at that time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand that, but not everyone is attempting to revise history by acknowledging nuances. When someone states “The civil war was all about slavery”, that isn’t painting the entire picture.  Not saying it’s incorrect, just not complete.
Click to expand...

It's certainly not complete, there were both economic and political reasons for the South to secede.  Prior to the ACW, the South controlled the Federal government and was an economic powerhouse that provided a very large percentage of US exports.  That was rapidly changing due to immigration into the free states and the industrialization of the North.  Power was shifting North and the leaders of the southern states wanted to stop it.


----------



## kaz

AZrailwhale said:


> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was one of the main causes of the civil war. However, it was not the sole one.
> 
> 
> 
> Name a specific other one please?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apologies, that should have read”slavery was the main cause, not the sole one”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem I have is that all the other causes you are I would be willing to name will all boil down to slavery. War never ever breaks out over one particular reason. The US civil war has probably one of the most straightforward root causes in history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was the point I was trying to make, as you correctly stated,war does not break out over one particular reason. The issues may all connect to one main one, but it does not mean they are all one and the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they all connect to the same one the other reasons aren't all that relevant and for the purpose of revisionism distracting at the least and dishonest at worst.
> 
> I usually appluad nuance I really do but to often in this narrative its used as a justification for starting a war in order to preserve something that was recognised as reprehensible even at that time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand that, but not everyone is attempting to revise history by acknowledging nuances. When someone states “The civil war was all about slavery”, that isn’t painting the entire picture.  Not saying it’s incorrect, just not complete.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's certainly not complete, there were both economic and political reasons for the South to secede.  Prior to the ACW, the South controlled the Federal government and was an economic powerhouse that provided a very large percentage of US exports.  That was rapidly changing due to immigration into the free states and the industrialization of the North.  Power was shifting North and the leaders of the southern states wanted to stop it.
Click to expand...


The motto of the North was "Save the Union"


----------



## AZrailwhale

TheGreenHornet said:


> The North does not get to redefine, in the middle of the war, its reason for going to war. What the North proclaimed in the _beginning,_ stands, as its reason for going to war -- and it is unchangeable. War measures halfway through the war, such as the Emancipation Proclamation that freed no slaves (and prevented close to a million slaves from achieving their freedom), have nothing to do with why the North went to war in the first place.
> 
> 
> There would have been no American slavery without black tribal chieftains in Africa, and British and Yankee slave traders.
> 
> The reason the South gets all the blame is because of a half-century of political correctness in which only one side of the story has been told because, if you tell the Southern side, even in a scholarly manner, you open yourself up to charges of being a racist and member of the KKK who wishes we still had slavery.
> Esteemed historian, Eugene D. Genovese, writes:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To speak positively about any part of this Southern tradition is to invite charges of being a racist and an apologist for slavery and segregation. *We are witnessing a cultural and political atrocity *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> an increasingly successful campaign by the media and an academic elite to strip young white Southerners, and arguably black Southerners as well, of their heritage, and therefore, their identity. They are being taught to forget their forebears or to remember them with shame.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The North Did Not Go to War to End Slavery - "Everyone should do all in his power to collect and disseminate the truth, in hope that it may find a place in history and descend to posterity."-Robert E. Lee - Southern History and American History Books
> 
> 
> The North Did Not Go to War to End Slavery by Gene Kizer, Jr. If they had, they would have started by passing a constitution amendment abolishing slavery. They did the opposite. They overwhelmingly passed the Corwin Amendment, which left black people in slavery forever, even beyond the reach of...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.charlestonathenaeumpress.com
Click to expand...

You are forgetting the Muslims who were the slave traders who bought black slaves from the tribal chieftains and resold them to the English, Spanish, Dutch, American and French merchants who transported them across the oceans and resold them again.  The same Muslims also held white and black slaves of their own in far worse conditions than any new world slave was held.


----------



## forkup

AZrailwhale said:


> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was one of the main causes of the civil war. However, it was not the sole one.
> 
> 
> 
> Name a specific other one please?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apologies, that should have read”slavery was the main cause, not the sole one”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem I have is that all the other causes you are I would be willing to name will all boil down to slavery. War never ever breaks out over one particular reason. The US civil war has probably one of the most straightforward root causes in history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was the point I was trying to make, as you correctly stated,war does not break out over one particular reason. The issues may all connect to one main one, but it does not mean they are all one and the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they all connect to the same one the other reasons aren't all that relevant and for the purpose of revisionism distracting at the least and dishonest at worst.
> 
> I usually appluad nuance I really do but to often in this narrative its used as a justification for starting a war in order to preserve something that was recognised as reprehensible even at that time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand that, but not everyone is attempting to revise history by acknowledging nuances. When someone states “The civil war was all about slavery”, that isn’t painting the entire picture.  Not saying it’s incorrect, just not complete.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's certainly not complete, there were both economic and political reasons for the South to secede.  Prior to the ACW, the South controlled the Federal government and was an economic powerhouse that provided a very large percentage of US exports.  That was rapidly changing due to immigration into the free states and the industrialization of the North.  Power was shifting North and the leaders of the southern states wanted to stop it.
Click to expand...

The souths economic power was rooted in slavery and the "export" you were talking about was cotton harvested by slaves. The interesting thing is that so many of those pushing the narrative of the civil war wasn't about slavery all just give euphemisms in an attempt I assume to not use the actual word slavery.


----------



## AZrailwhale

initforme said:


> Some try to say slavery was not so bad.   Uhhhh, would you work for no wages under the threat of being beaten.  The more I research the more angry I become at the repugnant anti Christian slave owners and I'm as white as it gets.


Slavery was AND IS an evil.  Some slaves were treated humanely, others weren't, but as far as I know slaves had no legal protections from bad owners.  In the  eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. most slaves were black.  The was due to the diseases common to the new world, prior to that most slaves were white.  Before the settlement of the new world there was little commercial slavery in sub-Saharan Africa.


----------



## AZrailwhale

forkup said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was one of the main causes of the civil war. However, it was not the sole one.
> 
> 
> 
> Name a specific other one please?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apologies, that should have read”slavery was the main cause, not the sole one”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem I have is that all the other causes you are I would be willing to name will all boil down to slavery. War never ever breaks out over one particular reason. The US civil war has probably one of the most straightforward root causes in history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was the point I was trying to make, as you correctly stated,war does not break out over one particular reason. The issues may all connect to one main one, but it does not mean they are all one and the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they all connect to the same one the other reasons aren't all that relevant and for the purpose of revisionism distracting at the least and dishonest at worst.
> 
> I usually appluad nuance I really do but to often in this narrative its used as a justification for starting a war in order to preserve something that was recognised as reprehensible even at that time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand that, but not everyone is attempting to revise history by acknowledging nuances. When someone states “The civil war was all about slavery”, that isn’t painting the entire picture.  Not saying it’s incorrect, just not complete.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's certainly not complete, there were both economic and political reasons for the South to secede.  Prior to the ACW, the South controlled the Federal government and was an economic powerhouse that provided a very large percentage of US exports.  That was rapidly changing due to immigration into the free states and the industrialization of the North.  Power was shifting North and the leaders of the southern states wanted to stop it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The souths economic power was rooted in slavery and the "export" you were talking about was cotton harvested by slaves. The interesting thing is that so many of those pushing the narrative of the civil war wasn't about slavery all just give euphemisms in an attempt I assume to not use the actual word slavery.
Click to expand...

You are right, that's why the Confederacy was willing to fight a war to protect it's "peculiar institution".


----------



## kaz

forkup said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was one of the main causes of the civil war. However, it was not the sole one.
> 
> 
> 
> Name a specific other one please?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apologies, that should have read”slavery was the main cause, not the sole one”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem I have is that all the other causes you are I would be willing to name will all boil down to slavery. War never ever breaks out over one particular reason. The US civil war has probably one of the most straightforward root causes in history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was the point I was trying to make, as you correctly stated,war does not break out over one particular reason. The issues may all connect to one main one, but it does not mean they are all one and the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they all connect to the same one the other reasons aren't all that relevant and for the purpose of revisionism distracting at the least and dishonest at worst.
> 
> I usually appluad nuance I really do but to often in this narrative its used as a justification for starting a war in order to preserve something that was recognised as reprehensible even at that time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand that, but not everyone is attempting to revise history by acknowledging nuances. When someone states “The civil war was all about slavery”, that isn’t painting the entire picture.  Not saying it’s incorrect, just not complete.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's certainly not complete, there were both economic and political reasons for the South to secede.  Prior to the ACW, the South controlled the Federal government and was an economic powerhouse that provided a very large percentage of US exports.  That was rapidly changing due to immigration into the free states and the industrialization of the North.  Power was shifting North and the leaders of the southern states wanted to stop it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The souths economic power was rooted in slavery and the "export" you were talking about was cotton harvested by slaves. The interesting thing is that so many of those pushing the narrative of the civil war wasn't about slavery all just give euphemisms in an attempt I assume to not use the actual word slavery.
Click to expand...


The North clearly wasn't fighting over slavery, there's no way you can make the argument that they were.   They even said they weren't, they were fighting to "Save the Union" and Lincoln said he would do that regardless of ending slavery.

Yes, slavery was interlaced in the South, but again, they didn't want slavery for slavery's sake.  They wanted it for economic sake.    Slavery was a means to an end, it wasn't the objective.  So to call it the reason the south went to war falls under scrutiny.  They were fighting because of economics


----------



## AZrailwhale

fncceo said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't a war between the states?
> 
> View attachment 462175
> They've been lying to us in school all those years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A civil war is defined as "a war between citizens of the same country." Seems plain enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Southerners were not citizens of the Unites States after they seceded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they were. The so-called secession was illegitimate, illegal, and recognized by exactly 0 nations on this planet earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both Great Britain and France traded with The Confederacy for arms and other supplies.
Click to expand...

Neither government recognized the Confederacy.  The UK sort of walked a fine line treating Confederate emissaries as ambassadors without recognizing them.  Private citizens in the UK traded with the Confederacy for profit and some highly placed governmental officials turned a blind eye.  That's why shipyards could build warships for the Confederacy despite American protests, no proof that the American officials could produce was deemed sufficient by British courts or politicians to stop the process until late in the war the British were building actual ironclads and calling them merchant ships since they weren't armed while in British waters.  Even that barely squeeked by as proof in British courts.


----------



## forkup

kaz said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was one of the main causes of the civil war. However, it was not the sole one.
> 
> 
> 
> Name a specific other one please?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apologies, that should have read”slavery was the main cause, not the sole one”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem I have is that all the other causes you are I would be willing to name will all boil down to slavery. War never ever breaks out over one particular reason. The US civil war has probably one of the most straightforward root causes in history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was the point I was trying to make, as you correctly stated,war does not break out over one particular reason. The issues may all connect to one main one, but it does not mean they are all one and the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they all connect to the same one the other reasons aren't all that relevant and for the purpose of revisionism distracting at the least and dishonest at worst.
> 
> I usually appluad nuance I really do but to often in this narrative its used as a justification for starting a war in order to preserve something that was recognised as reprehensible even at that time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand that, but not everyone is attempting to revise history by acknowledging nuances. When someone states “The civil war was all about slavery”, that isn’t painting the entire picture.  Not saying it’s incorrect, just not complete.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's certainly not complete, there were both economic and political reasons for the South to secede.  Prior to the ACW, the South controlled the Federal government and was an economic powerhouse that provided a very large percentage of US exports.  That was rapidly changing due to immigration into the free states and the industrialization of the North.  Power was shifting North and the leaders of the southern states wanted to stop it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The souths economic power was rooted in slavery and the "export" you were talking about was cotton harvested by slaves. The interesting thing is that so many of those pushing the narrative of the civil war wasn't about slavery all just give euphemisms in an attempt I assume to not use the actual word slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The North clearly wasn't fighting over slavery, there's no way you can make the argument that they were.   They even said they weren't, they were fighting to "Save the Union" and Lincoln said he would do that regardless of ending slavery.
> 
> Yes, slavery was interlaced in the South, but again, they didn't want slavery for slavery's sake.  They wanted it for economic sake.    Slavery was a means to an end, it wasn't the objective.  So to call it the reason the south went to war falls under scrutiny.  They were fighting because of economics
Click to expand...

As I said before in this OP. "It's about money is so generic it doesn't explain anything."Everybody dies when their brain stops functioning. It doesn't matter if the person dies of a heart attack or is beheaded. It does a bad job of explaining. So does the economic angle.

The South seceded because they felt Lincoln would take the slaves away. The South fired the shots that started the civil war. Without the issue of slavery, neither thing would have happened. The stated goal of the North at the time was irrelevant (although I could easily argue that slavery was the OVERRIDING social issue in both North and South well before actual hostilities)

It's kind of like saying that WW2 broke out because of Britain and France issuing an ultimatum to Germany over the invasion of Poland. It skips a few steps in the narrative to come to that conclusion don't you think.


----------



## Unkotare

fncceo said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't a war between the states?
> 
> View attachment 462175
> They've been lying to us in school all those years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A civil war is defined as "a war between citizens of the same country." Seems plain enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Southerners were not citizens of the Unites States after they seceded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they were. The so-called secession was illegitimate, illegal, and recognized by exactly 0 nations on this planet earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both Great Britain and France traded with The Confederacy for arms and other supplies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Union naval blockade put a stop to that in short order. Both Britain and France refused to recognize the so-called confederacy as an independent state. Britain refused to be scammed into buying cotton from the idiot 'confederates' at inflated prices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Leading to the re-birth of Egyptian cotton industry.
Click to expand...


Made some money in Brazil and India as well. Dumbass 'confederates' burned a year's cotton harvest thinking they'd have the British over the barrel. Idiots.


----------



## Unkotare

kaz said:


> .....
> 
> So tell me, you actually believe that the funding fathers [sic] meant that others can consent on your behalf.   ......



The "funding fathers," Professor?   Did they manage a mutual fund? 

Tell me Professor, did every individual in every state ratify the Constitution?

Do you even know what "EVERY state that allegedly joined the so-called confederacy had armed regiments within the states actively fighting against the treason of the rebel dogs" means?


----------



## Unkotare

kaz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> Then you follow that up with they were evil and that justifies forcing them to stay in the United States, because they were evil.    Your arguments get dumber and dumber
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When those idiots occupied part of downtown Seattle this past summer, did you advocate for recognizing CHOP as an independent nation, shitforbrains?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> CHOP = State.  They are equivalent.
> 
> You seriously just made that argument.
> ......
Click to expand...


I asked you a question. You ducked it.


----------



## Unkotare

kaz said:


> ......there's no way you can make the argument ......



That's a typical democrat approach to discussion. Hmmmmmmmm......


----------



## Unkotare

kaz said:


> .....
> 
> Have you ever read a history book?



More than you have read any kind of book in your life.


----------



## schmidlap

bripat9643 said:


> It wasn't U.S. soil, nimrod.


You appear to be very confused, Buttercup.

All states in which Lincoln deployed United States troops to preserve the union were part of the United States. Lincoln was elected President of the nation that then consisted of 33 states and 10 organized territories.

There was no other sovereign nation involved.


----------



## there4eyeM

Ah, the antebellum South, where anyone with enough slaves to provide him a good living could have a harem of women he could do anything with. What an epoch!


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't a war between the states?
> 
> View attachment 462175
> They've been lying to us in school all those years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A civil war is defined as "a war between citizens of the same country." Seems plain enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Southerners were not citizens of the Unites States after they seceded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they were. The so-called secession was illegitimate, illegal, and recognized by exactly 0 nations on this planet earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has been proven and demonstrated and documented over and over and over and over and over on this very side, you stupid piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't proved jack shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Study history, you brainless douche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have, especially the history of the Civil War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly you have not, you ignorant douche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly I have.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Despite zero evidence of any education training or experience in the area. You’re just another idiot with one of those things that everybody has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The United States was founded on the principle that legitimate government is based on the people recognizing the government as legitimate.
> 
> When you say people who were trying to fight a war to leave cannot leave, maybe you can claim they are still subjects of our government, but our government was no longer legitimate by it's own founding documents.
> 
> Did you read that part of history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If every citizen of the so-called confederate states shared a desire to leave the union, you might have a tiny fraction of an argument to build upon, but they did not and you do not. The traitorous rebels were illegal and illegitimate in every way. They were punished to a tiny fraction of what they deserved, just as assholes today who take up their evil cause  will be let off the hook for far too easily.
Click to expand...

Sorry turd, but the government you currently live under doesn't exist as a result of unanimous consent, so why is that required to leave this malformed union?


----------



## bripat9643

schmidlap said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't U.S. soil, nimrod.
> 
> 
> 
> You appear to be very confused, Buttercup.
> 
> All states in which Lincoln deployed United States troops to preserve the union were part of the United States. Lincoln was elected President of the nation that then consisted of 33 states and 10 organized territories.
> 
> There was no other sovereign nation involved.
Click to expand...

No they weren't, shit for brains.  You're spouting Union propaganda that was jammed into your skull in a federally funded brainwashing mill.


----------



## whitehall

It's ironic that the same people who deny the murder of Jews during WW2 also deny evidence of pillage, arson and murder of innocent Southern civilians at the hands of Union generals like Sherman, Sheridan, (beast) Butler and (black dave) Hunter


----------



## bripat9643

schm
[QUOTE="schmidlap said:


> Lincoln deployed U.S. troops on U.S. soil to suppress a regional rebellion, in strict compliance with his Oath of Office.
> 
> No nation on earth ever recognized a sovereign nation calling itself _"The Confederate States of America." _


Wrong again.  That's Union propaganda.  The federal government has been brainwashing turds like you for 150 years to swallow that horseshit,


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't a war between the states?
> 
> View attachment 462175
> They've been lying to us in school all those years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A civil war is defined as "a war between citizens of the same country." Seems plain enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Southerners were not citizens of the Unites States after they seceded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they were. The so-called secession was illegitimate, illegal, and recognized by exactly 0 nations on this planet earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has been proven and demonstrated and documented over and over and over and over and over on this very side, you stupid piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't proved jack shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Study history, you brainless douche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have, especially the history of the Civil War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly you have not, you ignorant douche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly I have.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Despite zero evidence of any education training or experience in the area. You’re just another idiot with one of those things that everybody has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The United States was founded on the principle that legitimate government is based on the people recognizing the government as legitimate.
> 
> When you say people who were trying to fight a war to leave cannot leave, maybe you can claim they are still subjects of our government, but our government was no longer legitimate by it's own founding documents.
> 
> Did you read that part of history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If every citizen of the so-called confederate states shared a desire to leave the union, you might have a tiny fraction of an argument to build upon, but they did not and you do not. The traitorous rebels were illegal and illegitimate in every way. They were punished to a tiny fraction of what they deserved, just as assholes today who take up their evil cause  will be let off the hook for far too easily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry turd, but the government you currently live under doesn't exist as a result of unanimous consent, so why is that required to leave this malformed union?
Click to expand...


You, personally, can GTFO any time you want.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't a war between the states?
> 
> View attachment 462175
> They've been lying to us in school all those years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A civil war is defined as "a war between citizens of the same country." Seems plain enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Southerners were not citizens of the Unites States after they seceded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they were. The so-called secession was illegitimate, illegal, and recognized by exactly 0 nations on this planet earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has been proven and demonstrated and documented over and over and over and over and over on this very side, you stupid piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't proved jack shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Study history, you brainless douche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have, especially the history of the Civil War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly you have not, you ignorant douche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly I have.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Despite zero evidence of any education training or experience in the area. You’re just another idiot with one of those things that everybody has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The United States was founded on the principle that legitimate government is based on the people recognizing the government as legitimate.
> 
> When you say people who were trying to fight a war to leave cannot leave, maybe you can claim they are still subjects of our government, but our government was no longer legitimate by it's own founding documents.
> 
> Did you read that part of history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If every citizen of the so-called confederate states shared a desire to leave the union, you might have a tiny fraction of an argument to build upon, but they did not and you do not. The traitorous rebels were illegal and illegitimate in every way. They were punished to a tiny fraction of what they deserved, just as assholes today who take up their evil cause  will be let off the hook for far too easily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry turd, but the government you currently live under doesn't exist as a result of unanimous consent, so why is that required to leave this malformed union?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You, personally, can GTFO any time you want.
Click to expand...

After you, shit for brains.


----------



## Unkotare

Texas v. White | law case
					

Texas v. White,   (1869), U.S. Supreme Court case in which it was held that the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede. In 1850 the state of Texas received $10,000,000 in federal government bonds in settlement of boundary claims. In 1861 the state seceded from...



					www.britannica.com


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't a war between the states?
> 
> View attachment 462175
> They've been lying to us in school all those years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A civil war is defined as "a war between citizens of the same country." Seems plain enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Southerners were not citizens of the Unites States after they seceded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they were. The so-called secession was illegitimate, illegal, and recognized by exactly 0 nations on this planet earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has been proven and demonstrated and documented over and over and over and over and over on this very side, you stupid piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't proved jack shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Study history, you brainless douche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have, especially the history of the Civil War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly you have not, you ignorant douche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly I have.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Despite zero evidence of any education training or experience in the area. You’re just another idiot with one of those things that everybody has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The United States was founded on the principle that legitimate government is based on the people recognizing the government as legitimate.
> 
> When you say people who were trying to fight a war to leave cannot leave, maybe you can claim they are still subjects of our government, but our government was no longer legitimate by it's own founding documents.
> 
> Did you read that part of history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If every citizen of the so-called confederate states shared a desire to leave the union, you might have a tiny fraction of an argument to build upon, but they did not and you do not. The traitorous rebels were illegal and illegitimate in every way. They were punished to a tiny fraction of what they deserved, just as assholes today who take up their evil cause  will be let off the hook for far too easily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry turd, but the government you currently live under doesn't exist as a result of unanimous consent, so why is that required to leave this malformed union?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You, personally, can GTFO any time you want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> After you, shit for brains.
Click to expand...


You are the one who hates America, you are the one who denounced his citizenship on this very site.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't a war between the states?
> 
> View attachment 462175
> They've been lying to us in school all those years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A civil war is defined as "a war between citizens of the same country." Seems plain enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Southerners were not citizens of the Unites States after they seceded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they were. The so-called secession was illegitimate, illegal, and recognized by exactly 0 nations on this planet earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both Great Britain and France traded with The Confederacy for arms and other supplies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Union naval blockade put a stop to that in short order. Both Britain and France refused to recognize the so-called confederacy as an independent state. Britain refused to be scammed into buying cotton from the idiot 'confederates' at inflated prices.
Click to expand...

So if we put up a blockade around Mexico and threatened any country that objected, then Mexico would become legitimate U.S territory.  

Is that what you're saying?


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't a war between the states?
> 
> View attachment 462175
> They've been lying to us in school all those years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A civil war is defined as "a war between citizens of the same country." Seems plain enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Southerners were not citizens of the Unites States after they seceded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they were. The so-called secession was illegitimate, illegal, and recognized by exactly 0 nations on this planet earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has been proven and demonstrated and documented over and over and over and over and over on this very side, you stupid piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't proved jack shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Study history, you brainless douche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have, especially the history of the Civil War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly you have not, you ignorant douche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly I have.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Despite zero evidence of any education training or experience in the area. You’re just another idiot with one of those things that everybody has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The United States was founded on the principle that legitimate government is based on the people recognizing the government as legitimate.
> 
> When you say people who were trying to fight a war to leave cannot leave, maybe you can claim they are still subjects of our government, but our government was no longer legitimate by it's own founding documents.
> 
> Did you read that part of history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If every citizen of the so-called confederate states shared a desire to leave the union, you might have a tiny fraction of an argument to build upon, but they did not and you do not. The traitorous rebels were illegal and illegitimate in every way. They were punished to a tiny fraction of what they deserved, just as assholes today who take up their evil cause  will be let off the hook for far too easily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry turd, but the government you currently live under doesn't exist as a result of unanimous consent, so why is that required to leave this malformed union?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You, personally, can GTFO any time you want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> After you, shit for brains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who hates America, you are the one who denounced his citizenship on this very site.
Click to expand...

We all know you're lying, turd.  

For your information, I hate all government on this planet.  The American government is only slightly better than most of the rest.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> Texas v. White | law case
> 
> 
> Texas v. White,   (1869), U.S. Supreme Court case in which it was held that the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede. In 1850 the state of Texas received $10,000,000 in federal government bonds in settlement of boundary claims. In 1861 the state seceded from...
> 
> 
> 
> www.britannica.com


That court was staffed by Lincoln appointees, moron.  That decision was about as legitimate as the court's refusal to any cases about election fraud.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't a war between the states?
> 
> View attachment 462175
> They've been lying to us in school all those years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A civil war is defined as "a war between citizens of the same country." Seems plain enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Southerners were not citizens of the Unites States after they seceded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they were. The so-called secession was illegitimate, illegal, and recognized by exactly 0 nations on this planet earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both Great Britain and France traded with The Confederacy for arms and other supplies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Union naval blockade put a stop to that in short order. Both Britain and France refused to recognize the so-called confederacy as an independent state. Britain refused to be scammed into buying cotton from the idiot 'confederates' at inflated prices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if we put up a blockade around Mexico and threatened any country that objected, then Mexico would become legitimate U.S territory.
> 
> Is that what you're saying?
Click to expand...


Mexico is not part of the United States, brainless.


----------



## bripat9643

AZrailwhale said:


> initforme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some try to say slavery was not so bad.   Uhhhh, would you work for no wages under the threat of being beaten.  The more I research the more angry I become at the repugnant anti Christian slave owners and I'm as white as it gets.
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was AND IS an evil.  Some slaves were treated humanely, others weren't, but as far as I know slaves had no legal protections from bad owners.  In the  eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. most slaves were black.  The was due to the diseases common to the new world, prior to that most slaves were white.  Before the settlement of the new world there was little commercial slavery in sub-Saharan Africa.
Click to expand...

That isn't true.  There has been chattel slavery in Africa for 1000 years.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't a war between the states?
> 
> View attachment 462175
> They've been lying to us in school all those years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A civil war is defined as "a war between citizens of the same country." Seems plain enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Southerners were not citizens of the Unites States after they seceded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they were. The so-called secession was illegitimate, illegal, and recognized by exactly 0 nations on this planet earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has been proven and demonstrated and documented over and over and over and over and over on this very side, you stupid piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't proved jack shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Study history, you brainless douche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have, especially the history of the Civil War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly you have not, you ignorant douche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly I have.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Despite zero evidence of any education training or experience in the area. You’re just another idiot with one of those things that everybody has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The United States was founded on the principle that legitimate government is based on the people recognizing the government as legitimate.
> 
> When you say people who were trying to fight a war to leave cannot leave, maybe you can claim they are still subjects of our government, but our government was no longer legitimate by it's own founding documents.
> 
> Did you read that part of history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If every citizen of the so-called confederate states shared a desire to leave the union, you might have a tiny fraction of an argument to build upon, but they did not and you do not. The traitorous rebels were illegal and illegitimate in every way. They were punished to a tiny fraction of what they deserved, just as assholes today who take up their evil cause  will be let off the hook for far too easily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry turd, but the government you currently live under doesn't exist as a result of unanimous consent, so why is that required to leave this malformed union?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You, personally, can GTFO any time you want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> After you, shit for brains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who hates America, you are the one who denounced his citizenship on this very site.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We all know you're lying....
> .....
Click to expand...


What lie?


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't a war between the states?
> 
> View attachment 462175
> They've been lying to us in school all those years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A civil war is defined as "a war between citizens of the same country." Seems plain enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Southerners were not citizens of the Unites States after they seceded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they were. The so-called secession was illegitimate, illegal, and recognized by exactly 0 nations on this planet earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both Great Britain and France traded with The Confederacy for arms and other supplies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Union naval blockade put a stop to that in short order. Both Britain and France refused to recognize the so-called confederacy as an independent state. Britain refused to be scammed into buying cotton from the idiot 'confederates' at inflated prices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if we put up a blockade around Mexico and threatened any country that objected, then Mexico would become legitimate U.S territory.
> 
> Is that what you're saying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mexico is not part of the United States, brainless.
Click to expand...

According to you all that is required to change that is to stop if from trading with other nations.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> .....
> That court was staffed by Lincoln appointees,.....



Is the current Supreme Court illegitimate because President Trump appointed several justices?


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't a war between the states?
> 
> View attachment 462175
> They've been lying to us in school all those years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A civil war is defined as "a war between citizens of the same country." Seems plain enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Southerners were not citizens of the Unites States after they seceded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they were. The so-called secession was illegitimate, illegal, and recognized by exactly 0 nations on this planet earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both Great Britain and France traded with The Confederacy for arms and other supplies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Union naval blockade put a stop to that in short order. Both Britain and France refused to recognize the so-called confederacy as an independent state. Britain refused to be scammed into buying cotton from the idiot 'confederates' at inflated prices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if we put up a blockade around Mexico and threatened any country that objected, then Mexico would become legitimate U.S territory.
> 
> Is that what you're saying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mexico is not part of the United States, brainless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to you all that is required to change that is to stop if from trading with other nations.
Click to expand...


I said nothing of the sort, dumbass.


----------



## fncceo

Unkotare said:


> Mexico is not part of the United States,



A huge chunk of the US used to belong to Mexico.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> .....For your information, I hate all government on this planet.  .....



Typical wannabe anarchist hypocrite. YOU wouldn't last a day in a state of nature. You need government, you love government, you depend on government for every pointless day of your life.


----------



## Unkotare

fncceo said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mexico is not part of the United States,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A huge chunk of the US used to belong to Mexico.
Click to expand...


Bought and paid for.


----------



## fncceo

Unkotare said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mexico is not part of the United States,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A huge chunk of the US used to belong to Mexico.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bought and paid for.
Click to expand...


Mmmmmmmmm... Mexico might disagree.  

The Gadsden Purchase was basically just a couple of suburbs of Tuscon.


----------



## whitehall

Lincoln would have gone down in history as one of the most inept presidents if he wasn't assassinated and turned into a saint. Old Abe had a few months after he was elected to offer some compromise to the radicals in the South who advocated secession but he was apparently consumed with personal problems and an incompetent staff of advisers who thought a Civil War would barely last a summer. Once Lincoln unleashed a drunk as commanding general and an insane (terrible swift sword of God) general Sherman and had the support of media historians, the civilians in the South were doomed.


----------



## Indeependent

TrumpSucks said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews in Europe were not uneducated and sold by their parents into slavery.
> The Jews ran businesses and were doing quite well.
> Germany actually admitted such and has been giving reparations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't understand what you mean by your post. "The Jews in Europe were not uneducated..." OK, that means that the Jews WERE educated. You go on to state, "...and sold by their parents into slavery." Now, do you mean that they were NOT sold by their parents into slavery? Because the first part of your sentence is predicated on "not" so it would imply that "not" would apply to the second part of your sentence as well. But one could also interpret your sentence to mean that Jews were sold into slavery by their parents. Which is it?
Click to expand...

Here's how to read...
Unlike the uneducated, starving Black Africans, the Jews in Europe were educated, lived for their children and didn't have to sell their kids to make money.


----------



## Bezukhov

Quasar44 said:


> Abe was a tyrant who violated the constitution and had 700,000 innocent folks killed
> I prefer Washington and Jefferson


Lincoln sure was a tyrant. Only the most despicable and evil of tyrants would deny to Good, White Christian Southerners all the pleasures and profits that comes from tyrannizing Black people.


----------



## Bezukhov




----------



## AZrailwhale

bripat9643 said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> initforme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some try to say slavery was not so bad.   Uhhhh, would you work for no wages under the threat of being beaten.  The more I research the more angry I become at the repugnant anti Christian slave owners and I'm as white as it gets.
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was AND IS an evil.  Some slaves were treated humanely, others weren't, but as far as I know slaves had no legal protections from bad owners.  In the  eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. most slaves were black.  The was due to the diseases common to the new world, prior to that most slaves were white.  Before the settlement of the new world there was little commercial slavery in sub-Saharan Africa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That isn't true.  There has been chattel slavery in Africa for 1000 years.
Click to expand...

I said COMMERCIAL slavery.  As far as I know there was no slave trade there until the Muslims came along to buy slaves.  Before that slaves were war captives who worked until they died.


----------



## bripat9643

Bezukhov said:


> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abe was a tyrant who violated the constitution and had 700,000 innocent folks killed
> I prefer Washington and Jefferson
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln sure was a tyrant. Only the most despicable and evil of tyrants would deny to Good, White Christian Southerners all the pleasures and profits that comes from tyrannizing Black people.
Click to expand...

Lincoln killed 850,000 people, you fucking moron.  How does anyone belittle an atrocity of that magnitude?  Next you'll be cracking jokes about the Holocaust.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....For your information, I hate all government on this planet.  .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical wannabe anarchist hypocrite. YOU wouldn't last a day in a state of nature. You need government, you love government, you depend on government for every pointless day of your life.
Click to expand...

We don't need government.  That's a statist myth.


----------



## gipper

whitehall said:


> Lincoln would have gone down in history as one of the most inept presidents if he wasn't assassinated and turned into a saint. Old Abe had a few months after he was elected to offer some compromise to the radicals in the South who advocated secession but he was apparently consumed with personal problems and an incompetent staff of advisers who thought a Civil War would barely last a summer. Once Lincoln unleashed a drunk as commanding general and an insane (terrible swift sword of God) general Sherman and had the support of media historians, the civilians in the South were doomed.





Unkotare said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mexico is not part of the United States,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A huge chunk of the US used to belong to Mexico.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bought and paid for.
Click to expand...

Lol. Stolen via a ginned up war.  Typical US imperialism.

Hey hypocrite, how do you reconcile your admiration for the tyrannical mass murderer Dishonest Abe, but your hatred for FDR?


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....For your information, I hate all government on this planet.  .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical wannabe anarchist hypocrite. YOU wouldn't last a day in a state of nature. You need government, you love government, you depend on government for every pointless day of your life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't need government.  ...
Click to expand...


YOU wouldn't last a day.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> ...
> Lincoln killed 850,000 people......




Idiotic, ignorant LIE.


----------



## whitehall

Tiresome cliches by a hundred years of Lincoln excusers claim that "Lincoln saved the Union" when in fact the Union fell apart under Lincoln's watch. Criminal generals hired by Lincoln would have been hanged for war crimes committed under their command if it wasn't for the fawning media that supported atrocities committed against the South.


----------



## gipper

whitehall said:


> Tiresome cliches by a hundred years of Lincoln excusers claim that "Lincoln saved the Union" when in fact the Union fell apart under Lincoln's watch. Criminal generals hired by Lincoln would have been hanged for war crimes committed under their command if it wasn't for the fawning media that supported atrocities committed against the South.


So right. What Lincoln did was destroy the Union. He turned it into the tyranny we suffer under today.


----------



## Unkotare

fncceo said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mexico is not part of the United States,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A huge chunk of the US used to belong to Mexico.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bought and paid for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mmmmmmmmm... Mexico might disagree.
> 
> .......
Click to expand...


They can disagree all they want, it doesn’t change the fact.


----------



## fncceo

Unkotare said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mexico is not part of the United States,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A huge chunk of the US used to belong to Mexico.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bought and paid for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mmmmmmmmm... Mexico might disagree.
> 
> .......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They can disagree all they want, it doesn’t change the fact.
Click to expand...


Well, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ended the Mexican-American War in 1848, ceded about half a million square miles of Mexican Territory to the US.  The Gadsden Purchase, in 1853, only paid for 30,000 square miles.  We got 460,000 square miles for free by force of arms.

I'm not saying we give it back, but ... legally speaking ... I think we have to cede the point that it wasn't bought and paid for.


----------



## Unkotare

fncceo said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mexico is not part of the United States,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A huge chunk of the US used to belong to Mexico.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bought and paid for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mmmmmmmmm... Mexico might disagree.
> 
> .......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They can disagree all they want, it doesn’t change the fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ended the Mexican-American War in 1848, ceded about half a million square miles of Mexican Territory to the US.  The Gadsden Purchase, in 1853, only paid for 30,000 square miles.  We got 460,000 square miles for free by force of arms.
> 
> I'm not saying we give it back, but ... legally speaking ... I think we have to cede the point that it wasn't bought and paid for.
Click to expand...


"For free"? Mexico started the war, and signed the treaty that ended it.


----------



## fncceo

Unkotare said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mexico is not part of the United States,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A huge chunk of the US used to belong to Mexico.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bought and paid for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mmmmmmmmm... Mexico might disagree.
> 
> .......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They can disagree all they want, it doesn’t change the fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ended the Mexican-American War in 1848, ceded about half a million square miles of Mexican Territory to the US.  The Gadsden Purchase, in 1853, only paid for 30,000 square miles.  We got 460,000 square miles for free by force of arms.
> 
> I'm not saying we give it back, but ... legally speaking ... I think we have to cede the point that it wasn't bought and paid for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "For free"? Mexico started the war, and signed the treaty that ended it.
Click to expand...


Well .... you say that...

*Thornton Affair*


----------



## Unkotare

fncceo said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mexico is not part of the United States,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A huge chunk of the US used to belong to Mexico.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bought and paid for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mmmmmmmmm... Mexico might disagree.
> 
> .......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They can disagree all they want, it doesn’t change the fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ended the Mexican-American War in 1848, ceded about half a million square miles of Mexican Territory to the US.  The Gadsden Purchase, in 1853, only paid for 30,000 square miles.  We got 460,000 square miles for free by force of arms.
> 
> I'm not saying we give it back, but ... legally speaking ... I think we have to cede the point that it wasn't bought and paid for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "For free"? Mexico started the war, and signed the treaty that ended it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well .... you say that...
> 
> *Thornton Affair*
Click to expand...


"American blood was shed on American soil."


----------



## fncceo

Unkotare said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mexico is not part of the United States,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A huge chunk of the US used to belong to Mexico.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bought and paid for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mmmmmmmmm... Mexico might disagree.
> 
> .......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They can disagree all they want, it doesn’t change the fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ended the Mexican-American War in 1848, ceded about half a million square miles of Mexican Territory to the US.  The Gadsden Purchase, in 1853, only paid for 30,000 square miles.  We got 460,000 square miles for free by force of arms.
> 
> I'm not saying we give it back, but ... legally speaking ... I think we have to cede the point that it wasn't bought and paid for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "For free"? Mexico started the war, and signed the treaty that ended it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well .... you say that...
> 
> *Thornton Affair*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "American blood was shed on American soil."
Click to expand...


After several military incursions into Mexican soil.  Look, I'm not saying we should be giving 1/3 of the US back to Mexico.

Lest we not forget, the Texican Revolution was basically illegal immigrants entering Mexican Territory and setting up shop.  Texicans were holding slaves in the Mexican Republic where slavery had already been abolished.

We weren't exactly the white knights (metaphorically speaking) in this historical incident.  I mean, it's OK, it's not like Mexico was going to use all that land anyway.


----------



## there4eyeM

Unkotare said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mexico is not part of the United States,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A huge chunk of the US used to belong to Mexico.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bought and paid for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mmmmmmmmm... Mexico might disagree.
> 
> .......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They can disagree all they want, it doesn’t change the fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ended the Mexican-American War in 1848, ceded about half a million square miles of Mexican Territory to the US.  The Gadsden Purchase, in 1853, only paid for 30,000 square miles.  We got 460,000 square miles for free by force of arms.
> 
> I'm not saying we give it back, but ... legally speaking ... I think we have to cede the point that it wasn't bought and paid for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "For free"? Mexico started the war, and signed the treaty that ended it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well .... you say that...
> 
> *Thornton Affair*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "American blood was shed on American soil."
Click to expand...

Uh...that is open to question. What actually happened may have been closer to the "Gulf of Tonkin incident" or the Iraq invasion, in that, shall we call them exaggerations, served as an excuse for obscure intentions. Or, as some see it, lies were told so that objectives could be attained.


----------



## Unkotare

fncceo said:


> ... I mean, it's OK, it's not like Mexico was going to use all that land anyway.



Mexico wasn't using that land, or even exercising governance over it. That's why people had been just wandering in there and setting up shop for decades before any of this.


----------



## there4eyeM

Mexico was immersed in corruption and internal power seeking. Those in command deserved failure; the Mexican people did not. That is history and its lessons repeat all too frequently.


----------



## Meathead

forkup said:


> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was one of the main causes of the civil war. However, it was not the sole one.
> 
> 
> 
> Name a specific other one please?
Click to expand...

Tariffs. The agrarian South wanted to sell its produce on the world markets. The North, which was building its own textile industry wanted the cotton which was much in demand, especially Britain.

If you have any interests in history educate yourself:








						Protective Tariffs: The Primary Cause of the Civil War
					

Many Americans do not fully understand the causes of the Civil War.




					www.marottaonmoney.com


----------



## there4eyeM

Meathead said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was one of the main causes of the civil war. However, it was not the sole one.
> 
> 
> 
> Name a specific other one please?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tariffs. The agrarian South wanted to sell its produce on the world markets. The North, which was building its own textile industry wanted the cotton which was much in demand, especially Britain.
> 
> If you have any interests in history educate yourself:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Protective Tariffs: The Primary Cause of the Civil War
> 
> 
> Many Americans do not fully understand the causes of the Civil War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.marottaonmoney.com
Click to expand...

This still comes down to slave produced wealth. The "south" sold overseas, but bought little from there. This caused an imbalance of trade those foreign nations could not sustain. The "north" could not absorb foreign goods and, at the same time, maintain its production of wealth. Slavery was the pillar of one side in this equation. It cannot be separated out. We may desire to exclude that it was sympathy for slaves that motivated the 'north', but it cannot be excluded that the 'south' was addicted to the practice and that it was destined to end despite the will of the 'south'.


----------



## AFrench2

It was indeed about Slavery. Good topic.


----------



## Bezukhov

Meathead said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was one of the main causes of the civil war. However, it was not the sole one.
> 
> 
> 
> Name a specific other one please?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tariffs. The agrarian South wanted to sell its produce on the world markets. The North, which was building its own textile industry wanted the cotton which was much in demand, especially Britain.
> 
> If you have any interests in history educate yourself:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Protective Tariffs: The Primary Cause of the Civil War
> 
> 
> Many Americans do not fully understand the causes of the Civil War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.marottaonmoney.com
Click to expand...

Tariffs weren't mentioned once:








						The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
					

The Declaration of Causes made by Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas.




					www.battlefields.org


----------



## schmidlap

bripat9643 said:


> No they weren't, shit for brains.  You're spouting Union propaganda that was jammed into your skull in a federally funded brainwashing mill.


Sorry, Daffodil, but the irrefutable facts won't change no matter how pissy your tantrum:

1) All states in which Lincoln deployed United States troops to preserve the union were part of the United States.​Lincoln was elected President of the nation that then consisted of the 33 states and 10 organized territories.​​2) There was no other sovereign nation involved.​​Sputter all you must, you cannot conjure up credible documentation to refute either.


----------



## schmidlap

bripat9643 said:


> Wrong again.  That's Union propaganda.  The federal government has been brainwashing turds like you for 150 years to swallow that horseshit,



It's obvious, Primrose, that you don't like the facts, but have nothing to challenge them:

Lincoln deployed U.S. troops on U.S. soil to suppress a regional rebellion, in strict compliance with his Oath of Office.​​No nation on earth ever recognized a sovereign nation calling itself _"The Confederate States of America."_​


----------



## Unkotare

there4eyeM said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mexico is not part of the United States,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A huge chunk of the US used to belong to Mexico.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bought and paid for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mmmmmmmmm... Mexico might disagree.
> 
> .......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They can disagree all they want, it doesn’t change the fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ended the Mexican-American War in 1848, ceded about half a million square miles of Mexican Territory to the US.  The Gadsden Purchase, in 1853, only paid for 30,000 square miles.  We got 460,000 square miles for free by force of arms.
> 
> I'm not saying we give it back, but ... legally speaking ... I think we have to cede the point that it wasn't bought and paid for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "For free"? Mexico started the war, and signed the treaty that ended it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well .... you say that...
> 
> *Thornton Affair*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "American blood was shed on American soil."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh...that is open to question. What actually happened may have been closer to the "Gulf of Tonkin incident" or the Iraq invasion, in that, shall we call them exaggerations, served as an excuse for obscure intentions. Or, as some see it, lies were told so that objectives could be attained.
Click to expand...


If they were stupid enough to get played into throwing the first punch, they still threw it.


----------



## there4eyeM

[/QUOTE]
"American blood was shed on American soil."
[/QUOTE]
Uh...that is open to question. What actually happened may have been closer to the "Gulf of Tonkin incident" or the Iraq invasion, in that, shall we call them exaggerations, served as an excuse for obscure intentions. Or, as some see it, lies were told so that objectives could be attained.
[/QUOTE]

If they were stupid enough to get played into throwing the first punch, they still threw it.
[/QUOTE]
"...Polk, who campaigned that Texas should be “re-annexed” and that the Oregon Territory should be “re-occupied.” Polk also had his eyes on California, New Mexico and the rest of what is today the U.S. Southwest. When his offer to purchase those lands was rejected, he instigated a fight by moving troops into a disputed zone between the Rio Grande and Nueces River that both countries had previously recognized as part of the Mexican state of Coahuila." Mexican-American War


----------



## Unkotare

"American blood was shed on American soil."
[/QUOTE]
Uh...that is open to question. What actually happened may have been closer to the "Gulf of Tonkin incident" or the Iraq invasion, in that, shall we call them exaggerations, served as an excuse for obscure intentions. Or, as some see it, lies were told so that objectives could be attained.
[/QUOTE]

If they were stupid enough to get played into throwing the first punch, they still threw it.
[/QUOTE]
"...Polk, who campaigned that Texas should be “re-annexed” and that the Oregon Territory should be “re-occupied.” Polk also had his eyes on California, New Mexico and the rest of what is today the U.S. Southwest. When his offer to purchase those lands was rejected, he instigated a fight by moving troops into a disputed zone between the Rio Grande and Nueces River that both countries had previously recognized as part of the Mexican state of Coahuila." Mexican-American War
[/QUOTE]

And if Mexico (still butt-hurt at losing Texas to independence) had claimed the border was at the Colorado River, would you still be trying so hard to play advocate?


----------



## there4eyeM

Unkotare said:


> "American blood was shed on American soil."


Uh...that is open to question. What actually happened may have been closer to the "Gulf of Tonkin incident" or the Iraq invasion, in that, shall we call them exaggerations, served as an excuse for obscure intentions. Or, as some see it, lies were told so that objectives could be attained.
[/QUOTE]

If they were stupid enough to get played into throwing the first punch, they still threw it.
[/QUOTE]
"...Polk, who campaigned that Texas should be “re-annexed” and that the Oregon Territory should be “re-occupied.” Polk also had his eyes on California, New Mexico and the rest of what is today the U.S. Southwest. When his offer to purchase those lands was rejected, he instigated a fight by moving troops into a disputed zone between the Rio Grande and Nueces River that both countries had previously recognized as part of the Mexican state of Coahuila." Mexican-American War
[/QUOTE]

And if Mexico (still butt-hurt at losing Texas to independence) had claimed the border was at the Colorado River, would you still be trying so hard to play advocate?
[/QUOTE]
" both countries had previously recognized as part of the Mexican state "
Presenting historical fact is advocating what?


----------



## Unkotare

there4eyeM said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "American blood was shed on American soil."
> 
> 
> 
> Uh...that is open to question. What actually happened may have been closer to the "Gulf of Tonkin incident" or the Iraq invasion, in that, shall we call them exaggerations, served as an excuse for obscure intentions. Or, as some see it, lies were told so that objectives could be attained.
Click to expand...


If they were stupid enough to get played into throwing the first punch, they still threw it.
[/QUOTE]
"...Polk, who campaigned that Texas should be “re-annexed” and that the Oregon Territory should be “re-occupied.” Polk also had his eyes on California, New Mexico and the rest of what is today the U.S. Southwest. When his offer to purchase those lands was rejected, he instigated a fight by moving troops into a disputed zone between the Rio Grande and Nueces River that both countries had previously recognized as part of the Mexican state of Coahuila." Mexican-American War
[/QUOTE]

And if Mexico (still butt-hurt at losing Texas to independence) had claimed the border was at the Colorado River, would you still be trying so hard to play advocate?
[/QUOTE]
" both countries had previously recognized as part of the Mexican state "
Presenting historical fact is advocating what?
[/QUOTE]

Texas won the right to determine where the border was when they won their independence. You seem to be advocating on behalf of Mexico as victim when they were only victim of their own stupidity, if anything.


----------



## there4eyeM

Unkotare said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "American blood was shed on American soil."
> 
> 
> 
> Uh...that is open to question. What actually happened may have been closer to the "Gulf of Tonkin incident" or the Iraq invasion, in that, shall we call them exaggerations, served as an excuse for obscure intentions. Or, as some see it, lies were told so that objectives could be attained.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they were stupid enough to get played into throwing the first punch, they still threw it.
Click to expand...

"...Polk, who campaigned that Texas should be “re-annexed” and that the Oregon Territory should be “re-occupied.” Polk also had his eyes on California, New Mexico and the rest of what is today the U.S. Southwest. When his offer to purchase those lands was rejected, he instigated a fight by moving troops into a disputed zone between the Rio Grande and Nueces River that both countries had previously recognized as part of the Mexican state of Coahuila." Mexican-American War
[/QUOTE]

And if Mexico (still butt-hurt at losing Texas to independence) had claimed the border was at the Colorado River, would you still be trying so hard to play advocate?
[/QUOTE]
" both countries had previously recognized as part of the Mexican state "
Presenting historical fact is advocating what?
[/QUOTE]

Texas won the right to determine where the border was when they won their independence. You seem to be advocating on behalf of Mexico as victim when they were only victim of their own stupidity, if anything.
[/QUOTE]
Not at all. It is very surprising you interpret it this way.


----------



## Unkotare

there4eyeM said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "American blood was shed on American soil."
> 
> 
> 
> Uh...that is open to question. What actually happened may have been closer to the "Gulf of Tonkin incident" or the Iraq invasion, in that, shall we call them exaggerations, served as an excuse for obscure intentions. Or, as some see it, lies were told so that objectives could be attained.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they were stupid enough to get played into throwing the first punch, they still threw it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "...Polk, who campaigned that Texas should be “re-annexed” and that the Oregon Territory should be “re-occupied.” Polk also had his eyes on California, New Mexico and the rest of what is today the U.S. Southwest. When his offer to purchase those lands was rejected, he instigated a fight by moving troops into a disputed zone between the Rio Grande and Nueces River that both countries had previously recognized as part of the Mexican state of Coahuila." Mexican-American War
Click to expand...


And if Mexico (still butt-hurt at losing Texas to independence) had claimed the border was at the Colorado River, would you still be trying so hard to play advocate?
[/QUOTE]
" both countries had previously recognized as part of the Mexican state "
Presenting historical fact is advocating what?
[/QUOTE]

Texas won the right to determine where the border was when they won their independence. You seem to be advocating on behalf of Mexico as victim when they were only victim of their own stupidity, if anything.
[/QUOTE]
Not at all. It is very surprising you interpret it this way.
[/QUOTE]

Your loyalties are evident.


----------



## harmonica

TrumpSucks said:


> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?


..you prove you don't know shit about Civil War or WW2 history


----------



## there4eyeM

Unkotare said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "American blood was shed on American soil."
> 
> 
> 
> Uh...that is open to question. What actually happened may have been closer to the "Gulf of Tonkin incident" or the Iraq invasion, in that, shall we call them exaggerations, served as an excuse for obscure intentions. Or, as some see it, lies were told so that objectives could be attained.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they were stupid enough to get played into throwing the first punch, they still threw it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "...Polk, who campaigned that Texas should be “re-annexed” and that the Oregon Territory should be “re-occupied.” Polk also had his eyes on California, New Mexico and the rest of what is today the U.S. Southwest. When his offer to purchase those lands was rejected, he instigated a fight by moving troops into a disputed zone between the Rio Grande and Nueces River that both countries had previously recognized as part of the Mexican state of Coahuila." Mexican-American War
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if Mexico (still butt-hurt at losing Texas to independence) had claimed the border was at the Colorado River, would you still be trying so hard to play advocate?
Click to expand...

" both countries had previously recognized as part of the Mexican state "
Presenting historical fact is advocating what?
[/QUOTE]

Texas won the right to determine where the border was when they won their independence. You seem to be advocating on behalf of Mexico as victim when they were only victim of their own stupidity, if anything.
[/QUOTE]
Not at all. It is very surprising you interpret it this way.
[/QUOTE]

Your loyalties are evident.
[/QUOTE]
Your reasoning is not.


----------



## Meathead

Bezukhov said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was one of the main causes of the civil war. However, it was not the sole one.
> 
> 
> 
> Name a specific other one please?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tariffs. The agrarian South wanted to sell its produce on the world markets. The North, which was building its own textile industry wanted the cotton which was much in demand, especially Britain.
> 
> If you have any interests in history educate yourself:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Protective Tariffs: The Primary Cause of the Civil War
> 
> 
> Many Americans do not fully understand the causes of the Civil War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.marottaonmoney.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tariffs weren't mentioned once:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
> 
> 
> The Declaration of Causes made by Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.battlefields.org
Click to expand...

Read it again cupcake.


----------



## bripat9643

schmidlap said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  That's Union propaganda.  The federal government has been brainwashing turds like you for 150 years to swallow that horseshit,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's obvious, Primrose, that you don't like the facts, but have nothing to challenge them:
> 
> Lincoln deployed U.S. troops on U.S. soil to suppress a regional rebellion, in strict compliance with his Oath of Office.​​No nation on earth ever recognized a sovereign nation calling itself _"The Confederate States of America."_​
Click to expand...

Nope.  Itwasn't U.S. soil after the Confederate states seceded.  It doesn't matter how many times you lie about it.  That's just a fact.


----------



## bripat9643

schmidlap said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they weren't, shit for brains.  You're spouting Union propaganda that was jammed into your skull in a federally funded brainwashing mill.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, Daffodil, but the irrefutable facts won't change no matter how pissy your tantrum:
> 
> 1) All states in which Lincoln deployed United States troops to preserve the union were part of the United States.​Lincoln was elected President of the nation that then consisted of the 33 states and 10 organized territories.​
Click to expand...

​​Lie.​​

schmidlap said:


> 2) There was no other sovereign nation involved.


​Lie.​​


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mexico is not part of the United States,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A huge chunk of the US used to belong to Mexico.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bought and paid for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mmmmmmmmm... Mexico might disagree.
> 
> .......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They can disagree all they want, it doesn’t change the fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ended the Mexican-American War in 1848, ceded about half a million square miles of Mexican Territory to the US.  The Gadsden Purchase, in 1853, only paid for 30,000 square miles.  We got 460,000 square miles for free by force of arms.
> 
> I'm not saying we give it back, but ... legally speaking ... I think we have to cede the point that it wasn't bought and paid for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "For free"? Mexico started the war, and signed the treaty that ended it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well .... you say that...
> 
> *Thornton Affair*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "American blood was shed on American soil."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh...that is open to question. What actually happened may have been closer to the "Gulf of Tonkin incident" or the Iraq invasion, in that, shall we call them exaggerations, served as an excuse for obscure intentions. Or, as some see it, lies were told so that objectives could be attained.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they were stupid enough to get played into throwing the first punch, they still threw it.
Click to expand...

Wrong.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> Lincoln killed 850,000 people......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Idiotic, ignorant LIE.
Click to expand...

Irrefutable fact.


----------



## bripat9643

Learn how to use the quote feature, retard.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mexico is not part of the United States,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A huge chunk of the US used to belong to Mexico.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bought and paid for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mmmmmmmmm... Mexico might disagree.
> 
> .......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They can disagree all they want, it doesn’t change the fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ended the Mexican-American War in 1848, ceded about half a million square miles of Mexican Territory to the US.  The Gadsden Purchase, in 1853, only paid for 30,000 square miles.  We got 460,000 square miles for free by force of arms.
> 
> I'm not saying we give it back, but ... legally speaking ... I think we have to cede the point that it wasn't bought and paid for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "For free"? Mexico started the war, and signed the treaty that ended it.
Click to expand...

How did Mexico start the war?


----------



## Jets

Stating the cause of the Civil War was slavery is an oversimplification.

Stating the cause of the Civil War was not slavery is fallacious.


----------



## gipper

Jets said:


> Stating the cause of the Civil War was slavery is an oversimplification.
> 
> Stating the cause of the Civil War was not slavery is fallacious.


Well we know Abe wanted to ensconce slavery into the Constitution, if the South didn’t secede. We also know he intended to war on the South if they refused to abide by federal laws, like the recently passed Morrill Tariff that was passed without any southern votes. He made all this perfectly clear in his first inaugural speech.

He then set up events at Ft Sumter to invade the South.  So, what can we conclude from this?  There wouldn’t have been a war had Abe not invaded to impose the tariff. So from the aggressor’s point of view, the war wasn’t about slavery. It was about money.


----------



## schmidlap

bripat9643 said:


> Nope.  Itwasn't U.S. soil after the Confederate states seceded.  It doesn't matter how many times you lie about it.  That's just a fact.


You are clearly desperate, and have nothing to offer to support your pretense. The documented truth prevails.

Lincoln was legitimately elected President of the United States in 1860, of _all_ 33 states. 

He told the traitors who rejected the United States Constitution "_You have no oath registered in Heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to preserve, protect and defend it.” _

No sovereignty on earth ever recognized a self-proclaimed entity fancying itself "The Confederate States of America."

You can rage against that reality, but cannot refute it.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> ....  Itwasn't U.S. soil after the Confederate states seceded. .....



WRONG. Any bunch of scumbag fucking criminals can claim whatever they want, but that does not change AMERICAN sovereignty.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> Lincoln killed 850,000 people......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Idiotic, ignorant LIE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrefutable fact.
Click to expand...


Idiotic lie from a fucking loser playing the apologist to rebel dogs who were as anti-American as YOU are now, loser.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mexico is not part of the United States,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A huge chunk of the US used to belong to Mexico.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bought and paid for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mmmmmmmmm... Mexico might disagree.
> 
> .......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They can disagree all they want, it doesn’t change the fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ended the Mexican-American War in 1848, ceded about half a million square miles of Mexican Territory to the US.  The Gadsden Purchase, in 1853, only paid for 30,000 square miles.  We got 460,000 square miles for free by force of arms.
> 
> I'm not saying we give it back, but ... legally speaking ... I think we have to cede the point that it wasn't bought and paid for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "For free"? Mexico started the war, and signed the treaty that ended it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How did Mexico start the war?
Click to expand...


By killing American soldiers on American soil, you ignorant fool.


----------



## kaz

forkup said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was one of the main causes of the civil war. However, it was not the sole one.
> 
> 
> 
> Name a specific other one please?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apologies, that should have read”slavery was the main cause, not the sole one”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem I have is that all the other causes you are I would be willing to name will all boil down to slavery. War never ever breaks out over one particular reason. The US civil war has probably one of the most straightforward root causes in history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was the point I was trying to make, as you correctly stated,war does not break out over one particular reason. The issues may all connect to one main one, but it does not mean they are all one and the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they all connect to the same one the other reasons aren't all that relevant and for the purpose of revisionism distracting at the least and dishonest at worst.
> 
> I usually appluad nuance I really do but to often in this narrative its used as a justification for starting a war in order to preserve something that was recognised as reprehensible even at that time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand that, but not everyone is attempting to revise history by acknowledging nuances. When someone states “The civil war was all about slavery”, that isn’t painting the entire picture.  Not saying it’s incorrect, just not complete.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's certainly not complete, there were both economic and political reasons for the South to secede.  Prior to the ACW, the South controlled the Federal government and was an economic powerhouse that provided a very large percentage of US exports.  That was rapidly changing due to immigration into the free states and the industrialization of the North.  Power was shifting North and the leaders of the southern states wanted to stop it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The souths economic power was rooted in slavery and the "export" you were talking about was cotton harvested by slaves. The interesting thing is that so many of those pushing the narrative of the civil war wasn't about slavery all just give euphemisms in an attempt I assume to not use the actual word slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The North clearly wasn't fighting over slavery, there's no way you can make the argument that they were.   They even said they weren't, they were fighting to "Save the Union" and Lincoln said he would do that regardless of ending slavery.
> 
> Yes, slavery was interlaced in the South, but again, they didn't want slavery for slavery's sake.  They wanted it for economic sake.    Slavery was a means to an end, it wasn't the objective.  So to call it the reason the south went to war falls under scrutiny.  They were fighting because of economics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I said before in this OP. "It's about money is so generic it doesn't explain anything."Everybody dies when their brain stops functioning. It doesn't matter if the person dies of a heart attack or is beheaded. It does a bad job of explaining. So does the economic angle.
> 
> The South seceded because they felt Lincoln would take the slaves away. The South fired the shots that started the civil war. Without the issue of slavery, neither thing would have happened. The stated goal of the North at the time was irrelevant (although I could easily argue that slavery was the OVERRIDING social issue in both North and South well before actual hostilities)
> 
> It's kind of like saying that WW2 broke out because of Britain and France issuing an ultimatum to Germany over the invasion of Poland. It skips a few steps in the narrative to come to that conclusion don't you think.
Click to expand...


Well, again.  There is no possible way to argue the war was over slavery for the North except pure ignorance.  They were over keeping the South in the Union.  Hence their motto, "Save the Union."

And arguing it was over slavery for the South means slavery is an end, which it wasn't.   Sure, slavery was tied into the war, but they were driven by economics.   No one was saying I want to sit here and own slaves, owning slaves is my end goal.

You can try to spin all you want, but saying the war was "over slavery" doesn't stand up to logical scrutiny.  Particularly since it wasn't even related to the objective of one side, the North


----------



## schmidlap

gipper said:


> Well we know Abe wanted to ensconce slavery into the Constitution, if the South didn’t secede. We also know he intended to war on the South if they refused to abide by federal laws, like the recently passed Morrill Tariff that was passed without any southern votes. He made all this perfectly clear in his first inaugural speech.
> 
> He then set up events at Ft Sumter to invade the South.  So, what can we conclude from this?  There wouldn’t have been a war had Abe not invaded to impose the tariff. So from the aggressor’s point of view, the war wasn’t about slavery. It was about money.


In fact, those who were hellbent upon perpetuating slavery and extending the odious practice to new territories refused to recognize the legitimately-elected President of all 33 United States, and also rejected the Constitution of the United States.

They bombarded the United States military at Fort Sumter because it was a symbol of the nation, not because such an act of aggression had any strategic value. They thus commenced their  hostilities against the United States, and the President deployed the United States military on United States soil to fulfill his oath of office and preserve the union.

They specified _*"slavery"*_ in their Declarations of Causes.

A few examples:

*GEORGIA *_"The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. *For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery..."*_​​*MISSISSIPPI *_"*Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery*-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and *a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.* That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation..."_​​*SOUTH CAROLINA "*_... They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our *slaves* to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection... a war must be waged against *slavery* until it shall cease throughout the United States."_​​​​


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....
> 
> So tell me, you actually believe that the funding fathers [sic] meant that others can consent on your behalf.   ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "funding fathers," Professor?   Did they manage a mutual fund?
> 
> Tell me Professor, did every individual in every state ratify the Constitution?
> 
> Do you even know what "EVERY state that allegedly joined the so-called confederacy had armed regiments within the states actively fighting against the treason of the rebel dogs" means?
Click to expand...


Note you didn't answer the question.  Maybe it's dawning on you how stupid your argument was that someone can consent to be governed for you.

Even a basic knowledge of consent of the government would tell you that your own consent is not binding.  When you stop consenting, your consent it over. 

This is just basic American history for someone who claims to do what you do for a living.   Still, wow.   You slept through the American History part?


----------



## there4eyeM

Individuals were and are free to leave the Perpetual Union. Member states were and are not.


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> Then you follow that up with they were evil and that justifies forcing them to stay in the United States, because they were evil.    Your arguments get dumber and dumber
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When those idiots occupied part of downtown Seattle this past summer, did you advocate for recognizing CHOP as an independent nation, shitforbrains?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> CHOP = State.  They are equivalent.
> 
> You seriously just made that argument.
> ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked you a question. You ducked it.
Click to expand...


You ignored my question if you really believe others can consent for you, the argument you made.

We are talking about the US Federal government.     I'd just ask you what the "S" in "USA" stands for.  If you grasped what we were discussing, you would get the answer of what a STATE has to do with the United STATES of America.

On "CHOP," which FYI isn't a State, they stole the land, it wasn't theirs.  But let's ignore that too.  Let's say it was.   You didn't even make an argument or a point.   Suppose CHOP can withdraw from Washington.  What does that have to do with a State withdrawing from the United STATES?  Present a full argument, all you made is a snotty comment.

Well, kaz, if Washington can withdraw from the United States, what about CHOP?   What about it?   What is your argument even?


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ......there's no way you can make the argument ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a typical democrat approach to discussion. Hmmmmmmmm......
Click to expand...


Typical Democrat is how you deleted all the context around what I said so I have no clue to what you are referring to


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....
> 
> Have you ever read a history book?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More than you have read any kind of book in your life.
Click to expand...


And yet you don't know the basic principle of the American government, consent of the governed?    

That's just hard to believe when you claim to be a history teacher.  It's so basic to American history


----------



## gipper

schmidlap said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well we know Abe wanted to ensconce slavery into the Constitution, if the South didn’t secede. We also know he intended to war on the South if they refused to abide by federal laws, like the recently passed Morrill Tariff that was passed without any southern votes. He made all this perfectly clear in his first inaugural speech.
> 
> He then set up events at Ft Sumter to invade the South.  So, what can we conclude from this?  There wouldn’t have been a war had Abe not invaded to impose the tariff. So from the aggressor’s point of view, the war wasn’t about slavery. It was about money.
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, those who were hellbent upon perpetuating slavery and extending the odious practice to new territories refused to recognize the legitimately-elected President of all 33 United States, and also rejected the Constitution of the United States.
> 
> They bombarded the United States military at Fort Sumter because it was a symbol of the nation, not because such an act of aggression had any strategic value. They thus commenced their  hostilities against the United States, and the President deployed the United States military on United States soil to fulfill his oath of office and preserve the union.
> 
> They specified _*"slavery"*_ in their Declarations of Causes.
> 
> A few examples:
> 
> *GEORGIA *_"The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. *For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery..."*_​​*MISSISSIPPI *_"*Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery*-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and *a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.* That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation..."_​​*SOUTH CAROLINA "*_... They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our *slaves* to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection... a war must be waged against *slavery* until it shall cease throughout the United States."_​​​​
Click to expand...

My previous post addressed Dishonest Abe’s intentions. I did not address the Confederacy’s intentions. I agree...the South wanted to continue slavery, as did Dishonest Abe.

Abe was the aggressor. If he doesn’t invade, there is no war.

Have you considered that war could have been easily avoided, had Abe not been such a tyrant?  The entire western world eliminated slavery without bloodshed.


----------



## kaz

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't a war between the states?
> 
> View attachment 462175
> They've been lying to us in school all those years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A civil war is defined as "a war between citizens of the same country." Seems plain enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Southerners were not citizens of the Unites States after they seceded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they were. The so-called secession was illegitimate, illegal, and recognized by exactly 0 nations on this planet earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has been proven and demonstrated and documented over and over and over and over and over on this very side, you stupid piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't proved jack shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Study history, you brainless douche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have, especially the history of the Civil War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly you have not, you ignorant douche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly I have.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Despite zero evidence of any education training or experience in the area. You’re just another idiot with one of those things that everybody has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The United States was founded on the principle that legitimate government is based on the people recognizing the government as legitimate.
> 
> When you say people who were trying to fight a war to leave cannot leave, maybe you can claim they are still subjects of our government, but our government was no longer legitimate by it's own founding documents.
> 
> Did you read that part of history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If every citizen of the so-called confederate states shared a desire to leave the union, you might have a tiny fraction of an argument to build upon, but they did not and you do not. The traitorous rebels were illegal and illegitimate in every way. They were punished to a tiny fraction of what they deserved, just as assholes today who take up their evil cause  will be let off the hook for far too easily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry turd, but the government you currently live under doesn't exist as a result of unanimous consent, so why is that required to leave this malformed union?
Click to expand...


Even if we did have "unanimous" consent, Unkotore's argument was dumber than that.

1)  CHOP stole the land, it wasn't theirs

2)  We are talking about STATES in the United STATES of America.   He compared that to internal States, which is a different issue.   Clearly the CSA had consent of the Southern States, not the USA since they were outmanned, outgunned and still fought a hell of a war

3)  He clearly still doesn't even know what the founding fathers meant by consent of the governed.  I was just referring to what the founding fathers meant, I wasn't even discussing what it should mean


----------



## gipper

kaz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....
> 
> Have you ever read a history book?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More than you have read any kind of book in your life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet you don't know the basic principle of the American government, consent of the governed?
> 
> That's just hard to believe when you claim to be a history teacher.  It's so basic to American history
Click to expand...

He’s an idiot. So there’s that.


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't a war between the states?
> 
> View attachment 462175
> They've been lying to us in school all those years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A civil war is defined as "a war between citizens of the same country." Seems plain enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Southerners were not citizens of the Unites States after they seceded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they were. The so-called secession was illegitimate, illegal, and recognized by exactly 0 nations on this planet earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has been proven and demonstrated and documented over and over and over and over and over on this very side, you stupid piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't proved jack shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Study history, you brainless douche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have, especially the history of the Civil War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly you have not, you ignorant douche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly I have.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Despite zero evidence of any education training or experience in the area. You’re just another idiot with one of those things that everybody has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The United States was founded on the principle that legitimate government is based on the people recognizing the government as legitimate.
> 
> When you say people who were trying to fight a war to leave cannot leave, maybe you can claim they are still subjects of our government, but our government was no longer legitimate by it's own founding documents.
> 
> Did you read that part of history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If every citizen of the so-called confederate states shared a desire to leave the union, you might have a tiny fraction of an argument to build upon, but they did not and you do not. The traitorous rebels were illegal and illegitimate in every way. They were punished to a tiny fraction of what they deserved, just as assholes today who take up their evil cause  will be let off the hook for far too easily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry turd, but the government you currently live under doesn't exist as a result of unanimous consent, so why is that required to leave this malformed union?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You, personally, can GTFO any time you want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> After you, shit for brains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who hates America, you are the one who denounced his citizenship on this very site.
Click to expand...


Unkotare:   If you know what the founding fathers meant by consent of the governed, you "hate America."

You're one stupid fuck


----------



## gipper

kaz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't a war between the states?
> 
> View attachment 462175
> They've been lying to us in school all those years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A civil war is defined as "a war between citizens of the same country." Seems plain enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Southerners were not citizens of the Unites States after they seceded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they were. The so-called secession was illegitimate, illegal, and recognized by exactly 0 nations on this planet earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has been proven and demonstrated and documented over and over and over and over and over on this very side, you stupid piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't proved jack shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Study history, you brainless douche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have, especially the history of the Civil War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly you have not, you ignorant douche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly I have.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Despite zero evidence of any education training or experience in the area. You’re just another idiot with one of those things that everybody has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The United States was founded on the principle that legitimate government is based on the people recognizing the government as legitimate.
> 
> When you say people who were trying to fight a war to leave cannot leave, maybe you can claim they are still subjects of our government, but our government was no longer legitimate by it's own founding documents.
> 
> Did you read that part of history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If every citizen of the so-called confederate states shared a desire to leave the union, you might have a tiny fraction of an argument to build upon, but they did not and you do not. The traitorous rebels were illegal and illegitimate in every way. They were punished to a tiny fraction of what they deserved, just as assholes today who take up their evil cause  will be let off the hook for far too easily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry turd, but the government you currently live under doesn't exist as a result of unanimous consent, so why is that required to leave this malformed union?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You, personally, can GTFO any time you want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> After you, shit for brains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who hates America, you are the one who denounced his citizenship on this very site.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unkotare:   If you know what the founding fathers meant by consent of the governed, you "hate America."
> 
> You're one stupid fuck
Click to expand...

Love it. Best post of the day. 

The dipshit hates FDR for imprisoning Japanese Americans, but loves Dishonest Abe for mass murdering Americans. Fucking HYPOCRITE.


----------



## bripat9643

schmidlap said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Itwasn't U.S. soil after the Confederate states seceded.  It doesn't matter how many times you lie about it.  That's just a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> You are clearly desperate, and have nothing to offer to support your pretense. The documented truth prevails.
> 
> Lincoln was legitimately elected President of the United States in 1860, of _all_ 33 states.
> 
> He told the traitors who rejected the United States Constitution "_You have no oath registered in Heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to preserve, protect and defend it.” _
> 
> No sovereignty on earth ever recognized a self-proclaimed entity fancying itself "The Confederate States of America."
> 
> You can rage against that reality, but cannot refute it.
Click to expand...

No one said he wasn't legitmately electeed, however, he also had no authority to invade Virginia.  In fact, doing so was an act of treason.  It doesn't matter whether a foreign power recognized the Confederacy or not.  What foreign power recognized the Soviet Union?


----------



## bripat9643

gipper said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't a war between the states?
> 
> View attachment 462175
> They've been lying to us in school all those years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A civil war is defined as "a war between citizens of the same country." Seems plain enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Southerners were not citizens of the Unites States after they seceded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they were. The so-called secession was illegitimate, illegal, and recognized by exactly 0 nations on this planet earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has been proven and demonstrated and documented over and over and over and over and over on this very side, you stupid piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't proved jack shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Study history, you brainless douche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have, especially the history of the Civil War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly you have not, you ignorant douche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly I have.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Despite zero evidence of any education training or experience in the area. You’re just another idiot with one of those things that everybody has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The United States was founded on the principle that legitimate government is based on the people recognizing the government as legitimate.
> 
> When you say people who were trying to fight a war to leave cannot leave, maybe you can claim they are still subjects of our government, but our government was no longer legitimate by it's own founding documents.
> 
> Did you read that part of history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If every citizen of the so-called confederate states shared a desire to leave the union, you might have a tiny fraction of an argument to build upon, but they did not and you do not. The traitorous rebels were illegal and illegitimate in every way. They were punished to a tiny fraction of what they deserved, just as assholes today who take up their evil cause  will be let off the hook for far too easily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry turd, but the government you currently live under doesn't exist as a result of unanimous consent, so why is that required to leave this malformed union?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You, personally, can GTFO any time you want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> After you, shit for brains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who hates America, you are the one who denounced his citizenship on this very site.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unkotare:   If you know what the founding fathers meant by consent of the governed, you "hate America."
> 
> You're one stupid fuck
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Love it. Best post of the day.
> 
> The dipshit hates FDR for imprisoning Japanese Americans, but loves Dishonest Abe for mass murdering Americans. Fucking HYPOCRITE.
Click to expand...

All Democrats are hypocrites when it comes to Abe Lincoln and the Civil War.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> Lincoln killed 850,000 people......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Idiotic, ignorant LIE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrefutable fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Idiotic lie from a fucking loser playing the apologist to rebel dogs who were as anti-American as YOU are now, loser.
Click to expand...

Yada, Yada, Yada.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....  Itwasn't U.S. soil after the Confederate states seceded. .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG. Any bunch of scumbag fucking criminals can claim whatever they want, but that does not change AMERICAN sovereignty.
Click to expand...

Hence, the explanation for your posts.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "For free"? Mexico started the war, and signed the treaty that ended it.
> 
> 
> 
> How did Mexico start the war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By killing American soldiers on American soil, you ignorant fool.
Click to expand...

The USA started it by occupying Mexican territory,  moron


----------



## bripat9643

there4eyeM said:


> Individuals were and are free to leave the Perpetual Union. Member states were and are not.


What document says that?


----------



## schmidlap

gipper said:


> My previous post addressed Dishonest Abe’s intentions. I did not address the Confederacy’s intentions. I agree...the South wanted to continue slavery, as did Dishonest Abe.
> 
> Abe was the aggressor. If he doesn’t invade, there is no war.
> 
> Have you considered that war could have been easily avoided, had Abe not been such a tyrant?  The entire western world eliminated slavery without bloodshed.


Lincoln was elected President of the United States, and he preserved, protected, and defended it.

Your pretense that he was the aggressor in attacking the nation over which he presided and your fantasizing about his intentions are noted.


----------



## bripat9643

schmidlap said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> My previous post addressed Dishonest Abe’s intentions. I did not address the Confederacy’s intentions. I agree...the South wanted to continue slavery, as did Dishonest Abe.
> 
> Abe was the aggressor. If he doesn’t invade, there is no war.
> 
> Have you considered that war could have been easily avoided, had Abe not been such a tyrant?  The entire western world eliminated slavery without bloodshed.
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln was elected President of the United States, and he preserved, protected, and defended it.
> 
> Your pretense that he was the aggressor in attacking the nation over which he presided and your fantasizing about his intentions are noted.
Click to expand...

Invading a state of the union is not protecting it.  In fact, the Constitution specifically prohibits such an action.  I don't know how you rationalizing slaughtering 850,000 Americans as "protecting" or "defending" the United States.


----------



## schmidlap

bripat9643 said:


> No one said he wasn't legitmately electeed, however, he also had no authority to invade Virginia.  In fact, doing so was an act of treason.  It doesn't matter whether a foreign power recognized the Confederacy or not.  What foreign power recognized the Soviet Union?


He could not have _"invaded"_ any part of the United States of which he was the President - of all 33 states.

The USSR was recognized by the United Kingdom on February, 1, 1924.


----------



## Unkotare

kaz said:


> ....On "CHOP," which FYI isn't a State, they stole the land, it wasn't theirs. .....



Just like the traitorous dogs of the so-called 'confederacy' who tried to steal land from the UNITED States of America. Just like the fucking criminals fired upon a FEDERAL fort in the UNITED States of America.


----------



## bripat9643

schmidlap said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one said he wasn't legitmately electeed, however, he also had no authority to invade Virginia.  In fact, doing so was an act of treason.  It doesn't matter whether a foreign power recognized the Confederacy or not.  What foreign power recognized the Soviet Union?
> 
> 
> 
> He could not have _"invaded"_ any part of the United States of which he was the President - of all 33 states.
> 
> The USSR was recognized by the United Kingdom on February, 1, 1924.
Click to expand...

He was not president of Virginia when he invaded it.  If he was, then he committed treason according to the Constitution.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....On "CHOP," which FYI isn't a State, they stole the land, it wasn't theirs. .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just like the traitorous dogs of the so-called 'confederacy' who tried to steal land from the UNITED States of America. Just like the fucking criminals fired upon a FEDERAL fort in the UNITED States of America.
Click to expand...

What land did they try to "steal," moron?  

Ft Sumter wasn't in the United States, turd.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> ....
> Invading a state of the union is not protecting it.  ....



You can't "invade" you own nation, dumbass. Preventing criminals from committing crimes is the job of the Executive Branch.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> Invading a state of the union is not protecting it.  ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't "invade" you own nation, dumbass. Preventing criminals from committing crimes is the job of the Executive Branch.
Click to expand...

It wasn't "his own nation," moron.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> ...
> 
> He was not president of Virginia......



He was president of the United States of America. Virginia was one of the states of the United States of America.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> Invading a state of the union is not protecting it.  ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't "invade" you own nation, dumbass. Preventing criminals from committing crimes is the job of the Executive Branch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wasn't "his own nation," moron.
Click to expand...


It most certainly was, whether you like it or not.


----------



## Mr Natural

Why are Southerners so hung up on the Civil War?


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> ...
> 
> Ft Sumter wasn't in the United States...



It most certainly was, wannabe.


----------



## Unkotare

The so-called 'secession,' was illegal, immoral, and not recognized as legitimate by any nation on earth.


----------



## Unkotare

kaz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....
> 
> Have you ever read a history book?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More than you have read any kind of book in your life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet you don't know the basic principle of the American government, consent of the governed?  ...
Click to expand...


You type the words, but clearly do not know what they mean.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> He was not president of Virginia......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was president of the United States of America. Virginia was one of the states of the United States of America.
Click to expand...

Not after it seceded.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Ft Sumter wasn't in the United States...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It most certainly was, wannabe.
Click to expand...

It clearly wasn't.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> The so-called 'secession,' was illegal, immoral, and not recognized as legitimate by any nation on earth.


Really?  Please quote the law that says that.


----------



## bripat9643

Mr Clean said:


> Why are Southerners so hung up on the Civil War?


I was born in Boston, asshole.


----------



## Unkotare

" 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.' 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? "


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are Southerners so hung up on the Civil War?
> 
> 
> 
> I was born in Boston, asshole.
Click to expand...


You left before you got any sense or education, dumbass.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Individuals were and are free to leave the Perpetual Union. Member states were and are not.
> 
> 
> 
> What document says that?
Click to expand...


The Constitution


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "For free"? Mexico started the war, and signed the treaty that ended it.
> 
> 
> 
> How did Mexico start the war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By killing American soldiers on American soil, you ignorant fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The USA started it by occupying Mexican territory,  moron
Click to expand...

Wrong again, traitor.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't a war between the states?
> 
> View attachment 462175
> They've been lying to us in school all those years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A civil war is defined as "a war between citizens of the same country." Seems plain enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Southerners were not citizens of the Unites States after they seceded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they were. The so-called secession was illegitimate, illegal, and recognized by exactly 0 nations on this planet earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has been proven and demonstrated and documented over and over and over and over and over on this very side, you stupid piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't proved jack shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Study history, you brainless douche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have, especially the history of the Civil War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly you have not, you ignorant douche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly I have.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Despite zero evidence of any education training or experience in the area. You’re just another idiot with one of those things that everybody has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The United States was founded on the principle that legitimate government is based on the people recognizing the government as legitimate.
> 
> When you say people who were trying to fight a war to leave cannot leave, maybe you can claim they are still subjects of our government, but our government was no longer legitimate by it's own founding documents.
> 
> Did you read that part of history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If every citizen of the so-called confederate states shared a desire to leave the union, you might have a tiny fraction of an argument to build upon, but they did not and you do not. The traitorous rebels were illegal and illegitimate in every way. They were punished to a tiny fraction of what they deserved, just as assholes today who take up their evil cause  will be let off the hook for far too easily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry turd, but the government you currently live under doesn't exist as a result of unanimous consent, so why is that required to leave this malformed union?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You, personally, can GTFO any time you want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> After you, shit for brains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who hates America, you are the one who denounced his citizenship on this very site.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unkotare:   If you know what the founding fathers meant by consent of the governed, you "hate America."
> 
> You're one stupid fuck
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Love it. Best post of the day.
> 
> The dipshit hates FDR for imprisoning Japanese Americans, but loves Dishonest Abe for mass murdering Americans. Fucking HYPOCRITE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All Democrats are hypocrites when it comes to Abe Lincoln and the Civil War.
Click to expand...


Lincoln was a Republican, idiot.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Itwasn't U.S. soil after the Confederate states seceded.  It doesn't matter how many times you lie about it.  That's just a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> You are clearly desperate, and have nothing to offer to support your pretense. The documented truth prevails.
> 
> Lincoln was legitimately elected President of the United States in 1860, of _all_ 33 states.
> 
> He told the traitors who rejected the United States Constitution "_You have no oath registered in Heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to preserve, protect and defend it.” _
> 
> No sovereignty on earth ever recognized a self-proclaimed entity fancying itself "The Confederate States of America."
> 
> You can rage against that reality, but cannot refute it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one said he wasn't legitmately electeed, however, he also had no authority to invade Virginia.  In fact, doing so was an act of treason.  It doesn't matter whether a foreign power recognized the Confederacy or not.  What foreign power recognized the Soviet Union?
Click to expand...


Do you know how to read?


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> " 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.' 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? "


Who's the author of your quote.  It really doesn't make any difference since that is merely his opinion.  Plenty of others had a different opinion.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't a war between the states?
> 
> View attachment 462175
> They've been lying to us in school all those years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A civil war is defined as "a war between citizens of the same country." Seems plain enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Southerners were not citizens of the Unites States after they seceded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they were. The so-called secession was illegitimate, illegal, and recognized by exactly 0 nations on this planet earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has been proven and demonstrated and documented over and over and over and over and over on this very side, you stupid piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't proved jack shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Study history, you brainless douche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have, especially the history of the Civil War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly you have not, you ignorant douche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly I have.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Despite zero evidence of any education training or experience in the area. You’re just another idiot with one of those things that everybody has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The United States was founded on the principle that legitimate government is based on the people recognizing the government as legitimate.
> 
> When you say people who were trying to fight a war to leave cannot leave, maybe you can claim they are still subjects of our government, but our government was no longer legitimate by it's own founding documents.
> 
> Did you read that part of history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If every citizen of the so-called confederate states shared a desire to leave the union, you might have a tiny fraction of an argument to build upon, but they did not and you do not. The traitorous rebels were illegal and illegitimate in every way. They were punished to a tiny fraction of what they deserved, just as assholes today who take up their evil cause  will be let off the hook for far too easily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry turd, but the government you currently live under doesn't exist as a result of unanimous consent, so why is that required to leave this malformed union?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You, personally, can GTFO any time you want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> After you, shit for brains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who hates America, you are the one who denounced his citizenship on this very site.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unkotare:   If you know what the founding fathers meant by consent of the governed, you "hate America."
> 
> You're one stupid fuck
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Love it. Best post of the day.
> 
> The dipshit hates FDR for imprisoning Japanese Americans, but loves Dishonest Abe for mass murdering Americans. Fucking HYPOCRITE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All Democrats are hypocrites when it comes to Abe Lincoln and the Civil War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lincoln was a Republican, idiot.
Click to expand...

I know.  He is still a saint in the Democrat party.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> He was not president of Virginia......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was president of the United States of America. Virginia was one of the states of the United States of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not after it seceded.
Click to expand...


The so-called secession was illegal and illegitimate, as has been explained to you many times now. Are you too stupid to understand?


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "For free"? Mexico started the war, and signed the treaty that ended it.
> 
> 
> 
> How did Mexico start the war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By killing American soldiers on American soil, you ignorant fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The USA started it by occupying Mexican territory,  moron
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again, traitor.
Click to expand...


Mexican-American War

Nonetheless, annexation procedures were quickly initiated after the 1844 election of Polk, who campaigned that Texas should be “re-annexed” and that the Oregon Territory should be “re-occupied.” Polk also had his eyes on California, New Mexico and the rest of what is today the U.S. Southwest. _*When his offer to purchase those lands was rejected, he instigated a fight by moving troops into a disputed zone between the Rio Grande and Nueces River *_that both countries had previously recognized as part of the Mexican state of Coahuila.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> " 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.' 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? "
> 
> 
> 
> Who's the author of your quote.  ...
Click to expand...










						TEXAS v. WHITE ET AL.
					






					www.law.cornell.edu
				





How does your foot taste, dumbass?


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> He was not president of Virginia......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was president of the United States of America. Virginia was one of the states of the United States of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not after it seceded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The so-called secession was illegal and illegitimate, as has been explained to you many times now. Are you too stupid to understand?
Click to expand...

What law says a state cannot secede?


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> He was not president of Virginia......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was president of the United States of America. Virginia was one of the states of the United States of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not after it seceded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The so-called secession was illegal and illegitimate, as has been explained to you many times now. Are you too stupid to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What law says a state cannot secede?
Click to expand...


The Constitution of the United States of America.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> " 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.' 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? "
> 
> 
> 
> Who's the author of your quote.  ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TEXAS v. WHITE ET AL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.law.cornell.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does your foot taste, dumbass?
Click to expand...

I don't know how it tastes.  I don't stick it in my mouth.

Texas v White was made by an S.C. infested with Lincoln appointees.  It's no more credible than the New York Times.


----------



## Unkotare

" 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.' 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? "


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> He was not president of Virginia......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was president of the United States of America. Virginia was one of the states of the United States of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not after it seceded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The so-called secession was illegal and illegitimate, as has been explained to you many times now. Are you too stupid to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What law says a state cannot secede?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution of the United States of America.
Click to expand...

Please quote where it says that.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> " 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.' 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? "


Worthless opinion by a Lincoln appointed hack.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> He was not president of Virginia......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was president of the United States of America. Virginia was one of the states of the United States of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not after it seceded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The so-called secession was illegal and illegitimate, as has been explained to you many times now. Are you too stupid to understand?
Click to expand...

That must have been right after you "explained" that a triangle has four sides.


----------



## there4eyeM

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Individuals were and are free to leave the Perpetual Union. Member states were and are not.
> 
> 
> 
> What document says that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution
Click to expand...

To understand this would mean understanding English.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> ...
> 
> Texas v White was made by an [sic] S.C. infested with Lincoln appointees.  It's no more credible than the New York Times.



Oh, some ignorant nobody who wouldn't know the law if it picked him up and drove his head through the pavement disapproves of the Supreme Court? Well, that means..........................absolutely fucking nothing.

I suppose an America-hating liberal like you also disapproves of the current court because President Trump nominated so many of the justices. 

Wait...........yep, still means absolutely fucking nothing.


----------



## bripat9643

there4eyeM said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Individuals were and are free to leave the Perpetual Union. Member states were and are not.
> 
> 
> 
> What document says that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To understand this would mean understanding English.
Click to expand...

Here's your chance to show everyone your unexcelled understanding of English.

Where does the Constitution say that secession isn't allowed?


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Texas v White was made by an [sic] S.C. infested with Lincoln appointees.  It's no more credible than the New York Times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, some ignorant nobody who wouldn't know the law if it picked him up and drove his head through the pavement disapproves of the Supreme Court? Well, that means..........................absolutely fucking nothing.
> 
> I suppose an America-hating liberal like you also disapproves of the current court because President Trump nominated so many of the justices.
> 
> Wait...........yep, still means absolutely fucking nothing.
Click to expand...

I've aleady explained my positiion of the court.  If you believe it to be infallible, then you're a brain-dead moron.

According to the decision, Texas was a state of the union.  How could that be true when it had no representation in Congress and it's citizens could not vote for President?  The decision was obvious bullshit.


----------



## Unkotare

there4eyeM said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Individuals were and are free to leave the Perpetual Union. Member states were and are not.
> 
> 
> 
> What document says that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To understand this would mean understanding English.
Click to expand...


That would be asking too much of him.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Individuals were and are free to leave the Perpetual Union. Member states were and are not.
> 
> 
> 
> What document says that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To understand this would mean understanding English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be asking too much of him.
Click to expand...

You still haven't quoted the text where the Constitution says what you claim.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> ...
> I've aleady [sic] explained my positiion [sic] of the court. .......



What are your qualifications in Constitutional Law? We know you can barely string together a sentence in English.


----------



## Unkotare

" 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.' 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? "


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> " 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.' 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? "


That's not the Constitution, moron.  that's propaganda authored by a Lincoln appointed hack.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> I've aleady [sic] explained my positiion [sic] of the court. .......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are your qualifications in Constitutional Law? We know you can barely string together a sentence in English.
Click to expand...

ROFL!  I can read the Constitution just like anyone else, moron.

You still haven't quoted the text that says it's illegal for a state to secede.


----------



## there4eyeM

Unkotare said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Individuals were and are free to leave the Perpetual Union. Member states were and are not.
> 
> 
> 
> What document says that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To understand this would mean understanding English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be asking too much of him.
Click to expand...

As this has (repeatedly) been explained (in general and to "him" directly) before, it is passing tiresome to go back over the history of the intentions, the language and the actions of the past that confirmed the aspired sanctity of the organization of states, the Perpetual Union. In the end, one accepts as facts what are facts or one rejects them. That implies rejecting interchange with others, as the basis for understanding no longer exists.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> ...
> I've aleady [sic] explained my positiion [sic] of the court. .......



What are your qualifications in Constitutional Law? We know you can barely string together a sentence in English.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> ....  I can read the Constitution just like anyone else....



It doesn't seem like you can. What is your first language?


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> I've aleady [sic] explained my positiion [sic] of the court. .......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are your qualifications in Constitutional Law? We know you can barely string together a sentence in English.
Click to expand...

What are your qualifications, nimrod?  

Here you're trying to employ the fallacy known as "appeal to authority."


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....  I can read the Constitution just like anyone else....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't seem like you can. What is your first language?
Click to expand...

Try answering the question, douchebag.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> I've aleady [sic] explained my positiion [sic] of the court. .......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are your qualifications in Constitutional Law? We know you can barely string together a sentence in English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are your qualifications...?
Click to expand...


I'm not the one claiming to know more than some of the finest constitutional scholars in history, you are.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> ....  I can read the Constitution just like anyone else....



It doesn't seem like you can. What is your first language?


----------



## bripat9643

there4eyeM said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Individuals were and are free to leave the Perpetual Union. Member states were and are not.
> 
> 
> 
> What document says that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To understand this would mean understanding English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be asking too much of him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As this has (repeatedly) been explained (in general and to "him" directly) before, it is passing tiresome to go back over the history of the intentions, the language and the actions of the past that confirmed the aspired sanctity of the organization of states, the Perpetual Union. In the end, one accepts as facts what are facts or one rejects them. That implies rejecting interchange with others, as the basis for understanding no longer exists.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you are tired have having all your moronic biases and and assumptions questioned.  

In the end, the issue can easily be decided by an examination of the known facts, but Lincoln cultists will do everything possible to avoid that.


----------



## there4eyeM

Lincoln has nothing to do with what makes the Perpetual Union what it was and is. If any Constitutional question could ever be clarified by the "original intent", this is it. It is in the thought and language of the time, and English is still our language.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> I've aleady [sic] explained my positiion [sic] of the court. .......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are your qualifications in Constitutional Law? We know you can barely string together a sentence in English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are your qualifications...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the one claiming to know more than some of the finest constitutional scholars in history, you are.
Click to expand...


So your argument is that the SC is infallible?  You're argument is a logical fallacy?


----------



## bripat9643

there4eyeM said:


> Lincoln has nothing to do with what makes the Perpetual Union what it was and is. If any Constitutional question could ever be clarified by the "original intent", this is it. It is in the thought and language of the time, and English is still our language.


You can't demonstrate any such intent.

Next!


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> I've aleady [sic] explained my positiion [sic] of the court. .......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are your qualifications in Constitutional Law? We know you can barely string together a sentence in English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are your qualifications...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the one claiming to know more than some of the finest constitutional scholars in history, you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So your argument is that the SC is infallible?  You're argument is a logical fallacy?
Click to expand...


I don't think you know what "logical fallacy" means. I think you've just seen the phrase used on the internet and think it  sounds cool. A logical fallacy, for example, would be your use of a straw man argument in your quoted response.



Again, what is your first language?


----------



## bripat9643

there4eyeM said:


> Lincoln has nothing to do with what makes the Perpetual Union what it was and is. If any Constitutional question could ever be clarified by the "original intent", this is it. It is in the thought and language of the time, and English is still our language.



Lincoln's invasion of Virginia is the only thing that made it "perpetual."  Pure brute force, and you believe that's justice.

That's a sad admission.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> I've aleady [sic] explained my positiion [sic] of the court. .......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are your qualifications in Constitutional Law? We know you can barely string together a sentence in English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are your qualifications...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the one claiming to know more than some of the finest constitutional scholars in history, you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So your argument is that the SC is infallible?  You're argument is a logical fallacy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think you know what "logical fallacy" means. I think you've just seen the phrase used on the internet and think it  sounds cool. A logical fallacy, for example, would be your use of a straw man argument in your quoted response.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, what is your first language?
Click to expand...

Do you claim the Supreme Court is infallible or not?


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln has nothing to do with what makes the Perpetual Union what it was and is. If any Constitutional question could ever be clarified by the "original intent", this is it. It is in the thought and language of the time, and English is still our language.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln's invasion of Virginia...
Click to expand...


There was no such "invasion," as there could not be. This has been explained to you many times, brainless.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln has nothing to do with what makes the Perpetual Union what it was and is. If any Constitutional question could ever be clarified by the "original intent", this is it. It is in the thought and language of the time, and English is still our language.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln's invasion of Virginia...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was no such "invasion," as there could not be. This has been explained to you many times, brainless.
Click to expand...

Of course there was such an invasion.  Did Lincoln send federal troops to occupy Richmond or not?


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> ...
> Do you claim the Supreme Court is infallible or not?



Did I say that?


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln has nothing to do with what makes the Perpetual Union what it was and is. If any Constitutional question could ever be clarified by the "original intent", this is it. It is in the thought and language of the time, and English is still our language.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln's invasion of Virginia...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was no such "invasion," as there could not be. This has been explained to you many times, brainless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course there was such an invasion. ....
Click to expand...


You cannot invade your own territory. This has been explained to you many times, idiot.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> Do you claim the Supreme Court is infallible or not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say that?
Click to expand...

You're trying not to say it explicitly, but that's the implication when you keep quoting the Texas v. White decision.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln has nothing to do with what makes the Perpetual Union what it was and is. If any Constitutional question could ever be clarified by the "original intent", this is it. It is in the thought and language of the time, and English is still our language.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln's invasion of Virginia...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was no such "invasion," as there could not be. This has been explained to you many times, brainless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course there was such an invasion. ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cannot invade your own territory. This has been explained to you many times, idiot.
Click to expand...

It wasn't his country.  VA seceded.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> Do you claim the Supreme Court is infallible or not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're trying not to say it explicitly, but that's the implication when you keep quoting the Texas v. White decision.
Click to expand...


DID I SAY THAT?


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln has nothing to do with what makes the Perpetual Union what it was and is. If any Constitutional question could ever be clarified by the "original intent", this is it. It is in the thought and language of the time, and English is still our language.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln's invasion of Virginia...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was no such "invasion," as there could not be. This has been explained to you many times, brainless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course there was such an invasion. ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cannot invade your own territory. This has been explained to you many times, idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wasn't his country.  VA seceded.
Click to expand...


He was the President of the country of which that state was a part. Don't waste time repeating your falsehoods again. If you want to chase your tail, go out in the backyard and do it.


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....On "CHOP," which FYI isn't a State, they stole the land, it wasn't theirs. .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just like the traitorous dogs of the so-called 'confederacy' who tried to steal land from the UNITED States of America. Just like the fucking criminals fired upon a FEDERAL fort in the UNITED States of America.
Click to expand...


That you support government conquering it's on citizens is irrelevant to that you don't know what the founding fathers meant by consent of the governed while you are apparently a government ... history ... teacher


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....
> 
> Have you ever read a history book?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More than you have read any kind of book in your life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet you don't know the basic principle of the American government, consent of the governed?  ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You type the words, but clearly do not know what they mean.
Click to expand...


LOL.   You said their grandparents consented to be governed.   There is no way anyone who knows any American history thinks the founding fathers meant that


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> He was not president of Virginia......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was president of the United States of America. Virginia was one of the states of the United States of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not after it seceded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The so-called secession was illegal and illegitimate, as has been explained to you many times now. Are you too stupid to understand?
Click to expand...


Explain how it's "illegitimate" for States leave a country they no longer constant to govern them when consent of the governed is the basis of legitimacy of our government in the United STATES of America?

Our government today is a rouge criminal enterprise that completely ignores the limits on its power, the US Constitution, and should be overthrown


----------



## Unkotare

kaz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> He was not president of Virginia......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was president of the United States of America. Virginia was one of the states of the United States of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not after it seceded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The so-called secession was illegal and illegitimate, as has been explained to you many times now. Are you too stupid to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain how it's "illegitimate" for States leave a country they no longer constant to govern them when consent of the governed is the basis of legitimacy of our government in the United STATES of America?
> 
> Our government today is a rouge criminal enterprise that completely ignores the limits on its power, the US Constitution, and should be overthrown
Click to expand...


All of your stupidity has been debunked while you were away. Go read back a ways.


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> He was not president of Virginia......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was president of the United States of America. Virginia was one of the states of the United States of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not after it seceded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The so-called secession was illegal and illegitimate, as has been explained to you many times now. Are you too stupid to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain how it's "illegitimate" for States leave a country they no longer constant to govern them when consent of the governed is the basis of legitimacy of our government in the United STATES of America?
> 
> Our government today is a rouge criminal enterprise that completely ignores the limits on its power, the US Constitution, and should be overthrown
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of your stupidity has been debunked while you were away. Go read back a ways.
Click to expand...


My stupidity?   You're a government history teacher who literally doesn't know what consent of the governed means.    You are comical


----------



## Unkotare

kaz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> He was not president of Virginia......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was president of the United States of America. Virginia was one of the states of the United States of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not after it seceded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The so-called secession was illegal and illegitimate, as has been explained to you many times now. Are you too stupid to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain how it's "illegitimate" for States leave a country they no longer constant to govern them when consent of the governed is the basis of legitimacy of our government in the United STATES of America?
> 
> Our government today is a rouge criminal enterprise that completely ignores the limits on its power, the US Constitution, and should be overthrown
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of your stupidity has been debunked while you were away. Go read back a ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My stupidity?   You're a government history teacher who literally doesn't know what consent of the governed means.    You are comical
Click to expand...


That's not working, but keep repeating it if it makes you feel good.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> He was not president of Virginia......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was president of the United States of America. Virginia was one of the states of the United States of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not after it seceded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The so-called secession was illegal and illegitimate, as has been explained to you many times now. Are you too stupid to understand?
Click to expand...

You have "explained" nothing.  Your excuses have been shown to be invalid.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Individuals were and are free to leave the Perpetual Union. Member states were and are not.
> 
> 
> 
> What document says that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To understand this would mean understanding English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be asking too much of him.
Click to expand...

I've been asking you to explain it for a few hundred posts now, but you keep running away every time I do.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Individuals were and are free to leave the Perpetual Union. Member states were and are not.
> 
> 
> 
> What document says that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To understand this would mean understanding English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be asking too much of him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've been asking you to explain it for a few hundred posts now, but you keep running away every time I do.
Click to expand...


It has been explained to you over and over and over again, dumbass. Your hatred for America changes nothing.


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> He was not president of Virginia......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was president of the United States of America. Virginia was one of the states of the United States of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not after it seceded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The so-called secession was illegal and illegitimate, as has been explained to you many times now. Are you too stupid to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain how it's "illegitimate" for States leave a country they no longer constant to govern them when consent of the governed is the basis of legitimacy of our government in the United STATES of America?
> 
> Our government today is a rouge criminal enterprise that completely ignores the limits on its power, the US Constitution, and should be overthrown
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of your stupidity has been debunked while you were away. Go read back a ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My stupidity?   You're a government history teacher who literally doesn't know what consent of the governed means.    You are comical
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not working, but keep repeating it if it makes you feel good.
Click to expand...


Not working?   You said that other people can consent on your behalf to be governed.     You're a fucking moron.    You actually said that


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Individuals were and are free to leave the Perpetual Union. Member states were and are not.
> 
> 
> 
> What document says that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To understand this would mean understanding English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be asking too much of him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've been asking you to explain it for a few hundred posts now, but you keep running away every time I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has been explained to you over and over and over again, dumbass. Your hatred for America changes nothing.
Click to expand...

No it hasn't.  Where is the text in the Constitution that says a state can't secede?  You always run away when I ask you that.    You also ran away when I asked you if you thought the Supreme Court was infallible.

So many questions that you are afraid to answer.


----------



## gipper

schmidlap said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> My previous post addressed Dishonest Abe’s intentions. I did not address the Confederacy’s intentions. I agree...the South wanted to continue slavery, as did Dishonest Abe.
> 
> Abe was the aggressor. If he doesn’t invade, there is no war.
> 
> Have you considered that war could have been easily avoided, had Abe not been such a tyrant?  The entire western world eliminated slavery without bloodshed.
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln was elected President of the United States, and he preserved, protected, and defended it.
> 
> Your pretense that he was the aggressor in attacking the nation over which he presided and your fantasizing about his intentions are noted.
Click to expand...

By killing fellow Americans. Tell me what is the definition of treason?


----------



## bripat9643

kaz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> He was not president of Virginia......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was president of the United States of America. Virginia was one of the states of the United States of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not after it seceded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The so-called secession was illegal and illegitimate, as has been explained to you many times now. Are you too stupid to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain how it's "illegitimate" for States leave a country they no longer constant to govern them when consent of the governed is the basis of legitimacy of our government in the United STATES of America?
> 
> Our government today is a rouge criminal enterprise that completely ignores the limits on its power, the US Constitution, and should be overthrown
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of your stupidity has been debunked while you were away. Go read back a ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My stupidity?   You're a government history teacher who literally doesn't know what consent of the governed means.    You are comical
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not working, but keep repeating it if it makes you feel good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not working?   You said that other people can consent on your behalf to be governed.     You're a fucking moron.    You actually said that
Click to expand...

That has to be the dumbest statement of all time.


----------



## bripat9643

gipper said:


> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> My previous post addressed Dishonest Abe’s intentions. I did not address the Confederacy’s intentions. I agree...the South wanted to continue slavery, as did Dishonest Abe.
> 
> Abe was the aggressor. If he doesn’t invade, there is no war.
> 
> Have you considered that war could have been easily avoided, had Abe not been such a tyrant?  The entire western world eliminated slavery without bloodshed.
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln was elected President of the United States, and he preserved, protected, and defended it.
> 
> Your pretense that he was the aggressor in attacking the nation over which he presided and your fantasizing about his intentions are noted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By killing fellow Americans. Tell me what is the definition of treason?
Click to expand...

_*"Treason*__* against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against THEM, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort "*_

In other words, exactly what Lincoln did.  He made war against "them."


----------



## kaz

bripat9643 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not working, but keep repeating it if it makes you feel good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not working?   You said that other people can consent on your behalf to be governed.     You're a fucking moron.    You actually said that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That has to be the dumbest statement of all time.
Click to expand...


Yes.   And he's a history teacher, incredible.    Government education, don't do this to your children


----------



## gipper

bripat9643 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> My previous post addressed Dishonest Abe’s intentions. I did not address the Confederacy’s intentions. I agree...the South wanted to continue slavery, as did Dishonest Abe.
> 
> Abe was the aggressor. If he doesn’t invade, there is no war.
> 
> Have you considered that war could have been easily avoided, had Abe not been such a tyrant?  The entire western world eliminated slavery without bloodshed.
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln was elected President of the United States, and he preserved, protected, and defended it.
> 
> Your pretense that he was the aggressor in attacking the nation over which he presided and your fantasizing about his intentions are noted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By killing fellow Americans. Tell me what is the definition of treason?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"Treason*__* against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against THEM, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort "*_
> 
> In other words, exactly what Lincoln did.  He made war against "them."
Click to expand...

Exactly. If only he were hung in 1861, all that death and destruction to say nothing of the termination of American liberty, would have been avoided. Abe was a backwater bumpkin, lacking in intelligence.


----------



## Unkotare

kaz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> He was not president of Virginia......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was president of the United States of America. Virginia was one of the states of the United States of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not after it seceded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The so-called secession was illegal and illegitimate, as has been explained to you many times now. Are you too stupid to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain how it's "illegitimate" for States leave a country they no longer constant to govern them when consent of the governed is the basis of legitimacy of our government in the United STATES of America?
> 
> Our government today is a rouge criminal enterprise that completely ignores the limits on its power, the US Constitution, and should be overthrown
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of your stupidity has been debunked while you were away. Go read back a ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My stupidity?   You're a government history teacher who literally doesn't know what consent of the governed means.    You are comical
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not working, but keep repeating it if it makes you feel good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not working?   ...
Click to expand...


Not working. Don't bother calling in a straw man either. It won't help.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln has nothing to do with what makes the Perpetual Union what it was and is. If any Constitutional question could ever be clarified by the "original intent", this is it. It is in the thought and language of the time, and English is still our language.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln's invasion of Virginia...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was no such "invasion," as there could not be. This has been explained to you many times, brainless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course there was such an invasion. ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cannot invade your own territory. This has been explained to you many times, idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wasn't his country.  VA seceded.
Click to expand...


He was the President of the country of which that state was a part. Don't waste time repeating your falsehoods again. If you want to chase your tail, go out in the backyard and do it.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln has nothing to do with what makes the Perpetual Union what it was and is. If any Constitutional question could ever be clarified by the "original intent", this is it. It is in the thought and language of the time, and English is still our language.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln's invasion of Virginia...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was no such "invasion," as there could not be. This has been explained to you many times, brainless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course there was such an invasion. ....
Click to expand...


You cannot invade your own territory. This has been explained to you many times, idiot.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln has nothing to do with what makes the Perpetual Union what it was and is. If any Constitutional question could ever be clarified by the "original intent", this is it. It is in the thought and language of the time, and English is still our language.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln's invasion of Virginia...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was no such "invasion," as there could not be. This has been explained to you many times, brainless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course there was such an invasion. ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cannot invade your own territory. This has been explained to you many times, idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wasn't his country.  VA seceded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was the President of the country of which that state was a part. Don't waste time repeating your falsehoods again. If you want to chase your tail, go out in the backyard and do it.
Click to expand...

It wasn't part of that country after it seceded.  

End of discussion.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> ...
> I've aleady [sic] explained my positiion [sic] of the court. .......



What are your qualifications in Constitutional Law? We know you can barely string together a sentence in English.


----------



## Unkotare

schmidlap said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one said he wasn't legitmately electeed, however, he also had no authority to invade Virginia.  In fact, doing so was an act of treason.  It doesn't matter whether a foreign power recognized the Confederacy or not.  What foreign power recognized the Soviet Union?
> 
> 
> 
> He could not have _"invaded"_ any part of the United States of which he was the President - of all 33 states.
> 
> The USSR was recognized by the United Kingdom on February, 1, 1924.
Click to expand...


This ^^^^^


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln has nothing to do with what makes the Perpetual Union what it was and is. If any Constitutional question could ever be clarified by the "original intent", this is it. It is in the thought and language of the time, and English is still our language.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln's invasion of Virginia...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was no such "invasion," as there could not be. This has been explained to you many times, brainless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course there was such an invasion. ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cannot invade your own territory. This has been explained to you many times, idiot.
Click to expand...

It wasn't his country.  It seceded.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> I've aleady [sic] explained my positiion [sic] of the court. .......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are your qualifications in Constitutional Law? We know you can barely string together a sentence in English.
Click to expand...

_Appeal to authority._

Next!


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> ....
> Invading a state of the union is not protecting it.  ....



You can't "invade" you own nation, dumbass. Preventing criminals from committing crimes is the job of the Executive Branch.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> I've aleady [sic] explained my positiion [sic] of the court. .......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are your qualifications in Constitutional Law? We know you can barely string together a sentence in English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Appeal to authority._
> 
> Next!
Click to expand...


You should learn what that means before repeating it again, dumbass.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one said he wasn't legitmately electeed, however, he also had no authority to invade Virginia.  In fact, doing so was an act of treason.  It doesn't matter whether a foreign power recognized the Confederacy or not.  What foreign power recognized the Soviet Union?
> 
> 
> 
> He could not have _"invaded"_ any part of the United States of which he was the President - of all 33 states.
> 
> The USSR was recognized by the United Kingdom on February, 1, 1924.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This ^^^^^
Click to expand...

So the UK recognized it years after it put down the attempt of the Whites to take control.  How does that show the attempt of the confederates to do the same thing means the Confederacy was illigitimate?  It proves exactly the opposite.  It shows that if your attempt to separate succeeds, then you are legitimate.


----------



## Unkotare

schmidlap said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> If it was only about slavery, why did Lincoln offer to make slavery a Constitutional right so long as the Southern states came back into the Union?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The compromise Lincoln offered to the states rebelling against the U.S. in order to preserve the Union (Lincoln's primary goal) _was _about slavery. After the slave states rejected Lincoln's offer, abolition of slavery became a more important objective in the war.
> 
> *HARPER'S WEEKLY.*​MARCH 22, 1862.​
> _THE President last week sent in to Congress a Message recommending the passage of the following or a similar resolution :_​
> _Resolved, That the United States ought to co-operate with any State which may adopt a gradual abolishment of slavery, giving to such State pecuniary aid, to be used by such State in its discretion to compensate for the inconveniences, public and private, produced by such change of system._​​_This Message has been applauded with equal fervor by the opponents and by the supporters of slavery. It is equally approved by the Herald and by the Tribune, by the Evening Post and by the Journal of Commerce._​​_The old friends of slavery commend it because it recognizes the right of the Southern slave-owners to their slave property, and the exclusive right of the slave States to regulate or abolish the institution within their limits._​​_The friends of freedom rejoice at it because it places the United States Government squarely on the record as preferring freedom to slavery, in the abstract, and as looking forward, in some future time, and in some yet undetermined way, to the abolition of slavery, and the emancipation of the negro race..._​​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln Offers Slavery Compromise
> 
> 
> In this Harper's Weekly newspaper, Abraham Lincoln Offers a Slavery Compromise to the Southern States
> 
> 
> 
> www.sonofthesouth.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​
Click to expand...

^^^^^^


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> Invading a state of the union is not protecting it.  ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't "invade" you own nation, dumbass. Preventing criminals from committing crimes is the job of the Executive Branch.
Click to expand...

It wasn't his country.  It was Virginia.  Even if it was till part of the USA, the Constitution says it's treason.  

Lincoln and his thugs were the criminals.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> I've aleady [sic] explained my positiion [sic] of the court. .......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are your qualifications in Constitutional Law? We know you can barely string together a sentence in English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Appeal to authority._
> 
> Next!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should learn what that means before repeating it again, dumbass.
Click to expand...

How am I misusing it?


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> The states all signed on to a Perpetual Union. The only legal way to leave would be by modifying the Constitution. That would, necessarily, require a resounding majority of states. The "South" decided to try extra-legal measures. It didn't work.
> 
> 
> 
> That ended when they tore up the articles of Confederation and signed the Constitution.  Nothing in the Constition says it has to be amended for a state to leave.
Click to expand...


The Supreme Court says you are full of shit, stupid.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> I've aleady [sic] explained my positiion [sic] of the court. .......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are your qualifications in Constitutional Law? We know you can barely string together a sentence in English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Appeal to authority._
> 
> Next!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should learn what that means before repeating it again, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How am I misusing it?
Click to expand...


You clearly don't understand what it means. Why don't you Google, or Wiki, or whatever you ignorant fools do when you're confused?


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't a war between the states?
> 
> View attachment 462175
> They've been lying to us in school all those years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A civil war is defined as "a war between citizens of the same country." Seems plain enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Southerners were not citizens of the Unites States after they seceded.
Click to expand...


Yes they were. The so-called secession was illegitimate, illegal, and recognized by exactly 0 nations on this planet earth.


----------



## Unkotare

schmidlap said:


> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was U.S. Federal Territory, and Lincoln defended it rightly on that basis. To think otherwise is to dismiss Federal authority altogether (which may be what you want to do).
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln deployed U.S. troops on U.S. soil to suppress a regional rebellion, in strict compliance with his Oath of Office.
> 
> No nation on earth ever recognized a sovereign nation calling itself _"The Confederate States of America." _
Click to expand...

^^^^^^^^


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> The end of slavery was one of the eventual outcomes of the war. Odd that every other country that had slaves was able to ban slavery without killing a million of its own citizens...UK and France for example.
> 
> No you silly person; the Civil War was about $....as usual.
> 
> Make no mistake; that slavery was ended was a good thing and overdue. You must also be aware that the North DESTROYED the South's ECONOMY. No money for reparations.
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The North destroyed the South's economy because the South made war upon the North. Remember Fort Sumpter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  Lincoln made war on the South.  Ft Sumter was SC territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Complete and total lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did Lincoln invade Virginia?
> 
> Why yes he did.
Click to expand...

Absolutely and positively not. You cannot invade your own country. The criminal scum who tried to destroy our nation were eventually given a tiny fraction of what they deserve the punishment. You are a similar kind of scumbag fucking worthless dog and you deserve much worse, but again we will show forbearance.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> The end of slavery was one of the eventual outcomes of the war. Odd that every other country that had slaves was able to ban slavery without killing a million of its own citizens...UK and France for example.
> 
> No you silly person; the Civil War was about $....as usual.
> 
> Make no mistake; that slavery was ended was a good thing and overdue. You must also be aware that the North DESTROYED the South's ECONOMY. No money for reparations.
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The North destroyed the South's economy because the South made war upon the North. Remember Fort Sumpter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  Lincoln made war on the South.  Ft Sumter was SC territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Complete and total lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did Lincoln invade Virginia?
> 
> ...
Click to expand...


You can't "invade" your own territory, idiot.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> I've aleady [sic] explained my positiion [sic] of the court. .......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are your qualifications in Constitutional Law? We know you can barely string together a sentence in English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Appeal to authority._
> 
> Next!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should learn what that means before repeating it again, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How am I misusing it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You clearly don't understand what it means. Why don't you Google, or Wiki, or whatever you ignorant fools do when you're confused?
Click to expand...

You claim I don't understand what it means?  Prove it.  Otherwise, shut your fucking yap.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> The end of slavery was one of the eventual outcomes of the war. Odd that every other country that had slaves was able to ban slavery without killing a million of its own citizens...UK and France for example.
> 
> No you silly person; the Civil War was about $....as usual.
> 
> Make no mistake; that slavery was ended was a good thing and overdue. You must also be aware that the North DESTROYED the South's ECONOMY. No money for reparations.
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The North destroyed the South's economy because the South made war upon the North. Remember Fort Sumpter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  Lincoln made war on the South.  Ft Sumter was SC territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Complete and total lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did Lincoln invade Virginia?
> 
> Why yes he did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely and positively not. You cannot invade your own country. The criminal scum who tried to destroy our nation were eventually given a tiny fraction of what they deserve the punishment. You are a similar kind of scumbag fucking worthless dog and you deserve much worse, but again we will show forbearance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wasn't Lincoln's country, nimrod.  Lincoln, Grant and Sherman all deserved to be tried as war criminals.
Click to expand...

It was and is the United States of America.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't a war between the states?
> 
> View attachment 462175
> They've been lying to us in school all those years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A civil war is defined as "a war between citizens of the same country." Seems plain enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Southerners were not citizens of the Unites States after they seceded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they were. The so-called secession was illegitimate, illegal, and recognized by exactly 0 nations on this planet earth.
Click to expand...

You keep saying that, and you keep failing to prove it.  As I've already proven, all that's required is for other nations to recognize you after you've won your battle against the oppressors.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> The end of slavery was one of the eventual outcomes of the war. Odd that every other country that had slaves was able to ban slavery without killing a million of its own citizens...UK and France for example.
> 
> No you silly person; the Civil War was about $....as usual.
> 
> Make no mistake; that slavery was ended was a good thing and overdue. You must also be aware that the North DESTROYED the South's ECONOMY. No money for reparations.
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The North destroyed the South's economy because the South made war upon the North. Remember Fort Sumpter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  Lincoln made war on the South.  Ft Sumter was SC territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Complete and total lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did Lincoln invade Virginia?
> 
> Why yes he did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely and positively not. You cannot invade your own country. The criminal scum who tried to destroy our nation were eventually given a tiny fraction of what they deserve the punishment. You are a similar kind of scumbag fucking worthless dog and you deserve much worse, but again we will show forbearance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wasn't Lincoln's country, nimrod.  Lincoln, Grant and Sherman all deserved to be tried as war criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was and is the United States of America.
Click to expand...

Virginia wasn't part of the USA, nimrod.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> The end of slavery was one of the eventual outcomes of the war. Odd that every other country that had slaves was able to ban slavery without killing a million of its own citizens...UK and France for example.
> 
> No you silly person; the Civil War was about $....as usual.
> 
> Make no mistake; that slavery was ended was a good thing and overdue. You must also be aware that the North DESTROYED the South's ECONOMY. No money for reparations.
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The North destroyed the South's economy because the South made war upon the North. Remember Fort Sumpter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  Lincoln made war on the South.  Ft Sumter was SC territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Complete and total lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did Lincoln invade Virginia?
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't "invade" your own territory, idiot.
Click to expand...


It wasn't his territory, moron.

You keep making this claim and then run away when I ask you to prove.  That's because you know it isn't true.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> I've aleady [sic] explained my positiion [sic] of the court. .......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are your qualifications in Constitutional Law? We know you can barely string together a sentence in English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Appeal to authority._
> 
> Next!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should learn what that means before repeating it again, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How am I misusing it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You clearly don't understand what it means. Why don't you Google, or Wiki, or whatever you ignorant fools do when you're confused?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claim I don't understand what it means?  Prove it.  Otherwise, shut your fucking yap.
Click to expand...


You can't even understand the Wiki page about it? That's pretty fucking sad. 

Referring to an authority on a subject is not a fallacy, idiot. Referring to an authority on one subject to 'prove' something about an unrelated subject is a fallacy, idiot. Referring to an authority that does not address the specific issue at hand can be a fallacy, idiot. Referring to a very elite authority on a very specific topic in regards to that specific topic is not a fallacy, idiot. 


Have you ever studied logic at any level?


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> The end of slavery was one of the eventual outcomes of the war. Odd that every other country that had slaves was able to ban slavery without killing a million of its own citizens...UK and France for example.
> 
> No you silly person; the Civil War was about $....as usual.
> 
> Make no mistake; that slavery was ended was a good thing and overdue. You must also be aware that the North DESTROYED the South's ECONOMY. No money for reparations.
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The North destroyed the South's economy because the South made war upon the North. Remember Fort Sumpter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  Lincoln made war on the South.  Ft Sumter was SC territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Complete and total lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did Lincoln invade Virginia?
> 
> Why yes he did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely and positively not. You cannot invade your own country. The criminal scum who tried to destroy our nation were eventually given a tiny fraction of what they deserve the punishment. You are a similar kind of scumbag fucking worthless dog and you deserve much worse, but again we will show forbearance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wasn't Lincoln's country, nimrod.  Lincoln, Grant and Sherman all deserved to be tried as war criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was and is the United States of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Virginia wasn't part of the USA, nimrod.
Click to expand...


Of course it was. No one but the criminals trying to harm my country has ever claimed otherwise. Since the establishment of the Republic, no nation on earth has ever recognized Virginia as anything other than part of the UNITED States of America.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was U.S. Federal Territory, and Lincoln defended it rightly on that basis. To think otherwise is to dismiss Federal authority altogether (which may be what you want to do).
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln deployed U.S. troops on U.S. soil to suppress a regional rebellion, in strict compliance with his Oath of Office.
> 
> No nation on earth ever recognized a sovereign nation calling itself _"The Confederate States of America." _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wasn't U.S. soil, nimrod.
Click to expand...

By every legal and historical measure it was, douche.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> The end of slavery was one of the eventual outcomes of the war. Odd that every other country that had slaves was able to ban slavery without killing a million of its own citizens...UK and France for example.
> 
> No you silly person; the Civil War was about $....as usual.
> 
> Make no mistake; that slavery was ended was a good thing and overdue. You must also be aware that the North DESTROYED the South's ECONOMY. No money for reparations.
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The North destroyed the South's economy because the South made war upon the North. Remember Fort Sumpter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  Lincoln made war on the South.  Ft Sumter was SC territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Complete and total lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did Lincoln invade Virginia?
> 
> Why yes he did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely and positively not. You cannot invade your own country. The criminal scum who tried to destroy our nation were eventually given a tiny fraction of what they deserve the punishment. You are a similar kind of scumbag fucking worthless dog and you deserve much worse, but again we will show forbearance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wasn't Lincoln's country, nimrod.  Lincoln, Grant and Sherman all deserved to be tried as war criminals.
Click to expand...

It was and is the United States of America.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't a war between the states?
> 
> View attachment 462175
> They've been lying to us in school all those years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A civil war is defined as "a war between citizens of the same country." Seems plain enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Southerners were not citizens of the Unites States after they seceded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they were. The so-called secession was illegitimate, illegal, and recognized by exactly 0 nations on this planet earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has been proven and demonstrated and documented over and over and over and over and over on this very side, you stupid piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't proved jack shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Study history, you brainless douche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have, especially the history of the Civil War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly you have not, you ignorant douche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly I have.....
Click to expand...


Despite zero evidence of any education training or experience in the area. You’re just another idiot with one of those things that everybody has.


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> The traitorous rebels were illegal and illegitimate in every way. They were punished to a tiny fraction of what they deserved, just as assholes today who take up their evil cause  will be let off the hook for far too easily.


^^^^^^^


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> I've aleady [sic] explained my positiion [sic] of the court. .......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are your qualifications in Constitutional Law? We know you can barely string together a sentence in English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Appeal to authority._
> 
> Next!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should learn what that means before repeating it again, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How am I misusing it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You clearly don't understand what it means. Why don't you Google, or Wiki, or whatever you ignorant fools do when you're confused?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claim I don't understand what it means?  Prove it.  Otherwise, shut your fucking yap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't even understand the Wiki page about it? That's pretty fucking sad.
> 
> Referring to an authority on a subject is not a fallacy, idiot. Referring to an authority on one subject to 'prove' something about an unrelated subject is a fallacy, idiot. Referring to an authority that does not address the specific issue at hand can be a fallacy, idiot. Referring to a very elite authority on a very specific topic in regards to that specific topic is not a fallacy, idiot.
> 
> 
> Have you ever studied logic at any level?
Click to expand...

If you claim that 'A' is true because authority 'B' says it's true, then you have committed a fallacy.  It doesn't matter how relevant his experience is.  Authorities are often wrong.  All the current physics authorities said Einstein's theory was wrong.  All geologists once believed that the continents didn't move.  They were all wrong.

You just proved you don't know the meaning of the term "appeal to authority."  Every leftwing dumbass I've ever met believes there are "legitimate" authorities.


----------



## Unkotare

Note the lack of consent to enslavement from the human beings kept in bondage and forced labor by those criminals who wanted to destroy our Union.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> I've aleady [sic] explained my positiion [sic] of the court. .......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are your qualifications in Constitutional Law? We know you can barely string together a sentence in English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Appeal to authority._
> 
> Next!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should learn what that means before repeating it again, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How am I misusing it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You clearly don't understand what it means. Why don't you Google, or Wiki, or whatever you ignorant fools do when you're confused?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claim I don't understand what it means?  Prove it.  Otherwise, shut your fucking yap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't even understand the Wiki page about it? That's pretty fucking sad.
> 
> Referring to an authority on a subject is not a fallacy, idiot. Referring to an authority on one subject to 'prove' something about an unrelated subject is a fallacy, idiot. Referring to an authority that does not address the specific issue at hand can be a fallacy, idiot. Referring to a very elite authority on a very specific topic in regards to that specific topic is not a fallacy, idiot.
> 
> 
> Have you ever studied logic at any level?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you claim that 'A' is true because authority 'B' says it's true, then you have committed a fallacy.  It doesn't matter how relevant his experience is. .....
Click to expand...


No, that is not what it means, idiot. You may really, really, really want it to, but it doesn't, idiot. This is what happens when you have a big mouth but no idea what you're talking about. 

You have never studied logic, but you tried to shoot your mouth off about it.
You have never studied history, but you tried to shoot your mouth off about it.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't a war between the states?
> 
> View attachment 462175
> They've been lying to us in school all those years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A civil war is defined as "a war between citizens of the same country." Seems plain enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Southerners were not citizens of the Unites States after they seceded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they were. The so-called secession was illegitimate, illegal, and recognized by exactly 0 nations on this planet earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has been proven and demonstrated and documented over and over and over and over and over on this very side, you stupid piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't proved jack shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Study history, you brainless douche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have, especially the history of the Civil War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly you have not, you ignorant douche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly I have.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Despite zero evidence of any education training or experience in the area. You’re just another idiot with one of those things that everybody has.
Click to expand...

Once again he doubles down on stupid.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> I've aleady [sic] explained my positiion [sic] of the court. .......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are your qualifications in Constitutional Law? We know you can barely string together a sentence in English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Appeal to authority._
> 
> Next!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should learn what that means before repeating it again, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How am I misusing it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You clearly don't understand what it means. Why don't you Google, or Wiki, or whatever you ignorant fools do when you're confused?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claim I don't understand what it means?  Prove it.  Otherwise, shut your fucking yap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't even understand the Wiki page about it? That's pretty fucking sad.
> 
> Referring to an authority on a subject is not a fallacy, idiot. Referring to an authority on one subject to 'prove' something about an unrelated subject is a fallacy, idiot. Referring to an authority that does not address the specific issue at hand can be a fallacy, idiot. Referring to a very elite authority on a very specific topic in regards to that specific topic is not a fallacy, idiot.
> 
> 
> Have you ever studied logic at any level?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you claim that 'A' is true because authority 'B' says it's true, then you have committed a fallacy.  It doesn't matter how relevant his experience is. .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that is not what it means, idiot. You may really, really, really want it to, but it doesn't, idiot. This is what happens when you have a big mouth but no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> You have never studied logic, but you tried to shoot your mouth off about it.
> You have never studied history, but you tried to shoot your mouth off about it.
Click to expand...


_https://www.logicalfallacies.org/appeal-to-authority.html_
​_The fallacy of appeal to authority makes the argument that if one credible source believes something that it must be true._​​_*Example of Appeal to Authority*_​
_If the Pope says that an aspect of doctrine is true, then it should be added to the creed, since he is infallible._
_The mayor said that the crime rate is down. The statistics claiming otherwise must be erroneous. Since the mayor is in charge of the city and supposedly aware of the goings on his statement should supersede statistical data._


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> I've aleady [sic] explained my positiion [sic] of the court. .......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are your qualifications in Constitutional Law? We know you can barely string together a sentence in English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Appeal to authority._
> 
> Next!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should learn what that means before repeating it again, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How am I misusing it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You clearly don't understand what it means. Why don't you Google, or Wiki, or whatever you ignorant fools do when you're confused?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claim I don't understand what it means?  Prove it.  Otherwise, shut your fucking yap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't even understand the Wiki page about it? That's pretty fucking sad.
> 
> Referring to an authority on a subject is not a fallacy, idiot. Referring to an authority on one subject to 'prove' something about an unrelated subject is a fallacy, idiot. Referring to an authority that does not address the specific issue at hand can be a fallacy, idiot. Referring to a very elite authority on a very specific topic in regards to that specific topic is not a fallacy, idiot.
> 
> 
> Have you ever studied logic at any level?
Click to expand...

The WIki page is wrong.  That's hardly surprising since leftists have taken over Wiki, and they often believe there is such a thing as a valid authority in logic.

Consider this fact of history:   Alfred Wegener was the man who originally conceived the theory of continental drift. At the time, all the "experts" in geology said it couldn't possibly be correct. It turned out that all these experts were wrong and that Wegener was right.

Who was the "legitimate authority" on continental drift at the time?


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> Note the lack of consent to enslavement from the human beings kept in bondage and forced labor by those criminals who wanted to destroy our Union.


Are you claiming I approve of slavery, eh asshole?


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was U.S. Federal Territory, and Lincoln defended it rightly on that basis. To think otherwise is to dismiss Federal authority altogether (which may be what you want to do).
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln deployed U.S. troops on U.S. soil to suppress a regional rebellion, in strict compliance with his Oath of Office.
> 
> No nation on earth ever recognized a sovereign nation calling itself _"The Confederate States of America." _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wasn't U.S. soil, nimrod.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By every legal and historical measure it was, douche.
Click to expand...

Nope.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> The end of slavery was one of the eventual outcomes of the war. Odd that every other country that had slaves was able to ban slavery without killing a million of its own citizens...UK and France for example.
> 
> No you silly person; the Civil War was about $....as usual.
> 
> Make no mistake; that slavery was ended was a good thing and overdue. You must also be aware that the North DESTROYED the South's ECONOMY. No money for reparations.
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The North destroyed the South's economy because the South made war upon the North. Remember Fort Sumpter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  Lincoln made war on the South.  Ft Sumter was SC territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Complete and total lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did Lincoln invade Virginia?
> 
> Why yes he did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely and positively not. You cannot invade your own country. The criminal scum who tried to destroy our nation were eventually given a tiny fraction of what they deserve the punishment. You are a similar kind of scumbag fucking worthless dog and you deserve much worse, but again we will show forbearance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wasn't Lincoln's country, nimrod.  Lincoln, Grant and Sherman all deserved to be tried as war criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was and is the United States of America.
Click to expand...

Nope.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> The end of slavery was one of the eventual outcomes of the war. Odd that every other country that had slaves was able to ban slavery without killing a million of its own citizens...UK and France for example.
> 
> No you silly person; the Civil War was about $....as usual.
> 
> Make no mistake; that slavery was ended was a good thing and overdue. You must also be aware that the North DESTROYED the South's ECONOMY. No money for reparations.
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The North destroyed the South's economy because the South made war upon the North. Remember Fort Sumpter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  Lincoln made war on the South.  Ft Sumter was SC territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Complete and total lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did Lincoln invade Virginia?
> 
> Why yes he did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely and positively not. You cannot invade your own country. The criminal scum who tried to destroy our nation were eventually given a tiny fraction of what they deserve the punishment. You are a similar kind of scumbag fucking worthless dog and you deserve much worse, but again we will show forbearance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wasn't Lincoln's country, nimrod.  Lincoln, Grant and Sherman all deserved to be tried as war criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was and is the United States of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Virginia wasn't part of the USA, nimrod.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it was. No one but the criminals trying to harm my country has ever claimed otherwise. Since the establishment of the Republic, no nation on earth has ever recognized Virginia as anything other than part of the UNITED States of America.
Click to expand...

Lot's of people have claimed otherwise, especially at the time.  The USSR wasn't reconvized until long after it's battle with the Whites for the control of Russia, so your claim is meaningless.


----------



## gipper

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln has nothing to do with what makes the Perpetual Union what it was and is. If any Constitutional question could ever be clarified by the "original intent", this is it. It is in the thought and language of the time, and English is still our language.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln's invasion of Virginia...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was no such "invasion," as there could not be. This has been explained to you many times, brainless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course there was such an invasion. ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cannot invade your own territory. This has been explained to you many times, idiot.
Click to expand...

Lincoln did invade his own territory. It’s called treason. Too bad he wasn’t hung in 1861.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> ....
> Lot's of people have claimed otherwise, especially at the time. ......



What country ever recognized the so-called 'confederacy' as a sovereign nation?


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> The end of slavery was one of the eventual outcomes of the war. Odd that every other country that had slaves was able to ban slavery without killing a million of its own citizens...UK and France for example.
> 
> No you silly person; the Civil War was about $....as usual.
> 
> Make no mistake; that slavery was ended was a good thing and overdue. You must also be aware that the North DESTROYED the South's ECONOMY. No money for reparations.
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The North destroyed the South's economy because the South made war upon the North. Remember Fort Sumpter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  Lincoln made war on the South.  Ft Sumter was SC territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Complete and total lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did Lincoln invade Virginia?
> 
> Why yes he did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely and positively not. You cannot invade your own country. The criminal scum who tried to destroy our nation were eventually given a tiny fraction of what they deserve the punishment. You are a similar kind of scumbag fucking worthless dog and you deserve much worse, but again we will show forbearance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wasn't Lincoln's country, nimrod.  Lincoln, Grant and Sherman all deserved to be tried as war criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was and is the United States of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.
Click to expand...

Yup.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was U.S. Federal Territory, and Lincoln defended it rightly on that basis. To think otherwise is to dismiss Federal authority altogether (which may be what you want to do).
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln deployed U.S. troops on U.S. soil to suppress a regional rebellion, in strict compliance with his Oath of Office.
> 
> No nation on earth ever recognized a sovereign nation calling itself _"The Confederate States of America." _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wasn't U.S. soil, nimrod.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By every legal and historical measure it was, douche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.
Click to expand...

Yup.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> I've aleady [sic] explained my positiion [sic] of the court. .......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are your qualifications in Constitutional Law? We know you can barely string together a sentence in English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Appeal to authority._
> 
> Next!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should learn what that means before repeating it again, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How am I misusing it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You clearly don't understand what it means. Why don't you Google, or Wiki, or whatever you ignorant fools do when you're confused?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claim I don't understand what it means?  Prove it.  Otherwise, shut your fucking yap.
Click to expand...


You can't even understand the Wiki page about it? That's pretty fucking sad.

Referring to an authority on a subject is not a fallacy, idiot. Referring to an authority on one subject to 'prove' something about an unrelated subject is a fallacy, idiot. Referring to an authority that does not address the specific issue at hand can be a fallacy, idiot. Referring to a very elite authority on a very specific topic in regards to that specific topic is not a fallacy, idiot.


Have you ever studied logic at any level?


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> Lot's of people have claimed otherwise, especially at the time. ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What country ever recognized the so-called 'confederacy' as a sovereign nation?
Click to expand...

Irrelevent, moron.  Is Taiwan a sovereign nation?


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> I've aleady [sic] explained my positiion [sic] of the court. .......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are your qualifications in Constitutional Law? We know you can barely string together a sentence in English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Appeal to authority._
> 
> Next!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should learn what that means before repeating it again, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How am I misusing it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You clearly don't understand what it means. Why don't you Google, or Wiki, or whatever you ignorant fools do when you're confused?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claim I don't understand what it means?  Prove it.  Otherwise, shut your fucking yap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't even understand the Wiki page about it? That's pretty fucking sad.
> 
> Referring to an authority on a subject is not a fallacy, idiot. Referring to an authority on one subject to 'prove' something about an unrelated subject is a fallacy, idiot. Referring to an authority that does not address the specific issue at hand can be a fallacy, idiot. Referring to a very elite authority on a very specific topic in regards to that specific topic is not a fallacy, idiot.
> 
> 
> Have you ever studied logic at any level?
Click to expand...

I understand that the Wiki page is wrong. There is no "legitimate authority" on matters of absolute truth.

Do believe the continents move?


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was U.S. Federal Territory, and Lincoln defended it rightly on that basis. To think otherwise is to dismiss Federal authority altogether (which may be what you want to do).
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln deployed U.S. troops on U.S. soil to suppress a regional rebellion, in strict compliance with his Oath of Office.
> 
> No nation on earth ever recognized a sovereign nation calling itself _"The Confederate States of America." _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wasn't U.S. soil, nimrod.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By every legal and historical measure it was, douche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup.
Click to expand...

Nope.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> I've aleady [sic] explained my positiion [sic] of the court. .......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are your qualifications in Constitutional Law? We know you can barely string together a sentence in English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Appeal to authority._
> 
> Next!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should learn what that means before repeating it again, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How am I misusing it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You clearly don't understand what it means. Why don't you Google, or Wiki, or whatever you ignorant fools do when you're confused?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claim I don't understand what it means?  Prove it.  Otherwise, shut your fucking yap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't even understand the Wiki page about it? That's pretty fucking sad.
> 
> Referring to an authority on a subject is not a fallacy, idiot. Referring to an authority on one subject to 'prove' something about an unrelated subject is a fallacy, idiot. Referring to an authority that does not address the specific issue at hand can be a fallacy, idiot. Referring to a very elite authority on a very specific topic in regards to that specific topic is not a fallacy, idiot.
> 
> 
> Have you ever studied logic at any level?
Click to expand...

The story of the theory of continental proves you are wrong, moron.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> Lot's of people have claimed otherwise, especially at the time. ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What country ever recognized the so-called 'confederacy' as a sovereign nation?
Click to expand...

Irrelevant.


----------



## gtopa1

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> Lot's of people have claimed otherwise, especially at the time. ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What country ever recognized the so-called 'confederacy' as a sovereign nation?
Click to expand...

The Confederate States of America did(CSA). 

Unko; I have ZERO skin in the game so I can only go by what I've read and studied. The "Moral" reason was slavery; the MOTIVATING reason was $. Am I glad that the South was ridded of slavery; of course I am, as I am "glad" of Magna Carta. It is NOT a matter of stupidity to think that the PRIMARY REASON for the war was $; it is USUALLY the case. Controlling the $ is always at he root of these things. 

Greg


----------



## Unkotare

gtopa1 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> Lot's of people have claimed otherwise, especially at the time. ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What country ever recognized the so-called 'confederacy' as a sovereign nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Confederate States of America did(CSA).
> .....
Click to expand...


That was not a country. It was a criminal enterprise that was rightfully crushed.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> Lot's of people have claimed otherwise, especially at the time. ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What country ever recognized the so-called 'confederacy' as a sovereign nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Completely relevant, wannabe.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> I've aleady [sic] explained my positiion [sic] of the court. .......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are your qualifications in Constitutional Law? We know you can barely string together a sentence in English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Appeal to authority._
> 
> Next!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should learn what that means before repeating it again, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How am I misusing it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You clearly don't understand what it means. Why don't you Google, or Wiki, or whatever you ignorant fools do when you're confused?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claim I don't understand what it means?  Prove it.  Otherwise, shut your fucking yap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't even understand the Wiki page about it? That's pretty fucking sad.
> 
> Referring to an authority on a subject is not a fallacy, idiot. Referring to an authority on one subject to 'prove' something about an unrelated subject is a fallacy, idiot. Referring to an authority that does not address the specific issue at hand can be a fallacy, idiot. Referring to a very elite authority on a very specific topic in regards to that specific topic is not a fallacy, idiot.
> 
> 
> Have you ever studied logic at any level?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The story of the theory of continental proves you are wrong, moron.
Click to expand...


 

Look brainless, if you really want to talk about logic, why not take the time to actually study it at least a little?


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was U.S. Federal Territory, and Lincoln defended it rightly on that basis. To think otherwise is to dismiss Federal authority altogether (which may be what you want to do).
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln deployed U.S. troops on U.S. soil to suppress a regional rebellion, in strict compliance with his Oath of Office.
> 
> No nation on earth ever recognized a sovereign nation calling itself _"The Confederate States of America." _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wasn't U.S. soil, nimrod.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By every legal and historical measure it was, douche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.
Click to expand...

Yup.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> I've aleady [sic] explained my positiion [sic] of the court. .......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are your qualifications in Constitutional Law? We know you can barely string together a sentence in English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Appeal to authority._
> 
> Next!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should learn what that means before repeating it again, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How am I misusing it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You clearly don't understand what it means. Why don't you Google, or Wiki, or whatever you ignorant fools do when you're confused?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claim I don't understand what it means?  Prove it.  Otherwise, shut your fucking yap.
Click to expand...


You can't even understand the Wiki page about it? That's pretty fucking sad.

Referring to an authority on a subject is not a fallacy, idiot. Referring to an authority on one subject to 'prove' something about an unrelated subject is a fallacy, idiot. Referring to an authority that does not address the specific issue at hand can be a fallacy, idiot. Referring to a very elite authority on a very specific topic in regards to that specific topic is not a fallacy, idiot.


Have you ever studied logic at any level?


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> I've aleady [sic] explained my positiion [sic] of the court. .......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are your qualifications in Constitutional Law? We know you can barely string together a sentence in English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Appeal to authority._
> 
> Next!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should learn what that means before repeating it again, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How am I misusing it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You clearly don't understand what it means. Why don't you Google, or Wiki, or whatever you ignorant fools do when you're confused?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claim I don't understand what it means?  Prove it.  ...
Click to expand...


YOU proved it, idiot.


----------



## there4eyeM

Southerners were not citizens of the Unites States after they seceded.
[/QUOTE]

Yes they were. The so-called secession was illegitimate, illegal, and recognized by exactly 0 nations on this planet earth.
[/QUOTE]
As invading one's own country is an oxymoron, so also is secession from a permanent attachment. The Union all the states joined was thought of as forever, which is why it was called "Perpetual". When the effort to perfect the Union resulted in a reformed Constitution, no language or statement changed the permanent status of that Union. That is the linguistic and spiritual continuity that makes "secession" something one may attempt, but that would be illegal and only possible after the fact; that is, if such a rebellion were to succeed. Secession in 1861 did not succeed and the generosity of the Nation spared the rebels from widespread executions, unlike most civil conflicts. The war itself had cost enough lives. That collective payment for the errors of the founders in continuing slavery should serve as sufficient sacrifice for all Americans to give up the past and shoulder a better future together.


----------



## gtopa1

Unkotare said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> Lot's of people have claimed otherwise, especially at the time. ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What country ever recognized the so-called 'confederacy' as a sovereign nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Confederate States of America did(CSA).
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was not a country. It was a criminal enterprise that was rightfully crushed.
Click to expand...

You sure about that, chief???

Greg


----------



## gtopa1

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> I've aleady [sic] explained my positiion [sic] of the court. .......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are your qualifications in Constitutional Law? We know you can barely string together a sentence in English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Appeal to authority._
> 
> Next!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should learn what that means before repeating it again, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How am I misusing it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You clearly don't understand what it means. Why don't you Google, or Wiki, or whatever you ignorant fools do when you're confused?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claim I don't understand what it means?  Prove it.  Otherwise, shut your fucking yap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't even understand the Wiki page about it? That's pretty fucking sad.
> 
> Referring to an authority on a subject is not a fallacy, idiot. Referring to an authority on one subject to 'prove' something about an unrelated subject is a fallacy, idiot. Referring to an authority that does not address the specific issue at hand can be a fallacy, idiot. Referring to a very elite authority on a very specific topic in regards to that specific topic is not a fallacy, idiot.
> 
> 
> Have you ever studied logic at any level?
Click to expand...


Greg


----------



## gtopa1

there4eyeM said:


> Southerners were not citizens of the Unites States after they seceded.



Yes they were. The so-called secession was illegitimate, illegal, and recognized by exactly 0 nations on this planet earth.
[/QUOTE]
As invading one's own country is an oxymoron, so also is secession from a permanent attachment. The Union all the states joined was thought of as forever, which is why it was called "Perpetual". When the effort to perfect the Union resulted in a reformed Constitution, no language or statement changed the permanent status of that Union. That is the linguistic and spiritual continuity that makes "secession" something one may attempt, but that would be illegal and only possible after the fact; that is, if such a rebellion were to succeed. Secession in 1861 did not succeed and the generosity of the Nation spared the rebels from widespread executions, unlike most civil conflicts. The war itself had cost enough lives. That collective payment for the errors of the founders in continuing slavery should serve as sufficient sacrifice for all Americans to give up the past and shoulder a better future together.
[/QUOTE]

Greg


----------



## gtopa1

there4eyeM said:


> Southerners were not citizens of the Unites States after they seceded.



Yes they were. The so-called secession was illegitimate, illegal, and recognized by exactly 0 nations on this planet earth.
[/QUOTE]
As invading one's own country is an oxymoron, so also is secession from a permanent attachment. The Union all the states joined was thought of as forever, which is why it was called "Perpetual". When the effort to perfect the Union resulted in a reformed Constitution, no language or statement changed the permanent status of that Union. That is the linguistic and spiritual continuity that makes "secession" something one may attempt, but that would be illegal and only possible after the fact; that is, if such a rebellion were to succeed. Secession in 1861 did not succeed and the generosity of the Nation spared the rebels from widespread executions, unlike most civil conflicts. The war itself had cost enough lives. That collective payment for the errors of the founders in continuing slavery should serve as sufficient sacrifice for all Americans to give up the past and shoulder a better future together.
[/QUOTE]
Not sure the North wanted to invade Texas, the Everglades, Alabama, the Bayous etc etc etc.......Grant knew that he could NOT overextend his supply lines imo. 

Greg


----------



## there4eyeM

gtopa1 said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Southerners were not citizens of the Unites States after they seceded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they were. The so-called secession was illegitimate, illegal, and recognized by exactly 0 nations on this planet earth.
Click to expand...

As invading one's own country is an oxymoron, so also is secession from a permanent attachment. The Union all the states joined was thought of as forever, which is why it was called "Perpetual". When the effort to perfect the Union resulted in a reformed Constitution, no language or statement changed the permanent status of that Union. That is the linguistic and spiritual continuity that makes "secession" something one may attempt, but that would be illegal and only possible after the fact; that is, if such a rebellion were to succeed. Secession in 1861 did not succeed and the generosity of the Nation spared the rebels from widespread executions, unlike most civil conflicts. The war itself had cost enough lives. That collective payment for the errors of the founders in continuing slavery should serve as sufficient sacrifice for all Americans to give up the past and shoulder a better future together.
[/QUOTE]
Not sure the North wanted to invade Texas, the Everglades, Alabama, the Bayous etc etc etc.......Grant knew that he could NOT overextend his supply lines imo.

Greg
[/QUOTE]
Any commander knows that.


----------



## there4eyeM

gtopa1 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> Lot's of people have claimed otherwise, especially at the time. ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What country ever recognized the so-called 'confederacy' as a sovereign nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Confederate States of America did(CSA).
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was not a country. It was a criminal enterprise that was rightfully crushed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sure about that, chief???
> 
> Greg
Click to expand...

History is.


----------



## gtopa1

there4eyeM said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> Lot's of people have claimed otherwise, especially at the time. ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What country ever recognized the so-called 'confederacy' as a sovereign nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Confederate States of America did(CSA).
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was not a country. It was a criminal enterprise that was rightfully crushed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sure about that, chief???
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> History is.
Click to expand...

Whose History?? I've heard some good debates about this issue......back in the 70s. I don't think anyone is stupid for taking either view quite frankly; a tad firm in opinions perhaps. lol




Greg


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> Lot's of people have claimed otherwise, especially at the time. ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What country ever recognized the so-called 'confederacy' as a sovereign nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Confederate States of America did(CSA).
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was not a country. It was a criminal enterprise that was rightfully crushed.
Click to expand...

What "crime" did it commit?


----------



## bripat9643

there4eyeM said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> Lot's of people have claimed otherwise, especially at the time. ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What country ever recognized the so-called 'confederacy' as a sovereign nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Confederate States of America did(CSA).
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was not a country. It was a criminal enterprise that was rightfully crushed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sure about that, chief???
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> History is.
Click to expand...

Wrong.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> I've aleady [sic] explained my positiion [sic] of the court. .......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are your qualifications in Constitutional Law? We know you can barely string together a sentence in English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Appeal to authority._
> 
> Next!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should learn what that means before repeating it again, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How am I misusing it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You clearly don't understand what it means. Why don't you Google, or Wiki, or whatever you ignorant fools do when you're confused?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claim I don't understand what it means?  Prove it.  Otherwise, shut your fucking yap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't even understand the Wiki page about it? That's pretty fucking sad.
> 
> Referring to an authority on a subject is not a fallacy, idiot. Referring to an authority on one subject to 'prove' something about an unrelated subject is a fallacy, idiot. Referring to an authority that does not address the specific issue at hand can be a fallacy, idiot. Referring to a very elite authority on a very specific topic in regards to that specific topic is not a fallacy, idiot.
> 
> 
> Have you ever studied logic at any level?
Click to expand...

If you claim 'A' is true because authority 'B' says it's true, then you have committed a fallacy, and that's exactly what you're doing.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was U.S. Federal Territory, and Lincoln defended it rightly on that basis. To think otherwise is to dismiss Federal authority altogether (which may be what you want to do).
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln deployed U.S. troops on U.S. soil to suppress a regional rebellion, in strict compliance with his Oath of Office.
> 
> No nation on earth ever recognized a sovereign nation calling itself _"The Confederate States of America." _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wasn't U.S. soil, nimrod.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By every legal and historical measure it was, douche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup.
Click to expand...

Nope.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> I've aleady [sic] explained my positiion [sic] of the court. .......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are your qualifications in Constitutional Law? We know you can barely string together a sentence in English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Appeal to authority._
> 
> Next!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should learn what that means before repeating it again, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How am I misusing it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You clearly don't understand what it means. Why don't you Google, or Wiki, or whatever you ignorant fools do when you're confused?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claim I don't understand what it means?  Prove it.  Otherwise, shut your fucking yap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't even understand the Wiki page about it? That's pretty fucking sad.
> 
> Referring to an authority on a subject is not a fallacy, idiot. Referring to an authority on one subject to 'prove' something about an unrelated subject is a fallacy, idiot. Referring to an authority that does not address the specific issue at hand can be a fallacy, idiot. Referring to a very elite authority on a very specific topic in regards to that specific topic is not a fallacy, idiot.
> 
> 
> Have you ever studied logic at any level?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The story of the theory of continental proves you are wrong, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look brainless, if you really want to talk about logic, why not take the time to actually study it at least a little?
Click to expand...

I have studied it, moron.  Insulting me won't make your argument any less wrong.  It's a logical fallacy.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> Lot's of people have claimed otherwise, especially at the time. ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What country ever recognized the so-called 'confederacy' as a sovereign nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Completely relevant, wannabe.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant.  According to you, the USSR was not a country before 1924.  Then after that it was a country.  Only a brain damaged imbecile swallows that kind of logic.  So tell us, moron, is Taiwan a country?  The USA doesn't recognize it as a country, and neither does the U.N.


----------



## there4eyeM

gtopa1 said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> Lot's of people have claimed otherwise, especially at the time. ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What country ever recognized the so-called 'confederacy' as a sovereign nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Confederate States of America did(CSA).
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was not a country. It was a criminal enterprise that was rightfully crushed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sure about that, chief???
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> History is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whose History?? I've heard some good debates about this issue......back in the 70s. I don't think anyone is stupid for taking either view quite frankly; a tad firm in opinions perhaps. lol
> 
> 
> Greg
> 
> Greg
Click to expand...

The details may be debated, but no one (seriously) disputes the American Civil War ended the secession effort. Opinion has nothing to do with it.


----------



## bripat9643

there4eyeM said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> Lot's of people have claimed otherwise, especially at the time. ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What country ever recognized the so-called 'confederacy' as a sovereign nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Confederate States of America did(CSA).
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was not a country. It was a criminal enterprise that was rightfully crushed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sure about that, chief???
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> History is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whose History?? I've heard some good debates about this issue......back in the 70s. I don't think anyone is stupid for taking either view quite frankly; a tad firm in opinions perhaps. lol
> 
> 
> Greg
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The details may be debated, but no one (seriously) disputes the American Civil War ended the secession effort. Opinion has nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...

Genghis Khan wiped out the national ambitions of a lot of people.  That's what you're supporting.


----------



## gtopa1

there4eyeM said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> Lot's of people have claimed otherwise, especially at the time. ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What country ever recognized the so-called 'confederacy' as a sovereign nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Confederate States of America did(CSA).
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was not a country. It was a criminal enterprise that was rightfully crushed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sure about that, chief???
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> History is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whose History?? I've heard some good debates about this issue......back in the 70s. I don't think anyone is stupid for taking either view quite frankly; a tad firm in opinions perhaps. lol
> 
> 
> Greg
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The details may be debated, but no one (seriously) disputes the American Civil War ended the secession effort. Opinion has nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...

Lee may have just not wanted the "Hillbillies" to take over the South when they defeated the overextended armies of the North. The North knew what happened in the Retreat from Moscow. Hence a cessation /surrender that was mutually agreeable with Pardons. How could a Union army march to Houston???

Greg


----------



## Flash

The South Was Right!

A couple of facts about the Civil War that aren't usually covered in the typical Jr High School History books.

First of all slavery was legal in the US on the Federal level.  It was up to the individual states to have it.  It was legal long before the Civil War, during the Civil War and for almost a year after the war.

The great debates that the nation had about slavery prior to the Civil War had nothing to do with real slavery.  It had to do with political control in the new Western states.  If a new state was going to come in as slave then it was going to be dominated by the Democrats.  If non slave then it will be controlled by the Republicans.  That would control Congress and political power.  Being in controlled of Congress meant having control over the treasury.  Follow the money.

Second was the silly crap that the South started hostilities.  Secession was a political move, not war.

When the states seceded President Buchanan knew that the issue of Federal facilities could be an issue that could cause hostilities.  He established a truce that said he would not reinforce the facilities and the South would not attack.  That truce was in effect at Ft Sumter. 

However, as soon as that asshole Lincoln took over he broke the truce.  He sent a ship to Ft Sumter breaking the truce.  He is the one that instigated hostilities.  He did it without consulting with Congress or even his Cabinet.

Of course the war really didn't start at ft Sumter.  It started when the filthy Yankees sent an army across the Potomac River to kill Southerns, destroy their cities and farms and take away the right to keep and bear arms.

One third of the Southern states first chose not to join the Confederacy.  However, after that asshole Lincoln decided to kill Southerners then they changed their mind and joined the Confederacy.


----------



## schmidlap

Unkotare said:


> ^^^^^^^^


Indeed!

In summation,

In 1860, Abraham Lincoln was elected President of the United States - of all 33 United States.​​Lincoln deployed United States troops on United States soil to suppress a regional rebellion within the United States, in strict compliance with his Oath of Office. The rebellious states cited their determination to perpetuate slavery as their excuse, the demand of special interests within them.​​No nation on earth ever recognized a sovereign nation calling itself _"The Confederate States of America" _that was an attempt to deprive Americans within their state borders of their United States citizenship.​​Those who attacked the United States from within exacted an enormous price upon the nation, but were defeated and the Union was preserved.​


----------



## schmidlap

Flash said:


> The South Was Right!...


In summation,

In 1860, Abraham Lincoln was elected President of the United States - of all 33 United States.

Lincoln deployed United States troops on United States soil to suppress a regional rebellion within the United States, in strict compliance with his Oath of Office. The rebellious states cited their determination to perpetuate slavery as their excuse, the demand of special interests within them.

No nation on earth ever recognized a sovereign nation calling itself _"The Confederate States of America" _that was an attempt to deprive Americans within their state borders of their United States citizenship.

Those who attacked the United States from within exacted an enormous price upon the nation, but were defeated and the Union was preserved.


----------



## Unkotare

gtopa1 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> Lot's of people have claimed otherwise, especially at the time. ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What country ever recognized the so-called 'confederacy' as a sovereign nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Confederate States of America did(CSA).
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was not a country. It was a criminal enterprise that was rightfully crushed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sure about that, chief???
> 
> Greg
Click to expand...


Yes, I am.


----------



## Unkotare

Flash said:


> ....  He is the one that instigated hostilities.  ...



The criminal scum of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war.


----------



## Unkotare

Flash said:


> ...
> 
> Of course the war really didn't start at ft Sumter.  ...



Of course it did.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> Lot's of people have claimed otherwise, especially at the time. ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What country ever recognized the so-called 'confederacy' as a sovereign nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Completely relevant, wannabe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant.  According to you, the USSR was ......
Click to expand...


We are not talking about the USSR, idiot. Focus.


----------



## there4eyeM

How many states joined the Union before the Civil War and after the Republican Party was formed?


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> I've aleady [sic] explained my positiion [sic] of the court. .......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are your qualifications in Constitutional Law? We know you can barely string together a sentence in English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Appeal to authority._
> 
> Next!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should learn what that means before repeating it again, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How am I misusing it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You clearly don't understand what it means. Why don't you Google, or Wiki, or whatever you ignorant fools do when you're confused?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claim I don't understand what it means?  Prove it.  Otherwise, shut your fucking yap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't even understand the Wiki page about it? That's pretty fucking sad.
> 
> Referring to an authority on a subject is not a fallacy, idiot. Referring to an authority on one subject to 'prove' something about an unrelated subject is a fallacy, idiot. Referring to an authority that does not address the specific issue at hand can be a fallacy, idiot. Referring to a very elite authority on a very specific topic in regards to that specific topic is not a fallacy, idiot.
> 
> 
> Have you ever studied logic at any level?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The story of the theory of continental proves you are wrong, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look brainless, if you really want to talk about logic, why not take the time to actually study it at least a little?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have studied it.......
Click to expand...


Where? At what level? How?

You're full of shit, and you know it.


----------



## there4eyeM

The Civil War was not about political parties.


----------



## schmidlap

there4eyeM said:


> The Civil War was not about political parties.


However, it was about _politics_ - the violent attempt, driven by special interests in some states, to deprive_ all _the people in those states of their U.S. citizenship.


----------



## there4eyeM

schmidlap said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was not about political parties.
> 
> 
> 
> However, it was about _politics_ - the violent attempt, driven by special interests in some states, to deprive_ all _the people in those states of their U.S. citizenship.
Click to expand...

It was about the extra-Constitutional measures taken by seditious persons to resolve a political problem. Innumerable issues were therein tangled, but it comes down to that.


----------



## schmidlap

there4eyeM said:


> It was about the extra-Constitutional measures taken by seditious persons to resolve a political problem. Innumerable issues were therein tangled, but it comes down to that.


Our nation of, by, and for the People provides the mechanisms of self-governance by peaceful means.

Wee-weeing up fanatics via lies, propaganda, and inflammatory rhetoric to attack our government of, by, and for the People after matters have been democratically decided was and remains an unacceptable recourse for sore loser malcontents.


----------



## there4eyeM

schmidlap said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was about the extra-Constitutional measures taken by seditious persons to resolve a political problem. Innumerable issues were therein tangled, but it comes down to that.
> 
> 
> 
> Our nation of, by, and for the People provides the mechanisms of self-governance by peaceful means.
> 
> Wee-weeing up fanatics via lies, propaganda, and inflammatory rhetoric to attack our government of, by, and for the People after matters have been democratically decided was and remains an unacceptable recourse for sore loser malcontents.
Click to expand...

It is one thing to want to take your ball and go home. It is another thing when it is not your ball.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> Lot's of people have claimed otherwise, especially at the time. ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What country ever recognized the so-called 'confederacy' as a sovereign nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Completely relevant, wannabe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant.  According to you, the USSR was ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are not talking about the USSR, idiot. Focus.
Click to expand...

So admit that you're too stupid to understand an analogy.


----------



## bripat9643

schmidlap said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was about the extra-Constitutional measures taken by seditious persons to resolve a political problem. Innumerable issues were therein tangled, but it comes down to that.
> 
> 
> 
> Our nation of, by, and for the People provides the mechanisms of self-governance by peaceful means.
> 
> Wee-weeing up fanatics via lies, propaganda, and inflammatory rhetoric to attack our government of, by, and for the People after matters have been democratically decided was and remains an unacceptable recourse for sore loser malcontents.
Click to expand...

Invadiing Virginia was how we settle differences peacefully?


----------



## schmidlap

there4eyeM said:


> It is one thing to want to take your ball and go home. It is another thing when it is not your ball.


Going home is good. Preferably before savaging the ball.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was about the extra-Constitutional measures taken by seditious persons to resolve a political problem. Innumerable issues were therein tangled, but it comes down to that.
> 
> 
> 
> Our nation of, by, and for the People provides the mechanisms of self-governance by peaceful means.
> 
> Wee-weeing up fanatics via lies, propaganda, and inflammatory rhetoric to attack our government of, by, and for the People after matters have been democratically decided was and remains an unacceptable recourse for sore loser malcontents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Invadiing Virginia was how we settle differences peacefully?
Click to expand...


You can't "invade" your own country.


----------



## bripat9643

there4eyeM said:


> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was not about political parties.
> 
> 
> 
> However, it was about _politics_ - the violent attempt, driven by special interests in some states, to deprive_ all _the people in those states of their U.S. citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was about the extra-Constitutional measures taken by seditious persons to resolve a political problem. Innumerable issues were therein tangled, but it comes down to that.
Click to expand...

They decided that Constitution was unworkable.  Your opinion that it requires the states to accept whatever the federal government dishes out is pure horseshit.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was about the extra-Constitutional measures taken by seditious persons to resolve a political problem. Innumerable issues were therein tangled, but it comes down to that.
> 
> 
> 
> Our nation of, by, and for the People provides the mechanisms of self-governance by peaceful means.
> 
> Wee-weeing up fanatics via lies, propaganda, and inflammatory rhetoric to attack our government of, by, and for the People after matters have been democratically decided was and remains an unacceptable recourse for sore loser malcontents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Invadiing Virginia was how we settle differences peacefully?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't "invade" your own country.
Click to expand...

He invaded Virginia, which wasn't his own country


----------



## bripat9643

schmidlap said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was not about political parties.
> 
> 
> 
> However, it was about _politics_ - the violent attempt, driven by special interests in some states, to deprive_ all _the people in those states of their U.S. citizenship.
Click to expand...

Lincoln is the one who resorted to violence, moron.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> Lot's of people have claimed otherwise, especially at the time. ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What country ever recognized the so-called 'confederacy' as a sovereign nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Completely relevant, wannabe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant.  According to you, the USSR was ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are not talking about the USSR, idiot. Focus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So admit that you're too stupid to understand an analogy.
Click to expand...


Those straws you're grasping at won't save you, idiot.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> I've aleady [sic] explained my positiion [sic] of the court. .......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are your qualifications in Constitutional Law? We know you can barely string together a sentence in English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Appeal to authority._
> 
> Next!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should learn what that means before repeating it again, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How am I misusing it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You clearly don't understand what it means. Why don't you Google, or Wiki, or whatever you ignorant fools do when you're confused?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claim I don't understand what it means?  Prove it.  Otherwise, shut your fucking yap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't even understand the Wiki page about it? That's pretty fucking sad.
> 
> Referring to an authority on a subject is not a fallacy, idiot. Referring to an authority on one subject to 'prove' something about an unrelated subject is a fallacy, idiot. Referring to an authority that does not address the specific issue at hand can be a fallacy, idiot. Referring to a very elite authority on a very specific topic in regards to that specific topic is not a fallacy, idiot.
> 
> 
> Have you ever studied logic at any level?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The story of the theory of continental proves you are wrong, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look brainless, if you really want to talk about logic, why not take the time to actually study it at least a little?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have studied it.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where? At what level? How?
> 
> You're full of shit, and you know it.
Click to expand...

Oh puhleeze.  Try to address the issues I bring up rather than engaging in these idiotic personal attacks.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was about the extra-Constitutional measures taken by seditious persons to resolve a political problem. Innumerable issues were therein tangled, but it comes down to that.
> 
> 
> 
> Our nation of, by, and for the People provides the mechanisms of self-governance by peaceful means.
> 
> Wee-weeing up fanatics via lies, propaganda, and inflammatory rhetoric to attack our government of, by, and for the People after matters have been democratically decided was and remains an unacceptable recourse for sore loser malcontents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Invadiing Virginia was how we settle differences peacefully?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't "invade" your own country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He invaded Virginia, which wasn't his own country
Click to expand...


Virginia was and is part of the UNITED States of America. Keep insisting otherwise, but it won't change anything, idiot.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> Lot's of people have claimed otherwise, especially at the time. ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What country ever recognized the so-called 'confederacy' as a sovereign nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Completely relevant, wannabe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant.  According to you, the USSR was ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are not talking about the USSR, idiot. Focus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So admit that you're too stupid to understand an analogy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those straws you're grasping at won't save you, idiot.
Click to expand...

What "straws?"  You mean the questions you never answer?


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> I've aleady [sic] explained my positiion [sic] of the court. .......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are your qualifications in Constitutional Law? We know you can barely string together a sentence in English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Appeal to authority._
> 
> Next!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should learn what that means before repeating it again, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How am I misusing it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You clearly don't understand what it means. Why don't you Google, or Wiki, or whatever you ignorant fools do when you're confused?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claim I don't understand what it means?  Prove it.  Otherwise, shut your fucking yap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't even understand the Wiki page about it? That's pretty fucking sad.
> 
> Referring to an authority on a subject is not a fallacy, idiot. Referring to an authority on one subject to 'prove' something about an unrelated subject is a fallacy, idiot. Referring to an authority that does not address the specific issue at hand can be a fallacy, idiot. Referring to a very elite authority on a very specific topic in regards to that specific topic is not a fallacy, idiot.
> 
> 
> Have you ever studied logic at any level?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The story of the theory of continental proves you are wrong, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look brainless, if you really want to talk about logic, why not take the time to actually study it at least a little?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have studied it.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where? At what level? How?
> 
> You're full of shit, and you know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh puhleeze.  Try to address the issues I bring up rather than engaging in these idiotic personal attacks.
Click to expand...


Stop trying to use terms you don't understand and it won't be an issue.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was about the extra-Constitutional measures taken by seditious persons to resolve a political problem. Innumerable issues were therein tangled, but it comes down to that.
> 
> 
> 
> Our nation of, by, and for the People provides the mechanisms of self-governance by peaceful means.
> 
> Wee-weeing up fanatics via lies, propaganda, and inflammatory rhetoric to attack our government of, by, and for the People after matters have been democratically decided was and remains an unacceptable recourse for sore loser malcontents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Invadiing Virginia was how we settle differences peacefully?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't "invade" your own country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He invaded Virginia, which wasn't his own country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Virginia was and is part of the UNITED States of America. Keep insisting otherwise, but it won't change anything, idiot.
Click to expand...

You have heard my answer a dozen times.  Ignoring it doesn't change a thing.  You're still an idiot.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> I've aleady [sic] explained my positiion [sic] of the court. .......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are your qualifications in Constitutional Law? We know you can barely string together a sentence in English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Appeal to authority._
> 
> Next!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should learn what that means before repeating it again, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How am I misusing it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You clearly don't understand what it means. Why don't you Google, or Wiki, or whatever you ignorant fools do when you're confused?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claim I don't understand what it means?  Prove it.  Otherwise, shut your fucking yap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't even understand the Wiki page about it? That's pretty fucking sad.
> 
> Referring to an authority on a subject is not a fallacy, idiot. Referring to an authority on one subject to 'prove' something about an unrelated subject is a fallacy, idiot. Referring to an authority that does not address the specific issue at hand can be a fallacy, idiot. Referring to a very elite authority on a very specific topic in regards to that specific topic is not a fallacy, idiot.
> 
> 
> Have you ever studied logic at any level?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The story of the theory of continental proves you are wrong, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look brainless, if you really want to talk about logic, why not take the time to actually study it at least a little?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have studied it.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where? At what level? How?
> 
> You're full of shit, and you know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh puhleeze.  Try to address the issues I bring up rather than engaging in these idiotic personal attacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop trying to use terms you don't understand and it won't be an issue.
Click to expand...

You're still running away, like you always do, pussy.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> Lot's of people have claimed otherwise, especially at the time. ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What country ever recognized the so-called 'confederacy' as a sovereign nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Completely relevant, wannabe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant.  According to you, the USSR was ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are not talking about the USSR, idiot. Focus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So admit that you're too stupid to understand an analogy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those straws you're grasping at won't save you, idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What "straws?"  You mean the questions you never answer?
Click to expand...


Red herring for breakfast today, idiot?


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was about the extra-Constitutional measures taken by seditious persons to resolve a political problem. Innumerable issues were therein tangled, but it comes down to that.
> 
> 
> 
> Our nation of, by, and for the People provides the mechanisms of self-governance by peaceful means.
> 
> Wee-weeing up fanatics via lies, propaganda, and inflammatory rhetoric to attack our government of, by, and for the People after matters have been democratically decided was and remains an unacceptable recourse for sore loser malcontents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Invadiing Virginia was how we settle differences peacefully?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't "invade" your own country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He invaded Virginia, which wasn't his own country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Virginia was and is part of the UNITED States of America. Keep insisting otherwise, but it won't change anything, idiot.
Click to expand...

"Nuh uhn!" isn't an adequate response to any question I have asked.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was about the extra-Constitutional measures taken by seditious persons to resolve a political problem. Innumerable issues were therein tangled, but it comes down to that.
> 
> 
> 
> Our nation of, by, and for the People provides the mechanisms of self-governance by peaceful means.
> 
> Wee-weeing up fanatics via lies, propaganda, and inflammatory rhetoric to attack our government of, by, and for the People after matters have been democratically decided was and remains an unacceptable recourse for sore loser malcontents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Invadiing Virginia was how we settle differences peacefully?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't "invade" your own country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He invaded Virginia, which wasn't his own country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Virginia was and is part of the UNITED States of America. Keep insisting otherwise, but it won't change anything, idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have heard my answer a dozen times.  ...
Click to expand...


You have repeated several lies a dozen times, idiot.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> Lot's of people have claimed otherwise, especially at the time. ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What country ever recognized the so-called 'confederacy' as a sovereign nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Completely relevant, wannabe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant.  According to you, the USSR was ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are not talking about the USSR, idiot. Focus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So admit that you're too stupid to understand an analogy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those straws you're grasping at won't save you, idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What "straws?"  You mean the questions you never answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Red herring for breakfast today, idiot?
Click to expand...

Now you are simply refusing to answer any questions.  Your "argument" is simply to launch verbal attacks on me.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was about the extra-Constitutional measures taken by seditious persons to resolve a political problem. Innumerable issues were therein tangled, but it comes down to that.
> 
> 
> 
> Our nation of, by, and for the People provides the mechanisms of self-governance by peaceful means.
> 
> Wee-weeing up fanatics via lies, propaganda, and inflammatory rhetoric to attack our government of, by, and for the People after matters have been democratically decided was and remains an unacceptable recourse for sore loser malcontents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Invadiing Virginia was how we settle differences peacefully?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't "invade" your own country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He invaded Virginia, which wasn't his own country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Virginia was and is part of the UNITED States of America. Keep insisting otherwise, but it won't change anything, idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have heard my answer a dozen times.  ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have repeated several lies a dozen times, idiot.
Click to expand...

What lies were those?


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> I've aleady [sic] explained my positiion [sic] of the court. .......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are your qualifications in Constitutional Law? We know you can barely string together a sentence in English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Appeal to authority._
> 
> Next!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should learn what that means before repeating it again, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How am I misusing it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You clearly don't understand what it means. Why don't you Google, or Wiki, or whatever you ignorant fools do when you're confused?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claim I don't understand what it means?  Prove it.  Otherwise, shut your fucking yap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't even understand the Wiki page about it? That's pretty fucking sad.
> 
> Referring to an authority on a subject is not a fallacy, idiot. Referring to an authority on one subject to 'prove' something about an unrelated subject is a fallacy, idiot. Referring to an authority that does not address the specific issue at hand can be a fallacy, idiot. Referring to a very elite authority on a very specific topic in regards to that specific topic is not a fallacy, idiot.
> 
> 
> Have you ever studied logic at any level?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The story of the theory of continental proves you are wrong, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look brainless, if you really want to talk about logic, why not take the time to actually study it at least a little?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have studied it.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where? At what level? How?
> 
> You're full of shit, and you know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh puhleeze.  Try to address the issues I bring up rather than engaging in these idiotic personal attacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop trying to use terms you don't understand and it won't be an issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're still running away, like you always do......
Click to expand...


Says the wannabe who has been chasing his own tail for page after page. 

Everyone understands that you hate America. You can go now.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> Lot's of people have claimed otherwise, especially at the time. ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What country ever recognized the so-called 'confederacy' as a sovereign nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Completely relevant, wannabe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant.  According to you, the USSR was ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are not talking about the USSR, idiot. Focus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So admit that you're too stupid to understand an analogy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those straws you're grasping at won't save you, idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What "straws?"  You mean the questions you never answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Red herring for breakfast today, idiot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you are simply refusing to answer any questions.  ....
Click to expand...


I already had breakfast, thanks.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> I've aleady [sic] explained my positiion [sic] of the court. .......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are your qualifications in Constitutional Law? We know you can barely string together a sentence in English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Appeal to authority._
> 
> Next!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should learn what that means before repeating it again, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How am I misusing it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You clearly don't understand what it means. Why don't you Google, or Wiki, or whatever you ignorant fools do when you're confused?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claim I don't understand what it means?  Prove it.  Otherwise, shut your fucking yap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't even understand the Wiki page about it? That's pretty fucking sad.
> 
> Referring to an authority on a subject is not a fallacy, idiot. Referring to an authority on one subject to 'prove' something about an unrelated subject is a fallacy, idiot. Referring to an authority that does not address the specific issue at hand can be a fallacy, idiot. Referring to a very elite authority on a very specific topic in regards to that specific topic is not a fallacy, idiot.
> 
> 
> Have you ever studied logic at any level?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The story of the theory of continental proves you are wrong, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look brainless, if you really want to talk about logic, why not take the time to actually study it at least a little?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have studied it.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where? At what level? How?
> 
> You're full of shit, and you know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh puhleeze.  Try to address the issues I bring up rather than engaging in these idiotic personal attacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop trying to use terms you don't understand and it won't be an issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're still running away, like you always do......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the wannabe who has been chasing his own tail for page after page.
> 
> Everyone understands that you hate America. You can go now.
Click to expand...

You're running away with your tail between your legs.  That's what you always do.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was about the extra-Constitutional measures taken by seditious persons to resolve a political problem. Innumerable issues were therein tangled, but it comes down to that.
> 
> 
> 
> Our nation of, by, and for the People provides the mechanisms of self-governance by peaceful means.
> 
> Wee-weeing up fanatics via lies, propaganda, and inflammatory rhetoric to attack our government of, by, and for the People after matters have been democratically decided was and remains an unacceptable recourse for sore loser malcontents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Invadiing Virginia was how we settle differences peacefully?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't "invade" your own country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He invaded Virginia, which wasn't his own country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Virginia was and is part of the UNITED States of America. Keep insisting otherwise, but it won't change anything, idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have heard my answer a dozen times.  ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have repeated several lies a dozen times, idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What lies were those?
Click to expand...


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> I've aleady [sic] explained my positiion [sic] of the court. .......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are your qualifications in Constitutional Law? We know you can barely string together a sentence in English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Appeal to authority._
> 
> Next!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should learn what that means before repeating it again, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How am I misusing it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You clearly don't understand what it means. Why don't you Google, or Wiki, or whatever you ignorant fools do when you're confused?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claim I don't understand what it means?  Prove it.  Otherwise, shut your fucking yap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't even understand the Wiki page about it? That's pretty fucking sad.
> 
> Referring to an authority on a subject is not a fallacy, idiot. Referring to an authority on one subject to 'prove' something about an unrelated subject is a fallacy, idiot. Referring to an authority that does not address the specific issue at hand can be a fallacy, idiot. Referring to a very elite authority on a very specific topic in regards to that specific topic is not a fallacy, idiot.
> 
> 
> Have you ever studied logic at any level?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The story of the theory of continental proves you are wrong, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look brainless, if you really want to talk about logic, why not take the time to actually study it at least a little?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have studied it.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where? At what level? How?
> 
> You're full of shit, and you know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh puhleeze.  Try to address the issues I bring up rather than engaging in these idiotic personal attacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop trying to use terms you don't understand and it won't be an issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're still running away, like you always do......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the wannabe who has been chasing his own tail for page after page.
> 
> Everyone understands that you hate America. You can go now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're running away with your tail between your legs.  That's what you always do.
Click to expand...


I'm right here, idiot. Keep chasing your own tail, wannabe.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> I've aleady [sic] explained my positiion [sic] of the court. .......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are your qualifications in Constitutional Law? We know you can barely string together a sentence in English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Appeal to authority._
> 
> Next!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should learn what that means before repeating it again, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How am I misusing it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You clearly don't understand what it means. Why don't you Google, or Wiki, or whatever you ignorant fools do when you're confused?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claim I don't understand what it means?  Prove it.  Otherwise, shut your fucking yap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't even understand the Wiki page about it? That's pretty fucking sad.
> 
> Referring to an authority on a subject is not a fallacy, idiot. Referring to an authority on one subject to 'prove' something about an unrelated subject is a fallacy, idiot. Referring to an authority that does not address the specific issue at hand can be a fallacy, idiot. Referring to a very elite authority on a very specific topic in regards to that specific topic is not a fallacy, idiot.
> 
> 
> Have you ever studied logic at any level?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The story of the theory of continental proves you are wrong, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look brainless, if you really want to talk about logic, why not take the time to actually study it at least a little?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have studied it.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where? At what level? How?
> 
> You're full of shit, and you know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh puhleeze.  Try to address the issues I bring up rather than engaging in these idiotic personal attacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop trying to use terms you don't understand and it won't be an issue.
Click to expand...

Do the continents move?  Why are you afraid to answer that question?


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> I've aleady [sic] explained my positiion [sic] of the court. .......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are your qualifications in Constitutional Law? We know you can barely string together a sentence in English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Appeal to authority._
> 
> Next!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should learn what that means before repeating it again, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How am I misusing it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You clearly don't understand what it means. Why don't you Google, or Wiki, or whatever you ignorant fools do when you're confused?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claim I don't understand what it means?  Prove it.  Otherwise, shut your fucking yap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't even understand the Wiki page about it? That's pretty fucking sad.
> 
> Referring to an authority on a subject is not a fallacy, idiot. Referring to an authority on one subject to 'prove' something about an unrelated subject is a fallacy, idiot. Referring to an authority that does not address the specific issue at hand can be a fallacy, idiot. Referring to a very elite authority on a very specific topic in regards to that specific topic is not a fallacy, idiot.
> 
> 
> Have you ever studied logic at any level?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The story of the theory of continental proves you are wrong, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look brainless, if you really want to talk about logic, why not take the time to actually study it at least a little?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have studied it.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where? At what level? How?
> 
> You're full of shit, and you know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh puhleeze.  Try to address the issues I bring up rather than engaging in these idiotic personal attacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop trying to use terms you don't understand and it won't be an issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're still running away, like you always do......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the wannabe who has been chasing his own tail for page after page.
> 
> Everyone understands that you hate America. You can go now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're running away with your tail between your legs.  That's what you always do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm right here, idiot. Keep chasing your own tail, wannabe.
Click to expand...

You're here pretending you're deaf, blind and dumb.

Now that I think about it, perhaps you are deaf, blind and dumb.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> I've aleady [sic] explained my positiion [sic] of the court. .......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are your qualifications in Constitutional Law? We know you can barely string together a sentence in English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Appeal to authority._
> 
> Next!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should learn what that means before repeating it again, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How am I misusing it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You clearly don't understand what it means. Why don't you Google, or Wiki, or whatever you ignorant fools do when you're confused?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claim I don't understand what it means?  Prove it.  Otherwise, shut your fucking yap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't even understand the Wiki page about it? That's pretty fucking sad.
> 
> Referring to an authority on a subject is not a fallacy, idiot. Referring to an authority on one subject to 'prove' something about an unrelated subject is a fallacy, idiot. Referring to an authority that does not address the specific issue at hand can be a fallacy, idiot. Referring to a very elite authority on a very specific topic in regards to that specific topic is not a fallacy, idiot.
> 
> 
> Have you ever studied logic at any level?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The story of the theory of continental proves you are wrong, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look brainless, if you really want to talk about logic, why not take the time to actually study it at least a little?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have studied it.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where? At what level? How?
> 
> You're full of shit, and you know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh puhleeze.  Try to address the issues I bring up rather than engaging in these idiotic personal attacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop trying to use terms you don't understand and it won't be an issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do the continents move?  Why are you afraid to answer that question?
Click to expand...


----------



## Unkotare

Oops, another term you don't understand.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> Oops, another term you don't understand.


Oops!  You're still a pussy.


----------



## Unkotare

Virginia was a part of the United States of America before, during, and after the Civil War.

The so-called 'confederacy' was never a legal or legitimate sovereign entity, nor was it EVER recognized as such by ANY nation on earth.

The scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war and were responsible for EVERY death that occurred as a result.

Slavery was the issue underlying every factor that led to the war.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> Virginia was a part of the United States of America before, during, and after the Civil War.
> 
> The so-called 'confederacy' was never a legal or legitimate sovereign entity, nor was it EVER recognized as such by ANY nation on earth.
> 
> The scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war and were responsible for EVERY death that occurred as a result.
> 
> Slavery was the issue underlying every factor that led to the war.


Nuh Uhn!  

Don't bother posting to me until you answer my questions.  I'm not going to indulge your fetish for repeating the same already debunked talking points over and over.


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> He was not president of Virginia......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was president of the United States of America. Virginia was one of the states of the United States of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not after it seceded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The so-called secession was illegal and illegitimate, as has been explained to you many times now. Are you too stupid to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain how it's "illegitimate" for States leave a country they no longer constant to govern them when consent of the governed is the basis of legitimacy of our government in the United STATES of America?
> 
> Our government today is a rouge criminal enterprise that completely ignores the limits on its power, the US Constitution, and should be overthrown
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of your stupidity has been debunked while you were away. Go read back a ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My stupidity?   You're a government history teacher who literally doesn't know what consent of the governed means.    You are comical
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not working, but keep repeating it if it makes you feel good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not working?   ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not working. Don't bother calling in a straw man either. It won't help.
Click to expand...


Strawman?   You said that other people can consent to be governed on your behalf.    And you're a history teacher.  You can't live that down by denying and evading what you said


----------



## Unkotare

kaz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> He was not president of Virginia......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was president of the United States of America. Virginia was one of the states of the United States of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not after it seceded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The so-called secession was illegal and illegitimate, as has been explained to you many times now. Are you too stupid to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain how it's "illegitimate" for States leave a country they no longer constant to govern them when consent of the governed is the basis of legitimacy of our government in the United STATES of America?
> 
> Our government today is a rouge criminal enterprise that completely ignores the limits on its power, the US Constitution, and should be overthrown
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of your stupidity has been debunked while you were away. Go read back a ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My stupidity?   You're a government history teacher who literally doesn't know what consent of the governed means.    You are comical
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not working, but keep repeating it if it makes you feel good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not working?   ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not working. Don't bother calling in a straw man either. It won't help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strawman?   You said that other people can consent to be governed on your behalf.    And you're a history teacher.  You can't live that down by denying and evading what you said
Click to expand...

Your straw man still isn't working.


----------



## Unkotare

Virginia was a part of the United States of America before, during, and after the Civil War.

The so-called 'confederacy' was never a legal or legitimate sovereign entity, nor was it EVER recognized as such by ANY nation on earth.

The scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war and were responsible for EVERY death that occurred as a result.

Slavery was the issue underlying every factor that led to the war.


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> He was not president of Virginia......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was president of the United States of America. Virginia was one of the states of the United States of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not after it seceded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The so-called secession was illegal and illegitimate, as has been explained to you many times now. Are you too stupid to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain how it's "illegitimate" for States leave a country they no longer constant to govern them when consent of the governed is the basis of legitimacy of our government in the United STATES of America?
> 
> Our government today is a rouge criminal enterprise that completely ignores the limits on its power, the US Constitution, and should be overthrown
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of your stupidity has been debunked while you were away. Go read back a ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My stupidity?   You're a government history teacher who literally doesn't know what consent of the governed means.    You are comical
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not working, but keep repeating it if it makes you feel good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not working?   ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not working. Don't bother calling in a straw man either. It won't help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strawman?   You said that other people can consent to be governed on your behalf.    And you're a history teacher.  You can't live that down by denying and evading what you said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your straw man still isn't working.
Click to expand...


What are you even claiming is a "straw man?"  What the fuck are you talking about?    Everything I said you said is straight from you


----------



## Unkotare

kaz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> He was not president of Virginia......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was president of the United States of America. Virginia was one of the states of the United States of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not after it seceded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The so-called secession was illegal and illegitimate, as has been explained to you many times now. Are you too stupid to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain how it's "illegitimate" for States leave a country they no longer constant to govern them when consent of the governed is the basis of legitimacy of our government in the United STATES of America?
> 
> Our government today is a rouge criminal enterprise that completely ignores the limits on its power, the US Constitution, and should be overthrown
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of your stupidity has been debunked while you were away. Go read back a ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My stupidity?   You're a government history teacher who literally doesn't know what consent of the governed means.    You are comical
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not working, but keep repeating it if it makes you feel good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not working?   ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not working. Don't bother calling in a straw man either. It won't help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strawman?   You said that other people can consent to be governed on your behalf.    And you're a history teacher.  You can't live that down by denying and evading what you said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your straw man still isn't working.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you even claiming is a "straw man?"  What the fuck are you talking about?    Everything I said you said is straight from you
Click to expand...


Would you prefer I just call you a fucking liar? You really are making yourself look stupid with this approach.


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> Virginia was a part of the United States of America before, during, and after the Civil War.
> 
> The so-called 'confederacy' was never a legal or legitimate sovereign entity, nor was it EVER recognized as such by ANY nation on earth.
> 
> The scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war and were responsible for EVERY death that occurred as a result.
> 
> Slavery was the issue underlying every factor that led to the war.



Repeating a lie doesn't make it stop being a lie.

The basis of legitimate government in the United States for the States was consent of the governed.  Since Virginia fought a war to escape and almost won despite being badly outmanned and outgunned shows how badly they wanted out.

Legitimate = consent.   No consent = not legtitimate.

But you just go keep pissing in the wind and making those vague statements because you're totally wrong and can't debate to save your life.

This is American History 101.  You never read a history book, did you?  Be honest


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> He was not president of Virginia......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was president of the United States of America. Virginia was one of the states of the United States of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not after it seceded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The so-called secession was illegal and illegitimate, as has been explained to you many times now. Are you too stupid to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain how it's "illegitimate" for States leave a country they no longer constant to govern them when consent of the governed is the basis of legitimacy of our government in the United STATES of America?
> 
> Our government today is a rouge criminal enterprise that completely ignores the limits on its power, the US Constitution, and should be overthrown
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of your stupidity has been debunked while you were away. Go read back a ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My stupidity?   You're a government history teacher who literally doesn't know what consent of the governed means.    You are comical
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not working, but keep repeating it if it makes you feel good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not working?   ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not working. Don't bother calling in a straw man either. It won't help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strawman?   You said that other people can consent to be governed on your behalf.    And you're a history teacher.  You can't live that down by denying and evading what you said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your straw man still isn't working.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you even claiming is a "straw man?"  What the fuck are you talking about?    Everything I said you said is straight from you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you prefer I just call you a fucking liar? You really are making yourself look stupid with this approach.
Click to expand...


You still haven't named this "lie."  What was it?   I don't give a shit if you call it a strawman or a lie when you won't say what I said that was wrong


----------



## Unkotare

kaz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Virginia was a part of the United States of America before, during, and after the Civil War.
> 
> The so-called 'confederacy' was never a legal or legitimate sovereign entity, nor was it EVER recognized as such by ANY nation on earth.
> 
> The scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war and were responsible for EVERY death that occurred as a result.
> 
> Slavery was the issue underlying every factor that led to the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Repeating a lie doesn't make it stop being a lie.
> ......
Click to expand...


Then maybe you should stop.


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Virginia was a part of the United States of America before, during, and after the Civil War.
> 
> The so-called 'confederacy' was never a legal or legitimate sovereign entity, nor was it EVER recognized as such by ANY nation on earth.
> 
> The scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war and were responsible for EVERY death that occurred as a result.
> 
> Slavery was the issue underlying every factor that led to the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Repeating a lie doesn't make it stop being a lie.
> ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then maybe you should stop.
Click to expand...


See, you said I lied about what you said but you can't name what I said that was wrong.   You're proving who the liar is, liar


----------



## Unkotare

kaz said:


> ...You never read a history book, did you?



I've read more history books than you have read anything, including the back of your cereal box.


----------



## Unkotare

kaz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Virginia was a part of the United States of America before, during, and after the Civil War.
> 
> The so-called 'confederacy' was never a legal or legitimate sovereign entity, nor was it EVER recognized as such by ANY nation on earth.
> 
> The scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war and were responsible for EVERY death that occurred as a result.
> 
> Slavery was the issue underlying every factor that led to the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Repeating a lie doesn't make it stop being a lie.
> ......
Click to expand...


Then maybe you should stop.


----------



## Unkotare

kaz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> He was not president of Virginia......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was president of the United States of America. Virginia was one of the states of the United States of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not after it seceded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The so-called secession was illegal and illegitimate, as has been explained to you many times now. Are you too stupid to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain how it's "illegitimate" for States leave a country they no longer constant to govern them when consent of the governed is the basis of legitimacy of our government in the United STATES of America?
> 
> Our government today is a rouge criminal enterprise that completely ignores the limits on its power, the US Constitution, and should be overthrown
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of your stupidity has been debunked while you were away. Go read back a ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My stupidity?   You're a government history teacher who literally doesn't know what consent of the governed means.    You are comical
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not working, but keep repeating it if it makes you feel good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not working?   ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not working. Don't bother calling in a straw man either. It won't help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strawman?   You said that other people can consent to be governed on your behalf.    And you're a history teacher.  You can't live that down by denying and evading what you said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your straw man still isn't working.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you even claiming is a "straw man?"  What the fuck are you talking about?    Everything I said you said is straight from you
Click to expand...


Would you prefer I just call you a fucking liar? You really are making yourself look stupid with this approach.


----------



## Unkotare

Virginia was a part of the United States of America before, during, and after the Civil War.

The so-called 'confederacy' was never a legal or legitimate sovereign entity, nor was it EVER recognized as such by ANY nation on earth.

The scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war and were responsible for EVERY death that occurred as a result.

Slavery was the issue underlying every factor that led to the war.


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...You never read a history book, did you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've read more history books than you have read anything, including the back of your cereal box.
Click to expand...


Maybe you should have paid attention since you don't know basic American History, like what consent of the governed means.   You think other people can consent for you, which is just stupid and ignorant


----------



## Unkotare

kaz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Virginia was a part of the United States of America before, during, and after the Civil War.
> 
> The so-called 'confederacy' was never a legal or legitimate sovereign entity, nor was it EVER recognized as such by ANY nation on earth.
> 
> The scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war and were responsible for EVERY death that occurred as a result.
> 
> Slavery was the issue underlying every factor that led to the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Repeating a lie doesn't make it stop being a lie.
> ......
Click to expand...


Then maybe you should stop.


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are you even claiming is a "straw man?"  What the fuck are you talking about?    Everything I said you said is straight from you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you prefer I just call you a fucking liar? You really are making yourself look stupid with this approach.
Click to expand...


Yet you still can't name a lie because you are the liar


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Virginia was a part of the United States of America before, during, and after the Civil War.
> 
> The so-called 'confederacy' was never a legal or legitimate sovereign entity, nor was it EVER recognized as such by ANY nation on earth.
> 
> The scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war and were responsible for EVERY death that occurred as a result.
> 
> Slavery was the issue underlying every factor that led to the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Repeating a lie doesn't make it stop being a lie.
> ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then maybe you should stop.
Click to expand...


LOL, and the government teacher goes playground, of course you do.  Your class teaches the teacher how to use eight year old wit.

Since you can't name this lie you say I told, obviously you're lying again


----------



## Unkotare

kaz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Virginia was a part of the United States of America before, during, and after the Civil War.
> 
> The so-called 'confederacy' was never a legal or legitimate sovereign entity, nor was it EVER recognized as such by ANY nation on earth.
> 
> The scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war and were responsible for EVERY death that occurred as a result.
> 
> Slavery was the issue underlying every factor that led to the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Repeating a lie doesn't make it stop being a lie.
> ......
Click to expand...


Then maybe you should stop.


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Virginia was a part of the United States of America before, during, and after the Civil War.
> 
> The so-called 'confederacy' was never a legal or legitimate sovereign entity, nor was it EVER recognized as such by ANY nation on earth.
> 
> The scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war and were responsible for EVERY death that occurred as a result.
> 
> Slavery was the issue underlying every factor that led to the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Repeating a lie doesn't make it stop being a lie.
> ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then maybe you should stop.
Click to expand...


It's Unkotare, aka Captain Playground!


----------



## Flash

schmidlap said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South Was Right!...
> 
> 
> 
> In summation,
> 
> In 1860, Abraham Lincoln was elected President of the United States - of all 33 United States.
> 
> Lincoln deployed United States troops on United States soil to suppress a regional rebellion within the United States, in strict compliance with his Oath of Office. The rebellious states cited their determination to perpetuate slavery as their excuse, the demand of special interests within them.
> 
> No nation on earth ever recognized a sovereign nation calling itself _"The Confederate States of America" _that was an attempt to deprive Americans within their state borders of their United States citizenship.
> 
> Those who attacked the United States from within exacted an enormous price upon the nation, but were defeated and the Union was preserved.
Click to expand...



Secession was not war.

Secession was a political act.  That piece of shit Lincoln made it a war.

After the war Jefferson Davis was arrested and held in prison pending a trial on insurrection.

However, he was released before the trial.

The reason is that his defense was that secession was legal under the Constitution and the filthy ass Union government didn't want him to win.  He had a really strong case.


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> Would you prefer I just call you a fucking liar? You really are making yourself look stupid with this approach.



Still can't name this "lie," huh?   Of course you can't, I didn't lie, you are


----------



## Unkotare

Virginia was a part of the United States of America before, during, and after the Civil War.

The so-called 'confederacy' was never a legal or legitimate sovereign entity, nor was it EVER recognized as such by ANY nation on earth.

The scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war and were responsible for EVERY death that occurred as a result.

Slavery was the issue underlying every factor that led to the war.


----------



## Unkotare

Flash said:


> ..... Lincoln made it a war.
> ......



The so-called 'confederate' criminals made it a war by an act of war, stupid.


----------



## gipper

Unkotare said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> Lot's of people have claimed otherwise, especially at the time. ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What country ever recognized the so-called 'confederacy' as a sovereign nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Confederate States of America did(CSA).
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was not a country. It was a criminal enterprise that was rightfully crushed.
Click to expand...

Yep, just like those traitorous Japanese Americans FDR rightfully imprisoned. They were criminals after all.


----------



## Unkotare

Flash said:


> .....he was released before the trial.
> 
> The reason is ....



The reason was that the criminal received mercy he didn't deserve because there was a desire to heal the nation and move on.


----------



## schmidlap

Flash said:


> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South Was Right!...
> 
> 
> 
> In summation,
> 
> In 1860, Abraham Lincoln was elected President of the United States - of all 33 United States.
> 
> Lincoln deployed United States troops on United States soil to suppress a regional rebellion within the United States, in strict compliance with his Oath of Office. The rebellious states cited their determination to perpetuate slavery as their excuse, the demand of special interests within them.
> 
> No nation on earth ever recognized a sovereign nation calling itself _"The Confederate States of America" _that was an attempt to deprive Americans within their state borders of their United States citizenship.
> 
> Those who attacked the United States from within exacted an enormous price upon the nation, but were defeated and the Union was preserved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Secession was not war.
> 
> Secession was a political act.  That piece of shit Lincoln made it a war.
> 
> After the war Jefferson Davis was arrested and held in prison pending a trial on insurrection.
> 
> However, he was released before the trial.
> 
> The reason is that his defense was that secession was legal under the Constitution and the filthy ass Union government didn't want him to win.  He had a really strong case.
Click to expand...

An influential special interest group that had profited through slavery provoked a violent insurrection against the United States that attempted to deprive Americans of their United States citizenship.

It failed and the Union was preserved.


----------



## Flash

The Civil War in a nutshell:

Some Americans got tired of the filthy Federal Government oppressing them and told the Union to cram it where the sun don't shine.

The filthy Union decided to kill the Americans and sent armies to do it.

The good guys lost and the filthy ass Federal government that won evolved into a bloated oppressive debt ridden corrupt system that saps Liberty.

The Confederacy was the last hope of real Liberty in North America and the world.


----------



## rac123

TrumpSucks said:


> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?


Ya they do deny the Nazi murder machine.
And of course for the Slave owners it was all about keeping their slaves. They dressed it up in the bullshit of protecting the honor of the south and willing fools who didn’t even own or could afford slaves laid down their lives to protect the wealth machine if the aristocratic southern slave owners. The rich have always been able to fools to do their fighting for them , just like the INSURRECTIONIST who fought for trump and risked everything for him only to have trump abandoned them. NO PARDONS FOR trump’s LOYAL SOLDIERS. trump has the $300,000,000.00 that his loyal base gave him for his phony stop the steal campaign and trump could use that money to pay the INSURRECTIONIST legal expenses. Don’t hold your breath on that folks. Yet these duped trumpians will continue to rhetorically fight for trump while their fellow Patriots languish in jail. 
GO FIGURE!


----------



## Flash

Cause of the Civil War in a nutshell:

Northerners: "Hey those Southern boys have more cash than we do so lets use the Federal government to get some".

Southerners: "Fuck you".


----------



## rac123

Flash said:


> The Civil War in a nutshell:
> 
> Some Americans got tired of the filthy Federal Government oppressing them and told the Union to cram it where the sun don't shine.
> 
> The filthy Union decided to kill the Americans and sent armies to do it.
> 
> The good guys lost and the filthy ass Federal government that won evolved into a bloated oppressive debt ridden corrupt system that saps Liberty.
> 
> The Confederacy was the last hope of real Liberty in North America and the world.


It was actually the IMMORALITY of the south’s desired for profit to maintain their southern estates without having to break a sweat to work for it own their own. And it was also the desire of poor whites who in their hearts wanted to feel like at least they were at the bottom of the social ladder. And indeed they were told that ( even though you may be poor at least your not a blank).  And if anyone doesn’t think that that wasn’t the rhetorical tool used to get poor whites to fight and die for the wealth of the aristocratic slave owners, then your foolishness is omnipresent.


----------



## kaz

Not knowing what he's talking about, Unkotare just spews a bunch of BS



Unkotare said:


> Virginia was a part of the United States of America before, during, and after the Civil War.



Irrelevant to consent of the governed.  Did you look up what it means yet since up until now you didn't know?

As for "during and after," that's a logical fallacy called "begging the question."  I'll let you look up what that means



Unkotare said:


> The so-called 'confederacy' was never a legal or legitimate sovereign entity, nor was it EVER recognized as such by ANY nation on earth.



Again you don't know American history.  Government legitimacy is specifically defined as "consent of the governed," which the US clearly didn't have in Virginia.  Argument fail



Unkotare said:


> The scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war and were responsible for EVERY death that occurred as a result.
> 
> Slavery was the issue underlying every factor that led to the war.



Morality is a different question.    Consent of the government is about government legitimacy, it's not an all encompassing morality question


----------



## rac123

Flash said:


> Cause of the Civil War in a nutshell:
> 
> Northerners: "Hey those Southern boys have more cash than we do so lets use the Federal government to get some".
> 
> Southerners: "Fuck you".



perhaps you should try reading a bit of Abraham Lincoln’s speeches if you really want to know why the civil war became impossible to avoid. Southern plantation owners even considered moving their operations south of the border , did you know that? So we’re the notion of ( SOUTHERN HONOR ) in that equation?

Abraham Lincoln “ If I could end slavery without waging this conflict, I would do so, if I could save the Union without ending slavery , I would do so.”
 Without having his speech in front of me I had to paraphrase but that’s what he said. 
Yes Lincoln hated slavery with every fiber of his Nobel soul, but “ A HOUSE DIVIDED CAN NOT STAND.” Dirt poor southerners were sold a line of crap a mile long and two miles wide just like trumpians have been.
We’re the PARDONS for fellow PATRIOTS WHO FOUGHT FOR trump. WHY ISNT trump USING THE $300,000,000.00 you guys gave him for his phony stop the steal campaign to pay your fellow Patriots legal expenses. The poor always March to the rich man’s designs and for the rich man’s profits.


----------



## Unkotare

schmidlap said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South Was Right!...
> 
> 
> 
> In summation,
> 
> In 1860, Abraham Lincoln was elected President of the United States - of all 33 United States.
> 
> Lincoln deployed United States troops on United States soil to suppress a regional rebellion within the United States, in strict compliance with his Oath of Office. The rebellious states cited their determination to perpetuate slavery as their excuse, the demand of special interests within them.
> 
> No nation on earth ever recognized a sovereign nation calling itself _"The Confederate States of America" _that was an attempt to deprive Americans within their state borders of their United States citizenship.
> 
> Those who attacked the United States from within exacted an enormous price upon the nation, but were defeated and the Union was preserved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Secession was not war.
> 
> Secession was a political act.  That piece of shit Lincoln made it a war.
> 
> After the war Jefferson Davis was arrested and held in prison pending a trial on insurrection.
> 
> However, he was released before the trial.
> 
> The reason is that his defense was that secession was legal under the Constitution and the filthy ass Union government didn't want him to win.  He had a really strong case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An influential special interest group that had profited through slavery provoked a violent insurrection against the United States that attempted to deprive Americans of their United States citizenship.
> 
> It failed and the Union was preserved.
Click to expand...

^^^^^^^^


----------



## Unkotare

Virginia was a part of the United States of America before, during, and after the Civil War.

The so-called 'confederacy' was never a legal or legitimate sovereign entity, nor was it EVER recognized as such by ANY nation on earth.

The scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war and were responsible for EVERY death that occurred as a result.

Slavery was the issue underlying every factor that led to the war.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....he was released before the trial.
> 
> The reason is ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reason was that the criminal received mercy he didn't deserve because there was a desire to heal the nation and move on.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, no.  The reason was that there's no way he could get a conviction on the charge of treason, and they knew it.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> Virginia was a part of the United States of America before, during, and after the Civil War.
> 
> The so-called 'confederacy' was never a legal or legitimate sovereign entity, nor was it EVER recognized as such by ANY nation on earth.
> 
> The scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war and were responsible for EVERY death that occurred as a result.
> 
> Slavery was the issue underlying every factor that led to the war.


The Confederacy was just as legal as the United States was.  Lincoln started the war by invading Virginia, moron.


----------



## Unkotare

Flash said:


> .....he was released before the trial.
> 
> The reason is ....



The reason was that the criminal received mercy he didn't deserve because there was a desire to heal the nation and move on.


----------



## Unkotare

Virginia was a part of the United States of America before, during, and after the Civil War.

The so-called 'confederacy' was never a legal or legitimate sovereign entity, nor was it EVER recognized as such by ANY nation on earth.

The scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war and were responsible for EVERY death that occurred as a result.

Slavery was the issue underlying every factor that led to the war.


----------



## Flash

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....he was released before the trial.
> 
> The reason is ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reason was that the criminal received mercy he didn't deserve because there was a desire to heal the nation and move on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hmmm, no.  The reason was that there's no way he could get a conviction on the charge of treason, and they knew it.
Click to expand...



The treasonous assholes were the Northerners that discovered that they could use the Federal government for the redistribution of wealth.

Not much different than what we are seeing nowadays with the Liberals.


----------



## bripat9643

kaz said:


> Not knowing what he's talking about, Unkotare just spews a bunch of BS
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Virginia was a part of the United States of America before, during, and after the Civil War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant to consent of the governed.  Did you look up what it means yet since up until now you didn't know?
> 
> As for "during and after," that's a logical fallacy called "begging the question."  I'll let you look up what that means
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> The so-called 'confederacy' was never a legal or legitimate sovereign entity, nor was it EVER recognized as such by ANY nation on earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again you don't know American history.  Government legitimacy is specifically defined as "consent of the governed," which the US clearly didn't have in Virginia.  Argument fail
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> The scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war and were responsible for EVERY death that occurred as a result.
> 
> Slavery was the issue underlying every factor that led to the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Morality is a different question.    Consent of the government is about government legitimacy, it's not an all encompassing morality question
Click to expand...

Unkotare has devolved to repeating the same talking points over and over again.  When you get him to the point where he can't respond without revealing that his argument is irrational, he goes back to his original start point.


----------



## Flash

It is always funny to see these stupid uneducated Moon Bats with only a Jr High School history book's (written by the winners to kiss the ass of the Negroes) knowledge discuss the Civil War.  A subject they know almost nothing about.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....he was released before the trial.
> 
> The reason is ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reason was that the criminal received mercy he didn't deserve because there was a desire to heal the nation and move on.
Click to expand...

Nope.  What were they going to charge him with?  Not treason.


----------



## bripat9643

Flash said:


> It is always funny to see these stupid uneducated Moon Bats with only a Jr High School history book's (written by the winners to kiss the ass of the Negroes) knowledge discuss the Civil War.  A subject they know almost nothing about.


I'm not a racist, so don't try to pull me into that kind of discussion.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was about the extra-Constitutional measures taken by seditious persons to resolve a political problem. Innumerable issues were therein tangled, but it comes down to that.
> 
> 
> 
> Our nation of, by, and for the People provides the mechanisms of self-governance by peaceful means.
> 
> Wee-weeing up fanatics via lies, propaganda, and inflammatory rhetoric to attack our government of, by, and for the People after matters have been democratically decided was and remains an unacceptable recourse for sore loser malcontents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Invadiing Virginia was how we settle differences peacefully?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't "invade" your own country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He invaded Virginia, which wasn't his own country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Virginia was and is part of the UNITED States of America. Keep insisting otherwise, but it won't change anything, idiot.
Click to expand...

That's not true no matter how many times you insist it is.   You have continually failed to prove that it is.


----------



## Flash

bripat9643 said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is always funny to see these stupid uneducated Moon Bats with only a Jr High School history book's (written by the winners to kiss the ass of the Negroes) knowledge discuss the Civil War.  A subject they know almost nothing about.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a racist, so don't try to pull me into that kind of discussion.
Click to expand...



You should look at the textbooks these kids are issued nowadays.  Woke as hell.

My neighbor's kid is in High School.

They spent two class periods discussing WWII, Korea, Vietnam and the Cold War.  No test or anything.  They spent three weeks discussing the goddamn Civil Rights movement to include tests and projects.

No wonder we get kids graduating from High School that don't know their ass from a hole in the ground about history or anything else.


----------



## kaz

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was about the extra-Constitutional measures taken by seditious persons to resolve a political problem. Innumerable issues were therein tangled, but it comes down to that.
> 
> 
> 
> Our nation of, by, and for the People provides the mechanisms of self-governance by peaceful means.
> 
> Wee-weeing up fanatics via lies, propaganda, and inflammatory rhetoric to attack our government of, by, and for the People after matters have been democratically decided was and remains an unacceptable recourse for sore loser malcontents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Invadiing Virginia was how we settle differences peacefully?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't "invade" your own country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He invaded Virginia, which wasn't his own country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Virginia was and is part of the UNITED States of America. Keep insisting otherwise, but it won't change anything, idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not true no matter how many times you insist it is.   You have continually failed to prove that it is.
Click to expand...


LOL, how funny is it that Unkotare used that the States are "United" to justify States conquering other States who want to leave.

We're united, mother fuckers!  We're going to invade and rule you until you accept it!

This must be some use of the term "united" I hadn't previously heard before, lol


----------



## Unkotare

Virginia was a part of the United States of America before, during, and after the Civil War.

The so-called 'confederacy' was never a legal or legitimate sovereign entity, nor was it EVER recognized as such by ANY nation on earth.

The scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war and were responsible for EVERY death that occurred as a result.

Slavery was the issue underlying every factor that led to the war.


If the traitorous scumbags weren't so stupid they would have realized they had no shot from the beginning.


----------



## Unkotare

Flash said:


> ...
> 
> My neighbor's kid is in High School.
> ....



Wow, that makes you an expert!


----------



## Unkotare

Texas v. White | law case
					

Texas v. White,   (1869), U.S. Supreme Court case in which it was held that the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede. In 1850 the state of Texas received $10,000,000 in federal government bonds in settlement of boundary claims. In 1861 the state seceded from...



					www.britannica.com


----------



## there4eyeM

Unkotare said:


> Virginia was a part of the United States of America before, during, and after the Civil War.
> 
> The so-called 'confederacy' was never a legal or legitimate sovereign entity, nor was it EVER recognized as such by ANY nation on earth.
> 
> The scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war and were responsible for EVERY death that occurred as a result.
> 
> Slavery was the issue underlying every factor that led to the war.
> 
> 
> If the traitorous scumbags weren't so stupid they would have realized they had no shot from the beginning.


These posters aren't speaking English anymore. It is pure Spurious Argumentation.


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> Virginia was a part of the United States of America before, during, and after the Civil War.
> 
> The so-called 'confederacy' was never a legal or legitimate sovereign entity, nor was it EVER recognized as such by ANY nation on earth.
> 
> The scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war and were responsible for EVERY death that occurred as a result.
> 
> Slavery was the issue underlying every factor that led to the war.
> 
> 
> If the traitorous scumbags weren't so stupid they would have realized they had no shot from the beginning.



So in the United States, which specifically was founded on consent of the governed as the basis of legitimate government, the government can conquer anyone who tries to leave because fuck consent.  Got it.

Government history teachers, incredible


----------



## kaz

there4eyeM said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Virginia was a part of the United States of America before, during, and after the Civil War.
> 
> The so-called 'confederacy' was never a legal or legitimate sovereign entity, nor was it EVER recognized as such by ANY nation on earth.
> 
> The scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war and were responsible for EVERY death that occurred as a result.
> 
> Slavery was the issue underlying every factor that led to the war.
> 
> 
> If the traitorous scumbags weren't so stupid they would have realized they had no shot from the beginning.
> 
> 
> 
> "They" aren't speaking English anymore. "They" are speaking pure Spurious Argumentation.
Click to expand...


Now we go from a guy who teaches government history to a guy who failed government history


----------



## Unkotare

Virginia was a part of the United States of America before, during, and after the Civil War.

The so-called 'confederacy' was never a legal or legitimate sovereign entity, nor was it EVER recognized as such by ANY nation on earth.

The scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war and were responsible for EVERY death that occurred as a result.

Slavery was the issue underlying every factor that led to the war.


If the traitorous scumbags weren't so stupid they would have realized they had no shot from the beginning.


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> Virginia was a part of the United States of America before, during, and after the Civil War.
> 
> The so-called 'confederacy' was never a legal or legitimate sovereign entity, nor was it EVER recognized as such by ANY nation on earth.
> 
> The scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war and were responsible for EVERY death that occurred as a result.
> 
> Slavery was the issue underlying every factor that led to the war.
> 
> 
> If the traitorous scumbags weren't so stupid they would have realized they had no shot from the beginning.



Parents.  This is the drivel the government is teaching your kids, straight from an actual government history teacher.   Be very, very scared.

Note liar you still haven't said what I misrepresented about your opinion because you're a lying useless douche bag


----------



## there4eyeM

there4eyeM said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Virginia was a part of the United States of America before, during, and after the Civil War.
> 
> The so-called 'confederacy' was never a legal or legitimate sovereign entity, nor was it EVER recognized as such by ANY nation on earth.
> 
> The scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war and were responsible for EVERY death that occurred as a result.
> 
> Slavery was the issue underlying every factor that led to the war.
> 
> 
> If the traitorous scumbags weren't so stupid they would have realized they had no shot from the beginning.
> 
> 
> 
> These posters aren't speaking English anymore. It is pure Spurious Argumentation.
Click to expand...

...spurious, uninspired and repetitive.


----------



## Unkotare

schmidlap said:


> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was U.S. Federal Territory, and Lincoln defended it rightly on that basis. To think otherwise is to dismiss Federal authority altogether (which may be what you want to do).
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln deployed U.S. troops on U.S. soil to suppress a regional rebellion, in strict compliance with his Oath of Office.
> 
> No nation on earth ever recognized a sovereign nation calling itself _"The Confederate States of America." _
Click to expand...

^^^^^^^^^^^


----------



## Unkotare

schmidlap said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't U.S. soil, nimrod.
> 
> 
> 
> You appear to be very confused, Buttercup.
> 
> All states in which Lincoln deployed United States troops to preserve the union were part of the United States. Lincoln was elected President of the nation that then consisted of 33 states and 10 organized territories.
> 
> There was no other sovereign nation involved.
Click to expand...

^^^^^^^


----------



## Orangecat

Meh, maybe we should've left slavery legal. Then the pussies on the left would actually have a valid complaint instead of all this silly wage-slavery talk.


----------



## bripat9643

Flash said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is always funny to see these stupid uneducated Moon Bats with only a Jr High School history book's (written by the winners to kiss the ass of the Negroes) knowledge discuss the Civil War.  A subject they know almost nothing about.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a racist, so don't try to pull me into that kind of discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You should look at the textbooks these kids are issued nowadays.  Woke as hell.
> 
> My neighbor's kid is in High School.
> 
> They spent two class periods discussing WWII, Korea, Vietnam and the Cold War.  No test or anything.  They spent three weeks discussing the goddamn Civil Rights movement to include tests and projects.
> 
> No wonder we get kids graduating from High School that don't know their ass from a hole in the ground about history or anything else.
Click to expand...

I agree that public schools are brainwashing our kids with leftwing horseshit, but I'm still not a racist.  I don't want to be associated with racists.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> Virginia was a part of the United States of America before, during, and after the Civil War.
> 
> The so-called 'confederacy' was never a legal or legitimate sovereign entity, nor was it EVER recognized as such by ANY nation on earth.
> 
> The scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war and were responsible for EVERY death that occurred as a result.
> 
> Slavery was the issue underlying every factor that led to the war.
> 
> 
> If the traitorous scumbags weren't so stupid they would have realized they had no shot from the beginning.


Wrong.


----------



## bripat9643

kaz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Virginia was a part of the United States of America before, during, and after the Civil War.
> 
> The so-called 'confederacy' was never a legal or legitimate sovereign entity, nor was it EVER recognized as such by ANY nation on earth.
> 
> The scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war and were responsible for EVERY death that occurred as a result.
> 
> Slavery was the issue underlying every factor that led to the war.
> 
> 
> If the traitorous scumbags weren't so stupid they would have realized they had no shot from the beginning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So in the United States, which specifically was founded on consent of the governed as the basis of legitimate government, the government can conquer anyone who tries to leave because fuck consent.  Got it.
> 
> Government history teachers, incredible
Click to expand...

In the case of the Civil War, the Lincoln cult members oppose the very principles this country was founded on: consent of the governed.


----------



## bripat9643

kaz said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was about the extra-Constitutional measures taken by seditious persons to resolve a political problem. Innumerable issues were therein tangled, but it comes down to that.
> 
> 
> 
> Our nation of, by, and for the People provides the mechanisms of self-governance by peaceful means.
> 
> Wee-weeing up fanatics via lies, propaganda, and inflammatory rhetoric to attack our government of, by, and for the People after matters have been democratically decided was and remains an unacceptable recourse for sore loser malcontents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Invadiing Virginia was how we settle differences peacefully?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't "invade" your own country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He invaded Virginia, which wasn't his own country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Virginia was and is part of the UNITED States of America. Keep insisting otherwise, but it won't change anything, idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not true no matter how many times you insist it is.   You have continually failed to prove that it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, how funny is it that Unkotare used that the States are "United" to justify States conquering other States who want to leave.
> 
> We're united, mother fuckers!  We're going to invade and rule you until you accept it!
> 
> This must be some use of the term "united" I hadn't previously heard before, lol
Click to expand...

Yep.  We are going to unite the fuck out of you!  The Democrat motto.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> My neighbor's kid is in High School.
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, that makes you an expert!
Click to expand...

He's as expert as the SC court justices in Texas v. White.


----------



## kaz

bripat9643 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Virginia was a part of the United States of America before, during, and after the Civil War.
> 
> The so-called 'confederacy' was never a legal or legitimate sovereign entity, nor was it EVER recognized as such by ANY nation on earth.
> 
> The scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war and were responsible for EVERY death that occurred as a result.
> 
> Slavery was the issue underlying every factor that led to the war.
> 
> 
> If the traitorous scumbags weren't so stupid they would have realized they had no shot from the beginning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So in the United States, which specifically was founded on consent of the governed as the basis of legitimate government, the government can conquer anyone who tries to leave because fuck consent.  Got it.
> 
> Government history teachers, incredible
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the case of the Civil War, the Lincoln cult members oppose the very principles this country was founded on: consent of the governed.
Click to expand...


Yes, and in Unkotare's case, he doesn't even know what consent of the governed means ... and he's a history teacher.  Incredible


----------



## kaz

bripat9643 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, how funny is it that Unkotare used that the States are "United" to justify States conquering other States who want to leave.
> 
> We're united, mother fuckers!  We're going to invade and rule you until you accept it!
> 
> This must be some use of the term "united" I hadn't previously heard before, lol
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.  We are going to unite the fuck out of you!  The Democrat motto.
Click to expand...


It has a Nazi ring to it, doesn't it?


----------



## bripat9643

kaz said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, how funny is it that Unkotare used that the States are "United" to justify States conquering other States who want to leave.
> 
> We're united, mother fuckers!  We're going to invade and rule you until you accept it!
> 
> This must be some use of the term "united" I hadn't previously heard before, lol
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.  We are going to unite the fuck out of you!  The Democrat motto.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has a Nazi ring to it, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

Exactly my point.


----------



## gipper

rac123 said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cause of the Civil War in a nutshell:
> 
> Northerners: "Hey those Southern boys have more cash than we do so lets use the Federal government to get some".
> 
> Southerners: "Fuck you".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> perhaps you should try reading a bit of Abraham Lincoln’s speeches if you really want to know why the civil war became impossible to avoid. Southern plantation owners even considered moving their operations south of the border , did you know that? So we’re the notion of ( SOUTHERN HONOR ) in that equation?
> 
> Abraham Lincoln “ If I could end slavery without waging this conflict, I would do so, if I could save the Union without ending slavery , I would do so.”
> Without having his speech in front of me I had to paraphrase but that’s what he said.
> Yes Lincoln hated slavery with every fiber of his Nobel soul, but “ A HOUSE DIVIDED CAN NOT STAND.” Dirt poor southerners were sold a line of crap a mile long and two miles wide just like trumpians have been.
> We’re the PARDONS for fellow PATRIOTS WHO FOUGHT FOR trump. WHY ISNT trump USING THE $300,000,000.00 you guys gave him for his phony stop the steal campaign to pay your fellow Patriots legal expenses. The poor always March to the rich man’s designs and for the rich man’s profits.
Click to expand...

And yet Dishonest Abe still invaded the South.


----------



## Flash

bripat9643 said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is always funny to see these stupid uneducated Moon Bats with only a Jr High School history book's (written by the winners to kiss the ass of the Negroes) knowledge discuss the Civil War.  A subject they know almost nothing about.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a racist, so don't try to pull me into that kind of discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You should look at the textbooks these kids are issued nowadays.  Woke as hell.
> 
> My neighbor's kid is in High School.
> 
> They spent two class periods discussing WWII, Korea, Vietnam and the Cold War.  No test or anything.  They spent three weeks discussing the goddamn Civil Rights movement to include tests and projects.
> 
> No wonder we get kids graduating from High School that don't know their ass from a hole in the ground about history or anything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree that public schools are brainwashing our kids with leftwing horseshit, but I'm still not a racist.  I don't want to be associated with racists.
Click to expand...



I am a proud old school racist.  I would love to return to Jim Crow but better yet send them all back to Africa.

However, none of that has anything to do with the tremendous ignorance I see about the Civil War.

Most people don't have any understanding of the war.  All they know is what they were superficially taught in their Jr High history class.  History being taught by the winners designed to be politically correct to kiss the ass of the filthy Negroes.


----------



## kaz

rac123 said:


> A HOUSE DIVIDED CAN NOT STAND



Yes, clearly when one half of a country invades the other half to prevent them from leaving, that is not a divided house, LOL.

As for your Trump bull, you're full of shit, fascist


----------



## Flash

gipper said:


> And yet Dishonest Abe still invaded the South.



Absolutely!

To settle a political issue by war.  If you can't get Americans to accept your oppression then just kill 'em.  That was the Lincoln solution.


----------



## kaz

Flash said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet Dishonest Abe still invaded the South.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> To settle a political issue by war.  If you can't get Americans to accept your oppression then just kill 'em.  That was the Lincoln solution.
Click to expand...


Carried on by Democrats today!  Democrat is the new Nazi party


----------



## there4eyeM

bripat9643 said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is always funny to see these stupid uneducated Moon Bats with only a Jr High School history book's (written by the winners to kiss the ass of the Negroes) knowledge discuss the Civil War.  A subject they know almost nothing about.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a racist, so don't try to pull me into that kind of discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You should look at the textbooks these kids are issued nowadays.  Woke as hell.
> 
> My neighbor's kid is in High School.
> 
> They spent two class periods discussing WWII, Korea, Vietnam and the Cold War.  No test or anything.  They spent three weeks discussing the goddamn Civil Rights movement to include tests and projects.
> 
> No wonder we get kids graduating from High School that don't know their ass from a hole in the ground about history or anything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree that public schools are brainwashing our kids with leftwing horseshit, but I'm still not a racist.  I don't want to be associated with racists.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree that schools are mishandling education. I don't think you are a racist. I do disagree with your interpretation of the Civil War, etc., but I notice you have cut back on the name-calling and that is appreciated. You are right not to be drawn in by these others.


----------



## schmidlap

Flash said:


> The Civil War in a nutshell:
> 
> Some Americans got tired of the filthy Federal Government oppressing them and told the Union to cram it where the sun don't shine.
> 
> The filthy Union decided to kill the Americans and sent armies to do it.
> 
> The good guys lost and the filthy ass Federal government that won evolved into a bloated oppressive debt ridden corrupt system that saps Liberty.
> 
> The Confederacy was the last hope of real Liberty in North America and the world.


The perverted crackpot version should alert U.S. security forces that haters of the United States - proud boys, boogaloo, q-anon, neo-nazis, three percenters, oath keepers, white supremacists and other whackjobs - may be conspiring to attack the U.S. Congress based upon the Big Lie that the slavery-dependent actually won their rebellion against the United States.


----------



## marvin martian

TrumpSucks said:


> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?



The DemoKKKrats elected two Holocaust deniers to congress.  So far.


----------



## Flash

schmidlap said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War in a nutshell:
> 
> Some Americans got tired of the filthy Federal Government oppressing them and told the Union to cram it where the sun don't shine.
> 
> The filthy Union decided to kill the Americans and sent armies to do it.
> 
> The good guys lost and the filthy ass Federal government that won evolved into a bloated oppressive debt ridden corrupt system that saps Liberty.
> 
> The Confederacy was the last hope of real Liberty in North America and the world.
> 
> 
> 
> The perverted crackpot version should alert U.S. security forces that haters of the United States - proud boys, boogaloo, q-anon, neo-nazis, three percenters, oath keepers, white supremacists and other whackjobs - may be conspiring to attack the U.S. Congress based upon the Big Lie that the slavery-dependent actually won their rebellion against the United States.
Click to expand...



You know that all those groups combined that you mentioned probably is not as many as the number of Negroes that looted one Target store in their BLM issurection?


----------



## schmidlap

kaz said:


> Democrat is the new Nazi party


Your contempt for most Americans is quite hysterical, and, in fact, your nazis hail _Cry Baby Loser _as their "God Emperor!"






						God Emperor – Daily Stormer
					






					dailystormer.su


----------



## schmidlap

marvin martian said:


> The DemoKKKrats elected two Holocaust deniers to congress.  So far.


Your lies become increasingly hysterical, and still fail miserably as diversions, however desperate.


----------



## marvin martian

schmidlap said:


> marvin martian said:
> 
> 
> 
> The DemoKKKrats elected two Holocaust deniers to congress.  So far.
> 
> 
> 
> Your lies become increasingly hysterical, and still fail miserably as diversions, however desperate.
Click to expand...


Denying it won't change the fact.  What's your take on the Holocaust?  Do you admit it happened and disagree with your fellow DemoKKKrats in congress?


----------



## kaz

schmidlap said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrat is the new Nazi party
> 
> 
> 
> Your contempt for most Americans is quite hysterical, and, in fact, your nazis hail _Cry Baby Loser _as their "God Emperor!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God Emperor – Daily Stormer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dailystormer.su
Click to expand...


Democrats are not "most Americans."  They are Nazis though


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> My neighbor's kid is in High School.
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, that makes you an expert!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's as expert as the SC court justices in Texas v. White.
Click to expand...


Uh-oh, look what you did there...


----------



## themirrorthief

TrumpSucks said:


> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?


put the hash pipe down, you've had enough...yes the democrats started the civil war to protect their black slaves from being set free...democrats still own blacks evidently


----------



## themirrorthief

initforme said:


> Slave owners were people of illl repute.  Too lazy to do the work themselves and too cheap to actually pay for labor.   To believe another human could actually be property is unfathomable.  To use lashing and whipping to control a group of people was inhumane and repugnant.


now they use prisons projects and family planning...still repugnant...shitty democrats


----------



## Unkotare

Flash said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet Dishonest Abe still invaded the South.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> To settle a political issue by war.  If you can't get Americans to accept your oppression then just kill 'em.  That was the Lincoln solution.
Click to expand...


If the scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' didn't want war, they shouldn't have started one. They got off lightly.


----------



## Unkotare

kaz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Virginia was a part of the United States of America before, during, and after the Civil War.
> 
> The so-called 'confederacy' was never a legal or legitimate sovereign entity, nor was it EVER recognized as such by ANY nation on earth.
> 
> The scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war and were responsible for EVERY death that occurred as a result.
> 
> Slavery was the issue underlying every factor that led to the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Repeating a lie doesn't make it stop being a lie.
> ......
Click to expand...


Then maybe you should stop.


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet Dishonest Abe still invaded the South.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> To settle a political issue by war.  If you can't get Americans to accept your oppression then just kill 'em.  That was the Lincoln solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' didn't want war, they shouldn't have started one. They got off lightly.
Click to expand...


LOL, I wonder why the South wanted to leave?    My God, you're arguing this is a basis to force them to stay in the country, that they could have really made them pay for wanting to leave.

Great demonstration of "consent of the governed," that.   Oh yeah, you got off LIGHT for wanting to leave?

You're mental


----------



## Unkotare

Virginia was a part of the United States of America before, during, and after the Civil War.

The so-called 'confederacy' was never a legal or legitimate sovereign entity, nor was it EVER recognized as such by ANY nation on earth.

The scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war and were responsible for EVERY death that occurred as a result.

Slavery was the issue underlying every factor that led to the war.


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Virginia was a part of the United States of America before, during, and after the Civil War.
> 
> The so-called 'confederacy' was never a legal or legitimate sovereign entity, nor was it EVER recognized as such by ANY nation on earth.
> 
> The scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war and were responsible for EVERY death that occurred as a result.
> 
> Slavery was the issue underlying every factor that led to the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Repeating a lie doesn't make it stop being a lie.
> ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then maybe you should stop.
Click to expand...


Maybe you should identify what you claim was a lie about what you said so you stop proving you're the liar


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> Virginia was a part of the United States of America before, during, and after the Civil War.
> 
> The so-called 'confederacy' was never a legal or legitimate sovereign entity, nor was it EVER recognized as such by ANY nation on earth.
> 
> The scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war and were responsible for EVERY death that occurred as a result.
> 
> Slavery was the issue underlying every factor that led to the war.



Great example of a government education this repeating the same post because you're watching Netflix rather than teaching the class


----------



## bripat9643

schmidlap said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrat is the new Nazi party
> 
> 
> 
> Your contempt for most Americans is quite hysterical, and, in fact, your nazis hail _Cry Baby Loser _as their "God Emperor!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God Emperor – Daily Stormer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dailystormer.su
Click to expand...

He only has contempt for Democrats, which is at it should be.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet Dishonest Abe still invaded the South.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> To settle a political issue by war.  If you can't get Americans to accept your oppression then just kill 'em.  That was the Lincoln solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' didn't want war, they shouldn't have started one. They got off lightly.
Click to expand...

They didn't.  Lincoln started it.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> Virginia was a part of the United States of America before, during, and after the Civil War.
> 
> The so-called 'confederacy' was never a legal or legitimate sovereign entity, nor was it EVER recognized as such by ANY nation on earth.
> 
> The scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war and were responsible for EVERY death that occurred as a result.
> 
> Slavery was the issue underlying every factor that led to the war.


Repeating that 10,000 times won't make it true.

Repeating talking points is all you know how to do.


----------



## Unkotare

kaz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet Dishonest Abe still invaded the South.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> To settle a political issue by war.  If you can't get Americans to accept your oppression then just kill 'em.  That was the Lincoln solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' didn't want war, they shouldn't have started one. They got off lightly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, I wonder why the South wanted to leave?  ....
Click to expand...


I don't.

" For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property "


" A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. "

" The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. "

" The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments "


"

The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.

With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers."


----------



## Unkotare

" Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. "


" a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. "


----------



## Unkotare

" they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection. "

" She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time.  "


" They have, through the mails and hired emissaries, sent seditious pamphlets and papers among us to stir up servile insurrection and bring blood and carnage to our firesides. "


----------



## Unkotare

Virginia was a part of the United States of America before, during, and after the Civil War.

The so-called 'confederacy' was never a legal or legitimate sovereign entity, nor was it EVER recognized as such by ANY nation on earth.

The scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war and were responsible for EVERY death that occurred as a result.

Slavery was the issue underlying every factor that led to the war.


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet Dishonest Abe still invaded the South.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> To settle a political issue by war.  If you can't get Americans to accept your oppression then just kill 'em.  That was the Lincoln solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' didn't want war, they shouldn't have started one. They got off lightly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, I wonder why the South wanted to leave?  ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't.
> 
> " For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property "
> 
> 
> " A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. "
> 
> " The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. "
> 
> " The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments "
> 
> 
> "
> 
> The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.
> 
> With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers."
Click to expand...


Yes, you've mentioned how the South wanted to leave because they were evil, which explains of course why you wanted them to stay, you wanting to live in an evil country and all


----------



## Unkotare

"It was then 4 A.M. Captain James at once aroused his command, and arranged to carry out the order. He was a great admirer of Roger A. Pryor, and said to him, 'You are the only man to whom I would give up the honor of firing the first gun of the war'; and he 

​
offered to allow him to fire it. Pryor, on receiving the offer, was very much agitated. With a husky voice he said, 'I could not fire the first gun of the war.' His manner was almost similar to that of Major Anderson as we left him a few moments before on the wharf at Fort Sumter. Captain James would allow no one else but himself to fire the gun.


The boat with the aides of General Beauregard left Fort Johnson before arrangements were complete for the firing of the gun, and laid on its oars, about one-third the distance between the fort and Sumter, there to witness the firing of 'the first gun of the war' between the States. It was fired from a ten-inch mortar at 4:30 A.M., April 12th, 1861. Captain James was a skillful officer, and the firing of the shell was a success. It burst immediately over the fort, apparently about one hundred feet above.

The firing of the mortar woke the echoes from every nook and corner of the harbor, and in this the dead hour of the night, before dawn, that shot was a sound of alarm that brought every soldier in the harbor to his feet, and every man, woman and child in the city of Charleston from their beds. A thrill went through the whole city. It was felt that the Rubicon was passed. No one thought of going home; unused as their ears were to the appalling sounds, or the vivid flashes from the batteries, they stood for hours fascinated with horror."


----------



## Unkotare

kaz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet Dishonest Abe still invaded the South.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> To settle a political issue by war.  If you can't get Americans to accept your oppression then just kill 'em.  That was the Lincoln solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' didn't want war, they shouldn't have started one. They got off lightly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, I wonder why the South wanted to leave?  ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't.
> 
> " For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property "
> 
> 
> " A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. "
> 
> " The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. "
> 
> " The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments "
> 
> 
> "
> 
> The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.
> 
> With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you've mentioned how the South wanted to leave because they were evil, which explains of course why you wanted them to stay, you wanting to live in an evil country and all
Click to expand...


Do you consider the United States of America to be "evil"?


----------



## gipper

Unkotare said:


> Virginia was a part of the United States of America before, during, and after the Civil War.
> 
> The so-called 'confederacy' was never a legal or legitimate sovereign entity, nor was it EVER recognized as such by ANY nation on earth.
> 
> The scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war and were responsible for EVERY death that occurred as a result.
> 
> Slavery was the issue underlying every factor that led to the war.


Those damn criminal Japanese Americans. Thank god FDR imprisoned them.


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet Dishonest Abe still invaded the South.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> To settle a political issue by war.  If you can't get Americans to accept your oppression then just kill 'em.  That was the Lincoln solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' didn't want war, they shouldn't have started one. They got off lightly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, I wonder why the South wanted to leave?  ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't.
> 
> " For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property "
> 
> 
> " A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. "
> 
> " The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. "
> 
> " The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments "
> 
> 
> "
> 
> The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.
> 
> With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you've mentioned how the South wanted to leave because they were evil, which explains of course why you wanted them to stay, you wanting to live in an evil country and all
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you consider the United States of America to be "evil"?
Click to expand...


Um ... what?

You could be a poster for why parents shouldn't put their kids in government schools


----------



## gipper

Flash said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet Dishonest Abe still invaded the South.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> To settle a political issue by war.  If you can't get Americans to accept your oppression then just kill 'em.  That was the Lincoln solution.
Click to expand...




Unkotare said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet Dishonest Abe still invaded the South.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> To settle a political issue by war.  If you can't get Americans to accept your oppression then just kill 'em.  That was the Lincoln solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' didn't want war, they shouldn't have started one. They got off lightly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, I wonder why the South wanted to leave?  ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't.
> 
> " For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property "
> 
> 
> " A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. "
> 
> " The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. "
> 
> " The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments "
> 
> 
> "
> 
> The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.
> 
> With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you've mentioned how the South wanted to leave because they were evil, which explains of course why you wanted them to stay, you wanting to live in an evil country and all
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you consider the United States of America to be "evil"?
Click to expand...

Certainly someone compared the cost of war versus the cost to pay off slave owners, freeing the slaves. Most nations ended slavery peacefully. They compensated slave owners versus war. Any fool can tell you war is the most expensive option, but that’s the option Dishonest Abe chose. He did so because he was a fool.


----------



## themirrorthief

gipper said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet Dishonest Abe still invaded the South.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> To settle a political issue by war.  If you can't get Americans to accept your oppression then just kill 'em.  That was the Lincoln solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet Dishonest Abe still invaded the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> To settle a political issue by war.  If you can't get Americans to accept your oppression then just kill 'em.  That was the Lincoln solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' didn't want war, they shouldn't have started one. They got off lightly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, I wonder why the South wanted to leave?  ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't.
> 
> " For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property "
> 
> 
> " A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. "
> 
> " The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. "
> 
> " The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments "
> 
> 
> "
> 
> The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.
> 
> With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you've mentioned how the South wanted to leave because they were evil, which explains of course why you wanted them to stay, you wanting to live in an evil country and all
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you consider the United States of America to be "evil"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Certainly someone compared the cost of war versus the cost to pay off slave owners, freeing the slaves. Most nations ended slavery peacefully. They compensated slave owners versus war. Any fool can tell you war is the most expensive option, but that’s the option Dishonest Abe chose. He did so because he was a fool.
Click to expand...

prob third best prez behind Trump and Washington


----------



## gipper

themirrorthief said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet Dishonest Abe still invaded the South.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> To settle a political issue by war.  If you can't get Americans to accept your oppression then just kill 'em.  That was the Lincoln solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet Dishonest Abe still invaded the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> To settle a political issue by war.  If you can't get Americans to accept your oppression then just kill 'em.  That was the Lincoln solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' didn't want war, they shouldn't have started one. They got off lightly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, I wonder why the South wanted to leave?  ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't.
> 
> " For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property "
> 
> 
> " A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. "
> 
> " The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. "
> 
> " The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments "
> 
> 
> "
> 
> The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.
> 
> With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you've mentioned how the South wanted to leave because they were evil, which explains of course why you wanted them to stay, you wanting to live in an evil country and all
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you consider the United States of America to be "evil"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Certainly someone compared the cost of war versus the cost to pay off slave owners, freeing the slaves. Most nations ended slavery peacefully. They compensated slave owners versus war. Any fool can tell you war is the most expensive option, but that’s the option Dishonest Abe chose. He did so because he was a fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> prob third best prez behind Trump and Washington
Click to expand...

Oh God. That’s fucking crazy.


----------



## Unkotare

gipper said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Virginia was a part of the United States of America before, during, and after the Civil War.
> 
> The so-called 'confederacy' was never a legal or legitimate sovereign entity, nor was it EVER recognized as such by ANY nation on earth.
> 
> The scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war and were responsible for EVERY death that occurred as a result.
> 
> Slavery was the issue underlying every factor that led to the war.
> 
> 
> 
> Those damn criminal Japanese Americans. Thank god FDR imprisoned them.
Click to expand...

???


----------



## Unkotare

kaz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet Dishonest Abe still invaded the South.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> To settle a political issue by war.  If you can't get Americans to accept your oppression then just kill 'em.  That was the Lincoln solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' didn't want war, they shouldn't have started one. They got off lightly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, I wonder why the South wanted to leave?  ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't.
> 
> " For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property "
> 
> 
> " A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. "
> 
> " The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. "
> 
> " The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments "
> 
> 
> "
> 
> The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.
> 
> With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you've mentioned how the South wanted to leave because they were evil, which explains of course why you wanted them to stay, you wanting to live in an evil country and all
Click to expand...


Do you consider the United States of America to be "evil"?


----------



## gipper

Unkotare said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Virginia was a part of the United States of America before, during, and after the Civil War.
> 
> The so-called 'confederacy' was never a legal or legitimate sovereign entity, nor was it EVER recognized as such by ANY nation on earth.
> 
> The scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war and were responsible for EVERY death that occurred as a result.
> 
> Slavery was the issue underlying every factor that led to the war.
> 
> 
> 
> Those damn criminal Japanese Americans. Thank god FDR imprisoned them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ???
Click to expand...

You know. Hypocrite.


----------



## gipper

Unkotare said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet Dishonest Abe still invaded the South.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> To settle a political issue by war.  If you can't get Americans to accept your oppression then just kill 'em.  That was the Lincoln solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' didn't want war, they shouldn't have started one. They got off lightly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, I wonder why the South wanted to leave?  ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't.
> 
> " For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property "
> 
> 
> " A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. "
> 
> " The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. "
> 
> " The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments "
> 
> 
> "
> 
> The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.
> 
> With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you've mentioned how the South wanted to leave because they were evil, which explains of course why you wanted them to stay, you wanting to live in an evil country and all
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you consider the United States of America to be "evil"?
Click to expand...

Hey hypocrite, you do. You think FDR and Truman were evil. But somehow, illogically, you think the mass murderer Lincoln great.

Dumb no?


----------



## Unkotare

gipper said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Virginia was a part of the United States of America before, during, and after the Civil War.
> 
> The so-called 'confederacy' was never a legal or legitimate sovereign entity, nor was it EVER recognized as such by ANY nation on earth.
> 
> The scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war and were responsible for EVERY death that occurred as a result.
> 
> Slavery was the issue underlying every factor that led to the war.
> 
> 
> 
> Those damn criminal Japanese Americans. Thank god FDR imprisoned them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know. Hypocrite.
Click to expand...

What the hell are you talking about?


----------



## Unkotare

gipper said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet Dishonest Abe still invaded the South.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> To settle a political issue by war.  If you can't get Americans to accept your oppression then just kill 'em.  That was the Lincoln solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' didn't want war, they shouldn't have started one. They got off lightly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, I wonder why the South wanted to leave?  ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't.
> 
> " For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property "
> 
> 
> " A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. "
> 
> " The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. "
> 
> " The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments "
> 
> 
> "
> 
> The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.
> 
> With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you've mentioned how the South wanted to leave because they were evil, which explains of course why you wanted them to stay, you wanting to live in an evil country and all
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you consider the United States of America to be "evil"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey hypocrite, you do. You think FDR and Truman were evil. But somehow, illogically, you think the mass murderer Lincoln great.
> 
> Dumb no?
Click to expand...


Lincoln was not a mass murderer, and yes you are very dumb.


----------



## bripat9643

themirrorthief said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet Dishonest Abe still invaded the South.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> To settle a political issue by war.  If you can't get Americans to accept your oppression then just kill 'em.  That was the Lincoln solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet Dishonest Abe still invaded the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> To settle a political issue by war.  If you can't get Americans to accept your oppression then just kill 'em.  That was the Lincoln solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' didn't want war, they shouldn't have started one. They got off lightly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, I wonder why the South wanted to leave?  ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't.
> 
> " For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property "
> 
> 
> " A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. "
> 
> " The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. "
> 
> " The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments "
> 
> 
> "
> 
> The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.
> 
> With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you've mentioned how the South wanted to leave because they were evil, which explains of course why you wanted them to stay, you wanting to live in an evil country and all
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you consider the United States of America to be "evil"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Certainly someone compared the cost of war versus the cost to pay off slave owners, freeing the slaves. Most nations ended slavery peacefully. They compensated slave owners versus war. Any fool can tell you war is the most expensive option, but that’s the option Dishonest Abe chose. He did so because he was a fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> prob third best prez behind Trump and Washington
Click to expand...

He was the worst president of all time.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet Dishonest Abe still invaded the South.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> To settle a political issue by war.  If you can't get Americans to accept your oppression then just kill 'em.  That was the Lincoln solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' didn't want war, they shouldn't have started one. They got off lightly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, I wonder why the South wanted to leave?  ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't.
> 
> " For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property "
> 
> 
> " A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. "
> 
> " The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. "
> 
> " The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments "
> 
> 
> "
> 
> The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.
> 
> With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you've mentioned how the South wanted to leave because they were evil, which explains of course why you wanted them to stay, you wanting to live in an evil country and all
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you consider the United States of America to be "evil"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey hypocrite, you do. You think FDR and Truman were evil. But somehow, illogically, you think the mass murderer Lincoln great.
> 
> Dumb no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lincoln was not a mass murderer, and yes you are very dumb.
Click to expand...

He killed 850,000 people.  That's mass murder.


----------



## gipper

Unkotare said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Virginia was a part of the United States of America before, during, and after the Civil War.
> 
> The so-called 'confederacy' was never a legal or legitimate sovereign entity, nor was it EVER recognized as such by ANY nation on earth.
> 
> The scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war and were responsible for EVERY death that occurred as a result.
> 
> Slavery was the issue underlying every factor that led to the war.
> 
> 
> 
> Those damn criminal Japanese Americans. Thank god FDR imprisoned them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know. Hypocrite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the hell are you talking about?
Click to expand...

Fool.


----------



## Flash

gipper said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet Dishonest Abe still invaded the South.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> To settle a political issue by war.  If you can't get Americans to accept your oppression then just kill 'em.  That was the Lincoln solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet Dishonest Abe still invaded the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> To settle a political issue by war.  If you can't get Americans to accept your oppression then just kill 'em.  That was the Lincoln solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' didn't want war, they shouldn't have started one. They got off lightly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, I wonder why the South wanted to leave?  ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't.
> 
> " For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property "
> 
> 
> " A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. "
> 
> " The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. "
> 
> " The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments "
> 
> 
> "
> 
> The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.
> 
> With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you've mentioned how the South wanted to leave because they were evil, which explains of course why you wanted them to stay, you wanting to live in an evil country and all
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you consider the United States of America to be "evil"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Certainly someone compared the cost of war versus the cost to pay off slave owners, freeing the slaves. Most nations ended slavery peacefully. They compensated slave owners versus war. Any fool can tell you war is the most expensive option, but that’s the option Dishonest Abe chose. He did so because he was a fool.
Click to expand...



By the 1880s slavery would have gone away in the developed world.  The Industrial Revolution made slavery uneconomical.

Why have the expense of buying and taking care of slaves to pick cotton when you can buy a machine to do it quicker and less expensive?


----------



## Flash

bripat9643 said:


> themirrorthief said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet Dishonest Abe still invaded the South.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> To settle a political issue by war.  If you can't get Americans to accept your oppression then just kill 'em.  That was the Lincoln solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet Dishonest Abe still invaded the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> To settle a political issue by war.  If you can't get Americans to accept your oppression then just kill 'em.  That was the Lincoln solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' didn't want war, they shouldn't have started one. They got off lightly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, I wonder why the South wanted to leave?  ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't.
> 
> " For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property "
> 
> 
> " A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. "
> 
> " The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. "
> 
> " The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments "
> 
> 
> "
> 
> The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.
> 
> With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you've mentioned how the South wanted to leave because they were evil, which explains of course why you wanted them to stay, you wanting to live in an evil country and all
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you consider the United States of America to be "evil"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Certainly someone compared the cost of war versus the cost to pay off slave owners, freeing the slaves. Most nations ended slavery peacefully. They compensated slave owners versus war. Any fool can tell you war is the most expensive option, but that’s the option Dishonest Abe chose. He did so because he was a fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> prob third best prez behind Trump and Washington
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He was the worst president of all time.
Click to expand...



These confused Moon Bats think that that sometimes to save a village you have to destroy a village.

Lincoln came damn close to completely destroying this nation.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> ...
> He killed 850,000 people.  ...



He most certainly did not. EVERY death in that terrible war is on the heads of the traitorous scumbags of the so-called 'confederacy' who started it.


----------



## Unkotare

Lincoln preserved the Union, and is thus our greatest president.


----------



## Unkotare

gipper said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Virginia was a part of the United States of America before, during, and after the Civil War.
> 
> The so-called 'confederacy' was never a legal or legitimate sovereign entity, nor was it EVER recognized as such by ANY nation on earth.
> 
> The scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war and were responsible for EVERY death that occurred as a result.
> 
> Slavery was the issue underlying every factor that led to the war.
> 
> 
> 
> Those damn criminal Japanese Americans. Thank god FDR imprisoned them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know. Hypocrite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the hell are you talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fool.
Click to expand...

That's not an answer.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> He killed 850,000 people.  ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He most certainly did not. EVERY death in that terrible war is on the heads of the traitorous scumbags of the so-called 'confederacy' who started it.
Click to expand...

Nope.  Lincoln ordered federal troops to invade Virginia and kill Virginians.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> Lincoln preserved the Union, and is thus our greatest president.


Stalin preserved the USSR.  Apparently you admire him also.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Virginia was a part of the United States of America before, during, and after the Civil War.
> 
> The so-called 'confederacy' was never a legal or legitimate sovereign entity, nor was it EVER recognized as such by ANY nation on earth.
> 
> The scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war and were responsible for EVERY death that occurred as a result.
> 
> Slavery was the issue underlying every factor that led to the war.
> 
> 
> 
> Those damn criminal Japanese Americans. Thank god FDR imprisoned them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know. Hypocrite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the hell are you talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not an answer.
Click to expand...

When did you start answering questions?


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet Dishonest Abe still invaded the South.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> To settle a political issue by war.  If you can't get Americans to accept your oppression then just kill 'em.  That was the Lincoln solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' didn't want war, they shouldn't have started one. They got off lightly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, I wonder why the South wanted to leave?  ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't.
> 
> " For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property "
> 
> 
> " A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. "
> 
> " The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. "
> 
> " The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments "
> 
> 
> "
> 
> The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.
> 
> With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you've mentioned how the South wanted to leave because they were evil, which explains of course why you wanted them to stay, you wanting to live in an evil country and all
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you consider the United States of America to be "evil"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey hypocrite, you do. You think FDR and Truman were evil. But somehow, illogically, you think the mass murderer Lincoln great.
> 
> Dumb no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lincoln was not a mass murderer, and yes you are very dumb.
Click to expand...

He sure as hell was a mass murderer.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> He killed 850,000 people.  ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He most certainly did not. EVERY death in that terrible war is on the heads of the traitorous scumbags of the so-called 'confederacy' who started it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  Lincoln ordered federal troops to invade Virginia and kill Virginians.
Click to expand...


That's a lie.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet Dishonest Abe still invaded the South.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> To settle a political issue by war.  If you can't get Americans to accept your oppression then just kill 'em.  That was the Lincoln solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' didn't want war, they shouldn't have started one. They got off lightly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, I wonder why the South wanted to leave?  ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't.
> 
> " For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property "
> 
> 
> " A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. "
> 
> " The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. "
> 
> " The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments "
> 
> 
> "
> 
> The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.
> 
> With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you've mentioned how the South wanted to leave because they were evil, which explains of course why you wanted them to stay, you wanting to live in an evil country and all
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you consider the United States of America to be "evil"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey hypocrite, you do. You think FDR and Truman were evil. But somehow, illogically, you think the mass murderer Lincoln great.
> 
> Dumb no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lincoln was not a mass murderer, and yes you are very dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He sure as hell was a mass murderer.
Click to expand...


That's a lie.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln preserved the Union, and is thus our greatest president.
> 
> 
> 
> Stalin preserved the USSR.  Apparently you admire him also.
Click to expand...

Don't you ever get tired of eating red herring?


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> He killed 850,000 people.  ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He most certainly did not. EVERY death in that terrible war is on the heads of the traitorous scumbags of the so-called 'confederacy' who started it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  Lincoln ordered federal troops to invade Virginia and kill Virginians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a lie.
Click to expand...

It's a well documented fact.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln preserved the Union, and is thus our greatest president.
> 
> 
> 
> Stalin preserved the USSR.  Apparently you admire him also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't you ever get tired of eating red herring?
Click to expand...

What's the red herring?


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet Dishonest Abe still invaded the South.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> To settle a political issue by war.  If you can't get Americans to accept your oppression then just kill 'em.  That was the Lincoln solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' didn't want war, they shouldn't have started one. They got off lightly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, I wonder why the South wanted to leave?  ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't.
> 
> " For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property "
> 
> 
> " A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. "
> 
> " The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. "
> 
> " The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments "
> 
> 
> "
> 
> The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.
> 
> With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you've mentioned how the South wanted to leave because they were evil, which explains of course why you wanted them to stay, you wanting to live in an evil country and all
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you consider the United States of America to be "evil"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey hypocrite, you do. You think FDR and Truman were evil. But somehow, illogically, you think the mass murderer Lincoln great.
> 
> Dumb no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lincoln was not a mass murderer, and yes you are very dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He sure as hell was a mass murderer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a lie.
Click to expand...

How many people died during the Civil War?


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> He killed 850,000 people.  ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He most certainly did not. EVERY death in that terrible war is on the heads of the traitorous scumbags of the so-called 'confederacy' who started it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  Lincoln ordered federal troops to invade Virginia and kill Virginians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a well documented fact.
Click to expand...

No, it's a lie repeated by wannabe reb losers like you who hate America.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln preserved the Union, and is thus our greatest president.
> 
> 
> 
> Stalin preserved the USSR.  Apparently you admire him also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't you ever get tired of eating red herring?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's the red herring?
Click to expand...


----------



## Flash

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet Dishonest Abe still invaded the South.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> To settle a political issue by war.  If you can't get Americans to accept your oppression then just kill 'em.  That was the Lincoln solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' didn't want war, they shouldn't have started one. They got off lightly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, I wonder why the South wanted to leave?  ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't.
> 
> " For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property "
> 
> 
> " A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. "
> 
> " The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. "
> 
> " The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments "
> 
> 
> "
> 
> The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.
> 
> With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you've mentioned how the South wanted to leave because they were evil, which explains of course why you wanted them to stay, you wanting to live in an evil country and all
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you consider the United States of America to be "evil"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey hypocrite, you do. You think FDR and Truman were evil. But somehow, illogically, you think the mass murderer Lincoln great.
> 
> Dumb no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lincoln was not a mass murderer, and yes you are very dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He sure as hell was a mass murderer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a lie.
Click to expand...



You are confused.  Been teaching Jr High history?

My Great, Great, Great Grandfather was a soldier in the 9th Florida Regiment.

He joined the Confederate Army  to protect his family and his state.  He didn't own any slaves and he was a Libertarian that just wanted to be left alone.  He wrote almost two hundred letters explaining why he fought on the side of right.  Those letters were in the Library at the University of Florida until last year.  We took them out when the filth at UF said they were going woke.

In February of 1863 he fought an invading Yankee Army.  A bunch of assholes that the dickhead Lincoln sent to Florida to kill Americans and destroy American homes.  Lincoln sent that 54th Mass Colored Regiment.  A bunch of goddamn murdering Darkies. 

He fought them at the Battle of Olusee and kick the shit out of the Neggra assholes.  The 54th was notorious for having their asses kicked.   They were terrible soldiers.  Typical worthless Darkies.

Later he also fought at the Battle of Cold Harbor where the Yankee filth was slaughtered trying to invade and kill.

Since you are ignorant about the war only having a Jr High school history text book knowledge let me give you the Cliff notes on it.

Lincoln raised his regiments to kill Americans.

Davis raised his regiments to defend against the murderous invaders. 

The South was Right.


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet Dishonest Abe still invaded the South.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> To settle a political issue by war.  If you can't get Americans to accept your oppression then just kill 'em.  That was the Lincoln solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' didn't want war, they shouldn't have started one. They got off lightly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, I wonder why the South wanted to leave?  ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't.
> 
> " For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property "
> 
> 
> " A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. "
> 
> " The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. "
> 
> " The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments "
> 
> 
> "
> 
> The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.
> 
> With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you've mentioned how the South wanted to leave because they were evil, which explains of course why you wanted them to stay, you wanting to live in an evil country and all
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you consider the United States of America to be "evil"?
Click to expand...


OK, shit for brains.   YOU said that the Confederacy loved slavery and lived for it and that they were evil justified conquering the South and forcing them to stay in the Union.

How sick is that?  You wanted to force the South to stay in your country because they were evil?

What about the question don't you understand?


----------



## Unkotare

The scumbag traitors leading the so-called 'confederacy' led terrible numbers of simple, ignorant southerners who really had no stake in it to give their lives in the service of evil. More and more of these men figured shit out as the war dragged on and the inevitable came into focus. By the end of the war, the scumbag traitors were losing as many men to desertion as to Union bullets.


----------



## Unkotare

kaz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet Dishonest Abe still invaded the South.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> To settle a political issue by war.  If you can't get Americans to accept your oppression then just kill 'em.  That was the Lincoln solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' didn't want war, they shouldn't have started one. They got off lightly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, I wonder why the South wanted to leave?  ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't.
> 
> " For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property "
> 
> 
> " A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. "
> 
> " The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. "
> 
> " The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments "
> 
> 
> "
> 
> The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.
> 
> With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you've mentioned how the South wanted to leave because they were evil, which explains of course why you wanted them to stay, you wanting to live in an evil country and all
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you consider the United States of America to be "evil"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, shit for brains.   YOU said that the Confederacy loved slavery and lived for it and that they were evil justified conquering the South and forcing them to stay in the Union.
> 
> How sick is that?  You wanted to force the South to stay in your country because they were evil?
> 
> What about the question don't you understand?
Click to expand...


Do you consider the United States of America to be "evil"?


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> He killed 850,000 people.  ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He most certainly did not. EVERY death in that terrible war is on the heads of the traitorous scumbags of the so-called 'confederacy' who started it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  Lincoln ordered federal troops to invade Virginia and kill Virginians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a well documented fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it's a lie repeated by wannabe reb losers like you who hate America.
Click to expand...

You can't be this stupid.  How did the first battle of Bull Run come about?


----------



## kaz

bripat9643 said:


> themirrorthief said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet Dishonest Abe still invaded the South.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> To settle a political issue by war.  If you can't get Americans to accept your oppression then just kill 'em.  That was the Lincoln solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet Dishonest Abe still invaded the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> To settle a political issue by war.  If you can't get Americans to accept your oppression then just kill 'em.  That was the Lincoln solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' didn't want war, they shouldn't have started one. They got off lightly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, I wonder why the South wanted to leave?  ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't.
> 
> " For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property "
> 
> 
> " A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. "
> 
> " The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. "
> 
> " The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments "
> 
> 
> "
> 
> The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.
> 
> With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you've mentioned how the South wanted to leave because they were evil, which explains of course why you wanted them to stay, you wanting to live in an evil country and all
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you consider the United States of America to be "evil"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Certainly someone compared the cost of war versus the cost to pay off slave owners, freeing the slaves. Most nations ended slavery peacefully. They compensated slave owners versus war. Any fool can tell you war is the most expensive option, but that’s the option Dishonest Abe chose. He did so because he was a fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> prob third best prez behind Trump and Washington
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He was the worst president of all time.
Click to expand...


Yes, Lincoln ended consent of the governed, which as the basis of our country made him the worst


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> Lincoln preserved the Union, and is thus our greatest president.



That Lincoln actually conquered half the country just doesn't register as a problem to you, does it?


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet Dishonest Abe still invaded the South.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> To settle a political issue by war.  If you can't get Americans to accept your oppression then just kill 'em.  That was the Lincoln solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' didn't want war, they shouldn't have started one. They got off lightly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, I wonder why the South wanted to leave?  ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't.
> 
> " For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property "
> 
> 
> " A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. "
> 
> " The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. "
> 
> " The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments "
> 
> 
> "
> 
> The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.
> 
> With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you've mentioned how the South wanted to leave because they were evil, which explains of course why you wanted them to stay, you wanting to live in an evil country and all
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you consider the United States of America to be "evil"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey hypocrite, you do. You think FDR and Truman were evil. But somehow, illogically, you think the mass murderer Lincoln great.
> 
> Dumb no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lincoln was not a mass murderer, and yes you are very dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He sure as hell was a mass murderer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a lie.
Click to expand...


Almost a million dead isn't mass murder to you?  Of course it's not


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet Dishonest Abe still invaded the South.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> To settle a political issue by war.  If you can't get Americans to accept your oppression then just kill 'em.  That was the Lincoln solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' didn't want war, they shouldn't have started one. They got off lightly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, I wonder why the South wanted to leave?  ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't.
> 
> " For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property "
> 
> 
> " A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. "
> 
> " The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. "
> 
> " The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments "
> 
> 
> "
> 
> The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.
> 
> With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you've mentioned how the South wanted to leave because they were evil, which explains of course why you wanted them to stay, you wanting to live in an evil country and all
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you consider the United States of America to be "evil"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, shit for brains.   YOU said that the Confederacy loved slavery and lived for it and that they were evil justified conquering the South and forcing them to stay in the Union.
> 
> How sick is that?  You wanted to force the South to stay in your country because they were evil?
> 
> What about the question don't you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you consider the United States of America to be "evil"?
Click to expand...


Here's the difference between us.  I consider the United States to refer to the people, you consider it to mean the government


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> He killed 850,000 people.  ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He most certainly did not. EVERY death in that terrible war is on the heads of the traitorous scumbags of the so-called 'confederacy' who started it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  Lincoln ordered federal troops to invade Virginia and kill Virginians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a well documented fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it's a lie repeated by wannabe reb losers like you who hate America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't be this stupid.  How did the first battle of Bull Run come about?
Click to expand...


Every battle of the war was the result of the scumbag traitors starting the war for their beloved slavery. And here you are today, a stupid son of a bitch trying to carry that same torch. It's clear what you are, just as it's clear you hate America.


----------



## Unkotare

kaz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet Dishonest Abe still invaded the South.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> To settle a political issue by war.  If you can't get Americans to accept your oppression then just kill 'em.  That was the Lincoln solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' didn't want war, they shouldn't have started one. They got off lightly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, I wonder why the South wanted to leave?  ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't.
> 
> " For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property "
> 
> 
> " A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. "
> 
> " The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. "
> 
> " The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments "
> 
> 
> "
> 
> The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.
> 
> With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you've mentioned how the South wanted to leave because they were evil, which explains of course why you wanted them to stay, you wanting to live in an evil country and all
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you consider the United States of America to be "evil"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey hypocrite, you do. You think FDR and Truman were evil. But somehow, illogically, you think the mass murderer Lincoln great.
> 
> Dumb no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lincoln was not a mass murderer, and yes you are very dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He sure as hell was a mass murderer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Almost a million dead ......
Click to expand...


Every single one the sole responsibility of the scumbag traitors of the so-called 'confederacy.'


----------



## Unkotare

kaz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet Dishonest Abe still invaded the South.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> To settle a political issue by war.  If you can't get Americans to accept your oppression then just kill 'em.  That was the Lincoln solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' didn't want war, they shouldn't have started one. They got off lightly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, I wonder why the South wanted to leave?  ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't.
> 
> " For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property "
> 
> 
> " A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. "
> 
> " The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. "
> 
> " The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments "
> 
> 
> "
> 
> The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.
> 
> With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you've mentioned how the South wanted to leave because they were evil, which explains of course why you wanted them to stay, you wanting to live in an evil country and all
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you consider the United States of America to be "evil"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, shit for brains.   YOU said that the Confederacy loved slavery and lived for it and that they were evil justified conquering the South and forcing them to stay in the Union.
> 
> How sick is that?  You wanted to force the South to stay in your country because they were evil?
> 
> What about the question don't you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you consider the United States of America to be "evil"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's the difference between us.  I consider the United States to refer to the people, you consider it to mean the government
Click to expand...


You didn't answer the question, you ignorant coward.


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet Dishonest Abe still invaded the South.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> To settle a political issue by war.  If you can't get Americans to accept your oppression then just kill 'em.  That was the Lincoln solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' didn't want war, they shouldn't have started one. They got off lightly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, I wonder why the South wanted to leave?  ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't.
> 
> " For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property "
> 
> 
> " A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. "
> 
> " The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. "
> 
> " The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments "
> 
> 
> "
> 
> The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.
> 
> With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you've mentioned how the South wanted to leave because they were evil, which explains of course why you wanted them to stay, you wanting to live in an evil country and all
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you consider the United States of America to be "evil"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey hypocrite, you do. You think FDR and Truman were evil. But somehow, illogically, you think the mass murderer Lincoln great.
> 
> Dumb no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lincoln was not a mass murderer, and yes you are very dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He sure as hell was a mass murderer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Almost a million dead ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every single one the sole responsibility of the scumbag traitors of the so-called 'confederacy.'
Click to expand...


So this is who you demanded be conquered and forced to stay in the United States, "Every single one the sole responsibility of the scumbag traitors of the so-called 'confederacy.'"

And you have no grasp at all in any way what "consent of the governed" means, nothing


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet Dishonest Abe still invaded the South.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> To settle a political issue by war.  If you can't get Americans to accept your oppression then just kill 'em.  That was the Lincoln solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' didn't want war, they shouldn't have started one. They got off lightly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, I wonder why the South wanted to leave?  ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't.
> 
> " For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property "
> 
> 
> " A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. "
> 
> " The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. "
> 
> " The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments "
> 
> 
> "
> 
> The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.
> 
> With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you've mentioned how the South wanted to leave because they were evil, which explains of course why you wanted them to stay, you wanting to live in an evil country and all
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you consider the United States of America to be "evil"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, shit for brains.   YOU said that the Confederacy loved slavery and lived for it and that they were evil justified conquering the South and forcing them to stay in the Union.
> 
> How sick is that?  You wanted to force the South to stay in your country because they were evil?
> 
> What about the question don't you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you consider the United States of America to be "evil"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's the difference between us.  I consider the United States to refer to the people, you consider it to mean the government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question, you ignorant coward.
Click to expand...


You've said all day I lied about what you said and haven't responded to my asking what I lied about, babbling hypocrite


----------



## gipper

Unkotare said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet Dishonest Abe still invaded the South.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> To settle a political issue by war.  If you can't get Americans to accept your oppression then just kill 'em.  That was the Lincoln solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' didn't want war, they shouldn't have started one. They got off lightly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, I wonder why the South wanted to leave?  ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't.
> 
> " For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property "
> 
> 
> " A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. "
> 
> " The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. "
> 
> " The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments "
> 
> 
> "
> 
> The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.
> 
> With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you've mentioned how the South wanted to leave because they were evil, which explains of course why you wanted them to stay, you wanting to live in an evil country and all
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you consider the United States of America to be "evil"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, shit for brains.   YOU said that the Confederacy loved slavery and lived for it and that they were evil justified conquering the South and forcing them to stay in the Union.
> 
> How sick is that?  You wanted to force the South to stay in your country because they were evil?
> 
> What about the question don't you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you consider the United States of America to be "evil"?
Click to expand...

You do!  Just admit it asshole.


----------



## Unkotare

gipper said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet Dishonest Abe still invaded the South.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> To settle a political issue by war.  If you can't get Americans to accept your oppression then just kill 'em.  That was the Lincoln solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' didn't want war, they shouldn't have started one. They got off lightly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, I wonder why the South wanted to leave?  ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't.
> 
> " For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property "
> 
> 
> " A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. "
> 
> " The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. "
> 
> " The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments "
> 
> 
> "
> 
> The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.
> 
> With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you've mentioned how the South wanted to leave because they were evil, which explains of course why you wanted them to stay, you wanting to live in an evil country and all
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you consider the United States of America to be "evil"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, shit for brains.   YOU said that the Confederacy loved slavery and lived for it and that they were evil justified conquering the South and forcing them to stay in the Union.
> 
> How sick is that?  You wanted to force the South to stay in your country because they were evil?
> 
> What about the question don't you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you consider the United States of America to be "evil"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do!
Click to expand...


I most certainly do NOT.


----------



## Unkotare

kaz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Virginia was a part of the United States of America before, during, and after the Civil War.
> 
> The so-called 'confederacy' was never a legal or legitimate sovereign entity, nor was it EVER recognized as such by ANY nation on earth.
> 
> The scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war and were responsible for EVERY death that occurred as a result.
> 
> Slavery was the issue underlying every factor that led to the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Repeating a lie doesn't make it stop being a lie.
> ......
Click to expand...


Then maybe you should stop.


----------



## Unkotare

Virginia was a part of the United States of America before, during, and after the Civil War.

The so-called 'confederacy' was never a legal or legitimate sovereign entity, nor was it EVER recognized as such by ANY nation on earth.

The scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war and were responsible for EVERY death that occurred as a result.

Slavery was the issue underlying every factor that led to the war.


----------



## Unkotare

"It was then 4 A.M. Captain James at once aroused his command, and arranged to carry out the order. He was a great admirer of Roger A. Pryor, and said to him, 'You are the only man to whom I would give up the honor of firing the first gun of the war'; and he
​
​

offered to allow him to fire it. Pryor, on receiving the offer, was very much agitated. With a husky voice he said, 'I could not fire the first gun of the war.' His manner was almost similar to that of Major Anderson as we left him a few moments before on the wharf at Fort Sumter. Captain James would allow no one else but himself to fire the gun.


The boat with the aides of General Beauregard left Fort Johnson before arrangements were complete for the firing of the gun, and laid on its oars, about one-third the distance between the fort and Sumter, there to witness the firing of 'the first gun of the war' between the States. It was fired from a ten-inch mortar at 4:30 A.M., April 12th, 1861. Captain James was a skillful officer, and the firing of the shell was a success. It burst immediately over the fort, apparently about one hundred feet above.

The firing of the mortar woke the echoes from every nook and corner of the harbor, and in this the dead hour of the night, before dawn, that shot was a sound of alarm that brought every soldier in the harbor to his feet, and every man, woman and child in the city of Charleston from their beds. A thrill went through the whole city. It was felt that the Rubicon was passed. No one thought of going home; unused as their ears were to the appalling sounds, or the vivid flashes from the batteries, they stood for hours fascinated with horror."


----------



## Unkotare

" they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection. "

" She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time.  "


" They have, through the mails and hired emissaries, sent seditious pamphlets and papers among us to stir up servile insurrection and bring blood and carnage to our firesides. "


----------



## Unkotare

" Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. "


" a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. "


----------



## Unkotare

kaz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet Dishonest Abe still invaded the South.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> To settle a political issue by war.  If you can't get Americans to accept your oppression then just kill 'em.  That was the Lincoln solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' didn't want war, they shouldn't have started one. They got off lightly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, I wonder why the South wanted to leave?  ....
Click to expand...


I don't.

" For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property "


" A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. "

" The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. "

" The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments "


"

The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.

With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers."


----------



## DudleySmith

TrumpSucks said:


> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?



Here is what Lincoln deliberately started an illegal war over, and in his own words:

*"But what am I to do in the meantime with those men at Montgomery [meaning the Confederate constitutional convention]? Am I to let them go on... [a]nd open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry, with their ten-percent tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff?" *~ Lincoln to Colonel John B. Baldwin, deputized by the Virginian Commissioners to determine whether Lincoln would use force, April 4, 1861.

*"You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail ; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result. "*
Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to Gustavus Fox, May 1, 1861

And, Congress struck down one bill outlawing slavery itself during the war, while passing all kinds of corporate welfare scams, and Lincoln himself vetoed the second Bill that tried to outlaw slavery;  see Wade-Davis for that veto. You're just a retarded idiot who believes whatever your indoctrination camp you thought was a 'school' fed you. And what is more, most everybody at the time knew why he started the war, and those who supported his war didn't give a rat's ass about slavery or black people, except they wanted blacks kept out of the Northern states after the war and they wanted them kept out of the new territories.

*"Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as of many other evils....The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel"*.... Charles Dickens in a London periodical in December 1861

*"The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South....".* ..... London Times of 7 Nov 1861

*"Slavery is not the cause of the rebellion ....Slavery is the pretext on which the leaders of the rebellion rely, 'to fire the Southern Heart' and through which the greatest degree of unanimity can be produced....Mr. Calhoun, after finding that the South could not be brought into sufficient unanimity by a clamor about the tariff, selected slavery as the better subject for agitation"*..... North American Review (Boston October 1862)

*"They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests....These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union." *..... New Orleans Daily Crescent 21 January 1861

*"In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow." *.... Chicago Daily Times December 1860

*"At once shut down every Southern port, destroy its commerce and bring utter ruin on the Confederate States."* ..... NY Times 22 March 1861

*"the mask has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports....by a revenue system verging on free trade...." *.... Boston Transcript 18 March 1861

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



*"The affair at Fort Sumter, it seems to us, has been planned as a means by which the war feeling at the North should be intensified, and the administration thus receive popular support for its policy.... If the armament which lay outside the harbor, while the fort was being battered to pieces [the US ship The Harriet Lane, and seven other reinforcement ships], had been designed for the relief of Major Anderson, it certainly would have made a show of fulfilling its mission. But it seems plain to us that no such design was had. The administration, virtually, to use a homely illustration, stood at Sumter like a boy with a chip on his shoulder, daring his antagonist to knock it off. The Carolinians have knocked off the chip. War is inaugurated, and the design of the administration accomplished."* ~ The Buffalo Daily Courier, April 16, 1861.

*"We have no doubt, and all the circumstances prove, that it was a cunningly devised scheme, contrived with all due attention to scenic display and intended to arouse, and, if possible, exasperate the northern people against the South.... We venture to say a more gigantic conspiracy against the principles of human liberty and freedom has never been concocted. Who but a fiend could have thought of sacrificing the gallant Major Anderson and his little band in order to carry out a political game? Yet there he was compelled to stand for thirty-six hours amid a torrent of fire and shell, while the fleet sent to assist him, coolly looked at his flag of distress and moved not to his assistance! Why did they not? Perhaps the archives in Washington will yet tell the tale of this strange proceeding.... Pause then, and consider before you endorse these mad men who are now, under pretense of preserving the Union, doing the very thing that must forever divide it." *~ The New York Evening Day-Book, April 17, 1861.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet Dishonest Abe still invaded the South.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> To settle a political issue by war.  If you can't get Americans to accept your oppression then just kill 'em.  That was the Lincoln solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' didn't want war, they shouldn't have started one. They got off lightly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, I wonder why the South wanted to leave?  ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't.
> 
> " For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property "
> 
> 
> " A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. "
> 
> " The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. "
> 
> " The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments "
> 
> 
> "
> 
> The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.
> 
> With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you've mentioned how the South wanted to leave because they were evil, which explains of course why you wanted them to stay, you wanting to live in an evil country and all
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you consider the United States of America to be "evil"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, shit for brains.   YOU said that the Confederacy loved slavery and lived for it and that they were evil justified conquering the South and forcing them to stay in the Union.
> 
> How sick is that?  You wanted to force the South to stay in your country because they were evil?
> 
> What about the question don't you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you consider the United States of America to be "evil"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's the difference between us.  I consider the United States to refer to the people, you consider it to mean the government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question, you ignorant coward.
Click to expand...

You mean you  object to people not answering your questions?

Really?


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> Virginia was a part of the United States of America before, during, and after the Civil War.
> 
> The so-called 'confederacy' was never a legal or legitimate sovereign entity, nor was it EVER recognized as such by ANY nation on earth.
> 
> The scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war and were responsible for EVERY death that occurred as a result.
> 
> Slavery was the issue underlying every factor that led to the war.


>YAWN!>

You keep repeating this debunked talking point over and over.


----------



## Indeependent

Unkotare said:


> Virginia was a part of the United States of America before, during, and after the Civil War.
> 
> The so-called 'confederacy' was never a legal or legitimate sovereign entity, nor was it EVER recognized as such by ANY nation on earth.
> 
> The scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war and were responsible for EVERY death that occurred as a result.
> 
> Slavery was the issue underlying every factor that led to the war.


The North was concerned about expanding technology, being united and showing strength to those who might think of invading.


----------



## Unkotare

Virginia was a part of the United States of America before, during, and after the Civil War.

The so-called 'confederacy' was never a legal or legitimate sovereign entity, nor was it EVER recognized as such by ANY nation on earth.

The scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war and were responsible for EVERY death that occurred as a result.

Slavery was the issue underlying every factor that led to the war.


----------



## gipper

Unkotare said:


> Virginia was a part of the United States of America before, during, and after the Civil War.
> 
> The so-called 'confederacy' was never a legal or legitimate sovereign entity, nor was it EVER recognized as such by ANY nation on earth.
> 
> The scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war and were responsible for EVERY death that occurred as a result.
> 
> Slavery was the issue underlying every factor that led to the war.


Not for Lincoln and the North. They invaded the South for money and power. Anyone who has bothered to study the event knows this.

Stop posting. You know nothing.


----------



## Flash

Unkotare said:


> Virginia was a part of the United States of America before, during, and after the Civil War.




You dumb uneducated fuck.

That is like saying Virginia was always part of the British Empire.  They were until they weren't.


----------



## Flash

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Virginia was a part of the United States of America before, during, and after the Civil War.
> 
> The so-called 'confederacy' was never a legal or legitimate sovereign entity, nor was it EVER recognized as such by ANY nation on earth.
> 
> The scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war and were responsible for EVERY death that occurred as a result.
> 
> Slavery was the issue underlying every factor that led to the war.
> 
> 
> 
> >YAWN!>
> 
> You keep repeating this debunked talking point over and over.
Click to expand...



In the Jr High school history book he read it said that the Civil War was fought over slavery.  That is all the dumb uneducated idiot knows.


----------



## Unkotare

kaz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet Dishonest Abe still invaded the South.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> To settle a political issue by war.  If you can't get Americans to accept your oppression then just kill 'em.  That was the Lincoln solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' didn't want war, they shouldn't have started one. They got off lightly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, I wonder why the South wanted to leave?  ....
Click to expand...


I don't.

" For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property "


" A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. "

" The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. "

" The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments "


"

The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.

With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers."


----------



## Unkotare

" they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection. "

" She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time.  "


" They have, through the mails and hired emissaries, sent seditious pamphlets and papers among us to stir up servile insurrection and bring blood and carnage to our firesides. "


----------



## schmidlap

marvin martian said:


> Denying it won't change the fact.  What's your take on the Holocaust?  Do you admit it happened and disagree with your fellow DemoKKKrats in congress?


I am not aware of anyone in Congress denying the Holocaust, and have no idea why you are so desperate to derail a discussion of the "The Civil War" by lying about such an unrelated matter.

- If you would rather discuss Holocaust denial, you may wish to focus upon those who hail the former guy as their "God Emperor" at the neo-nazi Daily Stormer.:






						Donald Trump – Daily Stormer
					






					dailystormer.su


----------



## schmidlap

kaz said:


> Democrats are not "most Americans."  They are Nazis though


Your hyper-partisan alienation from the United States is unfortunate.

Your nazis are Trump goons, of course, on record as having endorsed their "God Emperor" twice, still supporting the Loser.





						Donald Trump – Daily Stormer
					






					dailystormer.su


----------



## schmidlap

bripat9643 said:


> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrat is the new Nazi party
> 
> 
> 
> Your contempt for most Americans is quite hysterical, and, in fact, your nazis hail _Cry Baby Loser _as their "God Emperor!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God Emperor – Daily Stormer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dailystormer.su
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He only has contempt for Democrats, which is at it should be.
Click to expand...

If you wish to align yourself with the neo-nazis at Daily Stormer in their hailing the former guy as their "God Emperor,"
 just click the heels of your ruby jackboots three times as you do it.


----------



## DudleySmith

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Virginia was a part of the United States of America before, during, and after the Civil War.
> 
> The so-called 'confederacy' was never a legal or legitimate sovereign entity, nor was it EVER recognized as such by ANY nation on earth.
> 
> The scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war and were responsible for EVERY death that occurred as a result.
> 
> Slavery was the issue underlying every factor that led to the war.
> 
> 
> 
> >YAWN!>
> 
> You keep repeating this debunked talking point over and over.
Click to expand...


They can never prove secession was illegal, or even considered so; Lincoln himself never said it was illegal, just that he didn't like it. He also said Congress had n legal power to ban slavery in any state, and that his Proclamation was merely a ruse and wasn't legitimate either. 

The South had already won all the cases re slavery; they had nothing to worry about as far as it remaining legal. Economic viability was quite another issue; the price of cotton was making it impossible to profit from it much longer, the admission of Texas and its east Texas cotton industry glutted the market.


----------



## DudleySmith

Flash said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Virginia was a part of the United States of America before, during, and after the Civil War.
> 
> The so-called 'confederacy' was never a legal or legitimate sovereign entity, nor was it EVER recognized as such by ANY nation on earth.
> 
> The scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war and were responsible for EVERY death that occurred as a result.
> 
> Slavery was the issue underlying every factor that led to the war.
> 
> 
> 
> >YAWN!>
> 
> You keep repeating this debunked talking point over and over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In the Jr High school history book he read it said that the Civil War was fought over slavery.  That is all the dumb uneducated idiot knows.
Click to expand...


He's just a troll, and a degenerate one at that.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> He killed 850,000 people.  ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He most certainly did not. EVERY death in that terrible war is on the heads of the traitorous scumbags of the so-called 'confederacy' who started it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  Lincoln ordered federal troops to invade Virginia and kill Virginians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a well documented fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it's a lie repeated by wannabe reb losers like you who hate America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't be this stupid.  How did the first battle of Bull Run come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every battle of the war was the result of the scumbag traitors starting the war for their beloved slavery. And here you are today, a stupid son of a bitch trying to carry that same torch. It's clear what you are, just as it's clear you hate America.
Click to expand...

Nope.  Lnicoln ordered the invasion of Virginia.  Only a brain damaged douchebag would deny it.  With the exception of Gettysburg, he ordered every other battle the Union inflicted on innocent Americans.  Of course, he brought that one on himself.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> Virginia was a part of the United States of America before, during, and after the Civil War.
> 
> The so-called 'confederacy' was never a legal or legitimate sovereign entity, nor was it EVER recognized as such by ANY nation on earth.
> 
> The scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war and were responsible for EVERY death that occurred as a result.
> 
> Slavery was the issue underlying every factor that led to the war.


Debunked.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> He killed 850,000 people.  ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He most certainly did not. EVERY death in that terrible war is on the heads of the traitorous scumbags of the so-called 'confederacy' who started it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  Lincoln ordered federal troops to invade Virginia and kill Virginians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a well documented fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it's a lie repeated by wannabe reb losers like you who hate America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't be this stupid.  How did the first battle of Bull Run come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every battle of the war was the result of the scumbag traitors starting the war for their beloved slavery. And here you are today, a stupid son of a bitch trying to carry that same torch. It's clear what you are, just as it's clear you hate America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  Lnicoln ordered the invasion of Virginia.  Only a brain damaged douchebag would deny it.  With the exception of Gettysburg, he ordered every other battle the Union inflicted on innocent Americans.  Of course, he brought that one on himself.
Click to expand...


You can't "invade" your own country, wannabe.


----------



## Unkotare

Virginia was a part of the United States of America before, during, and after the Civil War.

The so-called 'confederacy' was never a legal or legitimate sovereign entity, nor was it EVER recognized as such by ANY nation on earth.

The scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war and were responsible for EVERY death that occurred as a result.

Slavery was the issue underlying every factor that led to the war.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> He killed 850,000 people.  ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He most certainly did not. EVERY death in that terrible war is on the heads of the traitorous scumbags of the so-called 'confederacy' who started it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  Lincoln ordered federal troops to invade Virginia and kill Virginians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a well documented fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it's a lie repeated by wannabe reb losers like you who hate America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't be this stupid.  How did the first battle of Bull Run come about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every battle of the war was the result of the scumbag traitors starting the war for their beloved slavery. And here you are today, a stupid son of a bitch trying to carry that same torch. It's clear what you are, just as it's clear you hate America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  Lnicoln ordered the invasion of Virginia.  Only a brain damaged douchebag would deny it.  With the exception of Gettysburg, he ordered every other battle the Union inflicted on innocent Americans.  Of course, he brought that one on himself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't "invade" your own country, wannabe.
Click to expand...

Debunked talking point.


----------



## Unkotare

DudleySmith said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Virginia was a part of the United States of America before, during, and after the Civil War.
> 
> The so-called 'confederacy' was never a legal or legitimate sovereign entity, nor was it EVER recognized as such by ANY nation on earth.
> 
> The scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war and were responsible for EVERY death that occurred as a result.
> 
> Slavery was the issue underlying every factor that led to the war.
> 
> 
> 
> >YAWN!>
> 
> You keep repeating this debunked talking point over and over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They can never prove secession was illegal, ....
Click to expand...










						Texas v. White | law case
					

Texas v. White,   (1869), U.S. Supreme Court case in which it was held that the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede. In 1850 the state of Texas received $10,000,000 in federal government bonds in settlement of boundary claims. In 1861 the state seceded from...



					www.britannica.com


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> DudleySmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Virginia was a part of the United States of America before, during, and after the Civil War.
> 
> The so-called 'confederacy' was never a legal or legitimate sovereign entity, nor was it EVER recognized as such by ANY nation on earth.
> 
> The scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war and were responsible for EVERY death that occurred as a result.
> 
> Slavery was the issue underlying every factor that led to the war.
> 
> 
> 
> >YAWN!>
> 
> You keep repeating this debunked talking point over and over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They can never prove secession was illegal, ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas v. White | law case
> 
> 
> Texas v. White,   (1869), U.S. Supreme Court case in which it was held that the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede. In 1850 the state of Texas received $10,000,000 in federal government bonds in settlement of boundary claims. In 1861 the state seceded from...
> 
> 
> 
> www.britannica.com
Click to expand...

Debunked.  That's the case you refuse to discuss.


----------



## Unkotare

Virginia was a part of the United States of America before, during, and after the Civil War.

The so-called 'confederacy' was never a legal or legitimate sovereign entity, nor was it EVER recognized as such by ANY nation on earth.

The scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war and were responsible for EVERY death that occurred as a result.

Slavery was the issue underlying every factor that led to the war.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> Virginia was a part of the United States of America before, during, and after the Civil War.
> 
> The so-called 'confederacy' was never a legal or legitimate sovereign entity, nor was it EVER recognized as such by ANY nation on earth.
> 
> The scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war and were responsible for EVERY death that occurred as a result.
> 
> Slavery was the issue underlying every factor that led to the war.


Debunked.


----------



## Unkotare

"An indestructible union"


----------



## Unkotare

No nation anywhere EVER recognized the so-called confederacy as legitimate, legal, or real. None. Not one. Therefore, Virginia was and is an irremovable part of the UNITED States of America just as it was before and during the criminal activity of the Civil War.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> "An indestructible union"


Meaningless.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> No nation anywhere EVER recognized the so-called confederacy as legitimate, legal, or real. None. Not one. Therefore, Virginia was and is an irremovable part of the UNITED States of America just as it was before and during the criminal activity of the Civil War.


14 countries have recognized Taiwan.  the one with the largest population is Guatamala with a population of 18 million.  The USA isn't on the list.  Does that mean Taiwan isn't a legitimate country?


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "An indestructible union"
> 
> 
> 
> Meaningless.
Click to expand...

According to whom? YOU?


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> No nation anywhere EVER recognized the so-called confederacy as legitimate, legal, or real. None. Not one. Therefore, Virginia was and is an irremovable part of the UNITED States of America just as it was before and during the criminal activity of the Civil War.
> 
> 
> 
> 14 countries have recognized Taiwan.  .....
Click to expand...


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "An indestructible union"
> 
> 
> 
> Meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to whom? YOU?
Click to expand...

anyone with a brain,


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "An indestructible union"
> 
> 
> 
> Meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to whom? YOU?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> anyone with a brain,
Click to expand...


That leaves you out.


----------



## gipper

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> No nation anywhere EVER recognized the so-called confederacy as legitimate, legal, or real. None. Not one. Therefore, Virginia was and is an irremovable part of the UNITED States of America just as it was before and during the criminal activity of the Civil War.
> 
> 
> 
> 14 countries have recognized Taiwan.  the one with the largest population is Guatamala with a population of 18 million.  The USA isn't on the list.  Does that mean Taiwan isn't a legitimate country?
Click to expand...

Following the hypocrite’s logic, China should invade Taiwan and mass murder the people there.

He doesn’t know how to think. He emotes.


----------



## DudleySmith

Unkotare said:


> DudleySmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Virginia was a part of the United States of America before, during, and after the Civil War.
> 
> The so-called 'confederacy' was never a legal or legitimate sovereign entity, nor was it EVER recognized as such by ANY nation on earth.
> 
> The scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war and were responsible for EVERY death that occurred as a result.
> 
> Slavery was the issue underlying every factor that led to the war.
> 
> 
> 
> >YAWN!>
> 
> You keep repeating this debunked talking point over and over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They can never prove secession was illegal, ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas v. White | law case
> 
> 
> Texas v. White,   (1869), U.S. Supreme Court case in which it was held that the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede. In 1850 the state of Texas received $10,000,000 in federal government bonds in settlement of boundary claims. In 1861 the state seceded from...
> 
> 
> 
> www.britannica.com
Click to expand...


You never read it, so why post it? It wasn't a SC case on whether or not secession was legal, dumbass; it was just the military governor of Texas wanting to steal a $100 grand in Texas state bonds  during the 'Reconstruction' scam. The fact is Madison and the rest of the Constitutional Convention specifically denied the Federal Govt. the right to use force against any state if it chose to leave the Union. 

You're just a simpleton who read that idiotic spam on some site and you think it sounded good, being a fucking idiot. There was never a Supreme Court case on secession; that's because everybody knew it wasn't illegal, and many states for the 70 years previous, beginning with the New England states, used it as leverage to shape legislation, dumbass.


----------



## DudleySmith

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DudleySmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Virginia was a part of the United States of America before, during, and after the Civil War.
> 
> The so-called 'confederacy' was never a legal or legitimate sovereign entity, nor was it EVER recognized as such by ANY nation on earth.
> 
> The scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war and were responsible for EVERY death that occurred as a result.
> 
> Slavery was the issue underlying every factor that led to the war.
> 
> 
> 
> >YAWN!>
> 
> You keep repeating this debunked talking point over and over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They can never prove secession was illegal, ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas v. White | law case
> 
> 
> Texas v. White,   (1869), U.S. Supreme Court case in which it was held that the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede. In 1850 the state of Texas received $10,000,000 in federal government bonds in settlement of boundary claims. In 1861 the state seceded from...
> 
> 
> 
> www.britannica.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Debunked.  That's the case you refuse to discuss.
Click to expand...


He doesn't know shit, he just repeats spam he read, and doesn't even post where he got it from; he knows his spam is crap.


----------



## Unkotare

...








						Texas v. White | law case
					

Texas v. White,   (1869), U.S. Supreme Court case in which it was held that the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede. In 1850 the state of Texas received $10,000,000 in federal government bonds in settlement of boundary claims. In 1861 the state seceded from...



					www.britannica.com


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas v. White | law case
> 
> 
> Texas v. White,   (1869), U.S. Supreme Court case in which it was held that the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede. In 1850 the state of Texas received $10,000,000 in federal government bonds in settlement of boundary claims. In 1861 the state seceded from...
> 
> 
> 
> www.britannica.com


The court "upheld" a claim that has no basis in any law on the books.

Furthermore, at the time the case was filed Texas had no prepresentation in Congress and its citizens could not vote in national elections.  Yet, the decision claims that Texas was a "state of the union."

Debunked.

From your site:

*Salmon P. Chase*_, in full *Salmon Portland Chase*,   (born Jan. 13, 1808, Cornish Township, N.H., U.S.—died May 7, 1873, New York City), lawyer and politician, antislavery leader before the U.S. Civil War, secretary of the Treasury (1861–64) in Pres. Abraham Lincoln’s wartime Cabinet, sixth chief justice of the United States (1864–73), and repeatedly a seeker of the presidency. _​​He's obviously a Lincoln lackey.


----------



## Unkotare

"Texas v White, (1869), U.S. Supreme *Court* case in which it was held that _*the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede. *_


----------



## Unkotare

gipper said:


> ...
> Following the hypocrite’s logic, China should invade Taiwan and mass murder the people there.
> ...


----------



## Unkotare

gipper said:


> ...
> 
> He doesn’t know how to think. He emotes.




Says the anarchist...


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> "Texas v White, (1869), U.S. Supreme *Court* case in which it was held that _*the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede. *_


With absolutely no basis in any actual law.

Debunked.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Texas v White, (1869), U.S. Supreme *Court* case in which it was held that _*the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede. *_
> 
> 
> 
> With absolutely no basis in any actual law.
> 
> ...
Click to expand...


Incorrect.


----------



## Flash

Unkotare said:


> "Texas v White, (1869), U.S. Supreme *Court* case in which it was held that _*the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede. *_




Since you are so uneducated about the Civil War I have a homework assignment for you so that you won't come across as being so ignorant.

There are lots of good historical books about the war but since you only have a Jr High School history text knowledge we need to start with something basic.

Go read "The South Was Right" by Kennedy and Kennedy.

After you finish report back to me so I can quiz you to see if you learned anything.


----------



## Unkotare

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them"

The so-called 'confederate' criminals levied war against the United States. 

" The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an *indestructible Union*, composed of *indestructible* States. "


----------



## Unkotare

"The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States."—Chief Justice CHASE


----------



## Unkotare

Flash said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Texas v White, (1869), U.S. Supreme *Court* case in which it was held that _*the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede. *_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since you are so uneducated about the Civil War ....
Click to expand...


I am better educated on the topic than you are on any topic in any field.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> He doesn’t know how to think. He emotes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the anarchist...
Click to expand...

I'm the anarchist, moron.


----------



## bdtex

TrumpSucks said:


> When your avatar is Jefferson Davis, that says a lot about your position.


Thanks. You know you've won when the best the opposition can do is criticize your avatar. I accept your surrender.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> "The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States."—Chief Justice CHASE


Chase:  A Lincoln appointed hack.  He was Lincoln's Treasury Sec from 1861 - 1864


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Texas v White, (1869), U.S. Supreme *Court* case in which it was held that _*the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede. *_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since you are so uneducated about the Civil War ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am better educated on the topic than you are on any topic in any field.
Click to expand...

You most definitely are not.


----------



## there4eyeM

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "An indestructible union"
> 
> 
> 
> Meaningless.
Click to expand...

What makes it meaningless? You say it says one thing. I say it says another. My English is better than yours. If it is a matter of expressing the facts, I have laid them out (repeatedly) in this and other threads. What we are faced with is our interpretations of the language at the time it was written. All that said, the point is moot. A war was fought and the successful side continued on its way and the other soon joined in. It's over and you aren't going to be convinced by my capacities for expression and neither I yours. Remember that your insistence on repeating the same opinion as if by itself it weighed more than anyone else's doesn't bring you respect.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States."—Chief Justice CHASE
> 
> 
> 
> Chase:  A Lincoln appointed hack.  He was Lincoln's Treasury Sec from 1861 - 1864
Click to expand...


Which president nominated you for the Supreme Court?


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Texas v White, (1869), U.S. Supreme *Court* case in which it was held that _*the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede. *_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since you are so uneducated about the Civil War ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am better educated on the topic than you are on any topic in any field.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You most definitely are not.
Click to expand...



Prove it In some manner beyond your personal insistence, or by simply claiming that you think you are correct in this instance. You cannot, so shut up, stupid.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> He doesn’t know how to think. He emotes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the anarchist...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm the anarchist, moron.
Click to expand...

You are both delusional fools who would not survive one day in your little imagined utopia of anarchy. Thank your lucky stars that your stupidity will never be reflected in your lived reality, weakling.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them"
> 
> The so-called 'confederate' criminals levied war against the United States.



Nope.  Lincoln invaded Virginia.  Virginia didn't invade the federal government.  

Lincoln made war on the states.  Lincoln is the traitor.  



Unkotare said:


> " The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an *indestructible Union*, composed of *indestructible* States. "


That's the opinion of a Lincoln appointed hack.  It's not based on any actual law on the books..


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Texas v White, (1869), U.S. Supreme *Court* case in which it was held that _*the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede. *_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since you are so uneducated about the Civil War ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am better educated on the topic than you are on any topic in any field.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You most definitely are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it In some manner beyond your personal insistence, or by simply claiming that you think you are correct in this instance. You cannot, so shut up, stupid.
Click to expand...

I have. numerous times.  I've demonstrated your ignorance of the facts.  For instance, you have no idea what an "appeal to authority" is.  

I'll ask you again, do the continents move?


----------



## there4eyeM

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Texas v White, (1869), U.S. Supreme *Court* case in which it was held that _*the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede. *_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since you are so uneducated about the Civil War ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am better educated on the topic than you are on any topic in any field.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You most definitely are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it In some manner beyond your personal insistence, or by simply claiming that you think you are correct in this instance. You cannot, so shut up, stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have. numerous times.  I've demonstrated your ignorance of the facts.  For instance, you have no idea what an "appeal to authority" is.
> 
> I'll ask you again, do the continents move?
Click to expand...

Does the earth turn?


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> He doesn’t know how to think. He emotes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the anarchist...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm the anarchist, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are both delusional fools who would not survive one day in your little imagined utopia of anarchy. Thank your lucky stars that your stupidity will never be reflected in your lived reality, weakling.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's much better to live in a world where the leader of your country can slaughter 850,000 of you.


----------



## bripat9643

there4eyeM said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Texas v White, (1869), U.S. Supreme *Court* case in which it was held that _*the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede. *_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since you are so uneducated about the Civil War ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am better educated on the topic than you are on any topic in any field.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You most definitely are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it In some manner beyond your personal insistence, or by simply claiming that you think you are correct in this instance. You cannot, so shut up, stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have. numerous times.  I've demonstrated your ignorance of the facts.  For instance, you have no idea what an "appeal to authority" is.
> 
> I'll ask you again, do the continents move?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does the earth turn?
Click to expand...

What "authority" says it doesn't?


----------



## there4eyeM

bripat9643 said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Texas v White, (1869), U.S. Supreme *Court* case in which it was held that _*the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede. *_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since you are so uneducated about the Civil War ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am better educated on the topic than you are on any topic in any field.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You most definitely are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it In some manner beyond your personal insistence, or by simply claiming that you think you are correct in this instance. You cannot, so shut up, stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have. numerous times.  I've demonstrated your ignorance of the facts.  For instance, you have no idea what an "appeal to authority" is.
> 
> I'll ask you again, do the continents move?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does the earth turn?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What "authority" says it doesn't?
Click to expand...

If it does, then the continents necessarily move.


----------



## bripat9643

there4eyeM said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Texas v White, (1869), U.S. Supreme *Court* case in which it was held that _*the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede. *_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since you are so uneducated about the Civil War ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am better educated on the topic than you are on any topic in any field.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You most definitely are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it In some manner beyond your personal insistence, or by simply claiming that you think you are correct in this instance. You cannot, so shut up, stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have. numerous times.  I've demonstrated your ignorance of the facts.  For instance, you have no idea what an "appeal to authority" is.
> 
> I'll ask you again, do the continents move?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does the earth turn?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What "authority" says it doesn't?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it does, then the continents necessarily move.
Click to expand...

Non sequitur. I'm not surprised you can't avoid resorting to logical fallacies.

You also didn't answer the question, NAZI.


----------



## there4eyeM

bripat9643 said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Texas v White, (1869), U.S. Supreme *Court* case in which it was held that _*the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede. *_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since you are so uneducated about the Civil War ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am better educated on the topic than you are on any topic in any field.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You most definitely are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it In some manner beyond your personal insistence, or by simply claiming that you think you are correct in this instance. You cannot, so shut up, stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have. numerous times.  I've demonstrated your ignorance of the facts.  For instance, you have no idea what an "appeal to authority" is.
> 
> I'll ask you again, do the continents move?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does the earth turn?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What "authority" says it doesn't?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it does, then the continents necessarily move.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Non sequitur. I'm not surprised you can't avoid resorting to logical fallacies.
> 
> You also didn't answer the question, NAZI.
Click to expand...

What was your question, again? Not, "do the continents move?" (It doesn't seem to bother you to repeat yourself).


----------



## Flash




----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> He doesn’t know how to think. He emotes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the anarchist...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm the anarchist, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are both delusional fools who would not survive one day in your little imagined utopia of anarchy. Thank your lucky stars that your stupidity will never be reflected in your lived reality, weakling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, it's much better to live in a world where the leader of your country can slaughter 850,000 of you.
Click to expand...


Every one of those deaths the sole responsibility of the scumbag 'confederates.'


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> ....... For instance, you have no idea what an "appeal to authority" is.
> 
> ......



On the contrary, you proudly demonstrated that YOU do not understand the concept. Ironically, you keep trying to use straw men and red herrings to do so. You are stupid in ways you can't even comprehend!


----------



## Unkotare

" On April 15, 1869, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase announced a ruling in favor of Texas on the grounds that _*the Confederate government had no legal existence *_"


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them"
> 
> The so-called 'confederate' criminals levied war against the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Lincoln invaded Virginia.  Virginia didn't invade the federal government.
> 
> Lincoln made war on the states.  Lincoln is the traitor.
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> " The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an *indestructible Union*, composed of *indestructible* States. "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's the opinion of a Lincoln appointed hack. .......
Click to expand...


You mean that's the expert opinion of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America. What is _your_ area of expertise again?


----------



## Flash

Unkotare said:


> " On April 15, 1869, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase announced a ruling in favor of Texas on the grounds that _*the Confederate government had no legal existence *_"




Instead of posting your ignorant Jr High school shit you need to go do the homework assignment that I gave you.


----------



## Unkotare

Flash said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> " On April 15, 1869, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase announced a ruling in favor of Texas on the grounds that _*the Confederate government had no legal existence *_"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of posting your ignorant Jr High school shit you need to go do the homework assignment that I gave you.
Click to expand...


I posted historical fact and direct quotes from primary sources. Who are you again?


----------



## Unkotare

Flash said:


> ...
> 
> In the Jr High school history book he read it said that the Civil War was fought over slavery.  ....



In the declarations of the so-called confederate states themselves it says that over and over again, as I have quoted for you several times. 


When you finish building your time machine, be sure to go back and tell them to stop talking about it so much because they will make you look like an ignorant asshole with an agenda to hide  in 2021.


----------



## Unkotare

Flash said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet Dishonest Abe still invaded the South.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> To settle a political issue by war.  If you can't get Americans to accept your oppression then just kill 'em.  That was the Lincoln solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' didn't want war, they shouldn't have started one. They got off lightly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, I wonder why the South wanted to leave?  ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't.
> 
> " For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property "
> 
> 
> " A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. "
> 
> " The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. "
> 
> " The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments "
> 
> 
> "
> 
> The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.
> 
> With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you've mentioned how the South wanted to leave because they were evil, which explains of course why you wanted them to stay, you wanting to live in an evil country and all
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you consider the United States of America to be "evil"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey hypocrite, you do. You think FDR and Truman were evil. But somehow, illogically, you think the mass murderer Lincoln great.
> 
> Dumb no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lincoln was not a mass murderer, and yes you are very dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He sure as hell was a mass murderer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are confused.  Been teaching Jr High history?
> 
> My Great, Great, Great Grandfather was a soldier in the 9th Florida Regiment.
> 
> ...
Click to expand...






Unkotare said:


> The scumbag traitors leading the so-called 'confederacy' led terrible numbers of simple, ignorant southerners who really had no stake in it to give their lives in the service of evil. More and more of these men figured shit out as the war dragged on and the inevitable came into focus. By the end of the war, the scumbag traitors were losing as many men to desertion as to Union bullets.


----------



## Unkotare

kaz said:


> ...Here's the difference between us.  I consider the United States to refer to the people, you consider it to mean the government



It's both, you idiot.

"That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom – and that government of the *people, by the people, for the people*, shall not perish from the Earth.”


----------



## Unkotare

gipper said:


> ...
> 
> He doesn’t know how to think.




You imagine that _you_ do?


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> "Texas v White, (1869), U.S. Supreme *Court* case in which it was held that _*the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede. *_


Debunked.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them"
> 
> The so-called 'confederate' criminals levied war against the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Lincoln invaded Virginia.  Virginia didn't invade the federal government.
> 
> Lincoln made war on the states.  Lincoln is the traitor.
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> " The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an *indestructible Union*, composed of *indestructible* States. "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's the opinion of a Lincoln appointed hack. .......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean that's the expert opinion of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America. What is _your_ area of expertise again?
Click to expand...

I understand the meaning of "appeal to authority."  Salmon P Chase was a Lincoln appointed hack.  He was Lincoln's Secretary or Treasury, for Pete's sake.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> In the Jr High school history book he read it said that the Civil War was fought over slavery.  ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the declarations of the so-called confederate states themselves it says that over and over again, as I have quoted for you several times.
> 
> 
> When you finish building your time machine, be sure to go back and tell them to stop talking about it so much because they will make you look like an ignorant asshole with an agenda to hide  in 2021.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what what their declarations say.  The bottom line is that Lincoln didn't invade Virginia to free the slaves.  He invaded to make Virginia pay the Morrill Tariff.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Texas v White, (1869), U.S. Supreme *Court* case in which it was held that _*the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede. *_
> 
> 
> 
> Debunked.
Click to expand...


NO, it's still right there in the records of the Supreme Court. On the books. Look it up in the Library of Congress if someone will teach you how.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> " On April 15, 1869, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase announced a ruling in favor of Texas on the grounds that _*the Confederate government had no legal existence *_"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of posting your ignorant Jr High school shit you need to go do the homework assignment that I gave you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I posted historical fact and direct quotes from primary sources. Who are you again?
Click to expand...

Meaningless quotes from irrelevant sources.

Tell us, do the continents move?


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Texas v White, (1869), U.S. Supreme *Court* case in which it was held that _*the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede. *_
> 
> 
> 
> Debunked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO, it's still right there in the records of the Supreme Court. On the books. Look it up in the Library of Congress if someone will teach you how.
Click to expand...

There's lots of totally debunked horseshit in the Library of Congress.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> ......
> It doesn't matter what what their declarations say. .......




 


Priceless


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> ....
> 
> Tell us, do the continents move?




Ask your red herring. You two seem to spend a lot of time together.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> Tell us, do the continents move?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ask your red herring. You two seem to spend a lot of time together.
Click to expand...

It's not a red herring.  It's a test to see if you know what an appeal to authority is.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Texas v White, (1869), U.S. Supreme *Court* case in which it was held that _*the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede. *_
> 
> 
> 
> Debunked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO, it's still right there in the records of the Supreme Court. On the books. Look it up in the Library of Congress if someone will teach you how.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's lots of totally debunked horseshit in the Library of Congress.
Click to expand...




Who are you again?


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> Tell us, do the continents move?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ask your red herring. You two seem to spend a lot of time together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not a red herring.  .....
Click to expand...


Aw, you don't know what that means either, do you? Maybe you should take a class or something.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> " On April 15, 1869, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase announced a ruling in favor of Texas on the grounds that _*the Confederate government had no legal existence *_"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of posting your ignorant Jr High school shit you need to go do the homework assignment that I gave you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I posted historical fact and direct quotes from primary sources. Who are you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meaningless quotes from irrelevant sources.
> ...
Click to expand...


 

A direct quote from the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court about a case on which he wrote the majority opinion, a case directly related to the topic at hand, and you - some ignorant nobody on the internet - declares it "Meaningless quotes from irrelevant sources"? That's hilarious. 

If you're trying to make a fool of yourself, you couldn't be doing a better job.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Texas v White, (1869), U.S. Supreme *Court* case in which it was held that _*the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede. *_
> 
> 
> 
> Debunked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO, it's still right there in the records of the Supreme Court. On the books. Look it up in the Library of Congress if someone will teach you how.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's lots of totally debunked horseshit in the Library of Congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you again?
Click to expand...

Is this another appeal to authority?


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> " On April 15, 1869, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase announced a ruling in favor of Texas on the grounds that _*the Confederate government had no legal existence *_"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of posting your ignorant Jr High school shit you need to go do the homework assignment that I gave you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I posted historical fact and direct quotes from primary sources. Who are you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meaningless quotes from irrelevant sources.
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A direct quote from the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court about a case on which he wrote the majority opinion, a case directly related to the topic at hand, and you - some ignorant nobody on the internet - declares it "Meaningless quotes from irrelevant sources"? That's hilarious.
> 
> If you're trying to make a fool of yourself, you couldn't be doing a better job.
Click to expand...

Do the continents move?


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Texas v White, (1869), U.S. Supreme *Court* case in which it was held that _*the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede. *_
> 
> 
> 
> Debunked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO, it's still right there in the records of the Supreme Court. On the books. Look it up in the Library of Congress if someone will teach you how.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's lots of totally debunked horseshit in the Library of Congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is this another appeal to authority?
Click to expand...


Still don't know what it means, huh?


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> " On April 15, 1869, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase announced a ruling in favor of Texas on the grounds that _*the Confederate government had no legal existence *_"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of posting your ignorant Jr High school shit you need to go do the homework assignment that I gave you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I posted historical fact and direct quotes from primary sources. Who are you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meaningless quotes from irrelevant sources.
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A direct quote from the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court about a case on which he wrote the majority opinion, a case directly related to the topic at hand, and you - some ignorant nobody on the internet - declares it "Meaningless quotes from irrelevant sources"? That's hilarious.
> 
> If you're trying to make a fool of yourself, you couldn't be doing a better job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do the continents move?
Click to expand...


----------



## Bezukhov

gipper said:


> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stating the cause of the Civil War was slavery is an oversimplification.
> 
> Stating the cause of the Civil War was not slavery is fallacious.
> 
> 
> 
> Well we know Abe wanted to ensconce slavery into the Constitution, if the South didn’t secede. We also know he intended to war on the South if they refused to abide by federal laws, like the recently passed Morrill Tariff that was passed without any southern votes. He made all this perfectly clear in his first inaugural speech.
> 
> He then set up events at Ft Sumter to invade the South.  So, what can we conclude from this?  There wouldn’t have been a war had Abe not invaded to impose the tariff. So from the aggressor’s point of view, the war wasn’t about slavery. It was about money.
Click to expand...




Flash said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Texas v White, (1869), U.S. Supreme *Court* case in which it was held that _*the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede. *_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since you are so uneducated about the Civil War I have a homework assignment for you so that you won't come across as being so ignorant.
> 
> There are lots of good historical books about the war but since you only have a Jr High School history text knowledge we need to start with something basic.
> 
> Go read "The South Was Right" by Kennedy and Kennedy.
> 
> After you finish report back to me so I can quiz you to see if you learned anything.
> 
> View attachment 463380
Click to expand...

The South was right because slavery was a good thing?


----------



## Flash

Bezukhov said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stating the cause of the Civil War was slavery is an oversimplification.
> 
> Stating the cause of the Civil War was not slavery is fallacious.
> 
> 
> 
> Well we know Abe wanted to ensconce slavery into the Constitution, if the South didn’t secede. We also know he intended to war on the South if they refused to abide by federal laws, like the recently passed Morrill Tariff that was passed without any southern votes. He made all this perfectly clear in his first inaugural speech.
> 
> He then set up events at Ft Sumter to invade the South.  So, what can we conclude from this?  There wouldn’t have been a war had Abe not invaded to impose the tariff. So from the aggressor’s point of view, the war wasn’t about slavery. It was about money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Texas v White, (1869), U.S. Supreme *Court* case in which it was held that _*the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede. *_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Since you are so uneducated about the Civil War I have a homework assignment for you so that you won't come across as being so ignorant.
> 
> There are lots of good historical books about the war but since you only have a Jr High School history text knowledge we need to start with something basic.
> 
> Go read "The South Was Right" by Kennedy and Kennedy.
> 
> After you finish report back to me so I can quiz you to see if you learned anything.
> 
> View attachment 463380
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The South was right because slavery was a good thing?
Click to expand...



The South was right to fight against an invading force of assholes that had the mission to kill Americans.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Texas v White, (1869), U.S. Supreme *Court* case in which it was held that _*the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede. *_
> 
> 
> 
> Debunked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO, it's still right there in the records of the Supreme Court. On the books. Look it up in the Library of Congress if someone will teach you how.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's lots of totally debunked horseshit in the Library of Congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is this another appeal to authority?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still don't know what it means, huh?
Click to expand...

who do you think you're fooling, moron?


----------



## Bezukhov

Flash said:


> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stating the cause of the Civil War was slavery is an oversimplification.
> 
> Stating the cause of the Civil War was not slavery is fallacious.
> 
> 
> 
> Well we know Abe wanted to ensconce slavery into the Constitution, if the South didn’t secede. We also know he intended to war on the South if they refused to abide by federal laws, like the recently passed Morrill Tariff that was passed without any southern votes. He made all this perfectly clear in his first inaugural speech.
> 
> He then set up events at Ft Sumter to invade the South.  So, what can we conclude from this?  There wouldn’t have been a war had Abe not invaded to impose the tariff. So from the aggressor’s point of view, the war wasn’t about slavery. It was about money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Texas v White, (1869), U.S. Supreme *Court* case in which it was held that _*the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede. *_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Since you are so uneducated about the Civil War I have a homework assignment for you so that you won't come across as being so ignorant.
> 
> There are lots of good historical books about the war but since you only have a Jr High School history text knowledge we need to start with something basic.
> 
> Go read "The South Was Right" by Kennedy and Kennedy.
> 
> After you finish report back to me so I can quiz you to see if you learned anything.
> 
> View attachment 463380
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The South was right because slavery was a good thing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The South was right to fight against an invading force of assholes that had the mission to kill Americans.
Click to expand...

The South was fighting an army they believed was going to free their slaves. Slavery was the reason they seceded in the first place.








						The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
					

The Declaration of Causes made by Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas.




					www.battlefields.org


----------



## bripat9643

Bezukhov said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stating the cause of the Civil War was slavery is an oversimplification.
> 
> Stating the cause of the Civil War was not slavery is fallacious.
> 
> 
> 
> Well we know Abe wanted to ensconce slavery into the Constitution, if the South didn’t secede. We also know he intended to war on the South if they refused to abide by federal laws, like the recently passed Morrill Tariff that was passed without any southern votes. He made all this perfectly clear in his first inaugural speech.
> 
> He then set up events at Ft Sumter to invade the South.  So, what can we conclude from this?  There wouldn’t have been a war had Abe not invaded to impose the tariff. So from the aggressor’s point of view, the war wasn’t about slavery. It was about money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Texas v White, (1869), U.S. Supreme *Court* case in which it was held that _*the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede. *_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Since you are so uneducated about the Civil War I have a homework assignment for you so that you won't come across as being so ignorant.
> 
> There are lots of good historical books about the war but since you only have a Jr High School history text knowledge we need to start with something basic.
> 
> Go read "The South Was Right" by Kennedy and Kennedy.
> 
> After you finish report back to me so I can quiz you to see if you learned anything.
> 
> View attachment 463380
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The South was right because slavery was a good thing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The South was right to fight against an invading force of assholes that had the mission to kill Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The South was fighting an army they believed was going to free their slaves. Slavery was the reason they seceded in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
> 
> 
> The Declaration of Causes made by Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.battlefields.org
Click to expand...

It doesn't  matter why they seceded.  Lincoln didn't invade Virginia to free the slaves.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Texas v White, (1869), U.S. Supreme *Court* case in which it was held that _*the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede. *_
> 
> 
> 
> Debunked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO, it's still right there in the records of the Supreme Court. On the books. Look it up in the Library of Congress if someone will teach you how.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's lots of totally debunked horseshit in the Library of Congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is this another appeal to authority?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still don't know what it means, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> who do you think you're fooling, moron?
Click to expand...


Do you need me to help you find a link to information on  _ad verecundiam? _Maybe you could learn something for a change.


----------



## Bezukhov

bripat9643 said:


> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stating the cause of the Civil War was slavery is an oversimplification.
> 
> Stating the cause of the Civil War was not slavery is fallacious.
> 
> 
> 
> Well we know Abe wanted to ensconce slavery into the Constitution, if the South didn’t secede. We also know he intended to war on the South if they refused to abide by federal laws, like the recently passed Morrill Tariff that was passed without any southern votes. He made all this perfectly clear in his first inaugural speech.
> 
> He then set up events at Ft Sumter to invade the South.  So, what can we conclude from this?  There wouldn’t have been a war had Abe not invaded to impose the tariff. So from the aggressor’s point of view, the war wasn’t about slavery. It was about money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Texas v White, (1869), U.S. Supreme *Court* case in which it was held that _*the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede. *_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Since you are so uneducated about the Civil War I have a homework assignment for you so that you won't come across as being so ignorant.
> 
> There are lots of good historical books about the war but since you only have a Jr High School history text knowledge we need to start with something basic.
> 
> Go read "The South Was Right" by Kennedy and Kennedy.
> 
> After you finish report back to me so I can quiz you to see if you learned anything.
> 
> View attachment 463380
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The South was right because slavery was a good thing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The South was right to fight against an invading force of assholes that had the mission to kill Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The South was fighting an army they believed was going to free their slaves. Slavery was the reason they seceded in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
> 
> 
> The Declaration of Causes made by Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.battlefields.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't  matter why they seceded.  Lincoln didn't invade Virginia to free the slaves.
Click to expand...

The South thought the "invading" army was there to free the slaves.


----------



## rac123

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Virginia was a part of the United States of America before, during, and after the Civil War.
> 
> The so-called 'confederacy' was never a legal or legitimate sovereign entity, nor was it EVER recognized as such by ANY nation on earth.
> 
> The scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war and were responsible for EVERY death that occurred as a result.
> 
> Slavery was the issue underlying every factor that led to the war.
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederacy was just as legal as the United States was.  Lincoln started the war by invading Virginia, moron.
Click to expand...

I don’t know wasn’t the attack at Fort Sumpter the first hostilities of the war?


----------



## gipper

rac123 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Virginia was a part of the United States of America before, during, and after the Civil War.
> 
> The so-called 'confederacy' was never a legal or legitimate sovereign entity, nor was it EVER recognized as such by ANY nation on earth.
> 
> The scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war and were responsible for EVERY death that occurred as a result.
> 
> Slavery was the issue underlying every factor that led to the war.
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederacy was just as legal as the United States was.  Lincoln started the war by invading Virginia, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t know wasn’t the attack at Fort Sumpter the first hostilities of the war?
Click to expand...

Do you think that attack that killed no one warranted a war on the South, that caused 850,000 deaths and destruction of half the nation?


----------



## Pogo

gtopa1 said:


> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> The end of slavery was one of the eventual outcomes of the war. Odd that every other country that had slaves was able to ban slavery without killing a million of its own citizens...UK and France for example.
> 
> No you silly person; the Civil War was about $....as usual.
> 
> Make no mistake; that slavery was ended was a good thing and overdue. You must also be aware that the North DESTROYED the South's ECONOMY. No money for reparations.
> 
> Greg
Click to expand...


The Civil War being about "$... as usual" (which is very accurate), does not somehow eliminate the Slavery angle behind it.  They're in no way mutually exclusive.  Slavery was employed to create and maximize those "$"s, and the threat that they might lose that peculiar institution, was going to mean a decline of those "$s".

You're not wrong about the "$s".  You're just misstating that that somehow means it wasn't about Slavery --- which every seceding state specifically pointed out in its articles of secession, as did its Vice President in his infamous "Cornerstone Speech".

The American Civil War was, as usual (correct on that bit), a case of the Haves sending the Have Nots to do their dirty work, i.e. to fight a war to let them, the Haves, stay fat and rich.  It was by NO means the popular sentiment of the states that would become the Confederacy.  Not on the street level.


----------



## Pogo

Thoth001 said:


> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the Civil War Wasn’t About Slavery - LewRockwell
> 
> 
> From the 1870s to the late 1950s, there was an unofficial truce between the North and South. Each side recognized and saluted the courage of the other; it was conceded that the North fought to preserve the Union and because Old Glory had been fired on, and the Southerner fought for liberty and...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.lewrockwell.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the Civil War Wasn’t About Slavery – Abbeville Institute
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.abbevilleinstitute.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How We Know The So-Called “Civil War” Was Not Over Slavery |
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.paulcraigroberts.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://dixieoutfitters.com/2020/06/22/how-taxes-caused-the-civil-war-not-slavery/
Click to expand...


Lost Cause Cult BULLSHIT.


----------



## Unkotare

rac123 said:


> .....
> I don’t know wasn’t the attack at Fort Sumpter the first hostilities of the war?



Yes, it was.


----------



## rac123

Unkotare said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> Lot's of people have claimed otherwise, especially at the time. ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What country ever recognized the so-called 'confederacy' as a sovereign nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Confederate States of America did(CSA).
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was not a country. It was a criminal enterprise that was rightfully crushed.
Click to expand...

I think that’s a fair characterization. Don’t we view human traffickers as criminals? States rights is a smoke screen. The honor of the south is the same. Both are just rhetorical tools to get poor people who have nothing to gain to do the fighting for the ones who reap to profits of their immoral criminal enterprise.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> ....
> The Confederacy was just as legal as the United States was. ......



Not one nation on earth ever agreed with that.


----------



## Thoth001

Pogo said:


> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the Civil War Wasn’t About Slavery - LewRockwell
> 
> 
> From the 1870s to the late 1950s, there was an unofficial truce between the North and South. Each side recognized and saluted the courage of the other; it was conceded that the North fought to preserve the Union and because Old Glory had been fired on, and the Southerner fought for liberty and...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.lewrockwell.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the Civil War Wasn’t About Slavery – Abbeville Institute
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.abbevilleinstitute.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How We Know The So-Called “Civil War” Was Not Over Slavery |
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.paulcraigroberts.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://dixieoutfitters.com/2020/06/22/how-taxes-caused-the-civil-war-not-slavery/
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lost Cause Cult BULLSHIT.
Click to expand...


I take it you don't know history.


----------



## Pogo

Thoth001 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the Civil War Wasn’t About Slavery - LewRockwell
> 
> 
> From the 1870s to the late 1950s, there was an unofficial truce between the North and South. Each side recognized and saluted the courage of the other; it was conceded that the North fought to preserve the Union and because Old Glory had been fired on, and the Southerner fought for liberty and...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.lewrockwell.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the Civil War Wasn’t About Slavery – Abbeville Institute
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.abbevilleinstitute.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How We Know The So-Called “Civil War” Was Not Over Slavery |
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.paulcraigroberts.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://dixieoutfitters.com/2020/06/22/how-taxes-caused-the-civil-war-not-slavery/
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lost Cause Cult BULLSHIT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I take it you don't know history.
Click to expand...


I seem to remember you stepped in this particular bucket before.

Go ahead.  It amuses me.


----------



## Thoth001

Pogo said:


> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the Civil War Wasn’t About Slavery - LewRockwell
> 
> 
> From the 1870s to the late 1950s, there was an unofficial truce between the North and South. Each side recognized and saluted the courage of the other; it was conceded that the North fought to preserve the Union and because Old Glory had been fired on, and the Southerner fought for liberty and...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.lewrockwell.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the Civil War Wasn’t About Slavery – Abbeville Institute
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.abbevilleinstitute.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How We Know The So-Called “Civil War” Was Not Over Slavery |
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.paulcraigroberts.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://dixieoutfitters.com/2020/06/22/how-taxes-caused-the-civil-war-not-slavery/
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lost Cause Cult BULLSHIT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I take it you don't know history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I seem to remember you stepped in this particular bucket before.
> 
> Go ahead.  It amuses me.
Click to expand...


You make absolutely no sense.


----------



## Flash

Discussing the Civil War with uneducated idiots that only have a Jr high school history book knowledge and don't understand the concept of Liberty is as big a waste of time as discussing Biology with a transsexual or Climate Science with an environmental wacko.


----------



## kaz

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet Dishonest Abe still invaded the South.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> To settle a political issue by war.  If you can't get Americans to accept your oppression then just kill 'em.  That was the Lincoln solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' didn't want war, they shouldn't have started one. They got off lightly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, I wonder why the South wanted to leave?  ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't.
> 
> " For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property "
> 
> 
> " A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. "
> 
> " The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. "
> 
> " The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments "
> 
> 
> "
> 
> The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.
> 
> With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you've mentioned how the South wanted to leave because they were evil, which explains of course why you wanted them to stay, you wanting to live in an evil country and all
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you consider the United States of America to be "evil"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, shit for brains.   YOU said that the Confederacy loved slavery and lived for it and that they were evil justified conquering the South and forcing them to stay in the Union.
> 
> How sick is that?  You wanted to force the South to stay in your country because they were evil?
> 
> What about the question don't you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you consider the United States of America to be "evil"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's the difference between us.  I consider the United States to refer to the people, you consider it to mean the government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question, you ignorant coward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean you  object to people not answering your questions?
> 
> Really?
Click to expand...


Unkotare didn't know what his own question was.    He doesn't know the difference between the American government and the American people.

He wanted me to answer his question without him even knowing what he asked me.  Pass


----------



## Unkotare

kaz said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet Dishonest Abe still invaded the South.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> To settle a political issue by war.  If you can't get Americans to accept your oppression then just kill 'em.  That was the Lincoln solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' didn't want war, they shouldn't have started one. They got off lightly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, I wonder why the South wanted to leave?  ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't.
> 
> " For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property "
> 
> 
> " A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. "
> 
> " The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. "
> 
> " The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments "
> 
> 
> "
> 
> The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.
> 
> With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you've mentioned how the South wanted to leave because they were evil, which explains of course why you wanted them to stay, you wanting to live in an evil country and all
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you consider the United States of America to be "evil"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, shit for brains.   YOU said that the Confederacy loved slavery and lived for it and that they were evil justified conquering the South and forcing them to stay in the Union.
> 
> How sick is that?  You wanted to force the South to stay in your country because they were evil?
> 
> What about the question don't you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you consider the United States of America to be "evil"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's the difference between us.  I consider the United States to refer to the people, you consider it to mean the government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question, you ignorant coward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean you  object to people not answering your questions?
> 
> Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unkotare didn't know what his own question was.    He doesn't know the difference between the American government and the American people.
> 
> He wanted me to answer his question without him even knowing what he asked me.  Pass
Click to expand...


You mean “duck.”


----------



## kaz

Thoth001 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the Civil War Wasn’t About Slavery - LewRockwell
> 
> 
> From the 1870s to the late 1950s, there was an unofficial truce between the North and South. Each side recognized and saluted the courage of the other; it was conceded that the North fought to preserve the Union and because Old Glory had been fired on, and the Southerner fought for liberty and...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.lewrockwell.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the Civil War Wasn’t About Slavery – Abbeville Institute
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.abbevilleinstitute.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How We Know The So-Called “Civil War” Was Not Over Slavery |
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.paulcraigroberts.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://dixieoutfitters.com/2020/06/22/how-taxes-caused-the-civil-war-not-slavery/
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lost Cause Cult BULLSHIT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I take it you don't know history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I seem to remember you stepped in this particular bucket before.
> 
> Go ahead.  It amuses me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You make absolutely no sense.
Click to expand...


Pogo was always a left wing extremist Democrat, but he used to be a lot less angry until the Democrats issued instructing for all left wingers to set the volume on constant anger in 2016 and he did


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean you  object to people not answering your questions?
> 
> Really?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare didn't know what his own question was.    He doesn't know the difference between the American government and the American people.
> 
> He wanted me to answer his question without him even knowing what he asked me.  Pass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean “duck.”
Click to expand...


No idea what that means.   You probably don't either, just like your question


----------



## Flash

kaz said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet Dishonest Abe still invaded the South.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> To settle a political issue by war.  If you can't get Americans to accept your oppression then just kill 'em.  That was the Lincoln solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' didn't want war, they shouldn't have started one. They got off lightly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, I wonder why the South wanted to leave?  ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't.
> 
> " For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property "
> 
> 
> " A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. "
> 
> " The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. "
> 
> " The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments "
> 
> 
> "
> 
> The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.
> 
> With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you've mentioned how the South wanted to leave because they were evil, which explains of course why you wanted them to stay, you wanting to live in an evil country and all
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you consider the United States of America to be "evil"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, shit for brains.   YOU said that the Confederacy loved slavery and lived for it and that they were evil justified conquering the South and forcing them to stay in the Union.
> 
> How sick is that?  You wanted to force the South to stay in your country because they were evil?
> 
> What about the question don't you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you consider the United States of America to be "evil"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's the difference between us.  I consider the United States to refer to the people, you consider it to mean the government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question, you ignorant coward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean you  object to people not answering your questions?
> 
> Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unkotare didn't know what his own question was.    He doesn't know the difference between the American government and the American people.
> 
> He wanted me to answer his question without him even knowing what he asked me.  Pass
Click to expand...



Dat Boy is confused about a lot of things.  With only only having a Jr High School History text knowledge of the Civil War, written by the winners, he doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground about what he is talking about.  

He needs to do the homework assignment that I gave him.  That way he won't look like a fool when he post his uneducated dribble.

I thought he said one time that he was a teacher.  If he was telling the truth then he should know the value of learning something about a topic before opening his mouth.  I gave him an assignment to read up on the topic but like all idiot Libtards he is doesn't want to learn.


----------



## kaz

schmidlap said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats are not "most Americans."  They are Nazis though
> 
> 
> 
> Your hyper-partisan alienation from the United States is unfortunate.
> 
> Your nazis are Trump goons, of course, on record as having endorsed their "God Emperor" twice, still supporting the Loser.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald Trump – Daily Stormer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dailystormer.su
Click to expand...


Bull shit.  Democrats are very much going to destroying people's lives and violence for standing up to them.   Being a kid or an old man don't even protect you if you're wearing a red hat.  Now you're just flagrantly stealing elections.    You are Nazis, no doubt about it


----------



## kaz

schmidlap said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrat is the new Nazi party
> 
> 
> 
> Your contempt for most Americans is quite hysterical, and, in fact, your nazis hail _Cry Baby Loser _as their "God Emperor!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God Emperor – Daily Stormer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dailystormer.su
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He only has contempt for Democrats, which is at it should be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you wish to align yourself with the neo-nazis at Daily Stormer in their hailing the former guy as their "God Emperor,"
> just click the heels of your ruby jackboots three times as you do it.
Click to expand...


Back to the playground for the schmucks.   When we said your party is Nazi, you heard we said we were.  From the mind of any eight year old.   Low intelligence is certainly a big reason you Nazis also go to violence.    You aren't smart enough and your ideas are bad and don't work.   So get out the sticks and let us know what happens when we don't support Democrats.

You did that all summer.    Yet we're still not calling for violence, we're calling for people to look at what you are and reject it


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Here's the difference between us.  I consider the United States to refer to the people, you consider it to mean the government
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's both, you idiot.
> 
> "That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom – and that government of the *people, by the people, for the people*, shall not perish from the Earth.”
Click to expand...


That was Lincoln, not the founding fathers.  And he used that line to justify conquering half the country against their will.   This shows how circular your argument is.

So your argument now is that the Federal government is the people, and that justifies the government conquering the people.    Wow


----------



## kaz

Flash said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question, you ignorant coward.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean you  object to people not answering your questions?
> 
> Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unkotare didn't know what his own question was.    He doesn't know the difference between the American government and the American people.
> 
> He wanted me to answer his question without him even knowing what he asked me.  Pass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dat Boy is confused about a lot of things.  With only only having a Jr High School History text knowledge of the Civil War, written by the winners, he doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground about what he is talking about.
> 
> He needs to do the homework assignment that I gave him.  That way he won't look like a fool when he post his uneducated dribble.
> 
> I thought he said one time that he was a teacher.  If he was telling the truth then he should know the value of learning something about a topic before opening his mouth.  I gave him an assignment to read up on the topic but like all idiot Libtards he is doesn't want to learn.
Click to expand...


If Unkotare would just say he knows what consent of the governed means, he just doesn't believe in it, then we all could just all say we disagree on that, live and go on.

But he keeps arguing that government conquering half it's own country doesn't violate consent of the governed, which is just stupid.

He also keeps arguing that southerners were evil salvers (they were), but that somehow justifies him conquering them and forcing them to stay in his country, which is just bizarre.  So we should conquer Russia or Venezuela and force them to join the Unite


----------



## bripat9643

kaz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Here's the difference between us.  I consider the United States to refer to the people, you consider it to mean the government
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's both, you idiot.
> 
> "That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom – and that government of the *people, by the people, for the people*, shall not perish from the Earth.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was Lincoln, not the founding fathers.  And he used that line to justify conquering half the country against their will.   This shows how circular your argument is.
> 
> So your argument now is that the Federal government is the people, and that justifies the government conquering the people.    Wow
Click to expand...

That had to be a joke.  It was the confederates who were trying to implement government by the people.  It certainly wasn't Lincoln who was trying to impose union rule on the south.


----------



## Flash

kaz said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question, you ignorant coward.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean you  object to people not answering your questions?
> 
> Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unkotare didn't know what his own question was.    He doesn't know the difference between the American government and the American people.
> 
> He wanted me to answer his question without him even knowing what he asked me.  Pass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dat Boy is confused about a lot of things.  With only only having a Jr High School History text knowledge of the Civil War, written by the winners, he doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground about what he is talking about.
> 
> He needs to do the homework assignment that I gave him.  That way he won't look like a fool when he post his uneducated dribble.
> 
> I thought he said one time that he was a teacher.  If he was telling the truth then he should know the value of learning something about a topic before opening his mouth.  I gave him an assignment to read up on the topic but like all idiot Libtards he is doesn't want to learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Unkotare would just say he knows what consent of the governed means, he just doesn't believe in it, then we all could just all say we disagree on that, live and go on.
> 
> But he keeps arguing that government conquering half it's own country doesn't violate consent of the governed, which is just stupid.
> 
> He also keeps arguing that southerners were evil salvers (they were), but that somehow justifies him conquering them and forcing them to stay in his country, which is just bizarre
Click to expand...



Look, the kid lives in Massachusetts.  One of the filthy ass Union states that sent troops to kill Americans.  He has been brainwashed to think that the killing of Americans was morally justified.  He was brainwashed by reading the politically correct history of the war by the winners of the war.  

He is very ignorant of the subject.  Total ignorance and he should be ashamed.

I gave him a reading assignment that  would help to educate him but like all retarded Liberals he doesn't want to learn.  He wants to continue to have his head up his filthy Moon Bat ass.


----------



## gipper

kaz said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question, you ignorant coward.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean you  object to people not answering your questions?
> 
> Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unkotare didn't know what his own question was.    He doesn't know the difference between the American government and the American people.
> 
> He wanted me to answer his question without him even knowing what he asked me.  Pass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dat Boy is confused about a lot of things.  With only only having a Jr High School History text knowledge of the Civil War, written by the winners, he doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground about what he is talking about.
> 
> He needs to do the homework assignment that I gave him.  That way he won't look like a fool when he post his uneducated dribble.
> 
> I thought he said one time that he was a teacher.  If he was telling the truth then he should know the value of learning something about a topic before opening his mouth.  I gave him an assignment to read up on the topic but like all idiot Libtards he is doesn't want to learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Unkotare would just say he knows what consent of the governed means, he just doesn't believe in it, then we all could just all say we disagree on that, live and go on.
> 
> But he keeps arguing that government conquering half it's own country doesn't violate consent of the governed, which is just stupid.
> 
> He also keeps arguing that southerners were evil salvers (they were), but that somehow justifies him conquering them and forcing them to stay in his country, which is just bizarre
Click to expand...

In addition, he like so many duped Americans with only a government school understanding of the war, doesn’t know that the war was not a civil war. The South had no intentions of conquering or controlling the North. The definition of a civil war requires that both parties are fighting for control of the entire nation.

It was the War of Northern Aggression.

No one disputes that slavery was evil and needed terminating. However, the Lincoln Cult needs to accept what Dishonest Abe did was illegal and caused unbelievable harm to not only the South, but the entire nation.


----------



## Unkotare

kaz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean you  object to people not answering your questions?
> 
> Really?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare didn't know what his own question was.    He doesn't know the difference between the American government and the American people.
> 
> He wanted me to answer his question without him even knowing what he asked me.  Pass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean “duck.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No idea what that means. ...
Click to expand...



You’re embracing your stupidity.


----------



## Pogo

Thoth001 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the Civil War Wasn’t About Slavery - LewRockwell
> 
> 
> From the 1870s to the late 1950s, there was an unofficial truce between the North and South. Each side recognized and saluted the courage of the other; it was conceded that the North fought to preserve the Union and because Old Glory had been fired on, and the Southerner fought for liberty and...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.lewrockwell.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the Civil War Wasn’t About Slavery – Abbeville Institute
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.abbevilleinstitute.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How We Know The So-Called “Civil War” Was Not Over Slavery |
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.paulcraigroberts.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://dixieoutfitters.com/2020/06/22/how-taxes-caused-the-civil-war-not-slavery/
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lost Cause Cult BULLSHIT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I take it you don't know history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I seem to remember you stepped in this particular bucket before.
> 
> Go ahead.  It amuses me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You make absolutely no sense.
Click to expand...


Et voilà.  Right back in the bucket.

When your older brother helps you to come up with some kind of a point, you bring it right here Elmer.  It'll be fun.


----------



## there4eyeM

The states consented to a Perpetual Union. Individuals who found they could not live in or change their government were free to leave. Trying to over throw the government was sedition. States were not free to leave the Union without the consent of the rest of the Union, meaning a change to the Constitution and ending the Perpetual Union. Trying to secede was oath breaking treason.


----------



## Unkotare

You wannabe rebs are really starting to reek of desperation now.


----------



## schmidlap

kaz said:


> Back to the playground for the schmucks. When we said your party is Nazi, you heard we said we were. From the mind of any eight year old. Low intelligence is certainly a big reason you Nazis also go to violence. You aren't smart enough and your ideas are bad and don't work. So get out the sticks and let us know what happens when we don't support Democrats.
> 
> You did that all summer. Yet we're still not calling for violence, we're calling for people to look at what you are and reject it
> 
> Bull shit.  Democrats are very much going to destroying people's lives and violence for standing up to them.   Being a kid or an old man don't even protect you if you're wearing a red hat.  Now you're just flagrantly stealing elections.    You are Nazis, no doubt about it



You hyper-partisan paranoia is unfortunate, and does not relate to Lincoln's protecting, defending, and preserving the United States.




Decent Americans - Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike - loathe Cry Baby Loser's nazis, q-anon, proud boys, oath keepers, three percenters, white supremacists, etc.






						Donald Trump – Daily Stormer
					






					dailystormer.su


----------



## there4eyeM

Oz and the Orchestra said:


> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> Only it wasn't.
> If Lincoln had stated that he was going to ban slavery and emancipate the slaves and the South refused. Then you could say it was fought over slavery but that never happened. Lincoln had no intention of banning slavery. It was just that as Sherman had pushed deep into Georgia it was a smart military tactic to cause maximum disruption.
> 
> And I'm as left-wing as you can get.
Click to expand...

There would never have been a Civil War if the south had not had slavery.


----------



## there4eyeM

gipper said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question, you ignorant coward.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean you  object to people not answering your questions?
> 
> Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unkotare didn't know what his own question was.    He doesn't know the difference between the American government and the American people.
> 
> He wanted me to answer his question without him even knowing what he asked me.  Pass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dat Boy is confused about a lot of things.  With only only having a Jr High School History text knowledge of the Civil War, written by the winners, he doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground about what he is talking about.
> 
> He needs to do the homework assignment that I gave him.  That way he won't look like a fool when he post his uneducated dribble.
> 
> I thought he said one time that he was a teacher.  If he was telling the truth then he should know the value of learning something about a topic before opening his mouth.  I gave him an assignment to read up on the topic but like all idiot Libtards he is doesn't want to learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Unkotare would just say he knows what consent of the governed means, he just doesn't believe in it, then we all could just all say we disagree on that, live and go on.
> 
> But he keeps arguing that government conquering half it's own country doesn't violate consent of the governed, which is just stupid.
> 
> He also keeps arguing that southerners were evil salvers (they were), but that somehow justifies him conquering them and forcing them to stay in his country, which is just bizarre
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In addition, he like so many duped Americans with only a government school understanding of the war, doesn’t know that the war was not a civil war. The South had no intentions of conquering or controlling the North. The definition of a civil war requires that both parties are fighting for control of the entire nation.
> 
> It was the War of Northern Aggression.
> 
> No one disputes that slavery was evil and needed terminating. However, the Lincoln Cult needs to accept what Dishonest Abe did was illegal and caused unbelievable harm to not only the South, but the entire nation.
Click to expand...

Lincoln may have used extra-Constitutional measures to save the Union, but that hardly compares to the extra-Constitutional attempt of the south to destroy that Union. If anything, Lincoln's excesses were made necessary by the situation imposed upon the nation by those seeking to sabotage it.


----------



## schmidlap

there4eyeM said:


> The states consented to a Perpetual Union. Individuals who found they could not live in or change their government were free to leave. Trying to over throw the government was sedition. States were not free to leave the Union without the consent of the rest of the Union, meaning a change to the Constitution and ending the Perpetual Union. Trying to secede was oath breaking treason.


It should also be remembered that the extremist special interests who were hellbent upon keeping our fellow humans in bondage and extending the vile practice to new territories were attempting to deprive _all_ Americans in the states they caused to rebel of their citizenship.


----------



## kaz

bripat9643 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Here's the difference between us.  I consider the United States to refer to the people, you consider it to mean the government
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's both, you idiot.
> 
> "That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom – and that government of the *people, by the people, for the people*, shall not perish from the Earth.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was Lincoln, not the founding fathers.  And he used that line to justify conquering half the country against their will.   This shows how circular your argument is.
> 
> So your argument now is that the Federal government is the people, and that justifies the government conquering the people.    Wow
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That had to be a joke.  It was the confederates who were trying to implement government by the people.  It certainly wasn't Lincoln who was trying to impose union rule on the south.
Click to expand...


Yes, Lincoln quoting government of the people, by the people and four the people was the reason for government conquering the people was a bad joke


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean you  object to people not answering your questions?
> 
> Really?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare didn't know what his own question was.    He doesn't know the difference between the American government and the American people.
> 
> He wanted me to answer his question without him even knowing what he asked me.  Pass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean “duck.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No idea what that means. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You’re embracing your stupidity.
Click to expand...


You're arguing that you know what consent of the governed is and conquering half the country and forcing them to stay in the country doesn't violate consent of the governed and you're worried about me looking stupid.   That's classic.

Let's start your education all over again free from government.   Think about the words, "consent of the governed" ...


----------



## kaz

schmidlap said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back to the playground for the schmucks. When we said your party is Nazi, you heard we said we were. From the mind of any eight year old. Low intelligence is certainly a big reason you Nazis also go to violence. You aren't smart enough and your ideas are bad and don't work. So get out the sticks and let us know what happens when we don't support Democrats.
> 
> You did that all summer. Yet we're still not calling for violence, we're calling for people to look at what you are and reject it
> 
> Bull shit.  Democrats are very much going to destroying people's lives and violence for standing up to them.   Being a kid or an old man don't even protect you if you're wearing a red hat.  Now you're just flagrantly stealing elections.    You are Nazis, no doubt about it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You hyper-partisan paranoia is unfortunate, and does not relate to Lincoln's protecting, defending, and preserving the United States.
> 
> View attachment 463716​
> Decent Americans - Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike - loathe Cry Baby Loser's nazis, q-anon, proud boys, oath keepers, three percenters, white supremacists, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald Trump – Daily Stormer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dailystormer.su
Click to expand...


Mark Twain:   Patriotism is usually the refuge of the scoundrel. He is the man who talks the loudest

You fly the flag while you support fascists who steal elections and destroy all opposition.    Twain nailed you.

And again with QAnon, showing again you're a demagogue.   You know nothing about them just like I know shit about them, they are a leftist justification for your violence against dissenters from the Democrat party.

QAnon is just a talking point pulled out by Democrat fascists


----------



## Unkotare

You idiots are hilarious.


----------



## kaz

there4eyeM said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question, you ignorant coward.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean you  object to people not answering your questions?
> 
> Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unkotare didn't know what his own question was.    He doesn't know the difference between the American government and the American people.
> 
> He wanted me to answer his question without him even knowing what he asked me.  Pass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dat Boy is confused about a lot of things.  With only only having a Jr High School History text knowledge of the Civil War, written by the winners, he doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground about what he is talking about.
> 
> He needs to do the homework assignment that I gave him.  That way he won't look like a fool when he post his uneducated dribble.
> 
> I thought he said one time that he was a teacher.  If he was telling the truth then he should know the value of learning something about a topic before opening his mouth.  I gave him an assignment to read up on the topic but like all idiot Libtards he is doesn't want to learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Unkotare would just say he knows what consent of the governed means, he just doesn't believe in it, then we all could just all say we disagree on that, live and go on.
> 
> But he keeps arguing that government conquering half it's own country doesn't violate consent of the governed, which is just stupid.
> 
> He also keeps arguing that southerners were evil salvers (they were), but that somehow justifies him conquering them and forcing them to stay in his country, which is just bizarre
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In addition, he like so many duped Americans with only a government school understanding of the war, doesn’t know that the war was not a civil war. The South had no intentions of conquering or controlling the North. The definition of a civil war requires that both parties are fighting for control of the entire nation.
> 
> It was the War of Northern Aggression.
> 
> No one disputes that slavery was evil and needed terminating. However, the Lincoln Cult needs to accept what Dishonest Abe did was illegal and caused unbelievable harm to not only the South, but the entire nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln may have used extra-Constitutional measures to save the Union, but that hardly compares to the extra-Constitutional attempt of the south to destroy that Union. If anything, Lincoln's excesses were made necessary by the situation imposed upon the nation by those seeking to sabotage it.
Click to expand...


The South wanted to "leave" the Union, not "destroy" it.  Your stupid shit they wanted  to "destroy" it doesn't even make sense.   Why was it their job to stay somewhere because the people remaining considered them leaving to destroy it?   That's just a stupid argument, the north wanted them to stay because they couldn't destroy their union simply by leaving.

And again the United States was FORMED on the basis of CONSTENT OF THE GOVERNED.   How is conquering half the country "consent?"

Think about what it's doing to us today.  The Federal government considers the Constitution road kill because they have no fear of the people since anyone who objects can simply be conquered.  That is the problem with what Lincoln did


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> You idiots are hilarious.



Yes, intelligent people such as yourself know that consent is something government has because if we try not giving it they will simply conquer us.

You're a government teacher, you know, that makes total sense to you ...


----------



## gipper

there4eyeM said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question, you ignorant coward.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean you  object to people not answering your questions?
> 
> Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unkotare didn't know what his own question was.    He doesn't know the difference between the American government and the American people.
> 
> He wanted me to answer his question without him even knowing what he asked me.  Pass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dat Boy is confused about a lot of things.  With only only having a Jr High School History text knowledge of the Civil War, written by the winners, he doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground about what he is talking about.
> 
> He needs to do the homework assignment that I gave him.  That way he won't look like a fool when he post his uneducated dribble.
> 
> I thought he said one time that he was a teacher.  If he was telling the truth then he should know the value of learning something about a topic before opening his mouth.  I gave him an assignment to read up on the topic but like all idiot Libtards he is doesn't want to learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Unkotare would just say he knows what consent of the governed means, he just doesn't believe in it, then we all could just all say we disagree on that, live and go on.
> 
> But he keeps arguing that government conquering half it's own country doesn't violate consent of the governed, which is just stupid.
> 
> He also keeps arguing that southerners were evil salvers (they were), but that somehow justifies him conquering them and forcing them to stay in his country, which is just bizarre
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In addition, he like so many duped Americans with only a government school understanding of the war, doesn’t know that the war was not a civil war. The South had no intentions of conquering or controlling the North. The definition of a civil war requires that both parties are fighting for control of the entire nation.
> 
> It was the War of Northern Aggression.
> 
> No one disputes that slavery was evil and needed terminating. However, the Lincoln Cult needs to accept what Dishonest Abe did was illegal and caused unbelievable harm to not only the South, but the entire nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln may have used extra-Constitutional measures to save the Union, but that hardly compares to the extra-Constitutional attempt of the south to destroy that Union. If anything, Lincoln's excesses were made necessary by the situation imposed upon the nation by those seeking to sabotage it.
Click to expand...

If nations were perpetual, we’d be living under the Sumerians. No nation is perpetual.  Nowhere in the Constitution does it state the Union is perpetual. Nowhere does it state any State or region who wishes to leave, should be militarily destroyed. 

Mass murdering Americans to force them to stay in the Union, is ignorance. Lincoln lacked the intelligence to avoid war. It could be wanted war. 

The harm Lincoln did to American liberty can’t be understated. We suffer under a tyrannical government today, in part thanks to Dishonest Abe.


----------



## Flash

kaz said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question, you ignorant coward.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean you  object to people not answering your questions?
> 
> Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unkotare didn't know what his own question was.    He doesn't know the difference between the American government and the American people.
> 
> He wanted me to answer his question without him even knowing what he asked me.  Pass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dat Boy is confused about a lot of things.  With only only having a Jr High School History text knowledge of the Civil War, written by the winners, he doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground about what he is talking about.
> 
> He needs to do the homework assignment that I gave him.  That way he won't look like a fool when he post his uneducated dribble.
> 
> I thought he said one time that he was a teacher.  If he was telling the truth then he should know the value of learning something about a topic before opening his mouth.  I gave him an assignment to read up on the topic but like all idiot Libtards he is doesn't want to learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Unkotare would just say he knows what consent of the governed means, he just doesn't believe in it, then we all could just all say we disagree on that, live and go on.
> 
> But he keeps arguing that government conquering half it's own country doesn't violate consent of the governed, which is just stupid.
> 
> He also keeps arguing that southerners were evil salvers (they were), but that somehow justifies him conquering them and forcing them to stay in his country, which is just bizarre
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In addition, he like so many duped Americans with only a government school understanding of the war, doesn’t know that the war was not a civil war. The South had no intentions of conquering or controlling the North. The definition of a civil war requires that both parties are fighting for control of the entire nation.
> 
> It was the War of Northern Aggression.
> 
> No one disputes that slavery was evil and needed terminating. However, the Lincoln Cult needs to accept what Dishonest Abe did was illegal and caused unbelievable harm to not only the South, but the entire nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln may have used extra-Constitutional measures to save the Union, but that hardly compares to the extra-Constitutional attempt of the south to destroy that Union. If anything, Lincoln's excesses were made necessary by the situation imposed upon the nation by those seeking to sabotage it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The South wanted to "leave" the Union, not "destroy" it.  That doesn't even make sense.   Why was it their job to stay somewhere because the people remaining considered them leaving to destroy it?   That's just a stupid argument, the north wanted them to stay because they couldn't destroy their union simply by leaving.
> 
> And again the United States was FORMED on the basis of CONSTENT OF THE GOVERNED.   How is conquering half the country "consent?"
> 
> Think about what it's doing to us today.  The Federal government considers the Constitution road kill because he has no fear of the people since anyone who objects can simply be conquered?  That is the problem with what Lincoln did
Click to expand...



The point you are making is something these stupid uneducated Moon Bats have a very difficult time understanding.

Secession was a political issue, not a declaration of war.

Lincoln made it a war the day he sent that filthy Union army across the Potomac River to kill Americans instead of doing the right thing and trying to settle the issue by real political compromise and diplomacy.  Lincoln was an asshole.

Tyrants settle political issues by force and that is why we always consider them to be assholes.

The real issue of the secession was the same problem we are facing today.  The majority using the power of government to steal from the minority.

The discussion on slavery had nothing to do with the legality of slavery.  It was legal in the US under federal law.  It was prior to the Civil War, during the Civil War and for almost a year after the Civil War.  It had to do with the expansion into the new western states.  If a state was to be non slave it would be dominated by Republicans, who would have more power in Congress.  If it was to be slave then it would be dominated by Democrats, who would pick up seats in congress.

The Southerners saw what happen when the North had the seats in Congress.  The Yankee shitheads raided cash from the South when they had an economic slowdown.  Who in the hell wants to put up with shit like that?

These things are never covered in the jr High School history textbooks that the stupid uneducated Moon Bats  rely on.  That is why I handed out a reading assignment.


----------



## Unkotare

Ah, so those cannonballs fired at Fort Sumter were just “political.”



You wannabe rebs are getting more and more desperate.


----------



## gipper

schmidlap said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> The states consented to a Perpetual Union. Individuals who found they could not live in or change their government were free to leave. Trying to over throw the government was sedition. States were not free to leave the Union without the consent of the rest of the Union, meaning a change to the Constitution and ending the Perpetual Union. Trying to secede was oath breaking treason.
> 
> 
> 
> It should also be remembered that the extremist special interests who were hellbent upon keeping our fellow humans in bondage and extending the vile practice to new territories were attempting to deprive _all_ Americans in the states they caused to rebel of their citizenship.
Click to expand...

You seem to think warring on the South to end slavery was necessary and morally right. You’re wrong. The rest the the western world ended slavery without violence. Why have you failed to consider that?  Are you an extremist happy that southerns were killed?

*If Abe wasn’t such a dumb bumpkin he would have sought a solution other than war, as all other western nations did. *


----------



## gipper

Unkotare said:


> Ah, so those cannonballs fired at Fort Sumter were just “political.”
> 
> 
> 
> You wannabe rebs are getting more and more desperate.


Dumb as usual.

You’re so dumb you think an attack that killed no one, warrants a war that kills 850,000 Americans and destroys half the nation.

You know nothing about anything.


----------



## bripat9643

schmidlap said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back to the playground for the schmucks. When we said your party is Nazi, you heard we said we were. From the mind of any eight year old. Low intelligence is certainly a big reason you Nazis also go to violence. You aren't smart enough and your ideas are bad and don't work. So get out the sticks and let us know what happens when we don't support Democrats.
> 
> You did that all summer. Yet we're still not calling for violence, we're calling for people to look at what you are and reject it
> 
> Bull shit.  Democrats are very much going to destroying people's lives and violence for standing up to them.   Being a kid or an old man don't even protect you if you're wearing a red hat.  Now you're just flagrantly stealing elections.    You are Nazis, no doubt about it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You hyper-partisan paranoia is unfortunate, and does not relate to Lincoln's protecting, defending, and preserving the United States.
> 
> View attachment 463716​
> Decent Americans - Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike - loathe Cry Baby Loser's nazis, q-anon, proud boys, oath keepers, three percenters, white supremacists, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald Trump – Daily Stormer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dailystormer.su
Click to expand...

How does invading a state "protect" it or "defend" it?


----------



## bripat9643

gipper said:


> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> The states consented to a Perpetual Union. Individuals who found they could not live in or change their government were free to leave. Trying to over throw the government was sedition. States were not free to leave the Union without the consent of the rest of the Union, meaning a change to the Constitution and ending the Perpetual Union. Trying to secede was oath breaking treason.
> 
> 
> 
> It should also be remembered that the extremist special interests who were hellbent upon keeping our fellow humans in bondage and extending the vile practice to new territories were attempting to deprive _all_ Americans in the states they caused to rebel of their citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem to think warring on the South to end slavery was necessary and morally right. You’re wrong. The rest the the western world ended slavery without violence. Why have you failed to consider that?  Are you an extremist happy that southerns were killed?
> 
> *If Abe wasn’t such a dumb bumpkin he would has sought a solution other than war, as all other western nations did. *
Click to expand...

It's hilarious to watch how flabbergasted they get when you reject the notion that Lincoln was obligated to coerce confederate states back into the union.


----------



## bripat9643

there4eyeM said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question, you ignorant coward.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean you  object to people not answering your questions?
> 
> Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unkotare didn't know what his own question was.    He doesn't know the difference between the American government and the American people.
> 
> He wanted me to answer his question without him even knowing what he asked me.  Pass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dat Boy is confused about a lot of things.  With only only having a Jr High School History text knowledge of the Civil War, written by the winners, he doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground about what he is talking about.
> 
> He needs to do the homework assignment that I gave him.  That way he won't look like a fool when he post his uneducated dribble.
> 
> I thought he said one time that he was a teacher.  If he was telling the truth then he should know the value of learning something about a topic before opening his mouth.  I gave him an assignment to read up on the topic but like all idiot Libtards he is doesn't want to learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Unkotare would just say he knows what consent of the governed means, he just doesn't believe in it, then we all could just all say we disagree on that, live and go on.
> 
> But he keeps arguing that government conquering half it's own country doesn't violate consent of the governed, which is just stupid.
> 
> He also keeps arguing that southerners were evil salvers (they were), but that somehow justifies him conquering them and forcing them to stay in his country, which is just bizarre
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In addition, he like so many duped Americans with only a government school understanding of the war, doesn’t know that the war was not a civil war. The South had no intentions of conquering or controlling the North. The definition of a civil war requires that both parties are fighting for control of the entire nation.
> 
> It was the War of Northern Aggression.
> 
> No one disputes that slavery was evil and needed terminating. However, the Lincoln Cult needs to accept what Dishonest Abe did was illegal and caused unbelievable harm to not only the South, but the entire nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln may have used extra-Constitutional measures to save the Union, but that hardly compares to the extra-Constitutional attempt of the south to destroy that Union. If anything, Lincoln's excesses were made necessary by the situation imposed upon the nation by those seeking to sabotage it.
Click to expand...

How is secession "extra constitutional?"  Is abortion "extra constitutional?"


----------



## bripat9643

there4eyeM said:


> Oz and the Orchestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> Only it wasn't.
> If Lincoln had stated that he was going to ban slavery and emancipate the slaves and the South refused. Then you could say it was fought over slavery but that never happened. Lincoln had no intention of banning slavery. It was just that as Sherman had pushed deep into Georgia it was a smart military tactic to cause maximum disruption.
> 
> And I'm as left-wing as you can get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There would never have been a Civil War if the south had not had slavery.
Click to expand...

And pigs could fly if they had wings.  The North had slavery also, douchebag.


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> Ah, so those cannonballs fired at Fort Sumter were just “political.”
> 
> 
> 
> You wannabe rebs are getting more and more desperate.



Fort Sumter, SOUTH CAROLINA which was then occupied by a foreign power, the United States government


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> You wannabe rebs are really starting to reek of desperation now.


ROFL!  Do the continents move?


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back to the playground for the schmucks. When we said your party is Nazi, you heard we said we were. From the mind of any eight year old. Low intelligence is certainly a big reason you Nazis also go to violence. You aren't smart enough and your ideas are bad and don't work. So get out the sticks and let us know what happens when we don't support Democrats.
> 
> You did that all summer. Yet we're still not calling for violence, we're calling for people to look at what you are and reject it
> 
> Bull shit.  Democrats are very much going to destroying people's lives and violence for standing up to them.   Being a kid or an old man don't even protect you if you're wearing a red hat.  Now you're just flagrantly stealing elections.    You are Nazis, no doubt about it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You hyper-partisan paranoia is unfortunate, and does not relate to Lincoln's protecting, defending, and preserving the United States.
> 
> View attachment 463716​
> Decent Americans - Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike - loathe Cry Baby Loser's nazis, q-anon, proud boys, oath keepers, three percenters, white supremacists, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald Trump – Daily Stormer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dailystormer.su
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does invading a state "protect" it or "defend" it?
Click to expand...


The use of such words as “invade,” “conquer,” and “murder” is, of course, deliberately dishonest. Another sign of desperation from these ^^^^^^^ semi-literate simpletons.


----------



## Concerned American

Oz and the Orchestra said:


> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> Only it wasn't.
> If Lincoln had stated that he was going to ban slavery and emancipate the slaves and the South refused. Then you could say it was fought over slavery but that never happened. Lincoln had no intention of banning slavery. It was just that as Sherman had pushed deep into Georgia it was a smart military tactic to cause maximum disruption.
> 
> And I'm as left-wing as you can get.
Click to expand...

Indeed, Lincoln used emancipation as a stick to get the south to refrain from their rebellion.  The emancipation proclamation was not written until 9/22/1862 and did not go into effect until 1/1/1863, nearly two years after the start of the civil war.


----------



## Unkotare

" On April 15, 1869, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase announced a ruling in favor of Texas on the grounds that _*the Confederate government had no legal existence *_"


----------



## Concerned American

TrumpSucks said:


> initforme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slave owners were people of illl repute.  Too lazy to do the work themselves and too cheap to actually pay for labor.   To believe another human could actually be property is unfathomable.  To use lashing and whipping to control a group of people was inhumane and repugnant.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, yes, slave owners were people of ill repute! That is completely ridiculous. If you're seriously going to advance that position, you'd better put forward some evidence...
Click to expand...

And you think that slaves were the ONLY people in this country that were lashed and whipped.  I submit that it was fairly common punishment for all of the unwashed masses of the US.  Have you never heard of the stocks that were used in New England since the beginning of this country.  I think this disingenuous race argument has gone on long enough.  One hundred and fifty years later is ridiculous.


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back to the playground for the schmucks. When we said your party is Nazi, you heard we said we were. From the mind of any eight year old. Low intelligence is certainly a big reason you Nazis also go to violence. You aren't smart enough and your ideas are bad and don't work. So get out the sticks and let us know what happens when we don't support Democrats.
> 
> You did that all summer. Yet we're still not calling for violence, we're calling for people to look at what you are and reject it
> 
> Bull shit.  Democrats are very much going to destroying people's lives and violence for standing up to them.   Being a kid or an old man don't even protect you if you're wearing a red hat.  Now you're just flagrantly stealing elections.    You are Nazis, no doubt about it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You hyper-partisan paranoia is unfortunate, and does not relate to Lincoln's protecting, defending, and preserving the United States.
> 
> View attachment 463716​
> Decent Americans - Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike - loathe Cry Baby Loser's nazis, q-anon, proud boys, oath keepers, three percenters, white supremacists, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald Trump – Daily Stormer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dailystormer.su
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does invading a state "protect" it or "defend" it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The use of such words as “invade,” “conquer,” and “murder” is, of course, deliberately dishonest. Another sign of desperation from these ^^^^^^^ semi-literate simpletons.
Click to expand...


Because of course to you the south was the property of the US government.   They had no right to leave, other people consented for them and they had no say in consent of the governed.   You covered this, government teacher


----------



## bripat9643

there4eyeM said:


> The states consented to a Perpetual Union. Individuals who found they could not live in or change their government were free to leave. Trying to over throw the government was sedition. States were not free to leave the Union without the consent of the rest of the Union, meaning a change to the Constitution and ending the Perpetual Union. Trying to secede was oath breaking treason.


The Constitution doesn't mention any "perpetual union," moron.  You're spouting union propaganda that not even many people in the North agreed with.  Horace Greely, for instance, had no problem with allowing the Southern states to secede.

The logic for the war of Northern agression is beyond weak.  It's non-existence.  It's based on claims for which there is no tangible evidence.


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> " On April 15, 1869, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase announced a ruling in favor of Texas on the grounds that _*the Confederate government had no legal existence *_"



Did the southern States consent to the United States government?  No
Did the southern States consent to the Confederate government?  Yes

That means the Confederacy was by definition legitimate and the United States government wasn't in the south by our own definition

Proving again you don't believe in consent of the governed.  Why don't you just admit that?


----------



## bripat9643

schmidlap said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> The states consented to a Perpetual Union. Individuals who found they could not live in or change their government were free to leave. Trying to over throw the government was sedition. States were not free to leave the Union without the consent of the rest of the Union, meaning a change to the Constitution and ending the Perpetual Union. Trying to secede was oath breaking treason.
> 
> 
> 
> It should also be remembered that the extremist special interests who were hellbent upon keeping our fellow humans in bondage and extending the vile practice to new territories were attempting to deprive _all_ Americans in the states they caused to rebel of their citizenship.
Click to expand...

Many of those "citizens" were forced into the Union without consent in the first place, moron.  The extremists were the abolitionists.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> " On April 15, 1869, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase announced a ruling in favor of Texas on the grounds that _*the Confederate government had no legal existence *_"


debunked.  Chase was a Lincoln appointed hack.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> " On April 15, 1869, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase announced a ruling in favor of Texas on the grounds that _*the Confederate government had no legal existence *_"
> 
> 
> 
> debunked.  Chase was a Lincoln appointed hack.
Click to expand...


According to whom?


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back to the playground for the schmucks. When we said your party is Nazi, you heard we said we were. From the mind of any eight year old. Low intelligence is certainly a big reason you Nazis also go to violence. You aren't smart enough and your ideas are bad and don't work. So get out the sticks and let us know what happens when we don't support Democrats.
> 
> You did that all summer. Yet we're still not calling for violence, we're calling for people to look at what you are and reject it
> 
> Bull shit.  Democrats are very much going to destroying people's lives and violence for standing up to them.   Being a kid or an old man don't even protect you if you're wearing a red hat.  Now you're just flagrantly stealing elections.    You are Nazis, no doubt about it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You hyper-partisan paranoia is unfortunate, and does not relate to Lincoln's protecting, defending, and preserving the United States.
> 
> View attachment 463716​
> Decent Americans - Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike - loathe Cry Baby Loser's nazis, q-anon, proud boys, oath keepers, three percenters, white supremacists, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald Trump – Daily Stormer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dailystormer.su
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does invading a state "protect" it or "defend" it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The use of such words as “invade,” “conquer,” and “murder” is, of course, deliberately dishonest. Another sign of desperation from these ^^^^^^^ semi-literate simpletons.
Click to expand...

Nope.  Those terms are accurate.  Your use of words like "treason," and "insurrection" are what's inaccurate.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> " On April 15, 1869, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase announced a ruling in favor of Texas on the grounds that _*the Confederate government had no legal existence *_"
> 
> 
> 
> debunked.  Chase was a Lincoln appointed hack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to whom?
Click to expand...

Facts,  He was Lincoln's Secretary of the Treasury, moron.  He never even went to law school. 

That's your "expert."


----------



## DudleySmith

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States."—Chief Justice CHASE
> 
> 
> 
> Chase:  A Lincoln appointed hack.  He was Lincoln's Treasury Sec from 1861 - 1864
Click to expand...


And presided over the most corrupt and bribe ridden Supreme Court ever.


----------



## gipper

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back to the playground for the schmucks. When we said your party is Nazi, you heard we said we were. From the mind of any eight year old. Low intelligence is certainly a big reason you Nazis also go to violence. You aren't smart enough and your ideas are bad and don't work. So get out the sticks and let us know what happens when we don't support Democrats.
> 
> You did that all summer. Yet we're still not calling for violence, we're calling for people to look at what you are and reject it
> 
> Bull shit.  Democrats are very much going to destroying people's lives and violence for standing up to them.   Being a kid or an old man don't even protect you if you're wearing a red hat.  Now you're just flagrantly stealing elections.    You are Nazis, no doubt about it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You hyper-partisan paranoia is unfortunate, and does not relate to Lincoln's protecting, defending, and preserving the United States.
> 
> View attachment 463716​
> Decent Americans - Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike - loathe Cry Baby Loser's nazis, q-anon, proud boys, oath keepers, three percenters, white supremacists, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald Trump – Daily Stormer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dailystormer.su
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does invading a state "protect" it or "defend" it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The use of such words as “invade,” “conquer,” and “murder” is, of course, deliberately dishonest. Another sign of desperation from these ^^^^^^^ semi-literate simpletons.
Click to expand...

That’s the thing you fail to comprehend. Lincoln did invade, conquer, and murder.

Damn you’re slow.


----------



## schmidlap

gipper said:


> That’s the thing you fail to comprehend. Lincoln did invade, conquer, and murder.


Your contempt for the United States aside, the President of the United States deployed United States troops within the United States when a special-interest faction rejected the United States Constitution and attempted to deprive Americans in several of the United States of their United States citizenship.

The United States won, the was United States preserved, and the citizens threatened with loss of United States citizenship protected.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> " On April 15, 1869, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase announced a ruling in favor of Texas on the grounds that _*the Confederate government had no legal existence *_"


Debunked.


----------



## schmidlap

How many United States victories - _besides the one concerning the 1861-1865 regional attempt by a special interest faction to deprive United States citizens of their United States citizenship_ - are the haters of the United States pissy about?


----------



## bripat9643

schmidlap said:


> How many United States victories - _besides the one concerning the 1861-1865 regional attempt by a special interest faction to deprive United States citizens of their United States citizenship_ - are the haters of the United States pissy about?
> 
> View attachment 463778​


Did any of those victories involve destroying half of the United States and slaughtering almost a million people?


----------



## DudleySmith

bripat9643 said:


> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many United States victories - _besides the one concerning the 1861-1865 regional attempt by a special interest faction to deprive United States citizens of their United States citizenship_ - are the haters of the United States pissy about?
> 
> View attachment 463778​
> 
> 
> 
> Did any of those victories involve destroying half of the United States and slaughtering almost a million people?
Click to expand...


 And Lincoln deliberately murdered almost a million black people as well, so it was more like around 1.7 million. Not one school kid has ever heard of the black people murdered in his concentration camps. No wonder he was Hitler's favorite American President; Hitler learned a lot from the sorry corrupt piece of shit..


----------



## schmidlap

DudleySmith said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many United States victories - _besides the one concerning the 1861-1865 regional attempt by a special interest faction to deprive United States citizens of their United States citizenship_ - are the haters of the United States pissy about?
> 
> View attachment 463778​
> 
> 
> 
> Did any of those victories involve destroying half of the United States and slaughtering almost a million people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And Lincoln deliberately murdered almost a million black people as well, so it was more like around 1.7 million. Not one school kid has ever heard of the black people murdered in his concentration camps. No wonder he was Hitler's favorite American President; Hitler learned a lot from the sorry corrupt piece of shit..
Click to expand...

The United States suppressed the violent insurrection, and the nation was preserved.

Get over it.


----------



## there4eyeM

Unkotare said:


> You idiots are hilarious.


I don't find them all that funny, really. Obdurate, certainly. They keep insisting, for example, that people were forced to stay in the Union. No one was forced to stay in the U.S.


----------



## Unkotare

there4eyeM said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You idiots are hilarious.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't find them all that funny, really. Obdurate, certainly. They keep insisting, for example, that people were forced to stay in the Union. No one was forced to stay in the U.S.
Click to expand...


They must know by now that they are full of shit, but they just refuse to let it go. I seriously believe that they hate the United States of America. They should exercise their ability to leave this great nation.


----------



## Unkotare

Flash said:


> Discussing the Civil War with uneducated ......



You seem to be fishing for an opportunity to tell us all about your vast education and experience. Well, go ahead.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Texas v White, (1869), U.S. Supreme *Court* case in which it was held that _*the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede. *_
> 
> 
> 
> Debunked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO, it's still right there in the records of the Supreme Court. On the books. Look it up in the Library of Congress if someone will teach you how.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's lots of totally debunked horseshit in the Library of Congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is this another appeal to authority?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still don't know what it means, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> who do you think you're fooling, moron?
Click to expand...


Do you need help? Want a link to some actual information that might put a dent in your laughable ignorance?


----------



## there4eyeM

What was referenced in the expression concerning forming a more perfect Union? It could only be the Union that had been organized and was there, present, perfecting itself. The Perpetual Union. These propagandists for the attempt to split the country chose to ignore English, as did those who failed to support the Union in the past.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> ...
> I understand the meaning of "appeal to authority."  ....



No, you don't.


----------



## gipper

schmidlap said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s the thing you fail to comprehend. Lincoln did invade, conquer, and murder.
> 
> 
> 
> Your contempt for the United States aside, the President of the United States deployed United States troops within the United States when a special-interest faction rejected the United States Constitution and attempted to deprive Americans in several of the United States of their United States citizenship.
> 
> The United States won, the was United States preserved, and the citizens threatened with loss of United States citizenship protected.
Click to expand...

Oh brother. My contempt has nothing to do with the historical facts. You’re happy Lincoln started a war against the south, failing to understand the horrific consequences. Think bigger.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> .... He was Lincoln's Secretary or Treasury....




He was also a lawyer, governor of Ohio, and Republican Presidential candidate. How about you?


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> ...
> It doesn't matter what what their declarations say.  ....




It sure as hell does.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> " On April 15, 1869, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase announced a ruling in favor of Texas on the grounds that _*the Confederate government had no legal existence *_"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of posting your ignorant Jr High school shit you need to go do the homework assignment that I gave you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I posted historical fact and direct quotes from primary sources. Who are you again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meaningless quotes from irrelevant sources.
> ...
Click to expand...




A direct quote from the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court about a case on which he wrote the majority opinion, a case directly related to the topic at hand, and you - some ignorant nobody on the internet - declares it "Meaningless quotes from irrelevant sources"? That's hilarious. 

If you're trying to make a fool of yourself, you couldn't be doing a better job.


----------



## Unkotare

Flash said:


> ...
> 
> 
> Dat [sic] Boy is confused about a lot of things.  With only only having  [sic] a Jr High School History text knowledge of the Civil War, written by the winners, he doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground about what he is talking about. [sic]
> 
> He needs to do the homework assignment that I gave him.  That way he won't look like a fool when he post [sic] his uneducated dribble.
> 
> I thought he said one time that he was a teacher.  If he was telling the truth then he should know the value of learning something about a topic before opening his mouth.  I gave him an assignment to read up on the topic but like all idiot Libtards he is [sic] doesn't want to learn.



If you had written that in proper English, it would have been much more effective, stupid.


----------



## Unkotare

kaz said:


> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats are not "most Americans."  They are Nazis though
> 
> 
> 
> Your hyper-partisan alienation from the United States is unfortunate.
> 
> Your nazis are Trump goons, of course, on record as having endorsed their "God Emperor" twice, still supporting the Loser.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald Trump – Daily Stormer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dailystormer.su
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull shit.  Democrats are very much going to destroying [sic] people's lives and violence [sic] for standing up to them.   Being a kid or an old man don't [sic] even protect you if you're wearing a red hat.  Now you're just flagrantly stealing elections.    You are Nazis, no doubt about it
Click to expand...


Learn English or get the fuck out of my country, stupid.


----------



## Unkotare

kaz said:


> ... You aren't smart enough and your ideas are bad and don't work. .....




 

Learn English or get the fuck out of my country, stupid.


----------



## there4eyeM

gipper said:


> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s the thing you fail to comprehend. Lincoln did invade, conquer, and murder.
> 
> 
> 
> Your contempt for the United States aside, the President of the United States deployed United States troops within the United States when a special-interest faction rejected the United States Constitution and attempted to deprive Americans in several of the United States of their United States citizenship.
> 
> The United States won, the was United States preserved, and the citizens threatened with loss of United States citizenship protected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh brother. My contempt has nothing to do with the historical facts. You’re happy Lincoln started a war against the south, failing to understand the horrific consequences. Think bigger.
Click to expand...

Lincoln post dates the Perpetual Union and the sedition that trying to destroy it represents. It was the attempt of states to fracture the Union that  provoked violence. As a devout southerner, Andrew Jackson, declared, well before Lincoln, "The Union! It must be preserved!" The addiction to slavery led the south to commit a gross error and the country paid a huge price for it.


----------



## Unkotare

gipper said:


> ... Lincoln started a war against the south....




No, he did not. Stop lying.


----------



## gipper

there4eyeM said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s the thing you fail to comprehend. Lincoln did invade, conquer, and murder.
> 
> 
> 
> Your contempt for the United States aside, the President of the United States deployed United States troops within the United States when a special-interest faction rejected the United States Constitution and attempted to deprive Americans in several of the United States of their United States citizenship.
> 
> The United States won, the was United States preserved, and the citizens threatened with loss of United States citizenship protected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh brother. My contempt has nothing to do with the historical facts. You’re happy Lincoln started a war against the south, failing to understand the horrific consequences. Think bigger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln post dates the Perpetual Union and the sedition that trying to destroy it represents. It was the attempt of states to fracture the Union that  provoked violence. As a devout southerner, Andrew Jackson, declared, well before Lincoln, "The Union! It must be preserved!" The addiction to slavery led the south to commit a gross error and the country paid a huge price for it.
Click to expand...

Again you’re not thinking. If a portion of the Union no longer wants to be in the Union, why kill them?

You are a statist authoritarian, but don’t know it.

Your philosophy and that of the Lincoln Cult can be condensed down to this: kill them to keep them.


----------



## gipper

Unkotare said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Lincoln started a war against the south....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, he did not. Stop lying.
Click to expand...

See?  You just admitted not knowing anything.


----------



## Unkotare

gipper said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Lincoln started a war against the south....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, he did not. Stop lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See?  You just admitted not knowing anything.
Click to expand...


No, I just demonstrated that you are an America-hating piece of shit. By the way, fuck you.


----------



## gipper

Unkotare said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Lincoln started a war against the south....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, he did not. Stop lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See?  You just admitted not knowing anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I just demonstrated that you are an America-hating piece of shit. By the way, fuck you.
Click to expand...

Love you man!


----------



## Unkotare

gipper said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s the thing you fail to comprehend. Lincoln did invade, conquer, and murder.
> 
> 
> 
> Your contempt for the United States aside, the President of the United States deployed United States troops within the United States when a special-interest faction rejected the United States Constitution and attempted to deprive Americans in several of the United States of their United States citizenship.
> 
> The United States won, the was United States preserved, and the citizens threatened with loss of United States citizenship protected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh brother. My contempt has nothing to do with the historical facts. You’re happy Lincoln started a war against the south, failing to understand the horrific consequences. Think bigger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln post dates the Perpetual Union and the sedition that trying to destroy it represents. It was the attempt of states to fracture the Union that  provoked violence. As a devout southerner, Andrew Jackson, declared, well before Lincoln, "The Union! It must be preserved!" The addiction to slavery led the south to commit a gross error and the country paid a huge price for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you’re not thinking. If a portion of the Union no longer wants to be in the Union, why kill them?
> 
> You are a statist authoritarian, but don’t know it.
> 
> Your philosophy and that of the Lincoln Cult can be condensed down to this: kill them to keep them.
Click to expand...


Fuck you selfish, slavery-loving scumbags. You don't get to break up MY country just because you are afraid to live without the slave labor of other human beings. Get your lazy ass out there and pick your own fucking cotton. If you think it's a better idea to destroy the unity of MY country, you will be destroyed. You best learn humility, boy, or you will be taught again. 

EVERY so-called 'confederate' state had organized, armed regiments of CITIZENS of those states actively fighting against the traitorous scumbag 'confederates.' EVERY one.


----------



## Oz and the Orchestra

Many Brits didn't understand why the Obama administration made it quite clear and was so outspoken about the UK Government's decision to offer the people of Scotland a referendum on whether they wished to remain in the UK or become an independent nation.
Madeleine Albright declared that the US did not want to see a close ally become "fragmented". In private though she went further by declaring the UK's decision as "Crazy".
Of course, the real reason the US objected was the same reason Spain objected. Neither wanted states or nations being allowed to freely gain independence based on the majority of their electorate voting themselves out of a union, and they didn't want it to become the internationally accepted norm. Spain knew it would lose Catalonia and the US knew that at any point in the future any state could vote to, and secede from the Union if that is what the majority of people voted.

Would you call the US and Spain's stance 'Free World' or 'Totalitarian?'


----------



## gipper

Unkotare said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s the thing you fail to comprehend. Lincoln did invade, conquer, and murder.
> 
> 
> 
> Your contempt for the United States aside, the President of the United States deployed United States troops within the United States when a special-interest faction rejected the United States Constitution and attempted to deprive Americans in several of the United States of their United States citizenship.
> 
> The United States won, the was United States preserved, and the citizens threatened with loss of United States citizenship protected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh brother. My contempt has nothing to do with the historical facts. You’re happy Lincoln started a war against the south, failing to understand the horrific consequences. Think bigger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln post dates the Perpetual Union and the sedition that trying to destroy it represents. It was the attempt of states to fracture the Union that  provoked violence. As a devout southerner, Andrew Jackson, declared, well before Lincoln, "The Union! It must be preserved!" The addiction to slavery led the south to commit a gross error and the country paid a huge price for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you’re not thinking. If a portion of the Union no longer wants to be in the Union, why kill them?
> 
> You are a statist authoritarian, but don’t know it.
> 
> Your philosophy and that of the Lincoln Cult can be condensed down to this: kill them to keep them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck you selfish, slavery-loving scumbags. You don't get to break up MY country just because you are afraid to live without the slave labor of other human beings. Get your lazy ass out there and pick your own fucking cotton. If you think it's a better idea to destroy the unity of MY country, you will be destroyed. You best learn humility, boy, or you will be taught again.
> 
> EVERY so-called 'confederate' state had organized, armed regiments of CITIZENS of those states actively fighting against the traitorous scumbag 'confederates.' EVERY one.
Click to expand...

Love you too even though you’re dumb as a box of rocks.


----------



## there4eyeM

Oz and the Orchestra said:


> Many Brits didn't understand why the Obama administration made it quite clear and was so outspoken about the UK Government's decision to offer the people of Scotland a referendum on whether they wished to remain in the UK or become an independent nation.
> Madeleine Albright declared that the US did not want to see a close ally become "fragmented". In private though she went further by declaring the UK's decision as "Crazy".
> Of course, the real reason the US objected was the same reason Spain objected. Neither wanted states or nations being allowed to freely gain independence based on the majority of their electorate voting themselves out of a union, and they didn't want it to become the internationally accepted norm. Spain knew it would lose Catalonia and the US knew that at any point in the future any state could vote to, and secede from the Union if that is what the majority of people voted.
> 
> Would you call the US and Spain's stance 'Free World' or 'Totalitarian?'


The United States states was voluntarily formed by participating independent states into a Perpetual Union. That fact makes your comparison illogical.


----------



## Oz and the Orchestra

there4eyeM said:


> Oz and the Orchestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many Brits didn't understand why the Obama administration made it quite clear and was so outspoken about the UK Government's decision to offer the people of Scotland a referendum on whether they wished to remain in the UK or become an independent nation.
> Madeleine Albright declared that the US did not want to see a close ally become "fragmented". In private though she went further by declaring the UK's decision as "Crazy".
> Of course, the real reason the US objected was the same reason Spain objected. Neither wanted states or nations being allowed to freely gain independence based on the majority of their electorate voting themselves out of a union, and they didn't want it to become the internationally accepted norm. Spain knew it would lose Catalonia and the US knew that at any point in the future any state could vote to, and secede from the Union if that is what the majority of people voted.
> 
> Would you call the US and Spain's stance 'Free World' or 'Totalitarian?'
> 
> 
> 
> The United States states was voluntarily formed by participating independent states into a Perpetual Union. That fact makes your comparison illogical.
Click to expand...

So you're saying that if the entire population of Florida who felt they no longer had a great deal in common with the rest of the US, decided to have a referendum and a massive majority voted to leave the Union, Washington would refuse to recognise their self-determination and would force them to remain?

Perpetual Union? Is that actually in the Constitution? It sounds as repressive as slavery.
They got rid of slavery so I would think they could get rid of PU.


----------



## Unkotare

gipper said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s the thing you fail to comprehend. Lincoln did invade, conquer, and murder.
> 
> 
> 
> Your contempt for the United States aside, the President of the United States deployed United States troops within the United States when a special-interest faction rejected the United States Constitution and attempted to deprive Americans in several of the United States of their United States citizenship.
> 
> The United States won, the was United States preserved, and the citizens threatened with loss of United States citizenship protected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh brother. My contempt has nothing to do with the historical facts. You’re happy Lincoln started a war against the south, failing to understand the horrific consequences. Think bigger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln post dates the Perpetual Union and the sedition that trying to destroy it represents. It was the attempt of states to fracture the Union that  provoked violence. As a devout southerner, Andrew Jackson, declared, well before Lincoln, "The Union! It must be preserved!" The addiction to slavery led the south to commit a gross error and the country paid a huge price for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you’re not thinking. If a portion of the Union no longer wants to be in the Union, why kill them?
> 
> You are a statist authoritarian, but don’t know it.
> 
> Your philosophy and that of the Lincoln Cult can be condensed down to this: kill them to keep them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck you selfish, slavery-loving scumbags. You don't get to break up MY country just because you are afraid to live without the slave labor of other human beings. Get your lazy ass out there and pick your own fucking cotton. If you think it's a better idea to destroy the unity of MY country, you will be destroyed. You best learn humility, boy, or you will be taught again.
> 
> EVERY so-called 'confederate' state had organized, armed regiments of CITIZENS of those states actively fighting against the traitorous scumbag 'confederates.' EVERY one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Love you too even though you’re dumb as a box of rocks.
Click to expand...


You seem to consider yourself quite intelligent. Upon what do you base this delusion?


----------



## gipper

Y


Unkotare said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s the thing you fail to comprehend. Lincoln did invade, conquer, and murder.
> 
> 
> 
> Your contempt for the United States aside, the President of the United States deployed United States troops within the United States when a special-interest faction rejected the United States Constitution and attempted to deprive Americans in several of the United States of their United States citizenship.
> 
> The United States won, the was United States preserved, and the citizens threatened with loss of United States citizenship protected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh brother. My contempt has nothing to do with the historical facts. You’re happy Lincoln started a war against the south, failing to understand the horrific consequences. Think bigger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln post dates the Perpetual Union and the sedition that trying to destroy it represents. It was the attempt of states to fracture the Union that  provoked violence. As a devout southerner, Andrew Jackson, declared, well before Lincoln, "The Union! It must be preserved!" The addiction to slavery led the south to commit a gross error and the country paid a huge price for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you’re not thinking. If a portion of the Union no longer wants to be in the Union, why kill them?
> 
> You are a statist authoritarian, but don’t know it.
> 
> Your philosophy and that of the Lincoln Cult can be condensed down to this: kill them to keep them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck you selfish, slavery-loving scumbags. You don't get to break up MY country just because you are afraid to live without the slave labor of other human beings. Get your lazy ass out there and pick your own fucking cotton. If you think it's a better idea to destroy the unity of MY country, you will be destroyed. You best learn humility, boy, or you will be taught again.
> 
> EVERY so-called 'confederate' state had organized, armed regiments of CITIZENS of those states actively fighting against the traitorous scumbag 'confederates.' EVERY one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Love you too even though you’re dumb as a box of rocks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to consider yourself quite intelligent. Upon what do you base this delusion?
Click to expand...


Thank you. I am.

unfortunately, you aren’t.


----------



## schmidlap

Oz and the Orchestra said:


> ... Of course, the real reason the US objected was the same reason Spain objected. Neither wanted states or nations being allowed to freely gain independence based on the majority of their electorate voting themselves out of a union, and they didn't want it to become the internationally accepted norm. Spain knew it would lose Catalonia and the US knew that at any point in the future any state could vote to, and secede from the Union if that is what the majority of people voted.


Most of the slave states that attempted to secede from the United States in 1861 did not do so _"based on the majority of their electorate voting themselves out of a union." _The special interests in those states, the _"fire-eaters", _arrogated the power to deprive _all citizens_ who wished to maintain their United States citizenship - to summarily take it from them. 

In fact, at the time, deep divisions existed over the future of slavery and the direction of Southern society itself:




__





						The Secession Of The Southern States
					





					www.civilwarhome.com
				




The precedent of a region unilaterally withdrawing from a nation sanctions ongoing political dissolution - e.g., Tennessee asserting its right to abscond from an independent Confederacy, followed by West Tennesseans opting to withdraw from Tennessee, followed by Nashville seceding from West Tennessee, triggering the Green Hills neighborhood severing ties with Nashville, etc., etc. etc. - and every stage in the evolving dissolution established by the right to secede could be sanctioned by a democratic vote in each jurisdiction.

A permissive attitude to egress unleashes a sequence that results in disintegration, political chaos. 

Had Lincoln deferred to the slave interests, it's inevitable that deep differences _within_ the new nation would have resulted in its disbanding. Would Jefferson Davis fight a war to to prevent Virginia's departure from a Confederacy whose viability was highly dubious?

The European Union is a loose association of compound states with preexisting protocols for a nation to exit. In contrast, the U.S. Constitution contains procedures for admitting new states into the nation, but none for a state to leave.

It should be noted that the United Kingdom's breaking away from the European Union is a disparate matter in that the U.S. Constitution contains no such provisions for a state to leave the United States.

The United States Supreme Court has so ruled:

*“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.’)”*
Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia​
 Brexit is an incitement for the majority of Scots who wish their nation to remain in the EU, but have had their nation's status as an EU member dictated to them by politicians in London. Again, unlike the U.S. Constitution, PM Cameron acknowledged the legal right of UK members to secession when he signed the Edinburgh Agreement that authorized the Scottish referendum on independence.


----------



## Unkotare

Madison was right in Federalist #10.


----------



## Unkotare

gipper said:


> Y
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s the thing you fail to comprehend. Lincoln did invade, conquer, and murder.
> 
> 
> 
> Your contempt for the United States aside, the President of the United States deployed United States troops within the United States when a special-interest faction rejected the United States Constitution and attempted to deprive Americans in several of the United States of their United States citizenship.
> 
> The United States won, the was United States preserved, and the citizens threatened with loss of United States citizenship protected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh brother. My contempt has nothing to do with the historical facts. You’re happy Lincoln started a war against the south, failing to understand the horrific consequences. Think bigger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln post dates the Perpetual Union and the sedition that trying to destroy it represents. It was the attempt of states to fracture the Union that  provoked violence. As a devout southerner, Andrew Jackson, declared, well before Lincoln, "The Union! It must be preserved!" The addiction to slavery led the south to commit a gross error and the country paid a huge price for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you’re not thinking. If a portion of the Union no longer wants to be in the Union, why kill them?
> 
> You are a statist authoritarian, but don’t know it.
> 
> Your philosophy and that of the Lincoln Cult can be condensed down to this: kill them to keep them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck you selfish, slavery-loving scumbags. You don't get to break up MY country just because you are afraid to live without the slave labor of other human beings. Get your lazy ass out there and pick your own fucking cotton. If you think it's a better idea to destroy the unity of MY country, you will be destroyed. You best learn humility, boy, or you will be taught again.
> 
> EVERY so-called 'confederate' state had organized, armed regiments of CITIZENS of those states actively fighting against the traitorous scumbag 'confederates.' EVERY one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Love you too even though you’re dumb as a box of rocks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to consider yourself quite intelligent. Upon what do you base this delusion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you. I am.
> 
> unfortunately, you aren’t.
Click to expand...


You have just proven that you are not. Care to try again?


----------



## gipper

Unkotare said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Y
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s the thing you fail to comprehend. Lincoln did invade, conquer, and murder.
> 
> 
> 
> Your contempt for the United States aside, the President of the United States deployed United States troops within the United States when a special-interest faction rejected the United States Constitution and attempted to deprive Americans in several of the United States of their United States citizenship.
> 
> The United States won, the was United States preserved, and the citizens threatened with loss of United States citizenship protected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh brother. My contempt has nothing to do with the historical facts. You’re happy Lincoln started a war against the south, failing to understand the horrific consequences. Think bigger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln post dates the Perpetual Union and the sedition that trying to destroy it represents. It was the attempt of states to fracture the Union that  provoked violence. As a devout southerner, Andrew Jackson, declared, well before Lincoln, "The Union! It must be preserved!" The addiction to slavery led the south to commit a gross error and the country paid a huge price for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you’re not thinking. If a portion of the Union no longer wants to be in the Union, why kill them?
> 
> You are a statist authoritarian, but don’t know it.
> 
> Your philosophy and that of the Lincoln Cult can be condensed down to this: kill them to keep them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck you selfish, slavery-loving scumbags. You don't get to break up MY country just because you are afraid to live without the slave labor of other human beings. Get your lazy ass out there and pick your own fucking cotton. If you think it's a better idea to destroy the unity of MY country, you will be destroyed. You best learn humility, boy, or you will be taught again.
> 
> EVERY so-called 'confederate' state had organized, armed regiments of CITIZENS of those states actively fighting against the traitorous scumbag 'confederates.' EVERY one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Love you too even though you’re dumb as a box of rocks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to consider yourself quite intelligent. Upon what do you base this delusion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you. I am.
> 
> unfortunately, you aren’t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have just proven that you are not. Care to try again?
Click to expand...

Yes I’m very intelligent, thank you again.

My advice to you is read history from multiple sources. If you have difficulty reading, you should enroll in remedial reading courses. While there, you might as well get your GED.


----------



## schmidlap

gipper said:


> \Yes I’m very intelligent, thank you again.
> 
> My advice to you is read history from multiple sources. If you have difficulty reading, you should enroll in remedial reading courses. While there, you might as well get your GED.


You need not waste your time perusing a plethora of bogus propaganda sources. Whilst, having an eclectic, discriminating information base is commendable, the gist of a matter is often encapsulated in a definitive statement by an acknowledged, authoritative source - especially one who does not evidence an ideological bias that might influence his conviction:

*“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.’)”*
Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia


----------



## Unkotare

schmidlap said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> \Yes I’m very intelligent, thank you again.
> 
> My advice to you is read history from multiple sources. If you have difficulty reading, you should enroll in remedial reading courses. While there, you might as well get your GED.
> 
> 
> 
> You need not waste your time perusing a plethora of bogus propaganda sources. Whilst, having an eclectic, discriminating information base is commendable, the gist of a matter is often encapsulated in a definitive statement by an acknowledged, authoritative source - especially one who does not evidence an ideological bias that might influence his conviction:
> 
> *“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.’)”*
> Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia
> View attachment 464071​
Click to expand...

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


----------



## there4eyeM

As has been stated, one is free to leave the Union if one wishes. States are not.


----------



## Siberian

thus topic should be renamed into "The 1st Civil war", since the US is gradually slipping into the 2nd Civil war. 
Some observers think the US is alreday in state of "warm" civil war, which will gradually develop into a hot one.. ..


----------



## there4eyeM

Siberian said:


> thus topic should be renamed into "The 1st Civil war", since the US is gradually slipping into the 2nd Civil war.
> Some observers think the US is alreday in state of "warm" civil war, which will gradually develop into a hot one.. ..


That is the dream of America's enemies (foreign and domestic). It is a dream that will not come true.


----------



## Siberian

there4eyeM said:


> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> thus topic should be renamed into "The 1st Civil war", since the US is gradually slipping into the 2nd Civil war.
> Some observers think the US is alreday in state of "warm" civil war, which will gradually develop into a hot one.. ..
> 
> 
> 
> That is the dream of America's enemies (foreign and domestic). It is a dream that will not come true.
Click to expand...


why won't it come true? though, you are correct, Civil war is going on already. 

The nation is split on racial and social lines. 
 Split along these lines gets deeper and bigger, since :

- Whites are gradually decrease in numbers, by 2045 they will be minority in the US, they are already minority in several states and will becone minority in the South-Western belt of states From Califirnia to Taxes (Latinos are already 52% in New Mexico). 
And what is more important - Whites increasinly start voting as Whites, not just according to their political preferences. 

Latin American citizens and immigrants are increasingly Socialist - in states with big Latin share (South-West) a Socialist Bernie Sanders defeated moderate liberal Biden. 

So, aside of perspectives of just civil war there are very good perspectives of separatism and disintegration of the US in 10 years approximately, when 2 rows of states bordering Mexico become predominantly Spanish speaking and Latino. 

plus, there is a campaign of mass repressions against half of America which lost elections - "domestic terrorists" are being silenced, thrown out of job for their views, cancel culture, mass persecution, mass censorship and ban of tens of thousands of Trumpists by social nets - this is already warm civil war. 

People already started dying in this war, just the process is slightly retarded by demoralization of Republicans. 

I presume after Republicans realize that due to demographic changes they have lost any chances forever to ever control any branch of power on the federal level - they will revolt. 

Republicans will never have their president. They will never get any chamber of Congress. 

Just because Whites are becoming a minority fast.


----------



## there4eyeM

Siberian said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> thus topic should be renamed into "The 1st Civil war", since the US is gradually slipping into the 2nd Civil war.
> Some observers think the US is alreday in state of "warm" civil war, which will gradually develop into a hot one.. ..
> 
> 
> 
> That is the dream of America's enemies (foreign and domestic). It is a dream that will not come true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why won't it come true? though, you are correct, Civil war is going on already.
> 
> The nation is split on racial and social lines.
> Split along these lines gets deeper and bigger, since :
> 
> - Whites are gradually decrease in numbers, by 2045 they will be minority in the US, they are already minority in several states and will becone minority in the South-Western belt of states From Califirnia to Taxes (Latinos are already 52% in New Mexico).
> And what is more important - Whites increasinly start voting as Whites, not just according to their political preferences.
> 
> Latin American citizens and immigrants are increasingly Socialist - in states with big Latin share (South-West) a Socialist Bernie Sanders defeated moderate liberal Biden.
> 
> So, aside of perspectives of just civil war there are very good perspectives of separatism and disintegration of the US in 10 years approximately, when 2 rows of states bordering Mexico become predominantly Spanish speaking and Latino.
> 
> plus, there is a campaign of mass repressions against half of America which lost elections - "domestic terrorists" are being silenced, thrown out of job for their views, cancel culture, mass persecution, mass censorship and ban of tens of thousands of Trumpists by social nets - this is already warm civil war.
> 
> People already started dying in this war, just the process is slightly retarded by demoralization of Republicans.
> 
> I presume after Republicans realize that due to demographic changes they have lost any chances forever to ever control any branch of power on the federal level - they will revolt.
> 
> Republicans will never have their president. They will never get any chamber of Congress.
> 
> Just because Whites are becoming a minority fast.
Click to expand...

It isn't that I am correct, it is that you are incorrect.


----------



## Unkotare

Siberian said:


> ...Civil war is going on already.
> ...



No, it's not.


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats are not "most Americans."  They are Nazis though
> 
> 
> 
> Your hyper-partisan alienation from the United States is unfortunate.
> 
> Your nazis are Trump goons, of course, on record as having endorsed their "God Emperor" twice, still supporting the Loser.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald Trump – Daily Stormer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dailystormer.su
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull shit.  Democrats are very much going to destroying [sic] people's lives and violence [sic] for standing up to them.   Being a kid or an old man don't [sic] even protect you if you're wearing a red hat.  Now you're just flagrantly stealing elections.    You are Nazis, no doubt about it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Learn English or get the fuck out of my country, stupid.
Click to expand...


Figures, now you're looking for typos on an internet message board.    What a loser.   Could you be any more pathetic


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... You aren't smart enough and your ideas are bad and don't work. .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Learn English or get the fuck out of my country, stupid.
Click to expand...


The Internet Spell and grammar police!  You're worse at that then you are at teaching government history


----------



## Siberian

there4eyeM said:


> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> thus topic should be renamed into "The 1st Civil war", since the US is gradually slipping into the 2nd Civil war.
> Some observers think the US is alreday in state of "warm" civil war, which will gradually develop into a hot one.. ..
> 
> 
> 
> That is the dream of America's enemies (foreign and domestic). It is a dream that will not come true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why won't it come true? though, you are correct, Civil war is going on already.
> 
> The nation is split on racial and social lines.
> Split along these lines gets deeper and bigger, since :
> 
> - Whites are gradually decrease in numbers, by 2045 they will be minority in the US, they are already minority in several states and will becone minority in the South-Western belt of states From Califirnia to Taxes (Latinos are already 52% in New Mexico).
> And what is more important - Whites increasinly start voting as Whites, not just according to their political preferences.
> 
> Latin American citizens and immigrants are increasingly Socialist - in states with big Latin share (South-West) a Socialist Bernie Sanders defeated moderate liberal Biden.
> 
> So, aside of perspectives of just civil war there are very good perspectives of separatism and disintegration of the US in 10 years approximately, when 2 rows of states bordering Mexico become predominantly Spanish speaking and Latino.
> 
> plus, there is a campaign of mass repressions against half of America which lost elections - "domestic terrorists" are being silenced, thrown out of job for their views, cancel culture, mass persecution, mass censorship and ban of tens of thousands of Trumpists by social nets - this is already warm civil war.
> 
> People already started dying in this war, just the process is slightly retarded by demoralization of Republicans.
> 
> I presume after Republicans realize that due to demographic changes they have lost any chances forever to ever control any branch of power on the federal level - they will revolt.
> 
> Republicans will never have their president. They will never get any chamber of Congress.
> 
> Just because Whites are becoming a minority fast.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It isn't that I am correct, it is that you are incorrect.
Click to expand...


prove it


----------



## gtopa1

there4eyeM said:


> Oz and the Orchestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> Only it wasn't.
> If Lincoln had stated that he was going to ban slavery and emancipate the slaves and the South refused. Then you could say it was fought over slavery but that never happened. Lincoln had no intention of banning slavery. It was just that as Sherman had pushed deep into Georgia it was a smart military tactic to cause maximum disruption.
> 
> And I'm as left-wing as you can get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There would never have been a Civil War if the south had not had slavery.
Click to expand...

I'm sure a lot of things wouldn't have happened "IF"......

....but it did.

Greg


----------



## Unkotare

gipper said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Y
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s the thing you fail to comprehend. Lincoln did invade, conquer, and murder.
> 
> 
> 
> Your contempt for the United States aside, the President of the United States deployed United States troops within the United States when a special-interest faction rejected the United States Constitution and attempted to deprive Americans in several of the United States of their United States citizenship.
> 
> The United States won, the was United States preserved, and the citizens threatened with loss of United States citizenship protected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh brother. My contempt has nothing to do with the historical facts. You’re happy Lincoln started a war against the south, failing to understand the horrific consequences. Think bigger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln post dates the Perpetual Union and the sedition that trying to destroy it represents. It was the attempt of states to fracture the Union that  provoked violence. As a devout southerner, Andrew Jackson, declared, well before Lincoln, "The Union! It must be preserved!" The addiction to slavery led the south to commit a gross error and the country paid a huge price for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you’re not thinking. If a portion of the Union no longer wants to be in the Union, why kill them?
> 
> You are a statist authoritarian, but don’t know it.
> 
> Your philosophy and that of the Lincoln Cult can be condensed down to this: kill them to keep them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck you selfish, slavery-loving scumbags. You don't get to break up MY country just because you are afraid to live without the slave labor of other human beings. Get your lazy ass out there and pick your own fucking cotton. If you think it's a better idea to destroy the unity of MY country, you will be destroyed. You best learn humility, boy, or you will be taught again.
> 
> EVERY so-called 'confederate' state had organized, armed regiments of CITIZENS of those states actively fighting against the traitorous scumbag 'confederates.' EVERY one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Love you too even though you’re dumb as a box of rocks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to consider yourself quite intelligent. Upon what do you base this delusion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you. I am.
> 
> unfortunately, you aren’t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have just proven that you are not. Care to try again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I’m very intelligent, .........
Click to expand...


It is becoming very suspicious that you keep avoiding the question "Upon what do you base this delusion?"


----------



## Unkotare

kaz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats are not "most Americans."  They are Nazis though
> 
> 
> 
> Your hyper-partisan alienation from the United States is unfortunate.
> 
> Your nazis are Trump goons, of course, on record as having endorsed their "God Emperor" twice, still supporting the Loser.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald Trump – Daily Stormer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dailystormer.su
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull shit.  Democrats are very much going to destroying [sic] people's lives and violence [sic] for standing up to them.   Being a kid or an old man don't [sic] even protect you if you're wearing a red hat.  Now you're just flagrantly stealing elections.    You are Nazis, no doubt about it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Learn English or get the fuck out of my country, stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Figures, now you're looking for typos on an internet message board.    ......
Click to expand...


"Typos"?  
Every semi-literate moron who can barely manage to communicate in his first language falls back on "typos."


----------



## Unkotare

kaz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... You aren't smart enough and your ideas are bad and don't work. .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Learn English or get the fuck out of my country, stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Internet Spell and grammar police!  ......
Click to expand...


Do you need help finding an online remedial English course? Or are you satisfied with your weakness?


----------



## Theledgened

Unkotare said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats are not "most Americans."  They are Nazis though
> 
> 
> 
> Your hyper-partisan alienation from the United States is unfortunate.
> 
> Your nazis are Trump goons, of course, on record as having endorsed their "God Emperor" twice, still supporting the Loser.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald Trump – Daily Stormer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dailystormer.su
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull shit.  Democrats are very much going to destroying [sic] people's lives and violence [sic] for standing up to them.   Being a kid or an old man don't [sic] even protect you if you're wearing a red hat.  Now you're just flagrantly stealing elections.    You are Nazis, no doubt about it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Learn English or get the fuck out of my country, stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Figures, now you're looking for typos on an internet message board.    ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Typos"?
> Every semi-literate moron who can barely manage to communicate in his first language falls back on "typos."
Click to expand...

Do you ever make a declaration or do you just add bullshit you can’t back up?
If you think the Civil War started because of slavery please provide your evidence. If not STFU


----------



## Unkotare

Theledgened said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats are not "most Americans."  They are Nazis though
> 
> 
> 
> Your hyper-partisan alienation from the United States is unfortunate.
> 
> Your nazis are Trump goons, of course, on record as having endorsed their "God Emperor" twice, still supporting the Loser.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald Trump – Daily Stormer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dailystormer.su
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull shit.  Democrats are very much going to destroying [sic] people's lives and violence [sic] for standing up to them.   Being a kid or an old man don't [sic] even protect you if you're wearing a red hat.  Now you're just flagrantly stealing elections.    You are Nazis, no doubt about it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Learn English or get the fuck out of my country, stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Figures, now you're looking for typos on an internet message board.    ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Typos"?
> Every semi-literate moron who can barely manage to communicate in his first language falls back on "typos."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you ever make a declaration or do you just add bullshit you can’t back up?
> If you think the Civil War started because of slavery please provide your evidence. If not STFU
Click to expand...


Read the whole thread, idiot.


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats are not "most Americans."  They are Nazis though
> 
> 
> 
> Your hyper-partisan alienation from the United States is unfortunate.
> 
> Your nazis are Trump goons, of course, on record as having endorsed their "God Emperor" twice, still supporting the Loser.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald Trump – Daily Stormer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dailystormer.su
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull shit.  Democrats are very much going to destroying [sic] people's lives and violence [sic] for standing up to them.   Being a kid or an old man don't [sic] even protect you if you're wearing a red hat.  Now you're just flagrantly stealing elections.    You are Nazis, no doubt about it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Learn English or get the fuck out of my country, stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Figures, now you're looking for typos on an internet message board.    ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Typos"?
> Every semi-literate moron who can barely manage to communicate in his first language falls back on "typos."
Click to expand...


You attacked me for a sentence that would have been fixed with a comma.    You're a useless government teacher who knows shit about history so you're just flailing now.

It's a fucking message board you stupid douche.  We keep rewriting posts.  But we need to sit there at the end and read every post like it's in a term paper or you can't read it.   You're all upset about not having a comma between two independent clauses.   Pathetic


----------



## Theledgened

Unkotare said:


> Theledgened said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats are not "most Americans."  They are Nazis though
> 
> 
> 
> Your hyper-partisan alienation from the United States is unfortunate.
> 
> Your nazis are Trump goons, of course, on record as having endorsed their "God Emperor" twice, still supporting the Loser.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald Trump – Daily Stormer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dailystormer.su
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull shit.  Democrats are very much going to destroying [sic] people's lives and violence [sic] for standing up to them.   Being a kid or an old man don't [sic] even protect you if you're wearing a red hat.  Now you're just flagrantly stealing elections.    You are Nazis, no doubt about it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Learn English or get the fuck out of my country, stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Figures, now you're looking for typos on an internet message board.    ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Typos"?
> Every semi-literate moron who can barely manage to communicate in his first language falls back on "typos."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you ever make a declaration or do you just add bullshit you can’t back up?
> If you think the Civil War started because of slavery please provide your evidence. If not STFU
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read the whole thread, idiot.
Click to expand...

It’s real simple a war is started for a reason there is a declaration can you please provide it if not ...


----------



## gtopa1

there4eyeM said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question, you ignorant coward.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean you  object to people not answering your questions?
> 
> Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unkotare didn't know what his own question was.    He doesn't know the difference between the American government and the American people.
> 
> He wanted me to answer his question without him even knowing what he asked me.  Pass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dat Boy is confused about a lot of things.  With only only having a Jr High School History text knowledge of the Civil War, written by the winners, he doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground about what he is talking about.
> 
> He needs to do the homework assignment that I gave him.  That way he won't look like a fool when he post his uneducated dribble.
> 
> I thought he said one time that he was a teacher.  If he was telling the truth then he should know the value of learning something about a topic before opening his mouth.  I gave him an assignment to read up on the topic but like all idiot Libtards he is doesn't want to learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Unkotare would just say he knows what consent of the governed means, he just doesn't believe in it, then we all could just all say we disagree on that, live and go on.
> 
> But he keeps arguing that government conquering half it's own country doesn't violate consent of the governed, which is just stupid.
> 
> He also keeps arguing that southerners were evil salvers (they were), but that somehow justifies him conquering them and forcing them to stay in his country, which is just bizarre
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In addition, he like so many duped Americans with only a government school understanding of the war, doesn’t know that the war was not a civil war. The South had no intentions of conquering or controlling the North. The definition of a civil war requires that both parties are fighting for control of the entire nation.
> 
> It was the War of Northern Aggression.
> 
> No one disputes that slavery was evil and needed terminating. However, the Lincoln Cult needs to accept what Dishonest Abe did was illegal and caused unbelievable harm to not only the South, but the entire nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln may have used extra-Constitutional measures to save the Union, but that hardly compares to the extra-Constitutional attempt of the south to destroy that Union. If anything, Lincoln's excesses were made necessary by the situation imposed upon the nation by those seeking to sabotage it.
Click to expand...

Isn't "extra-Constitutional" illegal?? This is an interesting article.



> Fourth and finally, Lincoln denied that the Constitution was silent with respect to secession. The immediate predecessor to the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, purported to establish a "perpetual Union." By seeking to create what the Preamble calls "a more perfect Union"--in an echo of the Articles' language--the Constitution, Lincoln said, simply strengthened the already indissoluble bonds between the States.
> 
> But the Constitution itself was established in blatant violation of the terms of the Articles--which required unanimous consent of the states for any amendment. Moreover, how do we know that the "perfection" of the Union required stronger rather than weaker bonds? To infer this point from the fact that, on the whole, the Constitution created a stronger national government than existed under the Articles is to acknowledge that the real work in this argument is not being done by the language of the Preamble.











						Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede? | FindLaw
					

Read Legal Commentary: Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede? at FindLaw.com




					supreme.findlaw.com


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... You aren't smart enough and your ideas are bad and don't work. .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Learn English or get the fuck out of my country, stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Internet Spell and grammar police!  ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you need help finding an online remedial English course? Or are you satisfied with your weakness?
Click to expand...


You seriously want to argue grammar and spelling on a political message board.  Of course you do, you're a





__





						Loser gif - Google Search
					





					www.google.com


----------



## kaz

Theledgened said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Typos"?
> Every semi-literate moron who can barely manage to communicate in his first language falls back on "typos."
> 
> 
> 
> Do you ever make a declaration or do you just add bullshit you can’t back up?
> If you think the Civil War started because of slavery please provide your evidence. If not STFU
Click to expand...


Be careful, Unkotare is very dangerous.  He'll go after you for spelling and grammar when you out content him.   It's horrible.    A living hell


----------



## Unkotare

kaz said:


> .....  You're a useless government teacher who knows shit about history ......



And what exactly is your education, training, or experience in the field, stupid?


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> Theledgened said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you ever make a declaration or do you just add bullshit you can’t back up?
> If you think the Civil War started because of slavery please provide your evidence. If not STFU
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read the whole thread, idiot.
Click to expand...


You could have just said no, you can't back it up


----------



## Unkotare

kaz said:


> ......Be careful, Unkotare is very dangerous.  He's go after you for spelling and grammar......



You seem pretty insecure about your weak language skills. Justifiably so.


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....  You're a useless government teacher who knows shit about history ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what exactly is your education, training, or experience in the field, stupid?
Click to expand...


Now it's an argument from authority fallacy.   

You need a degree to know that conquering States contradicts consent of the governed?  Seriously?


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ......Be careful, Unkotare is very dangerous.  He's go after you for spelling and grammar......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem pretty insecure about your weak language skills. Justifiably so.
Click to expand...


OMG, now you're too stupid to grasp sarcasm.

A government job is right for you


----------



## Theledgened

Unkotare said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ......Be careful, Unkotare is very dangerous.  He's go after you for spelling and grammar......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem pretty insecure about your weak language skills. Justifiably so.
Click to expand...

Did they ever teach you facts and content was important in school? I’m glad you can spell bull shit really well


----------



## Unkotare

Theledgened said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theledgened said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats are not "most Americans."  They are Nazis though
> 
> 
> 
> Your hyper-partisan alienation from the United States is unfortunate.
> 
> Your nazis are Trump goons, of course, on record as having endorsed their "God Emperor" twice, still supporting the Loser.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald Trump – Daily Stormer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dailystormer.su
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull shit.  Democrats are very much going to destroying [sic] people's lives and violence [sic] for standing up to them.   Being a kid or an old man don't [sic] even protect you if you're wearing a red hat.  Now you're just flagrantly stealing elections.    You are Nazis, no doubt about it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Learn English or get the fuck out of my country, stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Figures, now you're looking for typos on an internet message board.    ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Typos"?
> Every semi-literate moron who can barely manage to communicate in his first language falls back on "typos."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you ever make a declaration or do you just add bullshit you can’t back up?
> If you think the Civil War started because of slavery please provide your evidence. If not STFU
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read the whole thread, idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s real simple a war is started for a reason there is a declaration can you please provide it if not ...
Click to expand...


This is why I told you to read the thread. I have posted the information you are looking for many, many times already. Stop being lazy and read the damn thread.


----------



## Theledgened

Unkotare said:


> Theledgened said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theledgened said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats are not "most Americans."  They are Nazis though
> 
> 
> 
> Your hyper-partisan alienation from the United States is unfortunate.
> 
> Your nazis are Trump goons, of course, on record as having endorsed their "God Emperor" twice, still supporting the Loser.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald Trump – Daily Stormer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dailystormer.su
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull shit.  Democrats are very much going to destroying [sic] people's lives and violence [sic] for standing up to them.   Being a kid or an old man don't [sic] even protect you if you're wearing a red hat.  Now you're just flagrantly stealing elections.    You are Nazis, no doubt about it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Learn English or get the fuck out of my country, stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Figures, now you're looking for typos on an internet message board.    ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Typos"?
> Every semi-literate moron who can barely manage to communicate in his first language falls back on "typos."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you ever make a declaration or do you just add bullshit you can’t back up?
> If you think the Civil War started because of slavery please provide your evidence. If not STFU
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read the whole thread, idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s real simple a war is started for a reason there is a declaration can you please provide it if not ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is why I told you to read the thread. I have posted the information you are looking for many, many times already. Stop being lazy and read the damn thread.
Click to expand...

What number?


----------



## kaz

Theledgened said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read the whole thread, idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> It’s real simple a war is started for a reason there is a declaration can you please provide it if not ...
Click to expand...


Unkortare's argument is that the slavery is evil and that makes the South evil.  Which is fair enough, slavery is evil.

But then he goes on to say that justifies conquering the South and forcing them to stay in the United States.   

He can't explain how that part makes sense


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> Theledgened said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s real simple a war is started for a reason there is a declaration can you please provide it if not ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why I told you to read the thread. I have posted the information you are looking for many, many times already. Stop being lazy and read the damn thread.
Click to expand...


You literally have posted the same posts over and over.  Maybe you could give him a few post numbers and help him out.   Telling people to read a long thread in it's entirety before posting really isn't reasonable


----------



## Unkotare

kaz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats are not "most Americans."  They are Nazis though
> 
> 
> 
> Your hyper-partisan alienation from the United States is unfortunate.
> 
> Your nazis are Trump goons, of course, on record as having endorsed their "God Emperor" twice, still supporting the Loser.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald Trump – Daily Stormer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dailystormer.su
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull shit.  Democrats are very much going to destroying [sic] people's lives and violence [sic] for standing up to them.   Being a kid or an old man don't [sic] even protect you if you're wearing a red hat.  Now you're just flagrantly stealing elections.    You are Nazis, no doubt about it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Learn English or get the fuck out of my country, stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Figures, now you're looking for typos on an internet message board.    ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Typos"?
> Every semi-literate moron who can barely manage to communicate in his first language falls back on "typos."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You attacked me for a sentence that would have been fixed with a comma.  ......
Click to expand...


Thanks for proving that it was more than a "typo." A comma won't solve your problems.


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You attacked me for a sentence that would have been fixed with a comma.  ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving that it was more than a "typo." A comma won't solve your problems.
Click to expand...


State your degree in English.   You don't have one, do you?


----------



## Unkotare

kaz said:


> Theledgened said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read the whole thread, idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> It’s real simple a war is started for a reason there is a declaration can you please provide it if not ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unkortare's argument is that the slavery is evil and that makes the South evil.  ...
Click to expand...


I didn't say the South is evil. Stop lying, brainless.


----------



## there4eyeM

Siberian said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> thus topic should be renamed into "The 1st Civil war", since the US is gradually slipping into the 2nd Civil war.
> Some observers think the US is alreday in state of "warm" civil war, which will gradually develop into a hot one.. ..
> 
> 
> 
> That is the dream of America's enemies (foreign and domestic). It is a dream that will not come true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why won't it come true? though, you are correct, Civil war is going on already.
> 
> The nation is split on racial and social lines.
> Split along these lines gets deeper and bigger, since :
> 
> - Whites are gradually decrease in numbers, by 2045 they will be minority in the US, they are already minority in several states and will becone minority in the South-Western belt of states From Califirnia to Taxes (Latinos are already 52% in New Mexico).
> And what is more important - Whites increasinly start voting as Whites, not just according to their political preferences.
> 
> Latin American citizens and immigrants are increasingly Socialist - in states with big Latin share (South-West) a Socialist Bernie Sanders defeated moderate liberal Biden.
> 
> So, aside of perspectives of just civil war there are very good perspectives of separatism and disintegration of the US in 10 years approximately, when 2 rows of states bordering Mexico become predominantly Spanish speaking and Latino.
> 
> plus, there is a campaign of mass repressions against half of America which lost elections - "domestic terrorists" are being silenced, thrown out of job for their views, cancel culture, mass persecution, mass censorship and ban of tens of thousands of Trumpists by social nets - this is already warm civil war.
> 
> People already started dying in this war, just the process is slightly retarded by demoralization of Republicans.
> 
> I presume after Republicans realize that due to demographic changes they have lost any chances forever to ever control any branch of power on the federal level - they will revolt.
> 
> Republicans will never have their president. They will never get any chamber of Congress.
> 
> Just because Whites are becoming a minority fast.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It isn't that I am correct, it is that you are incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> prove it
Click to expand...

Again? You already have.


----------



## Unkotare

kaz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You attacked me for a sentence that would have been fixed with a comma.  ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving that it was more than a "typo." A comma won't solve your problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> State your degree in English.   You don't have one, do you?
Click to expand...


I actually have a masters degree in Linguistics, so I could help you with your errors in many languages. I have taught English, and History, and quite a few other subjects for over 26 years. And you are..............?


----------



## there4eyeM

gtopa1 said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oz and the Orchestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> Only it wasn't.
> If Lincoln had stated that he was going to ban slavery and emancipate the slaves and the South refused. Then you could say it was fought over slavery but that never happened. Lincoln had no intention of banning slavery. It was just that as Sherman had pushed deep into Georgia it was a smart military tactic to cause maximum disruption.
> 
> And I'm as left-wing as you can get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There would never have been a Civil War if the south had not had slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sure a lot of things wouldn't have happened "IF"......
> 
> ....but it did.
> 
> Greg
Click to expand...

Yes, because of slavery.


----------



## Siberian

there4eyeM said:


> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> thus topic should be renamed into "The 1st Civil war", since the US is gradually slipping into the 2nd Civil war.
> Some observers think the US is alreday in state of "warm" civil war, which will gradually develop into a hot one.. ..
> 
> 
> 
> That is the dream of America's enemies (foreign and domestic). It is a dream that will not come true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why won't it come true? though, you are correct, Civil war is going on already.
> 
> The nation is split on racial and social lines.
> Split along these lines gets deeper and bigger, since :
> 
> - Whites are gradually decrease in numbers, by 2045 they will be minority in the US, they are already minority in several states and will becone minority in the South-Western belt of states From Califirnia to Taxes (Latinos are already 52% in New Mexico).
> And what is more important - Whites increasinly start voting as Whites, not just according to their political preferences.
> 
> Latin American citizens and immigrants are increasingly Socialist - in states with big Latin share (South-West) a Socialist Bernie Sanders defeated moderate liberal Biden.
> 
> So, aside of perspectives of just civil war there are very good perspectives of separatism and disintegration of the US in 10 years approximately, when 2 rows of states bordering Mexico become predominantly Spanish speaking and Latino.
> 
> plus, there is a campaign of mass repressions against half of America which lost elections - "domestic terrorists" are being silenced, thrown out of job for their views, cancel culture, mass persecution, mass censorship and ban of tens of thousands of Trumpists by social nets - this is already warm civil war.
> 
> People already started dying in this war, just the process is slightly retarded by demoralization of Republicans.
> 
> I presume after Republicans realize that due to demographic changes they have lost any chances forever to ever control any branch of power on the federal level - they will revolt.
> 
> Republicans will never have their president. They will never get any chamber of Congress.
> 
> Just because Whites are becoming a minority fast.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It isn't that I am correct, it is that you are incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> prove it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again? You already have.
Click to expand...


you seem to be a Democrat, they never engage in fair fight...


----------



## Theledgened

Unkotare said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You attacked me for a sentence that would have been fixed with a comma.  ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving that it was more than a "typo." A comma won't solve your problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> State your degree in English.   You don't have one, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I actually have a masters degree in Linguistics, so I could help you with your errors in many languages. I have taught English, and History, and quite a few other subjects for over 26 years. And you are..............?
Click to expand...

You should be arrested for treason .. stay away from our children you creep


----------



## Unkotare

kaz said:


> .... he goes on to say that justifies conquering the South and forcing them to stay in the United States.
> ....



I didn't say that.


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theledgened said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read the whole thread, idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> It’s real simple a war is started for a reason there is a declaration can you please provide it if not ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unkortare's argument is that the slavery is evil and that makes the South evil.  ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say the South is evil. Stop lying, brainless.
Click to expand...


I realize you don't have a degree in English, but I didn't use quote marks.   You clearly did say as a reasonable paraphrase that the South was evil.    You did not use that word, which is why I didn't use quote marks.  Get back to me when you have an English degree


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> .... he goes on to say that justifies conquering the South and forcing them to stay in the United States.
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say that.
Click to expand...


If he does read the thread he'll see you said that repeatedly and are just lying now


----------



## there4eyeM

gtopa1 said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question, you ignorant coward.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean you  object to people not answering your questions?
> 
> Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unkotare didn't know what his own question was.    He doesn't know the difference between the American government and the American people.
> 
> He wanted me to answer his question without him even knowing what he asked me.  Pass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dat Boy is confused about a lot of things.  With only only having a Jr High School History text knowledge of the Civil War, written by the winners, he doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground about what he is talking about.
> 
> He needs to do the homework assignment that I gave him.  That way he won't look like a fool when he post his uneducated dribble.
> 
> I thought he said one time that he was a teacher.  If he was telling the truth then he should know the value of learning something about a topic before opening his mouth.  I gave him an assignment to read up on the topic but like all idiot Libtards he is doesn't want to learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Unkotare would just say he knows what consent of the governed means, he just doesn't believe in it, then we all could just all say we disagree on that, live and go on.
> 
> But he keeps arguing that government conquering half it's own country doesn't violate consent of the governed, which is just stupid.
> 
> He also keeps arguing that southerners were evil salvers (they were), but that somehow justifies him conquering them and forcing them to stay in his country, which is just bizarre
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In addition, he like so many duped Americans with only a government school understanding of the war, doesn’t know that the war was not a civil war. The South had no intentions of conquering or controlling the North. The definition of a civil war requires that both parties are fighting for control of the entire nation.
> 
> It was the War of Northern Aggression.
> 
> No one disputes that slavery was evil and needed terminating. However, the Lincoln Cult needs to accept what Dishonest Abe did was illegal and caused unbelievable harm to not only the South, but the entire nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln may have used extra-Constitutional measures to save the Union, but that hardly compares to the extra-Constitutional attempt of the south to destroy that Union. If anything, Lincoln's excesses were made necessary by the situation imposed upon the nation by those seeking to sabotage it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Isn't "extra-Constitutional" illegal?? This is an interesting article.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fourth and finally, Lincoln denied that the Constitution was silent with respect to secession. The immediate predecessor to the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, purported to establish a "perpetual Union." By seeking to create what the Preamble calls "a more perfect Union"--in an echo of the Articles' language--the Constitution, Lincoln said, simply strengthened the already indissoluble bonds between the States.
> 
> But the Constitution itself was established in blatant violation of the terms of the Articles--which required unanimous consent of the states for any amendment. Moreover, how do we know that the "perfection" of the Union required stronger rather than weaker bonds? To infer this point from the fact that, on the whole, the Constitution created a stronger national government than existed under the Articles is to acknowledge that the real work in this argument is not being done by the language of the Preamble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede? | FindLaw
> 
> 
> Read Legal Commentary: Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede? at FindLaw.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> supreme.findlaw.com
Click to expand...

So, either a more perfect Perpetual Union was made, or the new document is invalid and the original Perpetual Union remained. It's a win-win for the Union.


----------



## Flash

gtopa1 said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question, you ignorant coward.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean you  object to people not answering your questions?
> 
> Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unkotare didn't know what his own question was.    He doesn't know the difference between the American government and the American people.
> 
> He wanted me to answer his question without him even knowing what he asked me.  Pass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dat Boy is confused about a lot of things.  With only only having a Jr High School History text knowledge of the Civil War, written by the winners, he doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground about what he is talking about.
> 
> He needs to do the homework assignment that I gave him.  That way he won't look like a fool when he post his uneducated dribble.
> 
> I thought he said one time that he was a teacher.  If he was telling the truth then he should know the value of learning something about a topic before opening his mouth.  I gave him an assignment to read up on the topic but like all idiot Libtards he is doesn't want to learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Unkotare would just say he knows what consent of the governed means, he just doesn't believe in it, then we all could just all say we disagree on that, live and go on.
> 
> But he keeps arguing that government conquering half it's own country doesn't violate consent of the governed, which is just stupid.
> 
> He also keeps arguing that southerners were evil salvers (they were), but that somehow justifies him conquering them and forcing them to stay in his country, which is just bizarre
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In addition, he like so many duped Americans with only a government school understanding of the war, doesn’t know that the war was not a civil war. The South had no intentions of conquering or controlling the North. The definition of a civil war requires that both parties are fighting for control of the entire nation.
> 
> It was the War of Northern Aggression.
> 
> No one disputes that slavery was evil and needed terminating. However, the Lincoln Cult needs to accept what Dishonest Abe did was illegal and caused unbelievable harm to not only the South, but the entire nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln may have used extra-Constitutional measures to save the Union, but that hardly compares to the extra-Constitutional attempt of the south to destroy that Union. If anything, Lincoln's excesses were made necessary by the situation imposed upon the nation by those seeking to sabotage it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Isn't "extra-Constitutional" illegal?? This is an interesting article.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fourth and finally, Lincoln denied that the Constitution was silent with respect to secession. The immediate predecessor to the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, purported to establish a "perpetual Union." By seeking to create what the Preamble calls "a more perfect Union"--in an echo of the Articles' language--the Constitution, Lincoln said, simply strengthened the already indissoluble bonds between the States.
> 
> But the Constitution itself was established in blatant violation of the terms of the Articles--which required unanimous consent of the states for any amendment. Moreover, how do we know that the "perfection" of the Union required stronger rather than weaker bonds? To infer this point from the fact that, on the whole, the Constitution created a stronger national government than existed under the Articles is to acknowledge that the real work in this argument is not being done by the language of the Preamble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede? | FindLaw
> 
> 
> Read Legal Commentary: Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede? at FindLaw.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> supreme.findlaw.com
Click to expand...



Any state can secede.  However (like all rebellions) they just have to back it up when the filthy government sends troops to kill the people.


----------



## Unkotare

Theledgened said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You attacked me for a sentence that would have been fixed with a comma.  ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving that it was more than a "typo." A comma won't solve your problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> State your degree in English.   You don't have one, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I actually have a masters degree in Linguistics, so I could help you with your errors in many languages. I have taught English, and History, and quite a few other subjects for over 26 years. And you are..............?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should be arrested for treason ..
Click to expand...


Why?


----------



## Theledgened

Unkotare said:


> Theledgened said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You attacked me for a sentence that would have been fixed with a comma.  ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving that it was more than a "typo." A comma won't solve your problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> State your degree in English.   You don't have one, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I actually have a masters degree in Linguistics, so I could help you with your errors in many languages. I have taught English, and History, and quite a few other subjects for over 26 years. And you are..............?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should be arrested for treason ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why?
Click to expand...

You have lied to children in an authoritative position. You have destroyed the minds of young people. And you have no remorse


----------



## Siberian

Unkotare said:


> I actually have a masters degree in Linguistics, so I could help you with your errors in many languages.



many languages? American, English and Broken English? 
Americans don't speak foreign languages...


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You attacked me for a sentence that would have been fixed with a comma.  ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving that it was more than a "typo." A comma won't solve your problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> State your degree in English.   You don't have one, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I actually have a masters degree in Linguistics, so I could help you with your errors in many languages. I have taught English, and History, and quite a few other subjects for over 26 years. And you are..............?
Click to expand...


None of those are English degrees.  You are completely unqualified to discuss grammar


----------



## there4eyeM

Siberian said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> thus topic should be renamed into "The 1st Civil war", since the US is gradually slipping into the 2nd Civil war.
> Some observers think the US is alreday in state of "warm" civil war, which will gradually develop into a hot one.. ..
> 
> 
> 
> That is the dream of America's enemies (foreign and domestic). It is a dream that will not come true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why won't it come true? though, you are correct, Civil war is going on already.
> 
> The nation is split on racial and social lines.
> Split along these lines gets deeper and bigger, since :
> 
> - Whites are gradually decrease in numbers, by 2045 they will be minority in the US, they are already minority in several states and will becone minority in the South-Western belt of states From Califirnia to Taxes (Latinos are already 52% in New Mexico).
> And what is more important - Whites increasinly start voting as Whites, not just according to their political preferences.
> 
> Latin American citizens and immigrants are increasingly Socialist - in states with big Latin share (South-West) a Socialist Bernie Sanders defeated moderate liberal Biden.
> 
> So, aside of perspectives of just civil war there are very good perspectives of separatism and disintegration of the US in 10 years approximately, when 2 rows of states bordering Mexico become predominantly Spanish speaking and Latino.
> 
> plus, there is a campaign of mass repressions against half of America which lost elections - "domestic terrorists" are being silenced, thrown out of job for their views, cancel culture, mass persecution, mass censorship and ban of tens of thousands of Trumpists by social nets - this is already warm civil war.
> 
> People already started dying in this war, just the process is slightly retarded by demoralization of Republicans.
> 
> I presume after Republicans realize that due to demographic changes they have lost any chances forever to ever control any branch of power on the federal level - they will revolt.
> 
> Republicans will never have their president. They will never get any chamber of Congress.
> 
> Just because Whites are becoming a minority fast.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It isn't that I am correct, it is that you are incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> prove it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again? You already have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you seem to be a Democrat, they never engage in fair fight...
Click to expand...

Fight? Democrat? You are imaging things.


----------



## Unkotare

kaz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> .... he goes on to say that justifies conquering the South and forcing them to stay in the United States.
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If he does read the thread he'll see you said that repeatedly and are just lying now
Click to expand...


I did not say that. Quelling the murderous antics of scumbag criminals like the so-called 'confederates' most certainly is NOT "conquering the South and forcing them to stay in the United States." THAT is just the bitter, impotent lie you and your boyfriend keep repeating.


----------



## kaz

there4eyeM said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question, you ignorant coward.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean you  object to people not answering your questions?
> 
> Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unkotare didn't know what his own question was.    He doesn't know the difference between the American government and the American people.
> 
> He wanted me to answer his question without him even knowing what he asked me.  Pass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dat Boy is confused about a lot of things.  With only only having a Jr High School History text knowledge of the Civil War, written by the winners, he doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground about what he is talking about.
> 
> He needs to do the homework assignment that I gave him.  That way he won't look like a fool when he post his uneducated dribble.
> 
> I thought he said one time that he was a teacher.  If he was telling the truth then he should know the value of learning something about a topic before opening his mouth.  I gave him an assignment to read up on the topic but like all idiot Libtards he is doesn't want to learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Unkotare would just say he knows what consent of the governed means, he just doesn't believe in it, then we all could just all say we disagree on that, live and go on.
> 
> But he keeps arguing that government conquering half it's own country doesn't violate consent of the governed, which is just stupid.
> 
> He also keeps arguing that southerners were evil salvers (they were), but that somehow justifies him conquering them and forcing them to stay in his country, which is just bizarre
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In addition, he like so many duped Americans with only a government school understanding of the war, doesn’t know that the war was not a civil war. The South had no intentions of conquering or controlling the North. The definition of a civil war requires that both parties are fighting for control of the entire nation.
> 
> It was the War of Northern Aggression.
> 
> No one disputes that slavery was evil and needed terminating. However, the Lincoln Cult needs to accept what Dishonest Abe did was illegal and caused unbelievable harm to not only the South, but the entire nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln may have used extra-Constitutional measures to save the Union, but that hardly compares to the extra-Constitutional attempt of the south to destroy that Union. If anything, Lincoln's excesses were made necessary by the situation imposed upon the nation by those seeking to sabotage it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Isn't "extra-Constitutional" illegal?? This is an interesting article.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fourth and finally, Lincoln denied that the Constitution was silent with respect to secession. The immediate predecessor to the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, purported to establish a "perpetual Union." By seeking to create what the Preamble calls "a more perfect Union"--in an echo of the Articles' language--the Constitution, Lincoln said, simply strengthened the already indissoluble bonds between the States.
> 
> But the Constitution itself was established in blatant violation of the terms of the Articles--which required unanimous consent of the states for any amendment. Moreover, how do we know that the "perfection" of the Union required stronger rather than weaker bonds? To infer this point from the fact that, on the whole, the Constitution created a stronger national government than existed under the Articles is to acknowledge that the real work in this argument is not being done by the language of the Preamble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede? | FindLaw
> 
> 
> Read Legal Commentary: Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede? at FindLaw.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> supreme.findlaw.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, either a more perfect Perpetual Union was made, or the new document is invalid and the original Perpetual Union remained. It's a win-win for the Union.
Click to expand...


Government wins, yeah team!

I'm for the people though, and we lost


----------



## Siberian

there4eyeM said:


> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> thus topic should be renamed into "The 1st Civil war", since the US is gradually slipping into the 2nd Civil war.
> Some observers think the US is alreday in state of "warm" civil war, which will gradually develop into a hot one.. ..
> 
> 
> 
> That is the dream of America's enemies (foreign and domestic). It is a dream that will not come true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why won't it come true? though, you are correct, Civil war is going on already.
> 
> The nation is split on racial and social lines.
> Split along these lines gets deeper and bigger, since :
> 
> - Whites are gradually decrease in numbers, by 2045 they will be minority in the US, they are already minority in several states and will becone minority in the South-Western belt of states From Califirnia to Taxes (Latinos are already 52% in New Mexico).
> And what is more important - Whites increasinly start voting as Whites, not just according to their political preferences.
> 
> Latin American citizens and immigrants are increasingly Socialist - in states with big Latin share (South-West) a Socialist Bernie Sanders defeated moderate liberal Biden.
> 
> So, aside of perspectives of just civil war there are very good perspectives of separatism and disintegration of the US in 10 years approximately, when 2 rows of states bordering Mexico become predominantly Spanish speaking and Latino.
> 
> plus, there is a campaign of mass repressions against half of America which lost elections - "domestic terrorists" are being silenced, thrown out of job for their views, cancel culture, mass persecution, mass censorship and ban of tens of thousands of Trumpists by social nets - this is already warm civil war.
> 
> People already started dying in this war, just the process is slightly retarded by demoralization of Republicans.
> 
> I presume after Republicans realize that due to demographic changes they have lost any chances forever to ever control any branch of power on the federal level - they will revolt.
> 
> Republicans will never have their president. They will never get any chamber of Congress.
> 
> Just because Whites are becoming a minority fast.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It isn't that I am correct, it is that you are incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> prove it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again? You already have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you seem to be a Democrat, they never engage in fair fight...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fight? Democrat? You are imaging things.
Click to expand...


then prove your opinion, if you have one

though, never mind, it's enough that you know mine


----------



## Unkotare

kaz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You attacked me for a sentence that would have been fixed with a comma.  ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving that it was more than a "typo." A comma won't solve your problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> State your degree in English.   You don't have one, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I actually have a masters degree in Linguistics, so I could help you with your errors in many languages. I have taught English, and History, and quite a few other subjects for over 26 years. And you are..............?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of those are English degrees.  You are completely unqualified to discuss grammar
Click to expand...


You don't even know what it means. That is truly pathetic.


----------



## Flash

kaz said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question, you ignorant coward.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean you  object to people not answering your questions?
> 
> Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unkotare didn't know what his own question was.    He doesn't know the difference between the American government and the American people.
> 
> He wanted me to answer his question without him even knowing what he asked me.  Pass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dat Boy is confused about a lot of things.  With only only having a Jr High School History text knowledge of the Civil War, written by the winners, he doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground about what he is talking about.
> 
> He needs to do the homework assignment that I gave him.  That way he won't look like a fool when he post his uneducated dribble.
> 
> I thought he said one time that he was a teacher.  If he was telling the truth then he should know the value of learning something about a topic before opening his mouth.  I gave him an assignment to read up on the topic but like all idiot Libtards he is doesn't want to learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Unkotare would just say he knows what consent of the governed means, he just doesn't believe in it, then we all could just all say we disagree on that, live and go on.
> 
> But he keeps arguing that government conquering half it's own country doesn't violate consent of the governed, which is just stupid.
> 
> He also keeps arguing that southerners were evil salvers (they were), but that somehow justifies him conquering them and forcing them to stay in his country, which is just bizarre
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In addition, he like so many duped Americans with only a government school understanding of the war, doesn’t know that the war was not a civil war. The South had no intentions of conquering or controlling the North. The definition of a civil war requires that both parties are fighting for control of the entire nation.
> 
> It was the War of Northern Aggression.
> 
> No one disputes that slavery was evil and needed terminating. However, the Lincoln Cult needs to accept what Dishonest Abe did was illegal and caused unbelievable harm to not only the South, but the entire nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln may have used extra-Constitutional measures to save the Union, but that hardly compares to the extra-Constitutional attempt of the south to destroy that Union. If anything, Lincoln's excesses were made necessary by the situation imposed upon the nation by those seeking to sabotage it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Isn't "extra-Constitutional" illegal?? This is an interesting article.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fourth and finally, Lincoln denied that the Constitution was silent with respect to secession. The immediate predecessor to the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, purported to establish a "perpetual Union." By seeking to create what the Preamble calls "a more perfect Union"--in an echo of the Articles' language--the Constitution, Lincoln said, simply strengthened the already indissoluble bonds between the States.
> 
> But the Constitution itself was established in blatant violation of the terms of the Articles--which required unanimous consent of the states for any amendment. Moreover, how do we know that the "perfection" of the Union required stronger rather than weaker bonds? To infer this point from the fact that, on the whole, the Constitution created a stronger national government than existed under the Articles is to acknowledge that the real work in this argument is not being done by the language of the Preamble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede? | FindLaw
> 
> 
> Read Legal Commentary: Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede? at FindLaw.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> supreme.findlaw.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, either a more perfect Perpetual Union was made, or the new document is invalid and the original Perpetual Union remained. It's a win-win for the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Government wins, yeah team!
> 
> I'm for the people though, and we lost
Click to expand...



The Confederacy was the last great hope for Liberty for the world.  When the bad guys won the world lost.


----------



## Unkotare

kaz said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question, you ignorant coward.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean you  object to people not answering your questions?
> 
> Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unkotare didn't know what his own question was.    He doesn't know the difference between the American government and the American people.
> 
> He wanted me to answer his question without him even knowing what he asked me.  Pass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dat Boy is confused about a lot of things.  With only only having a Jr High School History text knowledge of the Civil War, written by the winners, he doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground about what he is talking about.
> 
> He needs to do the homework assignment that I gave him.  That way he won't look like a fool when he post his uneducated dribble.
> 
> I thought he said one time that he was a teacher.  If he was telling the truth then he should know the value of learning something about a topic before opening his mouth.  I gave him an assignment to read up on the topic but like all idiot Libtards he is doesn't want to learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Unkotare would just say he knows what consent of the governed means, he just doesn't believe in it, then we all could just all say we disagree on that, live and go on.
> 
> But he keeps arguing that government conquering half it's own country doesn't violate consent of the governed, which is just stupid.
> 
> He also keeps arguing that southerners were evil salvers (they were), but that somehow justifies him conquering them and forcing them to stay in his country, which is just bizarre
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In addition, he like so many duped Americans with only a government school understanding of the war, doesn’t know that the war was not a civil war. The South had no intentions of conquering or controlling the North. The definition of a civil war requires that both parties are fighting for control of the entire nation.
> 
> It was the War of Northern Aggression.
> 
> No one disputes that slavery was evil and needed terminating. However, the Lincoln Cult needs to accept what Dishonest Abe did was illegal and caused unbelievable harm to not only the South, but the entire nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln may have used extra-Constitutional measures to save the Union, but that hardly compares to the extra-Constitutional attempt of the south to destroy that Union. If anything, Lincoln's excesses were made necessary by the situation imposed upon the nation by those seeking to sabotage it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Isn't "extra-Constitutional" illegal?? This is an interesting article.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fourth and finally, Lincoln denied that the Constitution was silent with respect to secession. The immediate predecessor to the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, purported to establish a "perpetual Union." By seeking to create what the Preamble calls "a more perfect Union"--in an echo of the Articles' language--the Constitution, Lincoln said, simply strengthened the already indissoluble bonds between the States.
> 
> But the Constitution itself was established in blatant violation of the terms of the Articles--which required unanimous consent of the states for any amendment. Moreover, how do we know that the "perfection" of the Union required stronger rather than weaker bonds? To infer this point from the fact that, on the whole, the Constitution created a stronger national government than existed under the Articles is to acknowledge that the real work in this argument is not being done by the language of the Preamble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede? | FindLaw
> 
> 
> Read Legal Commentary: Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede? at FindLaw.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> supreme.findlaw.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, either a more perfect Perpetual Union was made, or the new document is invalid and the original Perpetual Union remained. It's a win-win for the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Government wins, yeah team!
> 
> I'm for the people though, and we lost
Click to expand...


The people in and of the United States of America won. The scumbag criminals who sought to destroy my Union lost, as anyone with the least amount of sense knew they would.


----------



## Unkotare

Flash said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question, you ignorant coward.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean you  object to people not answering your questions?
> 
> Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unkotare didn't know what his own question was.    He doesn't know the difference between the American government and the American people.
> 
> He wanted me to answer his question without him even knowing what he asked me.  Pass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dat Boy is confused about a lot of things.  With only only having a Jr High School History text knowledge of the Civil War, written by the winners, he doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground about what he is talking about.
> 
> He needs to do the homework assignment that I gave him.  That way he won't look like a fool when he post his uneducated dribble.
> 
> I thought he said one time that he was a teacher.  If he was telling the truth then he should know the value of learning something about a topic before opening his mouth.  I gave him an assignment to read up on the topic but like all idiot Libtards he is doesn't want to learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Unkotare would just say he knows what consent of the governed means, he just doesn't believe in it, then we all could just all say we disagree on that, live and go on.
> 
> But he keeps arguing that government conquering half it's own country doesn't violate consent of the governed, which is just stupid.
> 
> He also keeps arguing that southerners were evil salvers (they were), but that somehow justifies him conquering them and forcing them to stay in his country, which is just bizarre
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In addition, he like so many duped Americans with only a government school understanding of the war, doesn’t know that the war was not a civil war. The South had no intentions of conquering or controlling the North. The definition of a civil war requires that both parties are fighting for control of the entire nation.
> 
> It was the War of Northern Aggression.
> 
> No one disputes that slavery was evil and needed terminating. However, the Lincoln Cult needs to accept what Dishonest Abe did was illegal and caused unbelievable harm to not only the South, but the entire nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln may have used extra-Constitutional measures to save the Union, but that hardly compares to the extra-Constitutional attempt of the south to destroy that Union. If anything, Lincoln's excesses were made necessary by the situation imposed upon the nation by those seeking to sabotage it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Isn't "extra-Constitutional" illegal?? This is an interesting article.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fourth and finally, Lincoln denied that the Constitution was silent with respect to secession. The immediate predecessor to the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, purported to establish a "perpetual Union." By seeking to create what the Preamble calls "a more perfect Union"--in an echo of the Articles' language--the Constitution, Lincoln said, simply strengthened the already indissoluble bonds between the States.
> 
> But the Constitution itself was established in blatant violation of the terms of the Articles--which required unanimous consent of the states for any amendment. Moreover, how do we know that the "perfection" of the Union required stronger rather than weaker bonds? To infer this point from the fact that, on the whole, the Constitution created a stronger national government than existed under the Articles is to acknowledge that the real work in this argument is not being done by the language of the Preamble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede? | FindLaw
> 
> 
> Read Legal Commentary: Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede? at FindLaw.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> supreme.findlaw.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, either a more perfect Perpetual Union was made, or the new document is invalid and the original Perpetual Union remained. It's a win-win for the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Government wins, yeah team!
> 
> I'm for the people though, and we lost
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederacy was the last great hope for Liberty for the world.  .......
Click to expand...


I'm sure that's just what all the enslaved people thought.  

Holy shit, you're stupid.


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You attacked me for a sentence that would have been fixed with a comma.  ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving that it was more than a "typo." A comma won't solve your problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> State your degree in English.   You don't have one, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I actually have a masters degree in Linguistics, so I could help you with your errors in many languages. I have taught English, and History, and quite a few other subjects for over 26 years. And you are..............?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of those are English degrees.  You are completely unqualified to discuss grammar
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't even know what it means. That is truly pathetic.
Click to expand...


LOL, I can see you reporting your success for the day.   You got your ass handed to you in a history debate, but you want on a spelling and grammar rampage on the internet!   People, proof read your posts carefully before posting to Unkotare, a lesson that won't soon be forgotten on the Internet!

LOL, dumb ass


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede? | FindLaw
> 
> 
> Read Legal Commentary: Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede? at FindLaw.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> supreme.findlaw.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, either a more perfect Perpetual Union was made, or the new document is invalid and the original Perpetual Union remained. It's a win-win for the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Government wins, yeah team!
> 
> I'm for the people though, and we lost
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederacy was the last great hope for Liberty for the world.  .......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure that's just what all the enslaved people thought.
> 
> Holy shit, you're stupid.
Click to expand...


Yet that wasn't the North's objective.   Their motto was "Save the Union."   A little historical info there for you to know.   And they could have told the South to release their slaves to come to the North and they were free to leave, but didn't.

You're just pissing in the wind hoping it turns into a lucid argument


----------



## Unkotare

Theledgened said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theledgened said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You attacked me for a sentence that would have been fixed with a comma.  ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving that it was more than a "typo." A comma won't solve your problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> State your degree in English.   You don't have one, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I actually have a masters degree in Linguistics, so I could help you with your errors in many languages. I have taught English, and History, and quite a few other subjects for over 26 years. And you are..............?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should be arrested for treason ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have lied to children ......
Click to expand...


That is not the definition of treason, but what lie do you imagine?


----------



## there4eyeM

The Civil War was indeed a tragedy that led to far too much centralized power. Having the catastrophe forced upon it by avaricious forces distorted the spirit of the nation. Slavery cost us extremely dearly in every way.


----------



## Unkotare

Flash said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question, you ignorant coward.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean you  object to people not answering your questions?
> 
> Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unkotare didn't know what his own question was.    He doesn't know the difference between the American government and the American people.
> 
> He wanted me to answer his question without him even knowing what he asked me.  Pass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dat Boy is confused about a lot of things.  With only only having a Jr High School History text knowledge of the Civil War, written by the winners, he doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground about what he is talking about.
> 
> He needs to do the homework assignment that I gave him.  That way he won't look like a fool when he post his uneducated dribble.
> 
> I thought he said one time that he was a teacher.  If he was telling the truth then he should know the value of learning something about a topic before opening his mouth.  I gave him an assignment to read up on the topic but like all idiot Libtards he is doesn't want to learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Unkotare would just say he knows what consent of the governed means, he just doesn't believe in it, then we all could just all say we disagree on that, live and go on.
> 
> But he keeps arguing that government conquering half it's own country doesn't violate consent of the governed, which is just stupid.
> 
> He also keeps arguing that southerners were evil salvers (they were), but that somehow justifies him conquering them and forcing them to stay in his country, which is just bizarre
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In addition, he like so many duped Americans with only a government school understanding of the war, doesn’t know that the war was not a civil war. The South had no intentions of conquering or controlling the North. The definition of a civil war requires that both parties are fighting for control of the entire nation.
> 
> It was the War of Northern Aggression.
> 
> No one disputes that slavery was evil and needed terminating. However, the Lincoln Cult needs to accept what Dishonest Abe did was illegal and caused unbelievable harm to not only the South, but the entire nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln may have used extra-Constitutional measures to save the Union, but that hardly compares to the extra-Constitutional attempt of the south to destroy that Union. If anything, Lincoln's excesses were made necessary by the situation imposed upon the nation by those seeking to sabotage it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Isn't "extra-Constitutional" illegal?? This is an interesting article.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fourth and finally, Lincoln denied that the Constitution was silent with respect to secession. The immediate predecessor to the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, purported to establish a "perpetual Union." By seeking to create what the Preamble calls "a more perfect Union"--in an echo of the Articles' language--the Constitution, Lincoln said, simply strengthened the already indissoluble bonds between the States.
> 
> But the Constitution itself was established in blatant violation of the terms of the Articles--which required unanimous consent of the states for any amendment. Moreover, how do we know that the "perfection" of the Union required stronger rather than weaker bonds? To infer this point from the fact that, on the whole, the Constitution created a stronger national government than existed under the Articles is to acknowledge that the real work in this argument is not being done by the language of the Preamble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede? | FindLaw
> 
> 
> Read Legal Commentary: Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede? at FindLaw.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> supreme.findlaw.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Any state can secede.  .....
Click to expand...


Nope.


----------



## Theledgened

Unkotare said:


> Theledgened said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theledgened said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You attacked me for a sentence that would have been fixed with a comma.  ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving that it was more than a "typo." A comma won't solve your problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> State your degree in English.   You don't have one, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I actually have a masters degree in Linguistics, so I could help you with your errors in many languages. I have taught English, and History, and quite a few other subjects for over 26 years. And you are..............?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should be arrested for treason ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have lied to children ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not the definition of treason, but what lie do you imagine?
Click to expand...

Treason is used by the common ppl many different ways.. are you to elite to understand us?


----------



## Unkotare

Siberian said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> I actually have a masters degree in Linguistics, so I could help you with your errors in many languages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> many languages? ...
Click to expand...



Yes.


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question, you ignorant coward.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean you  object to people not answering your questions?
> 
> Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unkotare didn't know what his own question was.    He doesn't know the difference between the American government and the American people.
> 
> He wanted me to answer his question without him even knowing what he asked me.  Pass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dat Boy is confused about a lot of things.  With only only having a Jr High School History text knowledge of the Civil War, written by the winners, he doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground about what he is talking about.
> 
> He needs to do the homework assignment that I gave him.  That way he won't look like a fool when he post his uneducated dribble.
> 
> I thought he said one time that he was a teacher.  If he was telling the truth then he should know the value of learning something about a topic before opening his mouth.  I gave him an assignment to read up on the topic but like all idiot Libtards he is doesn't want to learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Unkotare would just say he knows what consent of the governed means, he just doesn't believe in it, then we all could just all say we disagree on that, live and go on.
> 
> But he keeps arguing that government conquering half it's own country doesn't violate consent of the governed, which is just stupid.
> 
> He also keeps arguing that southerners were evil salvers (they were), but that somehow justifies him conquering them and forcing them to stay in his country, which is just bizarre
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In addition, he like so many duped Americans with only a government school understanding of the war, doesn’t know that the war was not a civil war. The South had no intentions of conquering or controlling the North. The definition of a civil war requires that both parties are fighting for control of the entire nation.
> 
> It was the War of Northern Aggression.
> 
> No one disputes that slavery was evil and needed terminating. However, the Lincoln Cult needs to accept what Dishonest Abe did was illegal and caused unbelievable harm to not only the South, but the entire nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln may have used extra-Constitutional measures to save the Union, but that hardly compares to the extra-Constitutional attempt of the south to destroy that Union. If anything, Lincoln's excesses were made necessary by the situation imposed upon the nation by those seeking to sabotage it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Isn't "extra-Constitutional" illegal?? This is an interesting article.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fourth and finally, Lincoln denied that the Constitution was silent with respect to secession. The immediate predecessor to the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, purported to establish a "perpetual Union." By seeking to create what the Preamble calls "a more perfect Union"--in an echo of the Articles' language--the Constitution, Lincoln said, simply strengthened the already indissoluble bonds between the States.
> 
> But the Constitution itself was established in blatant violation of the terms of the Articles--which required unanimous consent of the states for any amendment. Moreover, how do we know that the "perfection" of the Union required stronger rather than weaker bonds? To infer this point from the fact that, on the whole, the Constitution created a stronger national government than existed under the Articles is to acknowledge that the real work in this argument is not being done by the language of the Preamble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede? | FindLaw
> 
> 
> Read Legal Commentary: Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede? at FindLaw.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> supreme.findlaw.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, either a more perfect Perpetual Union was made, or the new document is invalid and the original Perpetual Union remained. It's a win-win for the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Government wins, yeah team!
> 
> I'm for the people though, and we lost
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The people in and of the United States of America won. The scumbag criminals who sought to destroy my Union  lost, as anyone with the least amount of sense knew they would.
Click to expand...


Proving you lied when you said you didn't call the South evil (no quotes).   I realize you don't know what quotes mean since you don't have a degree in English.  Google it


----------



## kaz

Theledgened said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not the definition of treason, but what lie do you imagine?
> 
> 
> 
> Treason is used by the common ppl many different ways.. are you to elite to understand us?
Click to expand...


He's a government school history teacher.  No joke.   

He actually doesn't know what consent of the governed means.

It's hysterical


----------



## Unkotare

Theledgened said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theledgened said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theledgened said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You attacked me for a sentence that would have been fixed with a comma.  ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving that it was more than a "typo." A comma won't solve your problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> State your degree in English.   You don't have one, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I actually have a masters degree in Linguistics, so I could help you with your errors in many languages. I have taught English, and History, and quite a few other subjects for over 26 years. And you are..............?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should be arrested for treason ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have lied to children ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not the definition of treason, but what lie do you imagine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Treason is used by the common ppl [sic] many different ways......
Click to expand...


Words have meanings, champ.


----------



## Siberian

Unkotare said:


> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> I actually have a masters degree in Linguistics, so I could help you with your errors in many languages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> many languages? ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
Click to expand...

for example?

let us check who will use Google translator better...


----------



## Unkotare

kaz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question, you ignorant coward.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean you  object to people not answering your questions?
> 
> Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unkotare didn't know what his own question was.    He doesn't know the difference between the American government and the American people.
> 
> He wanted me to answer his question without him even knowing what he asked me.  Pass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dat Boy is confused about a lot of things.  With only only having a Jr High School History text knowledge of the Civil War, written by the winners, he doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground about what he is talking about.
> 
> He needs to do the homework assignment that I gave him.  That way he won't look like a fool when he post his uneducated dribble.
> 
> I thought he said one time that he was a teacher.  If he was telling the truth then he should know the value of learning something about a topic before opening his mouth.  I gave him an assignment to read up on the topic but like all idiot Libtards he is doesn't want to learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Unkotare would just say he knows what consent of the governed means, he just doesn't believe in it, then we all could just all say we disagree on that, live and go on.
> 
> But he keeps arguing that government conquering half it's own country doesn't violate consent of the governed, which is just stupid.
> 
> He also keeps arguing that southerners were evil salvers (they were), but that somehow justifies him conquering them and forcing them to stay in his country, which is just bizarre
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In addition, he like so many duped Americans with only a government school understanding of the war, doesn’t know that the war was not a civil war. The South had no intentions of conquering or controlling the North. The definition of a civil war requires that both parties are fighting for control of the entire nation.
> 
> It was the War of Northern Aggression.
> 
> No one disputes that slavery was evil and needed terminating. However, the Lincoln Cult needs to accept what Dishonest Abe did was illegal and caused unbelievable harm to not only the South, but the entire nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln may have used extra-Constitutional measures to save the Union, but that hardly compares to the extra-Constitutional attempt of the south to destroy that Union. If anything, Lincoln's excesses were made necessary by the situation imposed upon the nation by those seeking to sabotage it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Isn't "extra-Constitutional" illegal?? This is an interesting article.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fourth and finally, Lincoln denied that the Constitution was silent with respect to secession. The immediate predecessor to the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, purported to establish a "perpetual Union." By seeking to create what the Preamble calls "a more perfect Union"--in an echo of the Articles' language--the Constitution, Lincoln said, simply strengthened the already indissoluble bonds between the States.
> 
> But the Constitution itself was established in blatant violation of the terms of the Articles--which required unanimous consent of the states for any amendment. Moreover, how do we know that the "perfection" of the Union required stronger rather than weaker bonds? To infer this point from the fact that, on the whole, the Constitution created a stronger national government than existed under the Articles is to acknowledge that the real work in this argument is not being done by the language of the Preamble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede? | FindLaw
> 
> 
> Read Legal Commentary: Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede? at FindLaw.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> supreme.findlaw.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, either a more perfect Perpetual Union was made, or the new document is invalid and the original Perpetual Union remained. It's a win-win for the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Government wins, yeah team!
> 
> I'm for the people though, and we lost
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The people in and of the United States of America won. The scumbag criminals who sought to destroy my Union  lost, as anyone with the least amount of sense knew they would.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Proving you lied when you said you didn't call the South evil (no quotes).  ......
Click to expand...


You may imagine a lie, but you sure as hell didn't quote one. Perhaps this is a product of your poor English skills.


----------



## Theledgened

kaz said:


> Theledgened said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not the definition of treason, but what lie do you imagine?
> 
> 
> 
> Treason is used by the common ppl many different ways.. are you to elite to understand us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's a government school history teacher.  No joke.
> 
> He actually doesn't know what consent of the governed means.
> 
> It's hysterical
Click to expand...

He’s a hack! Ha what is a government school I’m worried now


----------



## Theledgened

Unkotare said:


> Theledgened said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theledgened said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theledgened said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You attacked me for a sentence that would have been fixed with a comma.  ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving that it was more than a "typo." A comma won't solve your problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> State your degree in English.   You don't have one, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I actually have a masters degree in Linguistics, so I could help you with your errors in many languages. I have taught English, and History, and quite a few other subjects for over 26 years. And you are..............?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should be arrested for treason ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have lied to children ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not the definition of treason, but what lie do you imagine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Treason is used by the common ppl [sic] many different ways......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Words have meanings, champ.
Click to expand...

Do you know what slang is? Can you hang with us common folk?


----------



## Unkotare

kaz said:


> ...... you want [sic] on a spelling and grammar rampage on the internet!   .....



I "want on" a rampage? Wow, that sounds serious.


----------



## Unkotare

Theledgened said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theledgened said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theledgened said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theledgened said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You attacked me for a sentence that would have been fixed with a comma.  ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving that it was more than a "typo." A comma won't solve your problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> State your degree in English.   You don't have one, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I actually have a masters degree in Linguistics, so I could help you with your errors in many languages. I have taught English, and History, and quite a few other subjects for over 26 years. And you are..............?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should be arrested for treason ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have lied to children ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not the definition of treason, but what lie do you imagine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Treason is used by the common ppl [sic] many different ways......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Words have meanings, champ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know what slang is? .....
Click to expand...


Yes, I do. That is not what you were using.


----------



## Theledgened

Unkotare said:


> Theledgened said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theledgened said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theledgened said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theledgened said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You attacked me for a sentence that would have been fixed with a comma.  ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving that it was more than a "typo." A comma won't solve your problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> State your degree in English.   You don't have one, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I actually have a masters degree in Linguistics, so I could help you with your errors in many languages. I have taught English, and History, and quite a few other subjects for over 26 years. And you are..............?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should be arrested for treason ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have lied to children ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not the definition of treason, but what lie do you imagine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Treason is used by the common ppl [sic] many different ways......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Words have meanings, champ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know what slang is? .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I do. That is not what you were using.
Click to expand...

Ok blood .. can you give one piece of evidence that shows this war was started because of slavery?


----------



## Flash

kaz said:


> Theledgened said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not the definition of treason, but what lie do you imagine?
> 
> 
> 
> Treason is used by the common ppl many different ways.. are you to elite to understand us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's a government school history teacher.  No joke.
> 
> He actually doesn't know what consent of the governed means.
> 
> It's hysterical
Click to expand...



After reading his comments on this thread it is apparent he is the typical public school teacher that doesn't know jackshit about what he is teaching.  His students will never learn a damn thing.

He doesn't even have the intelligence to do the reading assignment that I gave him.


----------



## Flash

kaz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede? | FindLaw
> 
> 
> Read Legal Commentary: Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede? at FindLaw.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> supreme.findlaw.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, either a more perfect Perpetual Union was made, or the new document is invalid and the original Perpetual Union remained. It's a win-win for the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Government wins, yeah team!
> 
> I'm for the people though, and we lost
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederacy was the last great hope for Liberty for the world.  .......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure that's just what all the enslaved people thought.
> 
> Holy shit, you're stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet that wasn't the North's objective.   Their motto was "Save the Union."   A little historical info there for you to know.   And they could have told the South to release their slaves to come to the North and they were free to leave, but didn't.
> 
> You're just pissing in the wind hoping it turns into a lucid argument
Click to expand...



That asshole Lincoln was preaching "save the Union" to get the dumbass Yankee shitheads to kill Southerners.

Then he switched to "free the goddamn slaves" to get the filthy ass Negroes to kill the White Americans.


----------



## Theledgened

Flash said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theledgened said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not the definition of treason, but what lie do you imagine?
> 
> 
> 
> Treason is used by the common ppl many different ways.. are you to elite to understand us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's a government school history teacher.  No joke.
> 
> He actually doesn't know what consent of the governed means.
> 
> It's hysterical
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> After reading his comments on this thread it is apparent he is the typical public school teacher that doesn't know jackshit about he is teaching.  His student will never learn a damn thing.
> 
> He doesn't even have the intelligence to do the reading assignment that I gave him.
Click to expand...

He acts like this is a lecture, like there is a audience of young minds.. we are just a bunch of common folks having a conversation about events. He continues to revert to grammar not content which is why we are here.


----------



## Flash

Theledgened said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theledgened said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not the definition of treason, but what lie do you imagine?
> 
> 
> 
> Treason is used by the common ppl many different ways.. are you to elite to understand us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's a government school history teacher.  No joke.
> 
> He actually doesn't know what consent of the governed means.
> 
> It's hysterical
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> After reading his comments on this thread it is apparent he is the typical public school teacher that doesn't know jackshit about he is teaching.  His student will never learn a damn thing.
> 
> He doesn't even have the intelligence to do the reading assignment that I gave him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He acts like this is a lecture, like there is a audience of young minds.. we are just a bunch of common folks having a conversation about events. He continues to revert to grammar not content which is why we are here.
Click to expand...



A pubic school teacher in a Blue state.  LOL!  No wonder he is such a dumbshit that doesn't know what he is talking about.  I feel sorry for his students.  They will never learn anything close to the truth.  Of course his students probably don't care one way or another if they learn anything or not.

I bet he is a member of a filthy ass Teacher's Union.


----------



## Theledgened

Flash said:


> Theledgened said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theledgened said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not the definition of treason, but what lie do you imagine?
> 
> 
> 
> Treason is used by the common ppl many different ways.. are you to elite to understand us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's a government school history teacher.  No joke.
> 
> He actually doesn't know what consent of the governed means.
> 
> It's hysterical
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> After reading his comments on this thread it is apparent he is the typical public school teacher that doesn't know jackshit about he is teaching.  His student will never learn a damn thing.
> 
> He doesn't even have the intelligence to do the reading assignment that I gave him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He acts like this is a lecture, like there is a audience of young minds.. we are just a bunch of common folks having a conversation about events. He continues to revert to grammar not content which is why we are here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A pubic school teacher in a Blue state.  LOL!  No wonder he is such a dumbshit that doesn't know what he is talking about.  I feel sorry for his students.  They will never learn anything close to the truth.  Of course his students probably don't care one way or another if they learn anything or not.
> 
> I bet he is a member of a filthy ass Teacher's Union.
Click to expand...

He lectures them indoctrinates them. Then when you call him out he will correct you in the way you used the word “call” lol this is why bullying is so important


----------



## Unkotare

kaz said:


> ..... they could have told the South to release their slaves to come to the North and they were free to leave...




You haven't read the declarations from the so-called confederates that I have posted so many times.


----------



## bripat9643

gtopa1 said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question, you ignorant coward.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean you  object to people not answering your questions?
> 
> Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unkotare didn't know what his own question was.    He doesn't know the difference between the American government and the American people.
> 
> He wanted me to answer his question without him even knowing what he asked me.  Pass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dat Boy is confused about a lot of things.  With only only having a Jr High School History text knowledge of the Civil War, written by the winners, he doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground about what he is talking about.
> 
> He needs to do the homework assignment that I gave him.  That way he won't look like a fool when he post his uneducated dribble.
> 
> I thought he said one time that he was a teacher.  If he was telling the truth then he should know the value of learning something about a topic before opening his mouth.  I gave him an assignment to read up on the topic but like all idiot Libtards he is doesn't want to learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Unkotare would just say he knows what consent of the governed means, he just doesn't believe in it, then we all could just all say we disagree on that, live and go on.
> 
> But he keeps arguing that government conquering half it's own country doesn't violate consent of the governed, which is just stupid.
> 
> He also keeps arguing that southerners were evil salvers (they were), but that somehow justifies him conquering them and forcing them to stay in his country, which is just bizarre
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In addition, he like so many duped Americans with only a government school understanding of the war, doesn’t know that the war was not a civil war. The South had no intentions of conquering or controlling the North. The definition of a civil war requires that both parties are fighting for control of the entire nation.
> 
> It was the War of Northern Aggression.
> 
> No one disputes that slavery was evil and needed terminating. However, the Lincoln Cult needs to accept what Dishonest Abe did was illegal and caused unbelievable harm to not only the South, but the entire nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln may have used extra-Constitutional measures to save the Union, but that hardly compares to the extra-Constitutional attempt of the south to destroy that Union. If anything, Lincoln's excesses were made necessary by the situation imposed upon the nation by those seeking to sabotage it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Isn't "extra-Constitutional" illegal?? This is an interesting article.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fourth and finally, Lincoln denied that the Constitution was silent with respect to secession. The immediate predecessor to the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, purported to establish a "perpetual Union." By seeking to create what the Preamble calls "a more perfect Union"--in an echo of the Articles' language--the Constitution, Lincoln said, simply strengthened the already indissoluble bonds between the States.
> 
> But the Constitution itself was established in blatant violation of the terms of the Articles--which required unanimous consent of the states for any amendment. Moreover, how do we know that the "perfection" of the Union required stronger rather than weaker bonds? To infer this point from the fact that, on the whole, the Constitution created a stronger national government than existed under the Articles is to acknowledge that the real work in this argument is not being done by the language of the Preamble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede? | FindLaw
> 
> 
> Read Legal Commentary: Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede? at FindLaw.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> supreme.findlaw.com
Click to expand...

Yes.  Lincoln made himself a dictator.  He violated almost every Amendment in the BOR.


----------



## bripat9643

kaz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....  You're a useless government teacher who knows shit about history ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what exactly is your education, training, or experience in the field, stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now it's an argument from authority fallacy.
> 
> You need a degree to know that conquering States contradicts consent of the governed?  Seriously?
Click to expand...

Yes, but he doesn't believe it's a fallacy.    He doesn't believe the continents move because all the authorities said they didn't, but he does believe a Lincoln appointed hack on the SC who doesn't even have a law degree is an infallible authority on the Constitution.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....  You're a useless government teacher who knows shit about history ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what exactly is your education, training, or experience in the field, stupid?
Click to expand...

Do the continents move?


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Y
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s the thing you fail to comprehend. Lincoln did invade, conquer, and murder.
> 
> 
> 
> Your contempt for the United States aside, the President of the United States deployed United States troops within the United States when a special-interest faction rejected the United States Constitution and attempted to deprive Americans in several of the United States of their United States citizenship.
> 
> The United States won, the was United States preserved, and the citizens threatened with loss of United States citizenship protected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh brother. My contempt has nothing to do with the historical facts. You’re happy Lincoln started a war against the south, failing to understand the horrific consequences. Think bigger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln post dates the Perpetual Union and the sedition that trying to destroy it represents. It was the attempt of states to fracture the Union that  provoked violence. As a devout southerner, Andrew Jackson, declared, well before Lincoln, "The Union! It must be preserved!" The addiction to slavery led the south to commit a gross error and the country paid a huge price for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you’re not thinking. If a portion of the Union no longer wants to be in the Union, why kill them?
> 
> You are a statist authoritarian, but don’t know it.
> 
> Your philosophy and that of the Lincoln Cult can be condensed down to this: kill them to keep them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck you selfish, slavery-loving scumbags. You don't get to break up MY country just because you are afraid to live without the slave labor of other human beings. Get your lazy ass out there and pick your own fucking cotton. If you think it's a better idea to destroy the unity of MY country, you will be destroyed. You best learn humility, boy, or you will be taught again.
> 
> EVERY so-called 'confederate' state had organized, armed regiments of CITIZENS of those states actively fighting against the traitorous scumbag 'confederates.' EVERY one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Love you too even though you’re dumb as a box of rocks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to consider yourself quite intelligent. Upon what do you base this delusion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you. I am.
> 
> unfortunately, you aren’t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have just proven that you are not. Care to try again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I’m very intelligent, .........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is becoming very suspicious that you keep avoiding the question "Upon what do you base this delusion?"
Click to expand...

Here's a question you keep avoiding:  Do the continents move?


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....  You're a useless government teacher who knows shit about history ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what exactly is your education, training, or experience in the field, stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now it's an argument from authority fallacy.
> 
> You need a degree to know that conquering States contradicts consent of the governed?  Seriously?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, but he doesn't believe it's a fallacy.    He doesn't believe the continents move because all the authorities said they didn't, but he does believe a Lincoln appointed hack on the SC who doesn't even have a law degree is an infallible authority on the Constitution.
Click to expand...


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Y
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s the thing you fail to comprehend. Lincoln did invade, conquer, and murder.
> 
> 
> 
> Your contempt for the United States aside, the President of the United States deployed United States troops within the United States when a special-interest faction rejected the United States Constitution and attempted to deprive Americans in several of the United States of their United States citizenship.
> 
> The United States won, the was United States preserved, and the citizens threatened with loss of United States citizenship protected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh brother. My contempt has nothing to do with the historical facts. You’re happy Lincoln started a war against the south, failing to understand the horrific consequences. Think bigger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln post dates the Perpetual Union and the sedition that trying to destroy it represents. It was the attempt of states to fracture the Union that  provoked violence. As a devout southerner, Andrew Jackson, declared, well before Lincoln, "The Union! It must be preserved!" The addiction to slavery led the south to commit a gross error and the country paid a huge price for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you’re not thinking. If a portion of the Union no longer wants to be in the Union, why kill them?
> 
> You are a statist authoritarian, but don’t know it.
> 
> Your philosophy and that of the Lincoln Cult can be condensed down to this: kill them to keep them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck you selfish, slavery-loving scumbags. You don't get to break up MY country just because you are afraid to live without the slave labor of other human beings. Get your lazy ass out there and pick your own fucking cotton. If you think it's a better idea to destroy the unity of MY country, you will be destroyed. You best learn humility, boy, or you will be taught again.
> 
> EVERY so-called 'confederate' state had organized, armed regiments of CITIZENS of those states actively fighting against the traitorous scumbag 'confederates.' EVERY one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Love you too even though you’re dumb as a box of rocks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to consider yourself quite intelligent. Upon what do you base this delusion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you. I am.
> 
> unfortunately, you aren’t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have just proven that you are not. Care to try again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I’m very intelligent, .........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is becoming very suspicious that you keep avoiding the question "Upon what do you base this delusion?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here's a question you keep avoiding:  Do the continents move?
Click to expand...


----------



## Flash

bripat9643 said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question, you ignorant coward.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean you  object to people not answering your questions?
> 
> Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unkotare didn't know what his own question was.    He doesn't know the difference between the American government and the American people.
> 
> He wanted me to answer his question without him even knowing what he asked me.  Pass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dat Boy is confused about a lot of things.  With only only having a Jr High School History text knowledge of the Civil War, written by the winners, he doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground about what he is talking about.
> 
> He needs to do the homework assignment that I gave him.  That way he won't look like a fool when he post his uneducated dribble.
> 
> I thought he said one time that he was a teacher.  If he was telling the truth then he should know the value of learning something about a topic before opening his mouth.  I gave him an assignment to read up on the topic but like all idiot Libtards he is doesn't want to learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Unkotare would just say he knows what consent of the governed means, he just doesn't believe in it, then we all could just all say we disagree on that, live and go on.
> 
> But he keeps arguing that government conquering half it's own country doesn't violate consent of the governed, which is just stupid.
> 
> He also keeps arguing that southerners were evil salvers (they were), but that somehow justifies him conquering them and forcing them to stay in his country, which is just bizarre
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In addition, he like so many duped Americans with only a government school understanding of the war, doesn’t know that the war was not a civil war. The South had no intentions of conquering or controlling the North. The definition of a civil war requires that both parties are fighting for control of the entire nation.
> 
> It was the War of Northern Aggression.
> 
> No one disputes that slavery was evil and needed terminating. However, the Lincoln Cult needs to accept what Dishonest Abe did was illegal and caused unbelievable harm to not only the South, but the entire nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln may have used extra-Constitutional measures to save the Union, but that hardly compares to the extra-Constitutional attempt of the south to destroy that Union. If anything, Lincoln's excesses were made necessary by the situation imposed upon the nation by those seeking to sabotage it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Isn't "extra-Constitutional" illegal?? This is an interesting article.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fourth and finally, Lincoln denied that the Constitution was silent with respect to secession. The immediate predecessor to the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, purported to establish a "perpetual Union." By seeking to create what the Preamble calls "a more perfect Union"--in an echo of the Articles' language--the Constitution, Lincoln said, simply strengthened the already indissoluble bonds between the States.
> 
> But the Constitution itself was established in blatant violation of the terms of the Articles--which required unanimous consent of the states for any amendment. Moreover, how do we know that the "perfection" of the Union required stronger rather than weaker bonds? To infer this point from the fact that, on the whole, the Constitution created a stronger national government than existed under the Articles is to acknowledge that the real work in this argument is not being done by the language of the Preamble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede? | FindLaw
> 
> 
> Read Legal Commentary: Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede? at FindLaw.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> supreme.findlaw.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.  Lincoln made himself a dictator.  He violated almost every Amendment in the BOR.
Click to expand...



...and started a war over a political matter he was too stupid to manage and killed almost a million Americans.

...and the friggin idiots built a memorial to the biggest mass murderer in American history.


----------



## Unkotare

Theledgened said:


> ...
> He lectures them indoctrinates them. ...



Does he?


----------



## Unkotare

Flash said:


> ......and started a war....



The scumbag 'confederates' started the war. Each and every death of the war is their responsibility.


----------



## Unkotare

Flash said:


> ...A pubic school teacher in a Blue state. ....



Where do you teach?


----------



## Unkotare

Theledgened said:


> ....
> He acts like this is a lecture, like there is a audience of young minds.......




My students are much, much, much more intelligent than you idiots.


----------



## Theledgened

Unkotare said:


> Theledgened said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> He acts like this is a lecture, like there is a audience of young minds.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My students are much, much, much more intelligent than you idiots.
Click to expand...

Too bad your not


----------



## kaz

Theledgened said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theledgened said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not the definition of treason, but what lie do you imagine?
> 
> 
> 
> Treason is used by the common ppl many different ways.. are you to elite to understand us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's a government school history teacher.  No joke.
> 
> He actually doesn't know what consent of the governed means.
> 
> It's hysterical
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He’s a hack! Ha what is a government school I’m worried now
Click to expand...


Government school?   Schools run by the government.   I don't use the euphemism of "public" school.  I call them what they are.   Government educating (sic) your children.    Just like Christian schools emphasize love of Christianity and Jewish schools emphasize love of Judaism, government schools emphasize love of government.

Don't do it to your children


----------



## Unkotare

Theledgened said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theledgened said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> He acts like this is a lecture, like there is a audience of young minds.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My students are much, much, much more intelligent than you idiots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too bad your [sic] not
Click to expand...



"you're"


Are you _trying_ to make yourself look as stupid as bripat9643?


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...... you want [sic] on a spelling and grammar rampage on the internet!   .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I "want on" a rampage? Wow, that sounds serious.
Click to expand...


It was pretty stupid, going on a grammar rampage on the Internet


----------



## Theledgened

Unkotare said:


> Theledgened said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theledgened said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> He acts like this is a lecture, like there is a audience of young minds.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My students are much, much, much more intelligent than you idiots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too bad your [sic] not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "you're"
> 
> 
> Are you _trying_ to make yourself look as stupid as bripat9643?
Click to expand...

All you add is grammar corrections on a forum no content, congratulations your trained well lol


----------



## kaz

Theledgened said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theledgened said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theledgened said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theledgened said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You attacked me for a sentence that would have been fixed with a comma.  ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving that it was more than a "typo." A comma won't solve your problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> State your degree in English.   You don't have one, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I actually have a masters degree in Linguistics, so I could help you with your errors in many languages. I have taught English, and History, and quite a few other subjects for over 26 years. And you are..............?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should be arrested for treason ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have lied to children ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not the definition of treason, but what lie do you imagine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Treason is used by the common ppl [sic] many different ways......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Words have meanings, champ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know what slang is? Can you hang with us common folk?
Click to expand...


And yet I am more educated than he is.  More degrees and from better schools, LOL.   Ain't that a hoot?


----------



## Unkotare

kaz said:


> ....Government school?   Schools run by the government.  ...



What government?


----------



## Unkotare

Theledgened said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theledgened said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theledgened said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> He acts like this is a lecture, like there is a audience of young minds.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My students are much, much, much more intelligent than you idiots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too bad your [sic] not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "you're"
> 
> 
> Are you _trying_ to make yourself look as stupid as bripat9643?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All you add is grammar corrections on a forum no content, congratulations your [sic] trained well lol
Click to expand...


Wow.


----------



## Theledgened

Unkotare said:


> Theledgened said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theledgened said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theledgened said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> He acts like this is a lecture, like there is a audience of young minds.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My students are much, much, much more intelligent than you idiots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too bad your [sic] not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "you're"
> 
> 
> Are you _trying_ to make yourself look as stupid as bripat9643?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All you add is grammar corrections on a forum no content, congratulations your [sic] trained well lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow.
Click to expand...

Still no content on what you believe to be fact, not smart enough to provide facts? Lol


----------



## Unkotare

kaz said:


> ...And yet I am more educated than he is.  ......



Well, don't keep it a secret, genius.


----------



## Unkotare

Theledgened said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theledgened said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theledgened said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theledgened said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> He acts like this is a lecture, like there is a audience of young minds.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My students are much, much, much more intelligent than you idiots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too bad your [sic] not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "you're"
> 
> 
> Are you _trying_ to make yourself look as stupid as bripat9643?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All you add is grammar corrections on a forum no content, congratulations your [sic] trained well lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still no content on what you believe to be fact, not smart enough to provide facts? Lol
Click to expand...


Have you read the whole thread yet?


----------



## Unkotare

kaz said:


> .... Just like Christian schools emphasize love of Christianity .....




Not so much.


----------



## kaz

Theledgened said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I do. That is not what you were using.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok blood .. can you give one piece of evidence that shows this war was started because of slavery?
Click to expand...


Sure, the North fought the war to end slavery.   Which is why their motto was "Save the Union."  Oh wait.

Well Lincoln did say it was over slavery:  He said if he could save the Union and free all the slaves, he would do it.  If he could save the Union and free none of the slaves, he would do that.   Oh, wait again.

Well, the South just wanted to own slaves, that was an end to them.   Just sitting there owning slaves.   Oh wait, no, it was economics ...

LOL, Unkatore doesn't know what an end goal is just like he doesn't know what consent of the governed means.

That's why he teaches in Government schools, doesn't need to know that stuff


----------



## Theledgened

Unkotare said:


> Theledgened said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theledgened said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theledgened said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theledgened said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> He acts like this is a lecture, like there is a audience of young minds.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My students are much, much, much more intelligent than you idiots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too bad your [sic] not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "you're"
> 
> 
> Are you _trying_ to make yourself look as stupid as bripat9643?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All you add is grammar corrections on a forum no content, congratulations your [sic] trained well lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still no content on what you believe to be fact, not smart enough to provide facts? Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you read the whole thread yet?
Click to expand...

Yup nothing


----------



## Flash

Unkotare said:


> Theledgened said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theledgened said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theledgened said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theledgened said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> He acts like this is a lecture, like there is a audience of young minds.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My students are much, much, much more intelligent than you idiots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too bad your [sic] not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "you're"
> 
> 
> Are you _trying_ to make yourself look as stupid as bripat9643?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All you add is grammar corrections on a forum no content, congratulations your [sic] trained well lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still no content on what you believe to be fact, not smart enough to provide facts? Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you read the whole thread yet?
Click to expand...



Have you completed that homework assignment that I gave you yet?

You must not have because you are still spouting shit out your ass.


----------



## Unkotare

kaz said:


> ...Sure, the North fought the war to end slavery.  ....



More accurate to say the scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war to preserve slavery.


----------



## Unkotare

Theledgened said:


> ....
> Yup nothing



Then your reading skills must be on par with those of kaz.


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..... they could have told the South to release their slaves to come to the North and they were free to leave...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't read the declarations from the so-called confederates that I have posted so many times.
Click to expand...


My comment was about the north, not the south mediocrity


----------



## Theledgened

Unkotare said:


> Theledgened said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> Yup nothing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then your reading skills must be on par with those of kaz.
Click to expand...

Again nothing, what if your students ask you an objective question do you make fun of their skin color?


----------



## hjmick

forkup said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> The end of slavery was one of the eventual outcomes of the war. Odd that every other country that had slaves was able to ban slavery without killing a million of its own citizens...UK and France for example.
> 
> No you silly person; the Civil War was about $....as usual.
> 
> Make no mistake; that slavery was ended was a good thing and overdue. You must also be aware that the North DESTROYED the South's ECONOMY. No money for reparations.
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uhm, that's a non-answer if I've ever heard one not to mention I recognise at least 2 logical fallacies.
> 
> Wether or not other countries were capable of abolishing slavery has absolutely no bearing on whether or not the US was. That's a red herring.
> 
> The same goes for your "it was about money"
> 
> The fact of the matter was that their was 1 and only 1 reason for the civil war and that was slavery. Specifically the issue of slavery being allowed to expand into new territories. An issue that caused the South to secede when Lincoln was elected.
Click to expand...


Actually...

It was the economics of slavery and political control of that system that was central to the conflict. Another key issue was states' rights. The Southern states wanted to assert their authority over the federal government so they could abolish federal laws they didn't support, especially laws interfering with the South's right to keep slaves and take them wherever they wished. Another factor was territorial expansion. The South wished to take slavery into the western territories, while the North was committed to keeping them open to white labor alone.

The newly formed Republican party, strongly opposed to the westward expansion of slavery into new states, was gaining prominence. The election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 was the icing on the cake. His victory, without a single Southern electoral vote, was a clear signal to the Southern states that they had lost all influence.

Feeling left out of the political system, they did to the only thing they believed was they could: seceded, a decision that led directly to war.

Lincoln's primary concern was to save the Union. From a letter written to Horace Greeley, editor of the New York _Tribune:

 ...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 to 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 the Union..._





__





						Abraham Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley
					





					www.abrahamlincolnonline.org


----------



## Theledgened

hjmick said:


> It was the economics of slavery


Slave owners were paying slaves before the war started


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> .... Just like Christian schools emphasize love of Christianity .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not so much.
Click to expand...


Christian schools are great at education.    I went to them and so did my kids.  But if you don't think Christianity is #1 to a Christian then we've found yet another topic you know nothing about.

There's no crime in being ignorant, but there is a crime in not knowing you are ignorant


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...And yet I am more educated than he is.  ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, don't keep it a secret, genius.
Click to expand...


This has nothing to do with us personally.   You know very well that it's dangerous with the Democrats going into serious fascism to provide any specific information on the internet


----------



## Unkotare

Theledgened said:


> ... do you make fun of their skin color?



Why would I do that? You seem to be getting as desperate as your boyfriends here.


----------



## Flash

Unkotare said:


> Theledgened said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> Yup nothing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then your reading skills must be on par with those of kaz.
Click to expand...



You are a school teacher, right?

If you have a student that is ignorant on a subject you try to help them, don't you?  You tell them where they can do a little research to help them understand the subject.

I gave you a reading assignment so that you will be a little better informed and you won't be inclined to spout your mindless Jr high School dribble on the Civil War.

How about pulling your head out of your ass and actually learn something?

Go read the book and then come back and report to me and tell me what you learned.

Think you can do that or are you going to continue to be an ignorant dumbass?

Knowledge is your friend.


----------



## Unkotare

kaz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> .... Just like Christian schools emphasize love of Christianity .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christian schools are great at education.    I went to them and so did my kids.  But if you don't think Christianity is #1 to a Christian then we've found yet another topic you know nothing about.
> ......
Click to expand...


I've taught at Christian schools. Have you?


----------



## hjmick

Theledgened said:


> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was the economics of slavery
> 
> 
> 
> Slave owners were paying slaves before the war started
Click to expand...



I'd like to see a link to this factoid.

Either way, they were still slaves.

In the mean time, by "economics of slavery" they don't mean paying them.


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Sure, the North fought the war to end slavery.  ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More accurate to say the scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war to preserve slavery.
Click to expand...


So the North and South agreed that the war was over the South leaving since they both agreed the South wanted to leave and you just admitted the goal of the North was to stop them.

Why the south wanted to leave was an ancillary cause of the war.  And even then, the goal of the south was not to sit there and own slaves, it was economics


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> .... Just like Christian schools emphasize love of Christianity .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christian schools are great at education.    I went to them and so did my kids.  But if you don't think Christianity is #1 to a Christian then we've found yet another topic you know nothing about.
> ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've taught at Christian schools. Have you?
Click to expand...


You went to government schools because you were fired from competent schools.  That computes, I totally believe you.

Were you fired because you didn't know what consent of the governed means?


----------



## Theledgened

Unkotare said:


> Theledgened said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... do you make fun of their skin color?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I do that? You seem to be getting as desperate as your boyfriends here.
Click to expand...

Now you make fun of our sexuality? What’s next skin color?


----------



## Unkotare

kaz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...And yet I am more educated than he is.  ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, don't keep it a secret, genius.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This has nothing to do with us personally.   You know very well that it's dangerous with the Democrats going into serious fascism to provide any specific information on the internet
Click to expand...


In other words, you're full of shit.


----------



## Unkotare

kaz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> .... Just like Christian schools emphasize love of Christianity .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christian schools are great at education.    I went to them and so did my kids.  But if you don't think Christianity is #1 to a Christian then we've found yet another topic you know nothing about.
> ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've taught at Christian schools. Have you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You went to government schools because you were fired .....
Click to expand...


Wrong again. You haven't answered my question.


----------



## Theledgened

hjmick said:


> Theledgened said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was the economics of slavery
> 
> 
> 
> Slave owners were paying slaves before the war started
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like to see a link to this factoid.
> 
> Either way, they were still slaves.
> 
> In the mean time, by "economics of slavery" they don't mean paying them.
Click to expand...

Yes slavery was coming to a end, the south wanted reparations, they wanted a plan for the slaves, unlike the north that banned  African Americans from entering their states like Illinois. The south provided wages, options for reparations, they provide the option to work live get healthcare. Many were with families for generations and wanted to stay, 25% returned, while the union troops killed many slaves


----------



## Unkotare

Theledgened said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theledgened said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... do you make fun of their skin color?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I do that? You seem to be getting as desperate as your boyfriends here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you make fun of our sexuality? ...
Click to expand...


Not judging.


----------



## Theledgened

Unkotare said:


> Theledgened said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theledgened said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... do you make fun of their skin color?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I do that? You seem to be getting as desperate as your boyfriends here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you make fun of our sexuality? ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not judging.
Click to expand...

So why would you bring up our sexuality? Attacking us? Because you can’t figure out a way to win an argument using facts?


----------



## Unkotare

kaz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Sure, the North fought the war to end slavery.  ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More accurate to say the scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war to preserve slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the North and South agreed that the war was over the South leaving ......
Click to expand...


No, they did not agree on that. Read a fucking book once in a while, stupid.


----------



## there4eyeM

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Y
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s the thing you fail to comprehend. Lincoln did invade, conquer, and murder.
> 
> 
> 
> Your contempt for the United States aside, the President of the United States deployed United States troops within the United States when a special-interest faction rejected the United States Constitution and attempted to deprive Americans in several of the United States of their United States citizenship.
> 
> The United States won, the was United States preserved, and the citizens threatened with loss of United States citizenship protected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh brother. My contempt has nothing to do with the historical facts. You’re happy Lincoln started a war against the south, failing to understand the horrific consequences. Think bigger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln post dates the Perpetual Union and the sedition that trying to destroy it represents. It was the attempt of states to fracture the Union that  provoked violence. As a devout southerner, Andrew Jackson, declared, well before Lincoln, "The Union! It must be preserved!" The addiction to slavery led the south to commit a gross error and the country paid a huge price for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you’re not thinking. If a portion of the Union no longer wants to be in the Union, why kill them?
> 
> You are a statist authoritarian, but don’t know it.
> 
> Your philosophy and that of the Lincoln Cult can be condensed down to this: kill them to keep them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck you selfish, slavery-loving scumbags. You don't get to break up MY country just because you are afraid to live without the slave labor of other human beings. Get your lazy ass out there and pick your own fucking cotton. If you think it's a better idea to destroy the unity of MY country, you will be destroyed. You best learn humility, boy, or you will be taught again.
> 
> EVERY so-called 'confederate' state had organized, armed regiments of CITIZENS of those states actively fighting against the traitorous scumbag 'confederates.' EVERY one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Love you too even though you’re dumb as a box of rocks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to consider yourself quite intelligent. Upon what do you base this delusion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you. I am.
> 
> unfortunately, you aren’t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have just proven that you are not. Care to try again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I’m very intelligent, .........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is becoming very suspicious that you keep avoiding the question "Upon what do you base this delusion?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here's a question you keep avoiding:  Do the continents move?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

What is he going on about?


----------



## there4eyeM

There would never have been a Civil War if the south had not had slavery.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> ......and started a war....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The scumbag 'confederates' started the war. Each and every death of the war is their responsibility.
Click to expand...

Who invaded Virginia?


----------



## bripat9643

there4eyeM said:


> There would never have been a Civil War if the south had not had slavery.


And if pigs had wings they could fly.  Every country in the world had slaver when the USA was born.  Why do you imagine we could have avoided it somehow?


----------



## Flash

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> ......and started a war....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The scumbag 'confederates' started the war. Each and every death of the war is their responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who invaded Virginia?
Click to expand...



If he would read the book I assigned to him he would know the answer to that question.


----------



## there4eyeM

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> ......and started a war....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The scumbag 'confederates' started the war. Each and every death of the war is their responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who invaded Virginia?
Click to expand...

The English.


----------



## bripat9643

kaz said:


> Theledgened said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theledgened said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not the definition of treason, but what lie do you imagine?
> 
> 
> 
> Treason is used by the common ppl many different ways.. are you to elite to understand us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's a government school history teacher.  No joke.
> 
> He actually doesn't know what consent of the governed means.
> 
> It's hysterical
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He’s a hack! Ha what is a government school I’m worried now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Government school?   Schools run by the government.   I don't use the euphemism of "public" school.  I call them what they are.   Government educating (sic) your children.    Just like Christian schools emphasize love of Christianity and Jewish schools emphasize love of Judaism, government schools emphasize love of government.
> 
> Don't do it to your children
Click to expand...


----------



## bripat9643

there4eyeM said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> ......and started a war....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The scumbag 'confederates' started the war. Each and every death of the war is their responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who invaded Virginia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The English.
Click to expand...

Lincoln did


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Sure, the North fought the war to end slavery.  ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More accurate to say the scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war to preserve slavery.
Click to expand...

Only they didn't start the war, numskull.  You yankee carpet bagger are all like wife beaters.  You always claim your wife made you beat her.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> .... Just like Christian schools emphasize love of Christianity .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christian schools are great at education.    I went to them and so did my kids.  But if you don't think Christianity is #1 to a Christian then we've found yet another topic you know nothing about.
> ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've taught at Christian schools. Have you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You went to government schools because you were fired .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again. You haven't answered my question.
Click to expand...

Here's a question you haven't answered:

Do the continents move?


----------



## gipper

Unkotare said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> ......and started a war....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The scumbag 'confederates' started the war. Each and every death of the war is their responsibility.
Click to expand...

I don’t think you know how wars are started. Throughout all of human history wars are started when one combatant invades the territory of another party. The south didn’t invade. Lincoln did.

I’m trying to dumb it down as best I can. Do you get it NOW?


----------



## Unkotare

there4eyeM said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Y
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s the thing you fail to comprehend. Lincoln did invade, conquer, and murder.
> 
> 
> 
> Your contempt for the United States aside, the President of the United States deployed United States troops within the United States when a special-interest faction rejected the United States Constitution and attempted to deprive Americans in several of the United States of their United States citizenship.
> 
> The United States won, the was United States preserved, and the citizens threatened with loss of United States citizenship protected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh brother. My contempt has nothing to do with the historical facts. You’re happy Lincoln started a war against the south, failing to understand the horrific consequences. Think bigger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln post dates the Perpetual Union and the sedition that trying to destroy it represents. It was the attempt of states to fracture the Union that  provoked violence. As a devout southerner, Andrew Jackson, declared, well before Lincoln, "The Union! It must be preserved!" The addiction to slavery led the south to commit a gross error and the country paid a huge price for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you’re not thinking. If a portion of the Union no longer wants to be in the Union, why kill them?
> 
> You are a statist authoritarian, but don’t know it.
> 
> Your philosophy and that of the Lincoln Cult can be condensed down to this: kill them to keep them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck you selfish, slavery-loving scumbags. You don't get to break up MY country just because you are afraid to live without the slave labor of other human beings. Get your lazy ass out there and pick your own fucking cotton. If you think it's a better idea to destroy the unity of MY country, you will be destroyed. You best learn humility, boy, or you will be taught again.
> 
> EVERY so-called 'confederate' state had organized, armed regiments of CITIZENS of those states actively fighting against the traitorous scumbag 'confederates.' EVERY one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Love you too even though you’re dumb as a box of rocks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to consider yourself quite intelligent. Upon what do you base this delusion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you. I am.
> 
> unfortunately, you aren’t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have just proven that you are not. Care to try again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I’m very intelligent, .........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is becoming very suspicious that you keep avoiding the question "Upon what do you base this delusion?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here's a question you keep avoiding:  Do the continents move?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is he going on about?
Click to expand...


Who cares? He's a brainless buffoon grasping at straws.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> ......and started a war....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The scumbag 'confederates' started the war. Each and every death of the war is their responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who invaded Virginia?
Click to expand...


The British, in 1814.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> ...Every country in the world had slaver when the USA was born. .....



Learn English or get out of my country.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Sure, the North fought the war to end slavery.  ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More accurate to say the scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war to preserve slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only they didn't start the war.....
Click to expand...


The war began when the 'confederate' criminals fired on Ft. Sumter, stupid.


----------



## Unkotare

gipper said:


> ...
> I don’t think you know how wars are started....



I think I do.


----------



## Unkotare

gipper said:


> ...The south didn’t invade. Lincoln did.
> ....



You can't 'invade' your own country, stupid.


----------



## Bezukhov

Flash said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question, you ignorant coward.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean you  object to people not answering your questions?
> 
> Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unkotare didn't know what his own question was.    He doesn't know the difference between the American government and the American people.
> 
> He wanted me to answer his question without him even knowing what he asked me.  Pass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dat Boy is confused about a lot of things.  With only only having a Jr High School History text knowledge of the Civil War, written by the winners, he doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground about what he is talking about.
> 
> He needs to do the homework assignment that I gave him.  That way he won't look like a fool when he post his uneducated dribble.
> 
> I thought he said one time that he was a teacher.  If he was telling the truth then he should know the value of learning something about a topic before opening his mouth.  I gave him an assignment to read up on the topic but like all idiot Libtards he is doesn't want to learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Unkotare would just say he knows what consent of the governed means, he just doesn't believe in it, then we all could just all say we disagree on that, live and go on.
> 
> But he keeps arguing that government conquering half it's own country doesn't violate consent of the governed, which is just stupid.
> 
> He also keeps arguing that southerners were evil salvers (they were), but that somehow justifies him conquering them and forcing them to stay in his country, which is just bizarre
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In addition, he like so many duped Americans with only a government school understanding of the war, doesn’t know that the war was not a civil war. The South had no intentions of conquering or controlling the North. The definition of a civil war requires that both parties are fighting for control of the entire nation.
> 
> It was the War of Northern Aggression.
> 
> No one disputes that slavery was evil and needed terminating. However, the Lincoln Cult needs to accept what Dishonest Abe did was illegal and caused unbelievable harm to not only the South, but the entire nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln may have used extra-Constitutional measures to save the Union, but that hardly compares to the extra-Constitutional attempt of the south to destroy that Union. If anything, Lincoln's excesses were made necessary by the situation imposed upon the nation by those seeking to sabotage it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Isn't "extra-Constitutional" illegal?? This is an interesting article.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fourth and finally, Lincoln denied that the Constitution was silent with respect to secession. The immediate predecessor to the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, purported to establish a "perpetual Union." By seeking to create what the Preamble calls "a more perfect Union"--in an echo of the Articles' language--the Constitution, Lincoln said, simply strengthened the already indissoluble bonds between the States.
> 
> But the Constitution itself was established in blatant violation of the terms of the Articles--which required unanimous consent of the states for any amendment. Moreover, how do we know that the "perfection" of the Union required stronger rather than weaker bonds? To infer this point from the fact that, on the whole, the Constitution created a stronger national government than existed under the Articles is to acknowledge that the real work in this argument is not being done by the language of the Preamble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede? | FindLaw
> 
> 
> Read Legal Commentary: Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede? at FindLaw.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> supreme.findlaw.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, either a more perfect Perpetual Union was made, or the new document is invalid and the original Perpetual Union remained. It's a win-win for the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Government wins, yeah team!
> 
> I'm for the people though, and we lost
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederacy was the last great hope for Liberty for the world.  When the bad guys won the world lost.
Click to expand...


Yeah, Liberty 

*July 29, 1835: Abolitionist Literature Removed from Post Office and Burned*








						July 29, 1835: Abolitionist Literature Removed from Post Office and Burned - Zinn Education Project
					

Late night raid on the Charleston post office by a mob of white supremacists and the burning of abolitionist mail.




					www.zinnedproject.org


----------



## Pogo

bripat9643 said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> There would never have been a Civil War if the south had not had slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> And if pigs had wings they could fly.  Every country in the world had slaver [sic] when the USA was born.  Why do you imagine we could have avoided it somehow?
Click to expand...


Wrong, Fingerfuck.  I'll give you an example real close --- the Vermont Republic, which never had slavery.


----------



## Flash

kaz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> .... Just like Christian schools emphasize love of Christianity .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christian schools are great at education.    I went to them and so did my kids.  But if you don't think Christianity is #1 to a Christian then we've found yet another topic you know nothing about.
> ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've taught at Christian schools. Have you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You went to government schools because you were fired from competent schools.  That computes, I totally believe you.
> 
> Were you fired because you didn't know what consent of the governed means?
Click to expand...



Nothing more than sorry than a public school teacher nowadays.

Teaching use to be an honorable profession.   Nowadays it is a haven for the losers of society.  Greedy Union pukes that don't give a damn about anything.

I sent my sons to private schools.  They got a real education.  They actually had to learn something.  Not passed just to meet some politically correct demographic goal.


----------



## Flash

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Sure, the North fought the war to end slavery.  ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More accurate to say the scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war to preserve slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only they didn't start the war, numskull.  You yankee carpet bagger are all like wife beaters.  You always claim your wife made you beat her.
Click to expand...



*An uneducated idiot saying the South started the war after Lincoln broke the truce at Ft Sumter and then sent an army across the Potomac to kill Southerners was the 1861 equivalent of "mababydindunutin".*


----------



## Unkotare

gipper said:


> ...My advice to you is read history from multiple sources. If you have difficulty reading, you should enroll in remedial reading courses. While there, you might as well get your GED.



In addition to teaching history, I also teach reading skills. You keep claiming to be intelligent, but I've seen no evidence of it. You haven't provided any clue as to your training, education, or experience. In other words, you're just an empty blowhard.


----------



## Unkotare

Flash said:


> ...Nothing more than sorry than [sic] a public school teacher nowadays.
> 
> Teaching use [sic] to be an honorable profession.   Nowadays it is a haven for the losers of society.  Greedy Union pukes that don't give a damn about anything.
> 
> I sent my sons to private schools.  They got a real education.  .....



You never bothered to get one for yourself?


----------



## Blackrook

initforme said:


> Slave owners were people of illl repute.  Too lazy to do the work themselves and too cheap to actually pay for labor.   To believe another human could actually be property is unfathomable.  To use lashing and whipping to control a group of people was inhumane and repugnant.


What do you think about abortion?


----------



## Bezukhov

Flash said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question, you ignorant coward.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean you  object to people not answering your questions?
> 
> Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unkotare didn't know what his own question was.    He doesn't know the difference between the American government and the American people.
> 
> He wanted me to answer his question without him even knowing what he asked me.  Pass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dat Boy is confused about a lot of things.  With only only having a Jr High School History text knowledge of the Civil War, written by the winners, he doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground about what he is talking about.
> 
> He needs to do the homework assignment that I gave him.  That way he won't look like a fool when he post his uneducated dribble.
> 
> I thought he said one time that he was a teacher.  If he was telling the truth then he should know the value of learning something about a topic before opening his mouth.  I gave him an assignment to read up on the topic but like all idiot Libtards he is doesn't want to learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Unkotare would just say he knows what consent of the governed means, he just doesn't believe in it, then we all could just all say we disagree on that, live and go on.
> 
> But he keeps arguing that government conquering half it's own country doesn't violate consent of the governed, which is just stupid.
> 
> He also keeps arguing that southerners were evil salvers (they were), but that somehow justifies him conquering them and forcing them to stay in his country, which is just bizarre
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In addition, he like so many duped Americans with only a government school understanding of the war, doesn’t know that the war was not a civil war. The South had no intentions of conquering or controlling the North. The definition of a civil war requires that both parties are fighting for control of the entire nation.
> 
> It was the War of Northern Aggression.
> 
> No one disputes that slavery was evil and needed terminating. However, the Lincoln Cult needs to accept what Dishonest Abe did was illegal and caused unbelievable harm to not only the South, but the entire nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln may have used extra-Constitutional measures to save the Union, but that hardly compares to the extra-Constitutional attempt of the south to destroy that Union. If anything, Lincoln's excesses were made necessary by the situation imposed upon the nation by those seeking to sabotage it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Isn't "extra-Constitutional" illegal?? This is an interesting article.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fourth and finally, Lincoln denied that the Constitution was silent with respect to secession. The immediate predecessor to the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, purported to establish a "perpetual Union." By seeking to create what the Preamble calls "a more perfect Union"--in an echo of the Articles' language--the Constitution, Lincoln said, simply strengthened the already indissoluble bonds between the States.
> 
> But the Constitution itself was established in blatant violation of the terms of the Articles--which required unanimous consent of the states for any amendment. Moreover, how do we know that the "perfection" of the Union required stronger rather than weaker bonds? To infer this point from the fact that, on the whole, the Constitution created a stronger national government than existed under the Articles is to acknowledge that the real work in this argument is not being done by the language of the Preamble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede? | FindLaw
> 
> 
> Read Legal Commentary: Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede? at FindLaw.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> supreme.findlaw.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, either a more perfect Perpetual Union was made, or the new document is invalid and the original Perpetual Union remained. It's a win-win for the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Government wins, yeah team!
> 
> I'm for the people though, and we lost
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederacy was the last great hope for Liberty for the world.  When the bad guys won the world lost.
Click to expand...




Theledgened said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theledgened said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theledgened said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theledgened said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theledgened said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You attacked me for a sentence that would have been fixed with a comma.  ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving that it was more than a "typo." A comma won't solve your problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> State your degree in English.   You don't have one, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I actually have a masters degree in Linguistics, so I could help you with your errors in many languages. I have taught English, and History, and quite a few other subjects for over 26 years. And you are..............?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should be arrested for treason ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have lied to children ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not the definition of treason, but what lie do you imagine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Treason is used by the common ppl [sic] many different ways......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Words have meanings, champ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know what slang is? .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I do. That is not what you were using.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok blood .. can you give one piece of evidence that shows this war was started because of slavery?
Click to expand...




unleashed said:


> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Watch this.  Let's see what you have to say about the "holocaust" then.
> 
> The Leutcher findings - 100FREE Best Video Sharing
Click to expand...

You believe that? Wanna buy a bridge?


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> ......and started a war....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The scumbag 'confederates' started the war. Each and every death of the war is their responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who invaded Virginia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The British, in 1814.
Click to expand...

Lincoln in 1861, moron.  Are you denying that?


----------



## bripat9643

Pogo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> There would never have been a Civil War if the south had not had slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> And if pigs had wings they could fly.  Every country in the world had slaver [sic] when the USA was born.  Why do you imagine we could have avoided it somehow?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong, Fingerfuck.  I'll give you an example real close --- the Vermont Republic, which never had slavery.
Click to expand...

It joined the USA which did have slavery, douchebag.


----------



## bripat9643

Bezukhov said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question, you ignorant coward.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean you  object to people not answering your questions?
> 
> Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unkotare didn't know what his own question was.    He doesn't know the difference between the American government and the American people.
> 
> He wanted me to answer his question without him even knowing what he asked me.  Pass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dat Boy is confused about a lot of things.  With only only having a Jr High School History text knowledge of the Civil War, written by the winners, he doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground about what he is talking about.
> 
> He needs to do the homework assignment that I gave him.  That way he won't look like a fool when he post his uneducated dribble.
> 
> I thought he said one time that he was a teacher.  If he was telling the truth then he should know the value of learning something about a topic before opening his mouth.  I gave him an assignment to read up on the topic but like all idiot Libtards he is doesn't want to learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Unkotare would just say he knows what consent of the governed means, he just doesn't believe in it, then we all could just all say we disagree on that, live and go on.
> 
> But he keeps arguing that government conquering half it's own country doesn't violate consent of the governed, which is just stupid.
> 
> He also keeps arguing that southerners were evil salvers (they were), but that somehow justifies him conquering them and forcing them to stay in his country, which is just bizarre
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In addition, he like so many duped Americans with only a government school understanding of the war, doesn’t know that the war was not a civil war. The South had no intentions of conquering or controlling the North. The definition of a civil war requires that both parties are fighting for control of the entire nation.
> 
> It was the War of Northern Aggression.
> 
> No one disputes that slavery was evil and needed terminating. However, the Lincoln Cult needs to accept what Dishonest Abe did was illegal and caused unbelievable harm to not only the South, but the entire nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln may have used extra-Constitutional measures to save the Union, but that hardly compares to the extra-Constitutional attempt of the south to destroy that Union. If anything, Lincoln's excesses were made necessary by the situation imposed upon the nation by those seeking to sabotage it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Isn't "extra-Constitutional" illegal?? This is an interesting article.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fourth and finally, Lincoln denied that the Constitution was silent with respect to secession. The immediate predecessor to the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, purported to establish a "perpetual Union." By seeking to create what the Preamble calls "a more perfect Union"--in an echo of the Articles' language--the Constitution, Lincoln said, simply strengthened the already indissoluble bonds between the States.
> 
> But the Constitution itself was established in blatant violation of the terms of the Articles--which required unanimous consent of the states for any amendment. Moreover, how do we know that the "perfection" of the Union required stronger rather than weaker bonds? To infer this point from the fact that, on the whole, the Constitution created a stronger national government than existed under the Articles is to acknowledge that the real work in this argument is not being done by the language of the Preamble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede? | FindLaw
> 
> 
> Read Legal Commentary: Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede? at FindLaw.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> supreme.findlaw.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, either a more perfect Perpetual Union was made, or the new document is invalid and the original Perpetual Union remained. It's a win-win for the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Government wins, yeah team!
> 
> I'm for the people though, and we lost
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederacy was the last great hope for Liberty for the world.  When the bad guys won the world lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, Liberty
> 
> *July 29, 1835: Abolitionist Literature Removed from Post Office and Burned*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> July 29, 1835: Abolitionist Literature Removed from Post Office and Burned - Zinn Education Project
> 
> 
> Late night raid on the Charleston post office by a mob of white supremacists and the burning of abolitionist mail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.zinnedproject.org
Click to expand...

That was 185 years ago, moron.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Sure, the North fought the war to end slavery.  ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More accurate to say the scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war to preserve slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only they didn't start the war.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The war began when the 'confederate' criminals fired on Ft. Sumter, stupid.
Click to expand...

Nope.


----------



## Bezukhov

bripat9643 said:


> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question, you ignorant coward.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean you  object to people not answering your questions?
> 
> Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unkotare didn't know what his own question was.    He doesn't know the difference between the American government and the American people.
> 
> He wanted me to answer his question without him even knowing what he asked me.  Pass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dat Boy is confused about a lot of things.  With only only having a Jr High School History text knowledge of the Civil War, written by the winners, he doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground about what he is talking about.
> 
> He needs to do the homework assignment that I gave him.  That way he won't look like a fool when he post his uneducated dribble.
> 
> I thought he said one time that he was a teacher.  If he was telling the truth then he should know the value of learning something about a topic before opening his mouth.  I gave him an assignment to read up on the topic but like all idiot Libtards he is doesn't want to learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Unkotare would just say he knows what consent of the governed means, he just doesn't believe in it, then we all could just all say we disagree on that, live and go on.
> 
> But he keeps arguing that government conquering half it's own country doesn't violate consent of the governed, which is just stupid.
> 
> He also keeps arguing that southerners were evil salvers (they were), but that somehow justifies him conquering them and forcing them to stay in his country, which is just bizarre
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In addition, he like so many duped Americans with only a government school understanding of the war, doesn’t know that the war was not a civil war. The South had no intentions of conquering or controlling the North. The definition of a civil war requires that both parties are fighting for control of the entire nation.
> 
> It was the War of Northern Aggression.
> 
> No one disputes that slavery was evil and needed terminating. However, the Lincoln Cult needs to accept what Dishonest Abe did was illegal and caused unbelievable harm to not only the South, but the entire nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln may have used extra-Constitutional measures to save the Union, but that hardly compares to the extra-Constitutional attempt of the south to destroy that Union. If anything, Lincoln's excesses were made necessary by the situation imposed upon the nation by those seeking to sabotage it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Isn't "extra-Constitutional" illegal?? This is an interesting article.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fourth and finally, Lincoln denied that the Constitution was silent with respect to secession. The immediate predecessor to the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, purported to establish a "perpetual Union." By seeking to create what the Preamble calls "a more perfect Union"--in an echo of the Articles' language--the Constitution, Lincoln said, simply strengthened the already indissoluble bonds between the States.
> 
> But the Constitution itself was established in blatant violation of the terms of the Articles--which required unanimous consent of the states for any amendment. Moreover, how do we know that the "perfection" of the Union required stronger rather than weaker bonds? To infer this point from the fact that, on the whole, the Constitution created a stronger national government than existed under the Articles is to acknowledge that the real work in this argument is not being done by the language of the Preamble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede? | FindLaw
> 
> 
> Read Legal Commentary: Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede? at FindLaw.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> supreme.findlaw.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, either a more perfect Perpetual Union was made, or the new document is invalid and the original Perpetual Union remained. It's a win-win for the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Government wins, yeah team!
> 
> I'm for the people though, and we lost
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederacy was the last great hope for Liberty for the world.  When the bad guys won the world lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, Liberty
> 
> *July 29, 1835: Abolitionist Literature Removed from Post Office and Burned*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> July 29, 1835: Abolitionist Literature Removed from Post Office and Burned - Zinn Education Project
> 
> 
> Late night raid on the Charleston post office by a mob of white supremacists and the burning of abolitionist mail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.zinnedproject.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was 185 years ago, moron.
Click to expand...

Reading that story made you pine for the good old days. Bet you would have had a torch in each hands.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> ......and started a war....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The scumbag 'confederates' started the war. Each and every death of the war is their responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who invaded Virginia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The British, in 1814.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln in 1861, moron.  Are you denying that?
Click to expand...


You can't "invade" your own country. This has been explained to  you many times, idiot.


----------



## Pogo

bripat9643 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> There would never have been a Civil War if the south had not had slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> And if pigs had wings they could fly.  Every country in the world had slaver [sic] when the USA was born.  Why do you imagine we could have avoided it somehow?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong, Fingerfuck.  I'll give you an example real close --- the Vermont Republic, which never had slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It joined the USA which did have slavery, douchebag.
Click to expand...


Not "when the USA was born", which is exactly what your post says, Fingerfuck.

Hey maybe you can still find some "newly discovered photos" though.


----------



## gtopa1

Unkotare said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You attacked me for a sentence that would have been fixed with a comma.  ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving that it was more than a "typo." A comma won't solve your problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> State your degree in English.   You don't have one, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I actually have a masters degree in Linguistics, so I could help you with your errors in many languages. I have taught English, and History, and quite a few other subjects for over 26 years. And you are..............?
Click to expand...

You mean; that gives you some sort of expertise on EVERYTHING like Noam?? 

Greg


----------



## bripat9643

Bezukhov said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question, you ignorant coward.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean you  object to people not answering your questions?
> 
> Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unkotare didn't know what his own question was.    He doesn't know the difference between the American government and the American people.
> 
> He wanted me to answer his question without him even knowing what he asked me.  Pass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dat Boy is confused about a lot of things.  With only only having a Jr High School History text knowledge of the Civil War, written by the winners, he doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground about what he is talking about.
> 
> He needs to do the homework assignment that I gave him.  That way he won't look like a fool when he post his uneducated dribble.
> 
> I thought he said one time that he was a teacher.  If he was telling the truth then he should know the value of learning something about a topic before opening his mouth.  I gave him an assignment to read up on the topic but like all idiot Libtards he is doesn't want to learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Unkotare would just say he knows what consent of the governed means, he just doesn't believe in it, then we all could just all say we disagree on that, live and go on.
> 
> But he keeps arguing that government conquering half it's own country doesn't violate consent of the governed, which is just stupid.
> 
> He also keeps arguing that southerners were evil salvers (they were), but that somehow justifies him conquering them and forcing them to stay in his country, which is just bizarre
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In addition, he like so many duped Americans with only a government school understanding of the war, doesn’t know that the war was not a civil war. The South had no intentions of conquering or controlling the North. The definition of a civil war requires that both parties are fighting for control of the entire nation.
> 
> It was the War of Northern Aggression.
> 
> No one disputes that slavery was evil and needed terminating. However, the Lincoln Cult needs to accept what Dishonest Abe did was illegal and caused unbelievable harm to not only the South, but the entire nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln may have used extra-Constitutional measures to save the Union, but that hardly compares to the extra-Constitutional attempt of the south to destroy that Union. If anything, Lincoln's excesses were made necessary by the situation imposed upon the nation by those seeking to sabotage it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Isn't "extra-Constitutional" illegal?? This is an interesting article.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fourth and finally, Lincoln denied that the Constitution was silent with respect to secession. The immediate predecessor to the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, purported to establish a "perpetual Union." By seeking to create what the Preamble calls "a more perfect Union"--in an echo of the Articles' language--the Constitution, Lincoln said, simply strengthened the already indissoluble bonds between the States.
> 
> But the Constitution itself was established in blatant violation of the terms of the Articles--which required unanimous consent of the states for any amendment. Moreover, how do we know that the "perfection" of the Union required stronger rather than weaker bonds? To infer this point from the fact that, on the whole, the Constitution created a stronger national government than existed under the Articles is to acknowledge that the real work in this argument is not being done by the language of the Preamble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede? | FindLaw
> 
> 
> Read Legal Commentary: Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede? at FindLaw.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> supreme.findlaw.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, either a more perfect Perpetual Union was made, or the new document is invalid and the original Perpetual Union remained. It's a win-win for the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Government wins, yeah team!
> 
> I'm for the people though, and we lost
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederacy was the last great hope for Liberty for the world.  When the bad guys won the world lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, Liberty
> 
> *July 29, 1835: Abolitionist Literature Removed from Post Office and Burned*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> July 29, 1835: Abolitionist Literature Removed from Post Office and Burned - Zinn Education Project
> 
> 
> Late night raid on the Charleston post office by a mob of white supremacists and the burning of abolitionist mail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.zinnedproject.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was 185 years ago, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reading that story made you pine for the good old days. Bet you would have had a torch in each hands.
Click to expand...

You're just another SJW A-hole.  Baseless smears are all you have.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> ......and started a war....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The scumbag 'confederates' started the war. Each and every death of the war is their responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who invaded Virginia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The British, in 1814.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln in 1861, moron.  Are you denying that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't "invade" your own country. This has been explained to  you many times, idiot.
Click to expand...

It wasn't country.

Do the continents move?


----------



## bripat9643

Pogo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> There would never have been a Civil War if the south had not had slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> And if pigs had wings they could fly.  Every country in the world had slaver [sic] when the USA was born.  Why do you imagine we could have avoided it somehow?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong, Fingerfuck.  I'll give you an example real close --- the Vermont Republic, which never had slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It joined the USA which did have slavery, douchebag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not "when the USA was born", which is exactly what your post says, Fingerfuck.
> 
> Hey maybe you can still find some "newly discovered photos" though.
Click to expand...

Yes, the USA did have slavery when it was born, you NAZI asshole.

Note:  Wikipedia says the Vermont Republic existed "without diplomatic recognition from any foreign power."  Unkotare says that means it wasn't a country.


----------



## Unkotare

gtopa1 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You attacked me for a sentence that would have been fixed with a comma.  ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving that it was more than a "typo." A comma won't solve your problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> State your degree in English.   You don't have one, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I actually have a masters degree in Linguistics, so I could help you with your errors in many languages. I have taught English, and History, and quite a few other subjects for over 26 years. And you are..............?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean; that gives you some sort of expertise on EVERYTHING ...
Click to expand...


Certainly not.


----------



## there4eyeM

bripat9643 said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> ......and started a war....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The scumbag 'confederates' started the war. Each and every death of the war is their responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who invaded Virginia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln did
Click to expand...

So far, no British officer with the family name of Lincoln has been found in the English invasion force.


----------



## schmidlap

Siberian said:


> The nation is split on racial and social lines.


The nation aspires to overcome those devisions - as well as ethnic, religious, and gender disparities - by the ongoing resolve to fulfill its founding principle that all men are created equal. Despite resistance, progress _has_ been made. The Democratic Party abandoned its segregationist faction when empowering it no longer served its appeal to voters. Consequently, it attracted a diversity of voters in an increasingly diverse nation as the residue of segregationists absconded.



Siberian said:


> I presume after Republicans realize that due to demographic changes they have lost any chances forever to ever control any branch of power on the federal level - they will revolt.


I presume that the Republican Party will do as political parties have done in the past to insure survival, adapt by enhancing its representational viability: Reflect the will of the _People._


----------



## Siberian

schmidlap said:


> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> The nation is split on racial and social lines.
> 
> 
> 
> The nation aspires to overcome those devisions - as well as ethnic, religious, and gender disparities - by the ongoing resolve to fulfill its founding principle that all men are created equal. Despite resistance, progress _has_ been made. The Democratic Party abandoned its segregationist faction when empowering it no longer served its appeal to voters. Consequently, it attracted a diversity of voters in an increasingly diverse nation as the residue of segregationists absconded.
> 
> 
> 
> Siberian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I presume after Republicans realize that due to demographic changes they have lost any chances forever to ever control any branch of power on the federal level - they will revolt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I presume that the Republican Party will do as political parties have done in the past to insure survival, adapt by enhancing its representational viability: Reflect the will of the _People._
Click to expand...


not really, in reality American sociery for the 1st time gets really racially diverse and it leads to Democratic party becoming a party of racial manorities, White liberals and Socialists. 
These 3 components are temporarily united until Republican party steps down as a real rival - and it will along with numerous White baby boomers naturally die off. 

So, splits will multiply, get bigger and will lead to  political divide. 

To deny it means to deny diversity of the US and reality


----------



## schmidlap

Siberian said:


> in reality American sociery for the 1st time gets really racially diverse and it leads to Democratic party becoming a party of racial manorities, White liberals and Socialists.


Democratic representation demands that the nation's diversity be reflected in self-governance.


Siberian said:


> These 3 components are temporarily united until Republican party steps down as a real rival - and it will along with numerous White baby boomers naturally die off.


The Republican Party will increasingly shift to better represent the nation's diversity. It will not be able to successfully suppress the increasingly diverse vote, and appealing to a broader range of American voters is an existential imperative.

Impeding that inclusivity is an increasingly undesirable, radical faction:

*GOP grapples with extremist episodes among its own*









						GOP grapples with extremist episodes among its own
					

Some fear that if the conference doesn’t stomp out those political brush fires now, there’s a risk they will spread.




					www.politico.com


----------



## there4eyeM

We need a much better situation than the dictatorship of the duopoly.


----------



## Siberian

the split between Republican and Democratic parties become not only ideological, but mostly racial. 
the next split will be also Socialist/Capitalist - within Democratic party. 

this means compromise can hardly be achieved, it means economic crisis which is gradually growing - will aggrevate all splits.


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...And yet I am more educated than he is.  ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, don't keep it a secret, genius.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This has nothing to do with us personally.   You know very well that it's dangerous with the Democrats going into serious fascism to provide any specific information on the internet
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, you're full of shit.
Click to expand...


In other words, you're not paying attention to what's going on around you


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> .... Just like Christian schools emphasize love of Christianity .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christian schools are great at education.    I went to them and so did my kids.  But if you don't think Christianity is #1 to a Christian then we've found yet another topic you know nothing about.
> ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've taught at Christian schools. Have you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You went to government schools because you were fired .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again. You haven't answered my question.
Click to expand...


I reject your premise that having taught in a Christian school makes you an expert in public schools while my and my kids attending them is irrelevant.  You really suck at making arguments.

This is why you work for the government and I don't.   If I argued like you that everyone needs to STFU unless they have the right degree and that's my argument, I'd be fired like you were when you worked for Christian schools.

Being an expert in my field means I CAN explain my points to people without the right degree, not like you believe it means you can't.   That you can't explain your points means you don't really understand them.

The Christian schools, which are accountable to parents, clearly saw you for what you were. Incompetent


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Sure, the North fought the war to end slavery.  ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More accurate to say the scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war to preserve slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the North and South agreed that the war was over the South leaving ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they did not agree on that. Read a fucking book once in a while, stupid.
Click to expand...


The South left and attacked the North at Fort Sumpter to make them leave.

The North invaded the South to conquer them and make them stay.

Leaving was an end goal for the South.   They didn't say we'll stay if we can continue to own slaves.   You think that because you're incompetent at your job.

The North gave them no offer to leave.   Lincoln did offer them slavery to stay and they turned it down.  Since you don't know American history, Google it.  

Clearly slavery was intertwined in the war, I never disagreed with that.  But someone who is trained in history and thinks the war was just over slavery is flamingly inept


----------



## Unkotare

kaz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> .... Just like Christian schools emphasize love of Christianity .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christian schools are great at education.    I went to them and so did my kids.  But if you don't think Christianity is #1 to a Christian then we've found yet another topic you know nothing about.
> ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've taught at Christian schools. Have you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You went to government schools because you were fired .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again. You haven't answered my question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I reject your premise that having taught in a Christian school makes you an expert in public schools while my and my kids attending them is irrelevant.  You really suck at making arguments.
> 
> This is why you work for the government and I don't.   If I argued like you that everyone needs to STFU unless they have the right degree and that's my argument, I'd be fired like you were when you worked for Christian schools.
> 
> Being an expert in my field means I CAN explain my points to people without the right degree, not like you believe it means you can't.   That you can't explain your points means you don't really understand them.
> 
> The Christian schools, which are accountable to parents, clearly saw you for what you were. Incompetent
Click to expand...


The pack of lies and strawmen in that post reeks of desperation. You’ve got nothing else to say, so you’re just going to lie and repeat yourself endlessly.


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Sure, the North fought the war to end slavery.  ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More accurate to say the scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war to preserve slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only they didn't start the war.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The war began when the 'confederate' criminals fired on Ft. Sumter, stupid.
Click to expand...


Again the founding principle of the country defining legitimate government, consent of the governed, it meaningless to you.

The south belonged to government


----------



## kaz

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Sure, the North fought the war to end slavery.  ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More accurate to say the scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war to preserve slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only they didn't start the war.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The war began when the 'confederate' criminals fired on Ft. Sumter, stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.
Click to expand...


To Unkotare, we are the property of government, it's that simple.  Our great, great, great, great, great grandparents consented to it, which means we consented.

His shit is that lame, yet it is.  Now he's going to parse my grammar and spelling, LOL


----------



## kaz

Bezukhov said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede? | FindLaw
> 
> 
> Read Legal Commentary: Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede? at FindLaw.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> supreme.findlaw.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, either a more perfect Perpetual Union was made, or the new document is invalid and the original Perpetual Union remained. It's a win-win for the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Government wins, yeah team!
> 
> I'm for the people though, and we lost
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederacy was the last great hope for Liberty for the world.  When the bad guys won the world lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, Liberty
> 
> *July 29, 1835: Abolitionist Literature Removed from Post Office and Burned*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> July 29, 1835: Abolitionist Literature Removed from Post Office and Burned - Zinn Education Project
> 
> 
> Late night raid on the Charleston post office by a mob of white supremacists and the burning of abolitionist mail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.zinnedproject.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was 185 years ago, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reading that story made you pine for the good old days. Bet you would have had a torch in each hands.
Click to expand...


And the Nazi Democrat goes with ... wait for it ... you're a racist ...

My God you're stupid.   You thought of that one on your own?   LOL.   What a fucking retard.

And you're a racist


----------



## kaz

bripat9643 said:


> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederacy was the last great hope for Liberty for the world.  When the bad guys won the world lost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, Liberty
> 
> *July 29, 1835: Abolitionist Literature Removed from Post Office and Burned*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> July 29, 1835: Abolitionist Literature Removed from Post Office and Burned - Zinn Education Project
> 
> 
> Late night raid on the Charleston post office by a mob of white supremacists and the burning of abolitionist mail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.zinnedproject.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was 185 years ago, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reading that story made you pine for the good old days. Bet you would have had a torch in each hands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're just another SJW A-hole.  Baseless smears are all you have.
Click to expand...


Jackass Bezukhov doesn't even have his own baseless smears.  He's parroting the Nazi Democrat party, you're a racist!

He doesn't even have his own penis, he has to borrow one


----------



## Unkotare

kaz said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Sure, the North fought the war to end slavery.  ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More accurate to say the scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war to preserve slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only they didn't start the war.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The war began when the 'confederate' criminals fired on Ft. Sumter, stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To Unkotare, we are the property of government, it's that simple.  Our great, great, great, great, great grandparents consented to it, which means we consented.
> 
> His shit is that lame, yet it is.  Now he's going to parse my grammar and spelling, LOL
Click to expand...


Make sure your straw man is wearing a condom, you fucking liar.


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Sure, the North fought the war to end slavery.  ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More accurate to say the scumbag criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' started the war to preserve slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only they didn't start the war.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The war began when the 'confederate' criminals fired on Ft. Sumter, stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To Unkotare, we are the property of government, it's that simple.  Our great, great, great, great, great grandparents consented to it, which means we consented.
> 
> His shit is that lame, yet it is.  Now he's going to parse my grammar and spelling, LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Make sure your straw man is wearing a condom, you fucking liar.
Click to expand...


More of your lies.  You clearly said and repeated that States joined the Union so you consented.  The only question is how many greats are before grandparent for the people you say consented for you.

My God man, you're so stupid.  You seriously think that when you say States joined the union so you consented to be governed, that isn't other people consenting for you?
'
Seriously, how stupid are you?


----------



## there4eyeM

States, not individuals, formed the Perpetual Union. There is no problem with someone who finds that Union unbearable leaving it. People are free.


----------



## Unkotare

there4eyeM said:


> States, not individuals, formed the Perpetual Union. There is no problem with someone who finds that Union unbearable leaving it. People are free.



And since kaz and bripunk clearly find the Union unbearable.......


----------



## there4eyeM

Unkotare said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> States, not individuals, formed the Perpetual Union. There is no problem with someone who finds that Union unbearable leaving it. People are free.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And since kaz and bripunk clearly find the Union unbearable.......
Click to expand...

No, no, no! Don't ask me for a contribution to their tickets!


----------



## Pogo

bripat9643 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> There would never have been a Civil War if the south had not had slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> And if pigs had wings they could fly.  Every country in the world had slaver [sic] when the USA was born.  Why do you imagine we could have avoided it somehow?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong, Fingerfuck.  I'll give you an example real close --- the Vermont Republic, which never had slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It joined the USA which did have slavery, douchebag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not "when the USA was born", which is exactly what your post says, Fingerfuck.
> 
> Hey maybe you can still find some "newly discovered photos" though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, the USA did have slavery when it was born, you NAZI asshole.
> 
> Note:  Wikipedia says the Vermont Republic existed "without diplomatic recognition from any foreign power."  Unkotare says that means it wasn't a country.
Click to expand...


Bullshit.  It means no such thing.  You don't need a "note" from Finland.  Did New York dispute the Republic?  Did it invade to "protect its land"?  You forgot to mention, in the Wiki page you forgot to link, that that phrase is immediately followed by " On March 4, 1791 it was admitted into the United States as the State of Vermont, with the constitution and laws of the independent state continuing in effect after admission."

The fourteenth state, a number which prominently recurred on the coins the Republic minted.

You'll notice, Fingerfuck, that 1791 is AFTER the "USA was born", which means the Vermont Republic was a nation that existed WITHOUT Slavery -- in fact it was specifically banned -- when the "USA was born" in 1788.  You'll also notice on the same page, "Vermont is "the only state admitted without conditions of any kind, either those prescribed by the Congress or the state from which it was carved".[23]" -- meaning that there has never been a time when Slavery was legal in Vermont.

Happy state-day Vermont, exactly 230 years old yesterday.


----------



## Unkotare

there4eyeM said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> States, not individuals, formed the Perpetual Union. There is no problem with someone who finds that Union unbearable leaving it. People are free.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And since kaz and bripunk clearly find the Union unbearable.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, no, no! Don't ask me for a contribution to their tickets!
Click to expand...


Tickets? We’ve got oceans on each side. The ignorant shits can start swimming.


----------



## kaz

there4eyeM said:


> States, not individuals, formed the Perpetual Union. There is no problem with someone who finds that Union unbearable leaving it. People are free.



What a sicko.  Seriously?   Government owns our land?    We can agree to government's terms or leave?    At least you're a happy slave.

That was the problem with the Jews, huh?  They should have left Germany.  They stayed, so they got what they deserved, huh?

Slaves?  Should have left!

We have no right to object to what government does to us, leave!

Hey Chinese, you know how you live in a country with slave camps and would kill you if you protest.  Leave!


----------



## there4eyeM

Anarchists are about.


----------



## kaz

there4eyeM said:


> Anarchists are about.



So if we don't like our government then we can leave.

And if we don't want to leave and give our country to the government we are ... "anarchists."

You're an idiot


----------



## Unkotare

kaz said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anarchists are about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if we don't like our government then we can leave.
> ....
Click to expand...


You clearly don't like my country, but you lack the character to act on your feeeeeeelings.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anarchists are about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if we don't like our government then we can leave.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You clearly don't like my country, but you lack the character to act on your feeeeeeelings.
Click to expand...

It's my country too, asshole.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anarchists are about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if we don't like our government then we can leave.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You clearly don't like my country, but you lack the character to act on your feeeeeeelings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's my country too, asshole.
Click to expand...


You denounced your citizenship here long ago. Don't change your mind now, because we don't want you.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anarchists are about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if we don't like our government then we can leave.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You clearly don't like my country, but you lack the character to act on your feeeeeeelings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's my country too, asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You denounced your citizenship here long ago. Don't change your mind now, because we don't want you.
Click to expand...

When did I do that, goose stepper?


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anarchists are about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if we don't like our government then we can leave.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You clearly don't like my country, but you lack the character to act on your feeeeeeelings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's my country too, asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You denounced your citizenship here long ago. Don't change your mind now, because we don't want you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When did I do that......?
Click to expand...


On several of the many threads about the American Civil War where you bitch about how much you hate America. It's almost the only thing you ever post about.


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anarchists are about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if we don't like our government then we can leave.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You clearly don't like my country, but you lack the character to act on your feeeeeeelings.
Click to expand...


From the mind of any despot ...


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anarchists are about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if we don't like our government then we can leave.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You clearly don't like my country, but you lack the character to act on your feeeeeeelings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's my country too, asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You denounced your citizenship here long ago. Don't change your mind now, because we don't want you.
Click to expand...


Your view that country = it's government is just fucking sick and not the country our founding fathers created.  You are very un-American.   Don't let the door hit you on the way out


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anarchists are about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if we don't like our government then we can leave.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You clearly don't like my country, but you lack the character to act on your feeeeeeelings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's my country too, asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You denounced your citizenship here long ago. Don't change your mind now, because we don't want you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When did I do that......?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On several of the many threads about the American Civil War where you bitch about how much you hate America. It's almost the only thing you ever post about.
Click to expand...


Only a boot licker like you thinks the government is the people


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anarchists are about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if we don't like our government then we can leave.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You clearly don't like my country, but you lack the character to act on your feeeeeeelings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's my country too, asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You denounced your citizenship here long ago. Don't change your mind now, because we don't want you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When did I do that......?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On several of the many threads about the American Civil War where you bitch about how much you hate America. It's almost the only thing you ever post about.
Click to expand...


So are you consistent?

Did any Japanese who opposed Japanese nationalism and invading neighbors in the 1930s "renounce their citizenship" because they opposed government actions?    I say no, but I say opposing the US government is not renouncing my citizenship.  I call for nothing but peaceful protests.   I just want the American people to realize how far past it's legitimate Constitutional limits our government has gone.  While I am for removing and replacing our government, that is pointless if the people don't realize why we need to do it.  They would just create the same monstrosity we have now again.

I am consistent.  What about you?  Are you at least consistent?  Was to oppose the Japanese war machine to renounce their citizenship?


----------



## Unkotare

kaz said:


> ...Did any Japanese who opposed Japanese nationalism and invading neighbors in the 1930s "renounce their citizenship" because they opposed government actions?  ....



Why the hell are you asking me?


----------



## Unkotare

kaz said:


> .... I say opposing the US government is not renouncing my citizenship. ....



And? No one was talking to you, idiot. Bripunk has cried and screamed about his hatred for America many times in threads like this. He will deny it now, but long ago he was asked point blank if he wanted to renounce his citizenship and he answered in the affirmative.


----------



## Unkotare

kaz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anarchists are about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if we don't like our government then we can leave.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You clearly don't like my country, but you lack the character to act on your feeeeeeelings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's my country too, asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You denounced your citizenship here long ago. Don't change your mind now, because we don't want you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When did I do that......?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On several of the many threads about the American Civil War where you bitch about how much you hate America. It's almost the only thing you ever post about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a boot licker like you thinks the government is the people
Click to expand...


You have been informed about this previously, idiot.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> .... I say opposing the US government is not renouncing my citizenship. ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And? No one was talking to you, idiot. Bripunk has cried and screamed about his hatred for America many times in threads like this. He will deny it now, but long ago he was asked point blank if he wanted to renounce his citizenship and he answered in the affirmative.
Click to expand...

You're lying, as always


----------



## Unkotare

kaz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anarchists are about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if we don't like our government then we can leave.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You clearly don't like my country, but you lack the character to act on your feeeeeeelings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's my country too, asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You denounced your citizenship here long ago. Don't change your mind now, because we don't want you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your view that country = it's government .....
Click to expand...


I didn't say that, liar.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> .... I say opposing the US government is not renouncing my citizenship. ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And? No one was talking to you, idiot. Bripunk has cried and screamed about his hatred for America many times in threads like this. He will deny it now, but long ago he was asked point blank if he wanted to renounce his citizenship and he answered in the affirmative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're lying, as always
Click to expand...


I don't blame you for being ashamed of your hatred of America.


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Did any Japanese who opposed Japanese nationalism and invading neighbors in the 1930s "renounce their citizenship" because they opposed government actions?  ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the hell are you asking me?
Click to expand...


OK, so you're a hypocrite.   Figures


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> .... I say opposing the US government is not renouncing my citizenship. ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And? No one was talking to you, idiot. Bripunk has cried and screamed about his hatred for America many times in threads like this. He will deny it now, but long ago he was asked point blank if he wanted to renounce his citizenship and he answered in the affirmative.
Click to expand...


You're just babbling like a child


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anarchists are about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if we don't like our government then we can leave.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You clearly don't like my country, but you lack the character to act on your feeeeeeelings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's my country too, asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You denounced your citizenship here long ago. Don't change your mind now, because we don't want you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your view that country = it's government .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say that, liar.
Click to expand...


Your constant double talk


----------



## Unkotare

kaz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Did any Japanese who opposed Japanese nationalism and invading neighbors in the 1930s "renounce their citizenship" because they opposed government actions?  ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the hell are you asking me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, so you're a hypocrite.   .....
Click to expand...


In what way?


----------



## Unkotare

kaz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anarchists are about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if we don't like our government then we can leave.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You clearly don't like my country, but you lack the character to act on your feeeeeeelings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's my country too, asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You denounced your citizenship here long ago. Don't change your mind now, because we don't want you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your view that country = it's government .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say that, liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your constant double talk
Click to expand...


Because YOU chose to lie?


----------



## DudleySmith

schmidlap said:


> DudleySmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many United States victories - _besides the one concerning the 1861-1865 regional attempt by a special interest faction to deprive United States citizens of their United States citizenship_ - are the haters of the United States pissy about?
> 
> View attachment 463778​
> 
> 
> 
> Did any of those victories involve destroying half of the United States and slaughtering almost a million people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And Lincoln deliberately murdered almost a million black people as well, so it was more like around 1.7 million. Not one school kid has ever heard of the black people murdered in his concentration camps. No wonder he was Hitler's favorite American President; Hitler learned a lot from the sorry corrupt piece of shit..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The United States suppressed the violent insurrection, and the nation was preserved.
> 
> Get over it.
Click to expand...


No, a criminal corporate stooge murdered a lot of people in order to loot them via extortionate tariffs and taxes for his corporate buddies and his home state. Get over it.


----------



## DudleySmith

Unkotare said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You idiots are hilarious.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't find them all that funny, really. Obdurate, certainly. They keep insisting, for example, that people were forced to stay in the Union. No one was forced to stay in the U.S.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They must know by now that they are full of shit, but they just refuse to let it go. I seriously believe that they hate the United States of America. They should exercise their ability to leave this great nation.
Click to expand...


You're a shit rolling deviant; people only laugh at you when there is nothing else to do.


----------



## DudleySmith

there4eyeM said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You idiots are hilarious.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't find them all that funny, really. Obdurate, certainly. They keep insisting, for example, that people were forced to stay in the Union. No one was forced to stay in the U.S.
Click to expand...


lol bullshit. And, I already posted Lincoln's own words as to why he started an illegal war, so you got nothing either, just some fake virtue signaling over stuff you wouldn't have lifted a finger to stop if you had the chance, same as the troll Unkotare the feces fetishist.


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Did any Japanese who opposed Japanese nationalism and invading neighbors in the 1930s "renounce their citizenship" because they opposed government actions?  ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the hell are you asking me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, so you're a hypocrite.   .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In what way?
Click to expand...


I can't keep up with your constantly changing standards


----------



## kaz

Unkotare said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anarchists are about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if we don't like our government then we can leave.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You clearly don't like my country, but you lack the character to act on your feeeeeeelings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's my country too, asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You denounced your citizenship here long ago. Don't change your mind now, because we don't want you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your view that country = it's government .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say that, liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your constant double talk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because YOU chose to lie?
Click to expand...


You constantly equate the United States government with the country.    I am against the government but for the people.  You keep calling that being against the United States.  And that is clearly equating the government with the people.

So when you deny you're equating the country with the government, whether you're lying, stupid or just need remedial reading to grasp that, I'll leave up to you


----------



## there4eyeM

Rinsing and repeating isn't getting the stains out of the defense of sedition and slavery.


----------



## kaz

there4eyeM said:


> Rinsing and repeating isn't getting the stains out of the defense of sedition and slavery.




SSSaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwissssshhhhhhhhhhh.

And there4eyeM completely whiffs on the whole discussion.  The discussion's over consent of the governed, not slavery, race bating fascist


----------



## there4eyeM

...and the "stains" keep on.


----------



## bripat9643

there4eyeM said:


> Rinsing and repeating isn't getting the stains out of the defense of sedition and slavery.


No one has defended either one, NAZI.


----------



## schmidlap

DudleySmith said:


> No, a criminal corporate stooge murdered a lot of people in order to loot them via extortionate tariffs and taxes for his corporate buddies and his home state.


Your anti-American fanaticism is noted.


----------



## Unkotare

DudleySmith said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You idiots are hilarious.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't find them all that funny, really. Obdurate, certainly. They keep insisting, for example, that people were forced to stay in the Union. No one was forced to stay in the U.S.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They must know by now that they are full of shit, but they just refuse to let it go. I seriously believe that they hate the United States of America. They should exercise their ability to leave this great nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a shit rolling deviant; people only laugh at you when there is nothing else to do.
Click to expand...


You are free to flee my country as well. Bye.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rinsing and repeating isn't getting the stains out of the defense of sedition and slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> No one has defended either one, NAZI.
Click to expand...


That's EXACTLY what you've been doing, you America-hating idiot.


----------



## Unkotare

kaz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Did any Japanese who opposed Japanese nationalism and invading neighbors in the 1930s "renounce their citizenship" because they opposed government actions?  ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the hell are you asking me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, so you're a hypocrite.   .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In what way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't keep up with your constantly changing standards
Click to expand...


That in no way answers my question. Are you going to run away from another of your own failed talking points?


----------



## Unkotare

kaz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anarchists are about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if we don't like our government then we can leave.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You clearly don't like my country, but you lack the character to act on your feeeeeeelings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's my country too, asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You denounced your citizenship here long ago. Don't change your mind now, because we don't want you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your view that country = it's government .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say that, liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your constant double talk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because YOU chose to lie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You constantly equate the United States government with the country.   .....
Click to expand...


Who holds just about every elected position in the government of my country? How are they chosen? You sound increasingly as if you wished you lived in Europe.


----------



## DudleySmith

there4eyeM said:


> Rinsing and repeating isn't getting the stains out of the defense of sedition and slavery.



Secession isn't 'sedition', and 'slavery' wasn't why Lincoln started the war, and to keeping claiming otherwise is just trolling and lying.


----------



## Unkotare

DudleySmith said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rinsing and repeating isn't getting the stains out of the defense of sedition and slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secession isn't 'sedition', and 'slavery' wasn't why Lincoln started the war, ....
Click to expand...


The so-called secession was illegal and unfounded in reality, and President Lincoln did NOT start the war. The scumbag criminals of the so-called confederacy started the war. These things are true no matter how many times you wannabe reb, slavery apologist, America-hating idiots troll, repeat, and troll again.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> DudleySmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rinsing and repeating isn't getting the stains out of the defense of sedition and slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secession isn't 'sedition', and 'slavery' wasn't why Lincoln started the war, ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The so-called secession was illegal and unfounded in reality, and President Lincoln did NOT start the war. The scumbag criminals of the so-called confederacy started the war. These things are true no matter how many times you wannabe reb, slavery apologist, America-hating idiots troll, repeat, and troll again.
Click to expand...

What law says it was illegal?  You never answer that question.  

Lincoln invaded Virginia, thereby starting the war.  Confederates didn't set foot in Union territory until the war had been going on for over two years.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rinsing and repeating isn't getting the stains out of the defense of sedition and slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> No one has defended either one, NAZI.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's EXACTLY what you've been doing, you America-hating idiot.
Click to expand...

Really?  Where?


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DudleySmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rinsing and repeating isn't getting the stains out of the defense of sedition and slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secession isn't 'sedition', and 'slavery' wasn't why Lincoln started the war, ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The so-called secession was illegal and unfounded in reality, and President Lincoln did NOT start the war. The scumbag criminals of the so-called confederacy started the war. These things are true no matter how many times you wannabe reb, slavery apologist, America-hating idiots troll, repeat, and troll again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What law says it was illegal? ....
Click to expand...


The law of the United States of America.


----------



## task0778

bripat9643 said:


> Lincoln invaded Virginia, thereby starting the war. Confederates didn't set foot in Union territory until the war had been going on for over two years.



I always thought the South started the Civil War when they fired on and captured Fort Sumter.  The first battle of Bull Run was only like 30 miles from DC, Lincoln had to send troops to fight the rebs in northern Virginia instead of the streets of Washington, to defend the capitol.  Bull Run was the first major ground conflict in that war, but that wasn't where the war started.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....
> 
> Lincoln invaded Virginia, thereby starting the war.  .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, no matter how many times you repeat the lie, idiot. You can't invade your own country. The scumbag so-called confederates started the war when they fired on Fort Sumter.
Click to expand...


----------



## Unkotare

task0778 said:


> ...
> 
> I always thought the South started the Civil War when they fired on and captured Fort Sumter.  .....



You are correct.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DudleySmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rinsing and repeating isn't getting the stains out of the defense of sedition and slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secession isn't 'sedition', and 'slavery' wasn't why Lincoln started the war, ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The so-called secession was illegal and unfounded in reality, and President Lincoln did NOT start the war. The scumbag criminals of the so-called confederacy started the war. These things are true no matter how many times you wannabe reb, slavery apologist, America-hating idiots troll, repeat, and troll again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What law says it was illegal? ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The law of the United States of America.
Click to expand...

Which law?  Please quote it.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....
> 
> Lincoln invaded Virginia, thereby starting the war.  .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, no matter how many times you repeat the lie, idiot. You can't invade your own country. The scumbag so-called confederates started the war when they fired on Fort Sumter.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Virginia wasn't his country, moron.  It seceded.

Sumpter was South Carolina territory, so how could that be an act of war?


----------



## bripat9643

task0778 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln invaded Virginia, thereby starting the war. Confederates didn't set foot in Union territory until the war had been going on for over two years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I always thought the South started the Civil War when they fired on and captured Fort Sumter.  The first battle of Bull Run was only like 30 miles from DC, Lincoln had to send troops to fight the rebs in northern Virginia instead of the streets of Washington, to defend the capitol.  Bull Run was the first major ground conflict in that war, but that wasn't where the war started.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid it is where the war started.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....
> 
> Lincoln invaded Virginia, thereby starting the war.  .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, no matter how many times you repeat the lie, idiot. You can't invade your own country. The scumbag so-called confederates started the war when they fired on Fort Sumter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Virginia wasn't his country, ...
Click to expand...


Virginia was and is part of the UNITED States of America. Lincoln was President of the UNITED States of America.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> ....
> 
> Sumpter was South Carolina territory, so how could that be an act of war?



You've run out of lies to repeat, loser.


----------



## there4eyeM

The south may have decided that it no longer "identified" as being part of the Perpetual Union, but expecting everyone else to just accept that was a form of delusion. "Confederate" troops didn't have to take a single step to be on Union territory. They would, rather, have had to take quite a few steps to get off it, or learned long distance swimming. Refusing to understand the formation of the nation does not qualify as an argument, merely negativism. The matter was bloodily settled and disputing it now only feeds the fierce divisions our enemies so desire to foment.


----------



## DudleySmith

task0778 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln invaded Virginia, thereby starting the war. Confederates didn't set foot in Union territory until the war had been going on for over two years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I always thought the South started the Civil War when they fired on and captured Fort Sumter.  The first battle of Bull Run was only like 30 miles from DC, Lincoln had to send troops to fight the rebs in northern Virginia instead of the streets of Washington, to defend the capitol.  Bull Run was the first major ground conflict in that war, but that wasn't where the war started.
Click to expand...


Blockading a port is an act of war; blockading Charleston was a deliberate provocation. Lincoln knew what the result would be.


*"But what am I to do in the meantime with those men at Montgomery [meaning the Confederate constitutional convention]? Am I to let them go on... [a]nd open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry, with their ten-percent tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff?" *~ Lincoln to Colonel John B. Baldwin, deputized by the Virginian Commissioners to determine whether Lincoln would use force, April 4, 1861. 


*"You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail ; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result. "*
Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to Gustavus Fox, May 1, 1861


*"The affair at Fort Sumter, it seems to us, has been planned as a means by which the war feeling at the North should be intensified, and the administration thus receive popular support for its policy.... If the armament which lay outside the harbor, while the fort was being battered to pieces [the US ship The Harriet Lane, and seven other reinforcement ships], had been designed for the relief of Major Anderson, it certainly would have made a show of fulfilling its mission. But it seems plain to us that no such design was had. The administration, virtually, to use a homely illustration, stood at Sumter like a boy with a chip on his shoulder, daring his antagonist to knock it off. The Carolinians have knocked off the chip. War is inaugurated, and the design of the administration accomplished."* ~ The Buffalo Daily Courier, April 16, 1861.

*"We have no doubt, and all the circumstances prove, that it was a cunningly devised scheme, contrived with all due attention to scenic display and intended to arouse, and, if possible, exasperate the northern people against the South.... We venture to say a more gigantic conspiracy against the principles of human liberty and freedom has never been concocted. Who but a fiend could have thought of sacrificing the gallant Major Anderson and his little band in order to carry out a political game? Yet there he was compelled to stand for thirty-six hours amid a torrent of fire and shell, while the fleet sent to assist him, coolly looked at his flag of distress and moved not to his assistance! Why did they not? Perhaps the archives in Washington will yet tell the tale of this strange proceeding.... Pause then, and consider before you endorse these mad men who are now, under pretense of preserving the Union, doing the very thing that must forever divide it." *~ The New York Evening Day-Book, April 17, 1861.


----------



## DudleySmith

there4eyeM said:


> The south may have decided that it no longer "identified" as being part of the Perpetual Union, but expecting everyone else to just accept that was a form of delusion. "Confederate" troops didn't have to take a single step to be on Union territory. They would, rather, have had to take quite a few steps to get off it, or learned long distance swimming. Refusing to understand the formation of the nation does not qualify as an argument, merely negativism. The matter was bloodily settled and disputing it now only feeds the fierce divisions our enemies so desire to foment.



Rubbish. States had the right to secede; the Federal govt. didn't own them. Madison and the rest of Convention already decided that, and definitively rejected allowing the Federal govt. the power to use force against a state. It's you who doesn't understand the formation here.





__





						Online Library of Liberty
					





					oll.libertyfund.org
				




*May 31  ....

The 〈last〉 clause 〈of Resolution 6. authorizing〉 an exertion of the force of the whole agst. a delinquent State came next into consideration.


Mr. 〈Madison〉, observed that the more he reflected on the use of force, the more he doubted the practicability, the justice and the efficacy of it when applied to people collectively and not individually. — , A Union of the States 〈containing such an ingredient〉 seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force agst. a State, would look more like a declaration of war, than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound. He hoped that such a system would be framed as might render this recourse unnecessary, and moved that the clause be postponed.20 This motion was agreed to nem. con.


〈The Committee then rose & the House


Adjourned〉21

...

And to call forth the force of the union against any member of the union failing to fulfil its duty under the articles thereof.


postponed.


Mr. E. Gery thought this clause “ought to be expressed so as the people might not understand it to prevent their being alarmed”.


This idea rejected on account of its artifice, and because the system without such a declaration gave the government the means to secure itself.*






__





						Online Library of Liberty
					





					oll.libertyfund.org
				




Also verifies the May 31 rejection.

The rest of the document also makes it clear they thought the Union was voluntary, and of course during the first 7 decades of the country it was northern states who made the most threats to secede, including supporters like the Adamses. See also the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions for a reaffirmation of the Union being voluntary.


----------



## there4eyeM

task0778 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln invaded Virginia, thereby starting the war. Confederates didn't set foot in Union territory until the war had been going on for over two years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I always thought the South started the Civil War when they fired on and captured Fort Sumter.  The first battle of Bull Run was only like 30 miles from DC, Lincoln had to send troops to fight the rebs in northern Virginia instead of the streets of Washington, to defend the capitol.  Bull Run was the first major ground conflict in that war, but that wasn't where the war started.
Click to expand...

Sumpter began the shooting war. Declaring secession and proceeding with extra-Constitutional measures was an act of sedition such as no nation that could be defined as such could tolerate. It was not a gentleman's club where one paid dues until bored and quit. The nation was joined together voluntarily sate by state. The people in each state supported that or not, but the state bound itself to a perpetual accord. A state, like a man, honors word given or does not and, like a man, is judged and dealt with accordingly.
When one is in a society where voice is given through the ballot, one accepts the majority decision. Otherwise, if the society permits, one leaves. Otherwise, one rebels and pays the consequences. Complaining about that after the fact only reveals lack of capacity for thought and/or mature decision making.


----------



## DudleySmith

there4eyeM said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln invaded Virginia, thereby starting the war. Confederates didn't set foot in Union territory until the war had been going on for over two years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I always thought the South started the Civil War when they fired on and captured Fort Sumter.  The first battle of Bull Run was only like 30 miles from DC, Lincoln had to send troops to fight the rebs in northern Virginia instead of the streets of Washington, to defend the capitol.  Bull Run was the first major ground conflict in that war, but that wasn't where the war started.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sumpter began the shooting war. Declaring secession and proceeding with extra-Constitutional measures was an act of sedition such as no nation that could be defined as such could tolerate. It was not a gentleman's club where one paid dues until bored and quit. The nation was joined together voluntarily sate by state. The people in each state supported that or not, but the state bound itself to a perpetual accord. A state, like a man, honors word given or does not and, like a man, is judged and dealt with accordingly.
> When one is in a society where voice is given through the ballot, one accepts the majority decision. Otherwise, if the society permits, one leaves. Otherwise, one rebels and pays the consequences. Complaining about that after the fact only reveals lack of capacity for thought and/or mature decision making.
Click to expand...


Rubbish. There is nothing in the Constitution that binds a state involuntarily to any 'Union'. That's why none of you Lincoln fans can cite anything that does.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> Sumpter was South Carolina territory, so how could that be an act of war?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've run out of lies to repeat, loser.
Click to expand...

ROFL!   You have failed to demonstrate that I have posted a single lie, NAZI


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> ..... You have failed to demonstrate that I have posted a single lie....



YOU have demonstrated it over and over again.


----------



## bripat9643

there4eyeM said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln invaded Virginia, thereby starting the war. Confederates didn't set foot in Union territory until the war had been going on for over two years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I always thought the South started the Civil War when they fired on and captured Fort Sumter.  The first battle of Bull Run was only like 30 miles from DC, Lincoln had to send troops to fight the rebs in northern Virginia instead of the streets of Washington, to defend the capitol.  Bull Run was the first major ground conflict in that war, but that wasn't where the war started.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sumpter began the shooting war. Declaring secession and proceeding with extra-Constitutional measures was an act of sedition such as no nation that could be defined as such could tolerate. It was not a gentleman's club where one paid dues until bored and quit. The nation was joined together voluntarily sate by state. The people in each state supported that or not, but the state bound itself to a perpetual accord. A state, like a man, honors word given or does not and, like a man, is judged and dealt with accordingly.
> When one is in a society where voice is given through the ballot, one accepts the majority decision. Otherwise, if the society permits, one leaves. Otherwise, one rebels and pays the consequences. Complaining about that after the fact only reveals lack of capacity for thought and/or mature decision making.
Click to expand...

It was not sedition, moron.  Nothing in the Constitution says a state cannot secede.  All your fulminations fail to get around that irrefutable fact have fallen flat.

The constitution is what the states agreed to. They agreed to only what's actually in it.   Your inventions and fantasies simply aren't in the document.  There is nothing about a "perpetual accord." 

Government often rejects the majority opinion.  The fact that we abide by it in some situations does not imply that we abide by it in all situations.  The founders rejected unlimited democracy.


----------



## bripat9643

DudleySmith said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln invaded Virginia, thereby starting the war. Confederates didn't set foot in Union territory until the war had been going on for over two years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I always thought the South started the Civil War when they fired on and captured Fort Sumter.  The first battle of Bull Run was only like 30 miles from DC, Lincoln had to send troops to fight the rebs in northern Virginia instead of the streets of Washington, to defend the capitol.  Bull Run was the first major ground conflict in that war, but that wasn't where the war started.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sumpter began the shooting war. Declaring secession and proceeding with extra-Constitutional measures was an act of sedition such as no nation that could be defined as such could tolerate. It was not a gentleman's club where one paid dues until bored and quit. The nation was joined together voluntarily sate by state. The people in each state supported that or not, but the state bound itself to a perpetual accord. A state, like a man, honors word given or does not and, like a man, is judged and dealt with accordingly.
> When one is in a society where voice is given through the ballot, one accepts the majority decision. Otherwise, if the society permits, one leaves. Otherwise, one rebels and pays the consequences. Complaining about that after the fact only reveals lack of capacity for thought and/or mature decision making.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rubbish. There is nothing in the Constitution that binds a state involuntarily to any 'Union'. That's why none of you Lincoln fans can cite anything that does.
Click to expand...

They twist themselves into logical contortions trying to claim it does, but their fulminations always fall flat.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..... You have failed to demonstrate that I have posted a single lie....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU have demonstrated it over and over again.
Click to expand...

Where?


----------



## bripat9643

there4eyeM said:


> The south may have decided that it no longer "identified" as being part of the Perpetual Union, but expecting everyone else to just accept that was a form of delusion. "Confederate" troops didn't have to take a single step to be on Union territory. They would, rather, have had to take quite a few steps to get off it, or learned long distance swimming. Refusing to understand the formation of the nation does not qualify as an argument, merely negativism. The matter was bloodily settled and disputing it now only feeds the fierce divisions our enemies so desire to foment.


The "Perpetual union" was thrown into the waste bin when the states adopted the Constitution.  Once they seceded, the Confederate states where no longer part of the union.  There is no legal document that says otherwise.

We understand perfectly how this nation was formed, and nowhere did anyone vote to adopt a document that prevented a state from leaving if it so chose.  The claim that the did is Union propaganda.  That's why you have so singularly failed to make your case.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....
> 
> Lincoln invaded Virginia, thereby starting the war.  .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, no matter how many times you repeat the lie, idiot. You can't invade your own country. The scumbag so-called confederates started the war when they fired on Fort Sumter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Virginia wasn't his country, ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Virginia was and is part of the UNITED States of America. Lincoln was President of the UNITED States of America.
Click to expand...

You keep saying this, but you have failed to prove it.


----------



## there4eyeM

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..... You have failed to demonstrate that I have posted a single lie....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU have demonstrated it over and over again.
Click to expand...

As he doesn't accept that English means English, perhaps his perception of verity varies from the norm.


----------



## bripat9643

there4eyeM said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..... You have failed to demonstrate that I have posted a single lie....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU have demonstrated it over and over again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As he doesn't accept that English means English, perhaps his perception of verity varies from the norm.
Click to expand...

Sow me where my perceptions differs from the historical facts.  We keep asking you for evidence that states were not allowed to secede.  So far, you've produced a big nothing.


----------



## there4eyeM

bripat9643 said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..... You have failed to demonstrate that I have posted a single lie....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU have demonstrated it over and over again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As he doesn't accept that English means English, perhaps his perception of verity varies from the norm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sow me where my perceptions differs from the historical facts.  We keep asking you for evidence that states were not allowed to secede.  So far, you've produced a big nothing.
Click to expand...

See post 823 and 892.


----------



## bripat9643

there4eyeM said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..... You have failed to demonstrate that I have posted a single lie....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU have demonstrated it over and over again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As he doesn't accept that English means English, perhaps his perception of verity varies from the norm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sow me where my perceptions differs from the historical facts.  We keep asking you for evidence that states were not allowed to secede.  So far, you've produced a big nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See post 823 and 892.
Click to expand...

The Articles of Confederation became null and void the minute the Constitution was approved.  Your theory that government legislation can never be changed is utter horseshit.  Congress changes existing laws all the time.


----------



## there4eyeM

bripat9643 said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..... You have failed to demonstrate that I have posted a single lie....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU have demonstrated it over and over again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As he doesn't accept that English means English, perhaps his perception of verity varies from the norm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sow me where my perceptions differs from the historical facts.  We keep asking you for evidence that states were not allowed to secede.  So far, you've produced a big nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See post 823 and 892.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Articles of Confederation became null and void the minute the Constitution was approved.  Your theory that government legislation can never be changed is utter horseshit.  Congress changes existing laws all the time.
Click to expand...

So, we agree that you do not acknowledge the meaning of English words.


----------



## Unkotare

" On April 15, 1869, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase announced a ruling in favor of Texas on the grounds that _*the Confederate government had no legal existence *_"


----------



## bripat9643

there4eyeM said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..... You have failed to demonstrate that I have posted a single lie....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU have demonstrated it over and over again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As he doesn't accept that English means English, perhaps his perception of verity varies from the norm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sow me where my perceptions differs from the historical facts.  We keep asking you for evidence that states were not allowed to secede.  So far, you've produced a big nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See post 823 and 892.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Articles of Confederation became null and void the minute the Constitution was approved.  Your theory that government legislation can never be changed is utter horseshit.  Congress changes existing laws all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, we agree that you do not acknowledge the meaning of English words.
Click to expand...

We agree that you are a retard that believes a legal document is still in force when The people who created it consigned it to the waste bin.

Are you really trying to tell us that the Articles of Confederation are still in force?  If you are, then you are admitting that you're a moron.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> " On April 15, 1869, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase announced a ruling in favor of Texas on the grounds that _*the Confederate government had no legal existence *_"


We've already established that Salmon P. Chase was a Lincoln appointed hack who didn't even have a law degree.


----------



## there4eyeM

bripat9643 said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..... You have failed to demonstrate that I have posted a single lie....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU have demonstrated it over and over again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As he doesn't accept that English means English, perhaps his perception of verity varies from the norm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sow me where my perceptions differs from the historical facts.  We keep asking you for evidence that states were not allowed to secede.  So far, you've produced a big nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See post 823 and 892.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Articles of Confederation became null and void the minute the Constitution was approved.  Your theory that government legislation can never be changed is utter horseshit.  Congress changes existing laws all the time.
Click to expand...

See post 1101.


----------



## bripat9643

there4eyeM said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..... You have failed to demonstrate that I have posted a single lie....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU have demonstrated it over and over again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As he doesn't accept that English means English, perhaps his perception of verity varies from the norm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sow me where my perceptions differs from the historical facts.  We keep asking you for evidence that states were not allowed to secede.  So far, you've produced a big nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See post 823 and 892.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Articles of Confederation became null and void the minute the Constitution was approved.  Your theory that government legislation can never be changed is utter horseshit.  Congress changes existing laws all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See post 1101.
Click to expand...

I do understand it.  It proves that you're moron who is immune to facts and logic.

Answer this:  Are the Articles of Confederation still in force?


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> " On April 15, 1869, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase announced a ruling in favor of Texas on the grounds that _*the Confederate government had no legal existence *_"
> 
> 
> 
> We've already established that Salmon P. Chase was a Lincoln appointed hack who didn't even have a law degree.
Click to expand...


We have established that you are trying to throw loaded terms like "hack" around in a painfully transparent and failed attempt at discrediting one of the leading legal experts of his day. Since you clearly know nothing about history, it is not surprising that you would not understand that the most common form of legal training of Chase's day was what was called "reading law," apprenticing with an experienced lawyer. It is a fact that Chase became one of the most experienced and accomplished statesmen and legal scholars of his day. In addition to serving as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, he was governor of Ohio, represented said state in the US Senate, and was Secretary of State for the United States of America.

How about you, big mouth? What is your legal training and experience that anyone in the universe should consider your interpretation of the law anything other than a bad joke? Anything? Have you ever so much as watched an episode of Matlock?


----------



## there4eyeM

bripat9643 said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..... You have failed to demonstrate that I have posted a single lie....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU have demonstrated it over and over again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As he doesn't accept that English means English, perhaps his perception of verity varies from the norm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sow me where my perceptions differs from the historical facts.  We keep asking you for evidence that states were not allowed to secede.  So far, you've produced a big nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See post 823 and 892.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Articles of Confederation became null and void the minute the Constitution was approved.  Your theory that government legislation can never be changed is utter horseshit.  Congress changes existing laws all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See post 1101.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do understand it.  It proves that you're moron who is immune to facts and logic.
> 
> Answer this:  Are the Articles of Confederation still in force?
Click to expand...

See post 892 with the quoted posts.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> " On April 15, 1869, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase announced a ruling in favor of Texas on the grounds that _*the Confederate government had no legal existence *_"
> 
> 
> 
> We've already established that Salmon P. Chase was a Lincoln appointed hack who didn't even have a law degree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have established that you are trying to throw loaded terms like "hack" around in a painfully transparent and failed attempt at discrediting one of the leading legal experts of his day. Since you clearly know nothing about history, it is not surprising that you would not understand that the most common form of legal training of Chase's day was what was called "reading law," apprenticing with an experienced lawyer. It is a fact that Chase became one of the most experienced and accomplished statesmen and legal scholars of his day. In addition to serving as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, he was governor of Ohio, represented said state in the US Senate, and was Secretary of State for the United States of America.
> 
> How about you, big mouth? What is your legal training and experience that anyone in the universe should consider your interpretation of the law anything other than a bad joke? Anything? Have you ever so much as watched an episode of Matlock?
Click to expand...

You believe appeals to authority are valid, so there's no point in discussing the issue with you.

You lack the capacity to commit logic.


----------



## Pogo

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> " On April 15, 1869, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase announced a ruling in favor of Texas on the grounds that _*the Confederate government had no legal existence *_"
> 
> 
> 
> We've already established that Salmon P. Chase was a Lincoln appointed hack who didn't even have a law degree.
Click to expand...


There's no Constitutional requirement for a SCOTUS judge to previously be a judge, or even an attorney.
What's your point here?


----------



## bripat9643

Pogo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> " On April 15, 1869, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase announced a ruling in favor of Texas on the grounds that _*the Confederate government had no legal existence *_"
> 
> 
> 
> We've already established that Salmon P. Chase was a Lincoln appointed hack who didn't even have a law degree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no Constitutional requirement for a SCOTUS judge to previously be a judge, or even an attorney.
> What's your point here?
Click to expand...

Unkotare claims jusge Chase is an "authority," which means in his eyes means the judge is infallible when it comes to the Constitution.  Since he doesn't even have a law degree, how do we know he's an "authority?"

Of course, this shit all comes from someone who doesn't understand why an appeal to authority is a fallacy when it comes to matters of absolute truth.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> ...
> Unkotare claims jusge Chase is an "authority," which means in his eyes means the judge is infallible .....



Stop. Stop lying right there, you dishonest little piece of shit. You have been trying to hide your ignorance and utter failure to support your claim with lies and misdirections on this thread for dozens of pages. Enough with your straw men and your red herrings and your outright lies, you fucking scumbag. If you can't reason logically and honestly, just admit your defeat and get the fuck lost.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> ... Since he doesn't even have a law degree, how do we know he's an "authority?"
> .....



His training, experience, and long career in the law has been pointed out to you many times, stupid.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> .....
> 
> Of course, this shit all comes from someone who doesn't understand why an appeal to authority is a fallacy when it comes to matters of absolute truth.



You have been trying to sell that pathetically transparent straw man for dozens of pages. It's not working, stupid.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> .....
> 
> You lack the capacity to commit logic.



You have been offered many opportunities to supply any information about your study in the subject of logic. You have avoided at every turn. Seems pretty obvious why.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> ...
> You believe appeals to authority are valid, so there's no point in discussing the issue with you.
> ......



I've offered to help you understand the matter (which you clearly do not), but you have run away at every opportunity.


----------



## Unkotare

As I was saying.......


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Since he doesn't even have a law degree, how do we know he's an "authority?"
> .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His training, experience, and long career in the law has been pointed out to you many times, stupid.
Click to expand...

There's no such thing as a "valid authority" moron.

I'll ask this one more time:  Do the continents move?  Your failure to answer is an admission that you know I'm right


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> You believe appeals to authority are valid, so there's no point in discussing the issue with you.
> ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've offered to help you understand the matter (which you clearly do not), but you have run away at every opportunity.
Click to expand...

I don't need any "help" when it comes to knowing idiocy when I see it.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....
> 
> Of course, this shit all comes from someone who doesn't understand why an appeal to authority is a fallacy when it comes to matters of absolute truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have been trying to sell that pathetically transparent straw man for dozens of pages. It's not working, stupid.
Click to expand...

How is it a "straw man" when you site William P. Chase as an authority that proves your claim every day?


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Since he doesn't even have a law degree, how do we know he's an "authority?"
> .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His training, experience, and long career in the law has been pointed out to you many times, stupid.
Click to expand...

So you believe Chase was a "valid authority?"

How about every geologist in 1950?  Where they "valid authorities" on the subject of continental drift?


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Since he doesn't even have a law degree, how do we know he's an "authority?"
> .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His training, experience, and long career in the law has been pointed out to you many times, stupid.
Click to expand...

How about every geologist in 1950?  Did their training, experience, and long career in geology make them "valid authorities" on continental drift?


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> Unkotare claims jusge Chase is an "authority," which means in his eyes means the judge is infallible .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop. Stop lying right there, you dishonest little piece of shit. You have been trying to hide your ignorance and utter failure to support your claim with lies and misdirections on this thread for dozens of pages. Enough with your straw men and your red herrings and your outright lies, you fucking scumbag. If you can't reason logically and honestly, just admit your defeat and get the fuck lost.
Click to expand...

That's the simple truth, douchebag.  You've been implying that Chase can't be wrong because he's a "valid authority."  If he can be wrong, then your whole argument goes out the window.  The reason you're so angry is the fact that you can't refute my arguments.  You don't even try.  You just start calling me names and then you run away like a scared little puppy.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Since he doesn't even have a law degree, how do we know he's an "authority?"
> .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His training, experience, and long career in the law has been pointed out to you many times, stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no such thing as a "valid authority" moron.
> ......
Click to expand...


Why did you use quotation marks when you were not quoting me, asshole? Another example of you being dishonest.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Since he doesn't even have a law degree, how do we know he's an "authority?"
> .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His training, experience, and long career in the law has been pointed out to you many times, stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about every geologist in 1950?  Did their training, experience, and long career in geology make them "valid authorities" on continental drift?
Click to expand...


What did I tell you about red herrings, you idiot?


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Since he doesn't even have a law degree, how do we know he's an "authority?"
> .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His training, experience, and long career in the law has been pointed out to you many times, stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no such thing as a "valid authority" moron.
> ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why did you use quotation marks when you were not quoting me, asshole? Another example of you being dishonest.
Click to expand...

Because you aren't using that term explicitly, but that is what you mean whenever you spew Chases qualifications into the forum.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> You believe appeals to authority are valid, so there's no point in discussing the issue with you.
> ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've offered to help you understand the matter (which you clearly do not), but you have run away at every opportunity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't need any "help" when it comes to knowing idiocy when I see it.
Click to expand...


You clearly need help understanding the terms you keep misusing.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Since he doesn't even have a law degree, how do we know he's an "authority?"
> .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His training, experience, and long career in the law has been pointed out to you many times, stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about every geologist in 1950?  Did their training, experience, and long career in geology make them "valid authorities" on continental drift?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did I tell you about red herrings, you idiot?
Click to expand...

You told me you're an imbecile who believes there's such a thing as a valid appeal to authority.

How about every geologist in 1950?  Did their training, experience, and long career in geology make them "valid authorities" on continental drift?


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Since he doesn't even have a law degree, how do we know he's an "authority?"
> .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His training, experience, and long career in the law has been pointed out to you many times, stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no such thing as a "valid authority" moron.
> ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why did you use quotation marks when you were not quoting me, asshole? Another example of you being dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because you aren't using that term explicitly, but that is what you mean ......
Click to expand...


Don't try to tell me what I mean, you dickless dumbass. If you've got a question, ask it.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Since he doesn't even have a law degree, how do we know he's an "authority?"
> .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His training, experience, and long career in the law has been pointed out to you many times, stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no such thing as a "valid authority" moron.
> ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why did you use quotation marks when you were not quoting me, asshole? Another example of you being dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because you aren't using that term explicitly, but that is what you mean ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't try to tell me what I mean, you dickless dumbass. If you've got a question, ask it.
Click to expand...

I'll let the lurkers decide whether my characterization of your remarks is correct.

Of course, everyone with a brain knows they are.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Since he doesn't even have a law degree, how do we know he's an "authority?"
> .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His training, experience, and long career in the law has been pointed out to you many times, stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about every geologist in 1950?  Did their training, experience, and long career in geology make them "valid authorities" on continental drift?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did I tell you about red herrings, you idiot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You told me you're an imbecile who believes there's such a thing as a valid appeal to authority.
> ...
Click to expand...


One more time: Do you want to know what it really means, or do you want to keep playing the ignorant clown?


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Since he doesn't even have a law degree, how do we know he's an "authority?"
> .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His training, experience, and long career in the law has been pointed out to you many times, stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no such thing as a "valid authority" moron.
> ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why did you use quotation marks when you were not quoting me, asshole? Another example of you being dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because you aren't using that term explicitly, but that is what you mean ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't try to tell me what I mean, you dickless dumbass. If you've got a question, ask it.
Click to expand...

I've asked numerous questions that you refuse to answer, dickless.

How about every geologist in 1950?  Did their training, experience, and long career in geology make them "valid authorities" on continental drift?

Answer that one.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Since he doesn't even have a law degree, how do we know he's an "authority?"
> .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His training, experience, and long career in the law has been pointed out to you many times, stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about every geologist in 1950?  Did their training, experience, and long career in geology make them "valid authorities" on continental drift?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did I tell you about red herrings, you idiot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You told me you're an imbecile who believes there's such a thing as a valid appeal to authority.
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One more time: Do you want to know what it really means, or do you want to keep playing the ignorant clown?
Click to expand...

It means you are a scared little puppy who is afraid to answer questions.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....
> 
> Of course, this shit all comes from someone who doesn't understand why an appeal to authority is a fallacy when it comes to matters of absolute truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have been trying to sell that pathetically transparent straw man for dozens of pages. It's not working, stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is it a "straw man" when you site William P. Chase as an authority ...?
Click to expand...


A Supreme Court justice _is_ an authority on constitutional law, stupid. 

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court writing for the majority in a given case _is_ an authority on that case, stupid.

_You_ appear to be an authority on absolutely nothing.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Since he doesn't even have a law degree, how do we know he's an "authority?"
> .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His training, experience, and long career in the law has been pointed out to you many times, stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no such thing as a "valid authority" moron.
> ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why did you use quotation marks when you were not quoting me, asshole? Another example of you being dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because you aren't using that term explicitly, but that is what you mean ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't try to tell me what I mean, you dickless dumbass. If you've got a question, ask it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've asked numerous questions that you refuse to answer, dickless.
> 
> How about every geologist in 1950?  Did their training, experience, and long career in geology make them "valid authorities" on continental drift?
> 
> Answer that one.
Click to expand...


What did I tell you about red herrings, stupid? You don't know what that means either, do you?


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> ...... The reason you're so angry is the fact that you can't refute my arguments.  .....



Every 'argument' you have attempted to make here has been proven false many, many times. Just repeating your same falsehoods does not make them something else.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....
> 
> Of course, this shit all comes from someone who doesn't understand why an appeal to authority is a fallacy when it comes to matters of absolute truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have been trying to sell that pathetically transparent straw man for dozens of pages. It's not working, stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is it a "straw man" when you site William P. Chase as an authority ...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A Supreme Court justice _is_ an authority on constitutional law, stupid.
> 
> The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court writing for the majority in a given case _is_ an authority on that case, stupid.
> 
> _You_ appear to be an authority on absolutely nothing.
Click to expand...

"By authority" you mean the government will enforce the SC's opinion.  It doesn't mean that opinion is correct in any objective sense. 

Chase was a Lincoln appointed hack.  His opinions on the Civil war are meaningless.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...... The reason you're so angry is the fact that you can't refute my arguments.  .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every 'argument' you have attempted to make here has been proven false many, many times. Just repeating your same falsehoods does not make them something else.
Click to expand...

You have a vivid imagination.  You just failed, once again, to demonstrate that Chase's opinion is valid.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> ....  If he can be wrong, then your whole argument goes out the window. ......



Have you ever taken a course in basic logic? Ever?


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Since he doesn't even have a law degree, how do we know he's an "authority?"
> .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His training, experience, and long career in the law has been pointed out to you many times, stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no such thing as a "valid authority" moron.
> ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why did you use quotation marks when you were not quoting me, asshole? Another example of you being dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because you aren't using that term explicitly, but that is what you mean ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't try to tell me what I mean, you dickless dumbass. If you've got a question, ask it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've asked numerous questions that you refuse to answer, dickless.
> 
> How about every geologist in 1950?  Did their training, experience, and long career in geology make them "valid authorities" on continental drift?
> 
> Answer that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did I tell you about red herrings, stupid? You don't know what that means either, do you?
Click to expand...

Yes, you spouted your usual inapprproite claim that my argument is a red herring.  The problem is you never prove it.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....  If he can be wrong, then your whole argument goes out the window. ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever taken a course in basic logic? Ever?
Click to expand...

I certainly have, dumbass.  I have also read many books on the subject.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...... The reason you're so angry is the fact that you can't refute my arguments.  .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every 'argument' you have attempted to make here has been proven false many, many times. Just repeating your same falsehoods does not make them something else.
Click to expand...

You haven't proven they are falsehood, moron.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....
> 
> Of course, this shit all comes from someone who doesn't understand why an appeal to authority is a fallacy when it comes to matters of absolute truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have been trying to sell that pathetically transparent straw man for dozens of pages. It's not working, stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is it a "straw man" when you site William P. Chase as an authority ...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A Supreme Court justice _is_ an authority on constitutional law, stupid.
> 
> The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court writing for the majority in a given case _is_ an authority on that case, stupid.
> 
> _You_ appear to be an authority on absolutely nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "By authority" you mean ......
Click to expand...


Don't try to tell me what I mean, you dishonest douche bag. If you have a relevant question on the topic, ask it.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....  If he can be wrong, then your whole argument goes out the window. ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever taken a course in basic logic? Ever?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I certainly have, dumbass.  I have also read many books on the subject.
Click to expand...


Based on the embarrassing little show you've put on here, that is very, very hard to believe. In fact, I'll go so far as to say I am quite sure you're lying - again.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....
> 
> Of course, this shit all comes from someone who doesn't understand why an appeal to authority is a fallacy when it comes to matters of absolute truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have been trying to sell that pathetically transparent straw man for dozens of pages. It's not working, stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is it a "straw man" when you site William P. Chase as an authority ...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A Supreme Court justice _is_ an authority on constitutional law, stupid.
> 
> The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court writing for the majority in a given case _is_ an authority on that case, stupid.
> 
> _You_ appear to be an authority on absolutely nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "By authority" you mean ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't try to tell me what I mean, you dishonest douche bag. If you have a relevant question on the topic, ask it.
Click to expand...

It's obvious what you mean from your context.  If you don't mean that Chase is infallible, then why should anyone accept his opinion as the final word on an issue?


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....  If he can be wrong, then your whole argument goes out the window. ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever taken a course in basic logic? Ever?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I certainly have, dumbass.  I have also read many books on the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Based on the embarrassing little show you've put on here, that is very, very hard to believe. In fact, I'll go so far as to say I am quite sure you're lying - again.
Click to expand...

Says the forum buffoon.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Since he doesn't even have a law degree, how do we know he's an "authority?"
> .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His training, experience, and long career in the law has been pointed out to you many times, stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about every geologist in 1950?  Did their training, experience, and long career in geology make them "valid authorities" on continental drift?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did I tell you about red herrings, you idiot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You told me you're an imbecile who believes there's such a thing as a valid appeal to authority.
> ...
Click to expand...


One more time: Do you want to know what it really means, or do you want to keep playing the ignorant clown?


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....
> 
> Of course, this shit all comes from someone who doesn't understand why an appeal to authority is a fallacy when it comes to matters of absolute truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have been trying to sell that pathetically transparent straw man for dozens of pages. It's not working, stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is it a "straw man" when you site William P. Chase as an authority ...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A Supreme Court justice _is_ an authority on constitutional law, stupid.
> 
> The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court writing for the majority in a given case _is_ an authority on that case, stupid.
> 
> _You_ appear to be an authority on absolutely nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "By authority" you mean ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't try to tell me what I mean, you dishonest douche bag. If you have a relevant question on the topic, ask it.
Click to expand...

Why do you feel the need to edit what I posted?  You can't bare for other forum members to see it because it's obviously right?


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Since he doesn't even have a law degree, how do we know he's an "authority?"
> .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His training, experience, and long career in the law has been pointed out to you many times, stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about every geologist in 1950?  Did their training, experience, and long career in geology make them "valid authorities" on continental drift?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did I tell you about red herrings, you idiot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You told me you're an imbecile who believes there's such a thing as a valid appeal to authority.
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One more time: Do you want to know what it really means, or do you want to keep playing the ignorant clown?
Click to expand...

I already know what it means.  I'm not the one who keeps weaseling.

Now answer this question:  How about every geologist in 1950?  Did their training, experience, and long career in geology make them "valid authorities" on continental drift?


----------



## there4eyeM

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....
> 
> Of course, this shit all comes from someone who doesn't understand why an appeal to authority is a fallacy when it comes to matters of absolute truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have been trying to sell that pathetically transparent straw man for dozens of pages. It's not working, stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is it a "straw man" when you site William P. Chase as an authority ...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A Supreme Court justice _is_ an authority on constitutional law, stupid.
> 
> The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court writing for the majority in a given case _is_ an authority on that case, stupid.
> 
> _You_ appear to be an authority on absolutely nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "By authority" you mean ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't try to tell me what I mean, you dishonest douche bag. If you have a relevant question on the topic, ask it.
Click to expand...

Here's a suggestion: "Was the Constitution approved in the manner set forth in the original document that formed the Perpetual Union?"
If so, the more perfect Perpetual Union was continued. If not, the the original Perpetual Union is still in force. That's logical, isn't it?


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....
> 
> Of course, this shit all comes from someone who doesn't understand why an appeal to authority is a fallacy when it comes to matters of absolute truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have been trying to sell that pathetically transparent straw man for dozens of pages. It's not working, stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is it a "straw man" when you site William P. Chase as an authority ...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A Supreme Court justice _is_ an authority on constitutional law, stupid.
> 
> The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court writing for the majority in a given case _is_ an authority on that case, stupid.
> 
> _You_ appear to be an authority on absolutely nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "By authority" you mean ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't try to tell me what I mean, you dishonest douche bag. If you have a relevant question on the topic, ask it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's obvious what you mean from your context. .......
Click to expand...


In your little imagination. In order to avoid making more of a fool of yourself, ask if you want to know what I mean.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Since he doesn't even have a law degree, how do we know he's an "authority?"
> .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His training, experience, and long career in the law has been pointed out to you many times, stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about every geologist in 1950?  Did their training, experience, and long career in geology make them "valid authorities" on continental drift?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did I tell you about red herrings, you idiot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You told me you're an imbecile who believes there's such a thing as a valid appeal to authority.
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One more time: Do you want to know what it really means, or do you want to keep playing the ignorant clown?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already know what it means.  .....
Click to expand...


You very clearly don't. Would you like to learn what it means?


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> ... You can't bare [sic] for other forum members to see it ....



 Holy shit, you're stupid.


----------



## bripat9643

there4eyeM said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....
> 
> Of course, this shit all comes from someone who doesn't understand why an appeal to authority is a fallacy when it comes to matters of absolute truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have been trying to sell that pathetically transparent straw man for dozens of pages. It's not working, stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is it a "straw man" when you site William P. Chase as an authority ...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A Supreme Court justice _is_ an authority on constitutional law, stupid.
> 
> The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court writing for the majority in a given case _is_ an authority on that case, stupid.
> 
> _You_ appear to be an authority on absolutely nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "By authority" you mean ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't try to tell me what I mean, you dishonest douche bag. If you have a relevant question on the topic, ask it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here's a suggestion: "Was the Constitution approved in the manner set forth in the original document that formed the Perpetual Union?"
> If so, the more perfect Perpetual Union was continued. If not, the the original Perpetual Union is still in force. That's logical, isn't it?
Click to expand...

The articles of Confederation were thrown into the waste bin.  Do you really believe they are still in force?  Do you believe this clause is still in force?

_No  State  shall  be  represented  in  Congress  byless than two, nor by more than seven members;and  no  person  shall  be  capable  of  being  a  dele-gate  for  more  than  three  years  in  any  term  ofsix years; nor shall any person, being a delegate,be   capable   of   holding   any   office   under   theUnited  States,  for  which  he,  or  another  for  hisbenefit  receives  any  salary,  fees  or  emolumentof any kind. _​​or this:

_ARTICLEX.  The  committee  of  the  States,  or any nine of them, shall be authorized to execute,in  the  recess  of  Congress,  such  of  the  powers  ofCongress  as  the  United  States  in  Congress  assembled,  by  the  consent  of  nine  States,  shall from time to time think expedient to vest themwith; provided that no power be delegated to the said committee, for the exercise of which, by the articles   of   confederation,   the   voice   of   nineStates  in  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  as-sembled is requisite _​


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... You can't bare [sic] for other forum members to see it ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Holy shit, you're stupid.
Click to expand...

You mean I tell the truth.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... You can't bare [sic] for other forum members to see it ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Holy shit, you're stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean I tell the truth.
Click to expand...


No, I mean you're stupid.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....
> 
> Of course, this shit all comes from someone who doesn't understand why an appeal to authority is a fallacy when it comes to matters of absolute truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have been trying to sell that pathetically transparent straw man for dozens of pages. It's not working, stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is it a "straw man" when you site William P. Chase as an authority ...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A Supreme Court justice _is_ an authority on constitutional law, stupid.
> 
> The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court writing for the majority in a given case _is_ an authority on that case, stupid.
> 
> _You_ appear to be an authority on absolutely nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "By authority" you mean ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't try to tell me what I mean, you dishonest douche bag. If you have a relevant question on the topic, ask it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's obvious what you mean from your context. .......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In your little imagination. In order to avoid making more of a fool of yourself, ask if you want to know what I mean.
Click to expand...

I already know what you mean, moron.

You told me to ask questions, and then you weaseled out of answering them

Who do you think you're fooling?


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... You can't bare [sic] for other forum members to see it ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Holy shit, you're stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean I tell the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I mean you're stupid.
Click to expand...

You believe the truth is stupid.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....
> 
> Of course, this shit all comes from someone who doesn't understand why an appeal to authority is a fallacy when it comes to matters of absolute truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have been trying to sell that pathetically transparent straw man for dozens of pages. It's not working, stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is it a "straw man" when you site William P. Chase as an authority ...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A Supreme Court justice _is_ an authority on constitutional law, stupid.
> 
> The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court writing for the majority in a given case _is_ an authority on that case, stupid.
> 
> _You_ appear to be an authority on absolutely nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "By authority" you mean ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't try to tell me what I mean, you dishonest douche bag. If you have a relevant question on the topic, ask it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's obvious what you mean from your context. .......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In your little imagination. In order to avoid making more of a fool of yourself, ask if you want to know what I mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already know what you mean, moron.
> ....
Click to expand...


Clearly you don't, or I would not have to correct you so often.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... You can't bare [sic] for other forum members to see it ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Holy shit, you're stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean I tell the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I mean you're stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You believe the truth is stupid.
Click to expand...


No, I see that YOU are stupid.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Since he doesn't even have a law degree, how do we know he's an "authority?"
> .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His training, experience, and long career in the law has been pointed out to you many times, stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about every geologist in 1950?  Did their training, experience, and long career in geology make them "valid authorities" on continental drift?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did I tell you about red herrings, you idiot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You told me you're an imbecile who believes there's such a thing as a valid appeal to authority.
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One more time: Do you want to know what it really means, or do you want to keep playing the ignorant clown?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already know what it means.  .....
Click to expand...


You very clearly don't. Would you like to learn what it means?


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....
> 
> Of course, this shit all comes from someone who doesn't understand why an appeal to authority is a fallacy when it comes to matters of absolute truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have been trying to sell that pathetically transparent straw man for dozens of pages. It's not working, stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is it a "straw man" when you site William P. Chase as an authority ...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A Supreme Court justice _is_ an authority on constitutional law, stupid.
> 
> The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court writing for the majority in a given case _is_ an authority on that case, stupid.
> 
> _You_ appear to be an authority on absolutely nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "By authority" you mean ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't try to tell me what I mean, you dishonest douche bag. If you have a relevant question on the topic, ask it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's obvious what you mean from your context. .......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In your little imagination. In order to avoid making more of a fool of yourself, ask if you want to know what I mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already know what you mean, moron.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly you don't, or I would not have to correct you so often.
Click to expand...

You "correct" me because I tell the truth.  You are a liar.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Since he doesn't even have a law degree, how do we know he's an "authority?"
> .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His training, experience, and long career in the law has been pointed out to you many times, stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about every geologist in 1950?  Did their training, experience, and long career in geology make them "valid authorities" on continental drift?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did I tell you about red herrings, you idiot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You told me you're an imbecile who believes there's such a thing as a valid appeal to authority.
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One more time: Do you want to know what it really means, or do you want to keep playing the ignorant clown?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already know what it means.  .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You very clearly don't. Would you like to learn what it means?
Click to expand...

I already know what it means.  I'm not the one who keeps weaseling.

Now answer this question:  How about every geologist in 1950?  Did their training, experience, and long career in geology make them "valid authorities" on continental drift?


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....
> 
> Of course, this shit all comes from someone who doesn't understand why an appeal to authority is a fallacy when it comes to matters of absolute truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have been trying to sell that pathetically transparent straw man for dozens of pages. It's not working, stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is it a "straw man" when you site William P. Chase as an authority ...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A Supreme Court justice _is_ an authority on constitutional law, stupid.
> 
> The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court writing for the majority in a given case _is_ an authority on that case, stupid.
> 
> _You_ appear to be an authority on absolutely nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "By authority" you mean ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't try to tell me what I mean, you dishonest douche bag. If you have a relevant question on the topic, ask it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's obvious what you mean from your context. .......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In your little imagination. In order to avoid making more of a fool of yourself, ask if you want to know what I mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already know what you mean, moron.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly you don't, or I would not have to correct you so often.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You "correct" me because ......
Click to expand...


I correct you because you need correcting.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Since he doesn't even have a law degree, how do we know he's an "authority?"
> .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His training, experience, and long career in the law has been pointed out to you many times, stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about every geologist in 1950?  Did their training, experience, and long career in geology make them "valid authorities" on continental drift?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did I tell you about red herrings, you idiot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You told me you're an imbecile who believes there's such a thing as a valid appeal to authority.
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One more time: Do you want to know what it really means, or do you want to keep playing the ignorant clown?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already know what it means.  .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You very clearly don't. Would you like to learn what it means?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already know what it means.  I'm not the one who keeps weaseling.
> 
> ....
Click to expand...


Ok, tell me what you think it means.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Since he doesn't even have a law degree, how do we know he's an "authority?"
> .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His training, experience, and long career in the law has been pointed out to you many times, stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about every geologist in 1950?  Did their training, experience, and long career in geology make them "valid authorities" on continental drift?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did I tell you about red herrings, you idiot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You told me you're an imbecile who believes there's such a thing as a valid appeal to authority.
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One more time: Do you want to know what it really means, or do you want to keep playing the ignorant clown?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already know what it means.  .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You very clearly don't. Would you like to learn what it means?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already know what it means.  I'm not the one who keeps weaseling.
> 
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, tell me what you think it means.
Click to expand...

I've already told you numerous times.  If you claim 'A' is true because so-called expert 'B' says so, you have committed the logical fallacy known as "appeal to authority."

Now answer this question:  How about every geologist in 1950?  Did their training, experience, and long career in geology make them "valid authorities" on continental drift?


----------



## DudleySmith

bripat9643 said:


> DudleySmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln invaded Virginia, thereby starting the war. Confederates didn't set foot in Union territory until the war had been going on for over two years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I always thought the South started the Civil War when they fired on and captured Fort Sumter.  The first battle of Bull Run was only like 30 miles from DC, Lincoln had to send troops to fight the rebs in northern Virginia instead of the streets of Washington, to defend the capitol.  Bull Run was the first major ground conflict in that war, but that wasn't where the war started.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sumpter began the shooting war. Declaring secession and proceeding with extra-Constitutional measures was an act of sedition such as no nation that could be defined as such could tolerate. It was not a gentleman's club where one paid dues until bored and quit. The nation was joined together voluntarily sate by state. The people in each state supported that or not, but the state bound itself to a perpetual accord. A state, like a man, honors word given or does not and, like a man, is judged and dealt with accordingly.
> When one is in a society where voice is given through the ballot, one accepts the majority decision. Otherwise, if the society permits, one leaves. Otherwise, one rebels and pays the consequences. Complaining about that after the fact only reveals lack of capacity for thought and/or mature decision making.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rubbish. There is nothing in the Constitution that binds a state involuntarily to any 'Union'. That's why none of you Lincoln fans can cite anything that does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They twist themselves into logical contortions trying to claim it does, but their fulminations always fall flat.
Click to expand...


They never actually try; they know they're full of shit.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Since he doesn't even have a law degree, how do we know he's an "authority?"
> .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His training, experience, and long career in the law has been pointed out to you many times, stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about every geologist in 1950?  Did their training, experience, and long career in geology make them "valid authorities" on continental drift?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did I tell you about red herrings, you idiot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You told me you're an imbecile who believes there's such a thing as a valid appeal to authority.
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One more time: Do you want to know what it really means, or do you want to keep playing the ignorant clown?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already know what it means.  .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You very clearly don't. Would you like to learn what it means?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already know what it means.  I'm not the one who keeps weaseling.
> 
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, tell me what you think it means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've already told you numerous times.  If you claim 'A' is true because so-called expert 'B' says so, you have committed the logical fallacy known as "appeal to authority."
> ...
Click to expand...


Ok stupid, since you clearly aren't getting this, here:

"The _ad verecundiam_ fallacy concerns appeals to authority or expertise. Fundamentally, the fallacy involves accepting as evidence for a proposition the pronouncement of someone who is taken to be an authority but is not really an authority."



			Fallacies (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
		

.


----------



## there4eyeM

On this topic, I have addressed how English functions and what the words that bear on this question are and mean. No one has shown (or could show) that to be incorrect. History shows that many have tried to interpret the words to their political advantage. That the situation in the U.S. involved an infernal practice, slavery, and that economics was intimately joined thereto, makes this understandable, if not respectable. 
Feelings and thoughts and political passions are all mixed up in America. So, my position has been attacked as "Lincoln cultism", which it most certainly is not, "fascist", which it most certainly is not, "moronic" and other grade school playground names. My participation here is an intellectual exercise to keep mental processes flowing and, perhaps, to clarify for any possible neutral observers the argumentation taking place in the threads. 
To repeat one important point, the entire question is moot. The issue was settled in a disastrous and terribly costly war that America never fully recovered from. It was made necessary by the kind of refusal to calmly evaluate that is evident in the preceding posts. Today's enemies gloat over the possibilities to exploit the divisions that remain. Serving those enemies is, itself, seditious. Continue at your peril.


----------



## Bezukhov




----------



## there4eyeM

Bezukhov said:


>


Thanks, that was pretty good. As pointed out above, however, while slavery was engine of Southern wealth production and led them to their erroneous attempt at secession, it was the sanctity of the Union that made war inevitable for those trying to break their commitment to their country.


----------



## DudleySmith

there4eyeM said:


> On this topic, I have addressed how English functions and what the words that bear on this question are and mean. No one has shown (or could show) that to be incorrect. History shows that many have tried to interpret the words to their political advantage. That the situation in the U.S. involved an infernal practice, slavery, and that economics was intimately joined thereto, makes this understandable, if not respectable.
> Feelings and thoughts and political passions are all mixed up in America. So, my position has been attacked as "Lincoln cultism", which it most certainly is not, "fascist", which it most certainly is not, "moronic" and other grade school playground names. My participation here is an intellectual exercise to keep mental processes flowing and, perhaps, to clarify for any possible neutral observers the argumentation taking place in the threads.
> To repeat one important point, the entire question is moot. The issue was settled in a disastrous and terribly costly war that America never fully recovered from. It was made necessary by the kind of refusal to calmly evaluate that is evident in the preceding posts. Today's enemies gloat over the possibilities to exploit the divisions that remain. Serving those enemies is, itself, seditious. Continue at your peril.



It's just Democrats trying to demonize the modern South, is all, with a pile of lies to boot. If the South was so horrible, black people would have left in far larger numbers; they stayed on, after the war, and ever since. That was because northerners were a lot nastier and far more crooked.


----------



## DudleySmith

there4eyeM said:


> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, that was pretty good. As pointed out above, however, while slavery was engine of Southern wealth production and led them to their erroneous attempt at secession, it was the sanctity of the Union that made war inevitable for those trying to break their commitment to their country.
Click to expand...


Repeating a lie doesn't make it come true. The war was started by Lincoln, and you will never be able to prove otherwise. It was about tariffs, extortionate tariffs, and railroad welfare bills, as already been shown. Tariffs were in the news from nearly the first day SC seceded, and constantly reported on right up to Lincoln himself sniveling about 'the boys in Montgomery and their 10% tariff' while rejecting the last peace offer.


----------



## Unkotare

DudleySmith said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> On this topic, I have addressed how English functions and what the words that bear on this question are and mean. No one has shown (or could show) that to be incorrect. History shows that many have tried to interpret the words to their political advantage. That the situation in the U.S. involved an infernal practice, slavery, and that economics was intimately joined thereto, makes this understandable, if not respectable.
> Feelings and thoughts and political passions are all mixed up in America. So, my position has been attacked as "Lincoln cultism", which it most certainly is not, "fascist", which it most certainly is not, "moronic" and other grade school playground names. My participation here is an intellectual exercise to keep mental processes flowing and, perhaps, to clarify for any possible neutral observers the argumentation taking place in the threads.
> To repeat one important point, the entire question is moot. The issue was settled in a disastrous and terribly costly war that America never fully recovered from. It was made necessary by the kind of refusal to calmly evaluate that is evident in the preceding posts. Today's enemies gloat over the possibilities to exploit the divisions that remain. Serving those enemies is, itself, seditious. Continue at your peril.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's just Democrats trying to demonize the modern South...
Click to expand...


That is not true.


----------



## DudleySmith

Unkotare said:


> DudleySmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> On this topic, I have addressed how English functions and what the words that bear on this question are and mean. No one has shown (or could show) that to be incorrect. History shows that many have tried to interpret the words to their political advantage. That the situation in the U.S. involved an infernal practice, slavery, and that economics was intimately joined thereto, makes this understandable, if not respectable.
> Feelings and thoughts and political passions are all mixed up in America. So, my position has been attacked as "Lincoln cultism", which it most certainly is not, "fascist", which it most certainly is not, "moronic" and other grade school playground names. My participation here is an intellectual exercise to keep mental processes flowing and, perhaps, to clarify for any possible neutral observers the argumentation taking place in the threads.
> To repeat one important point, the entire question is moot. The issue was settled in a disastrous and terribly costly war that America never fully recovered from. It was made necessary by the kind of refusal to calmly evaluate that is evident in the preceding posts. Today's enemies gloat over the possibilities to exploit the divisions that remain. Serving those enemies is, itself, seditious. Continue at your peril.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's just Democrats trying to demonize the modern South...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not true.
Click to expand...


Of course it is; no other reason for the bullshit.


----------



## Unkotare

DudleySmith said:


> ...The war was started by Lincoln, and you will never be able to prove otherwise. ...



The shots fired at Fort Sumter prove otherwise, you idiot.


----------



## Unkotare

DudleySmith said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DudleySmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> On this topic, I have addressed how English functions and what the words that bear on this question are and mean. No one has shown (or could show) that to be incorrect. History shows that many have tried to interpret the words to their political advantage. That the situation in the U.S. involved an infernal practice, slavery, and that economics was intimately joined thereto, makes this understandable, if not respectable.
> Feelings and thoughts and political passions are all mixed up in America. So, my position has been attacked as "Lincoln cultism", which it most certainly is not, "fascist", which it most certainly is not, "moronic" and other grade school playground names. My participation here is an intellectual exercise to keep mental processes flowing and, perhaps, to clarify for any possible neutral observers the argumentation taking place in the threads.
> To repeat one important point, the entire question is moot. The issue was settled in a disastrous and terribly costly war that America never fully recovered from. It was made necessary by the kind of refusal to calmly evaluate that is evident in the preceding posts. Today's enemies gloat over the possibilities to exploit the divisions that remain. Serving those enemies is, itself, seditious. Continue at your peril.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's just Democrats trying to demonize the modern South...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it is; no other reason for the bullshit.
Click to expand...

The reason is an honest evaluation of history, idiot. No one alive in the modern South participated in the American Civil War. The only ones deserving of demonization today are idiot apologists like you and the other mental defectives here.


----------



## Unkotare

" For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property "


" A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. "

" The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. "

" The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments "


"

The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.

With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers."


----------



## Unkotare

" they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection. "

" She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time.  "


" They have, through the mails and hired emissaries, sent seditious pamphlets and papers among us to stir up servile insurrection and bring blood and carnage to our firesides. "


----------



## Bezukhov

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....
> 
> Of course, this shit all comes from someone who doesn't understand why an appeal to authority is a fallacy when it comes to matters of absolute truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have been trying to sell that pathetically transparent straw man for dozens of pages. It's not working, stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is it a "straw man" when you site William P. Chase as an authority ...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A Supreme Court justice _is_ an authority on constitutional law, stupid.
> 
> The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court writing for the majority in a given case _is_ an authority on that case, stupid.
> 
> _You_ appear to be an authority on absolutely nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "By authority" you mean ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't try to tell me what I mean, you dishonest douche bag. If you have a relevant question on the topic, ask it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you feel the need to edit what I posted?  You can't bare for other forum members to see it because it's obviously right?
Click to expand...

Is


DudleySmith said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, that was pretty good. As pointed out above, however, while slavery was engine of Southern wealth production and led them to their erroneous attempt at secession, it was the sanctity of the Union that made war inevitable for those trying to break their commitment to their country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Repeating a lie doesn't make it come true. The war was started by Lincoln, and you will never be able to prove otherwise. It was about tariffs, extortionate tariffs, and railroad welfare bills, as already been shown. Tariffs were in the news from nearly the first day SC seceded, and constantly reported on right up to Lincoln himself sniveling about 'the boys in Montgomery and their 10% tariff' while rejecting the last peace offer.
Click to expand...

So why did the South lie about their reasons for seceding? Who were they trying to bullshit?









						The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
					

The Declaration of Causes made by Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas.




					www.battlefields.org


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Since he doesn't even have a law degree, how do we know he's an "authority?"
> .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His training, experience, and long career in the law has been pointed out to you many times, stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about every geologist in 1950?  Did their training, experience, and long career in geology make them "valid authorities" on continental drift?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did I tell you about red herrings, you idiot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You told me you're an imbecile who believes there's such a thing as a valid appeal to authority.
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One more time: Do you want to know what it really means, or do you want to keep playing the ignorant clown?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already know what it means.  .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You very clearly don't. Would you like to learn what it means?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already know what it means.  I'm not the one who keeps weaseling.
> 
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, tell me what you think it means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've already told you numerous times.  If you claim 'A' is true because so-called expert 'B' says so, you have committed the logical fallacy known as "appeal to authority."
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok stupid, since you clearly aren't getting this, here:
> 
> "The _ad verecundiam_ fallacy concerns appeals to authority or expertise. Fundamentally, the fallacy involves accepting as evidence for a proposition the pronouncement of someone who is taken to be an authority but is not really an authority."
> 
> 
> 
> Fallacies (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

That's wrong, moron.  Nothing is fact simply because some authority says so.

Tell us again, do the continents move?


----------



## bripat9643

Bezukhov said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....
> 
> Of course, this shit all comes from someone who doesn't understand why an appeal to authority is a fallacy when it comes to matters of absolute truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have been trying to sell that pathetically transparent straw man for dozens of pages. It's not working, stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is it a "straw man" when you site William P. Chase as an authority ...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A Supreme Court justice _is_ an authority on constitutional law, stupid.
> 
> The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court writing for the majority in a given case _is_ an authority on that case, stupid.
> 
> _You_ appear to be an authority on absolutely nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "By authority" you mean ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't try to tell me what I mean, you dishonest douche bag. If you have a relevant question on the topic, ask it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you feel the need to edit what I posted?  You can't bare for other forum members to see it because it's obviously right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is
> 
> 
> DudleySmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks, that was pretty good. As pointed out above, however, while slavery was engine of Southern wealth production and led them to their erroneous attempt at secession, it was the sanctity of the Union that made war inevitable for those trying to break their commitment to their country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Repeating a lie doesn't make it come true. The war was started by Lincoln, and you will never be able to prove otherwise. It was about tariffs, extortionate tariffs, and railroad welfare bills, as already been shown. Tariffs were in the news from nearly the first day SC seceded, and constantly reported on right up to Lincoln himself sniveling about 'the boys in Montgomery and their 10% tariff' while rejecting the last peace offer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why did the South lie about their reasons for seceding? Who were they trying to bullshit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
> 
> 
> The Declaration of Causes made by Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.battlefields.org
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what their reasons were.  The bottom line is that Lincoln started the war when he invaded Virginia.  Only his reasons are at issue here.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> DudleySmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...The war was started by Lincoln, and you will never be able to prove otherwise. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The shots fired at Fort Sumter prove otherwise, you idiot.
Click to expand...

Wrong.


----------



## bripat9643

there4eyeM said:


> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, that was pretty good. As pointed out above, however, while slavery was engine of Southern wealth production and led them to their erroneous attempt at secession, it was the sanctity of the Union that made war inevitable for those trying to break their commitment to their country.
Click to expand...

The union was sacred only to warmongers who wanted to confiscate the wealth of the South.


----------



## bripat9643

there4eyeM said:


> On this topic, I have addressed how English functions and what the words that bear on this question are and mean. No one has shown (or could show) that to be incorrect. History shows that many have tried to interpret the words to their political advantage. That the situation in the U.S. involved an infernal practice, slavery, and that economics was intimately joined thereto, makes this understandable, if not respectable.
> Feelings and thoughts and political passions are all mixed up in America. So, my position has been attacked as "Lincoln cultism", which it most certainly is not, "fascist", which it most certainly is not, "moronic" and other grade school playground names. My participation here is an intellectual exercise to keep mental processes flowing and, perhaps, to clarify for any possible neutral observers the argumentation taking place in the threads.
> To repeat one important point, the entire question is moot. The issue was settled in a disastrous and terribly costly war that America never fully recovered from. It was made necessary by the kind of refusal to calmly evaluate that is evident in the preceding posts. Today's enemies gloat over the possibilities to exploit the divisions that remain. Serving those enemies is, itself, seditious. Continue at your peril.


You're a Lincoln cultist who isn't fooling anyone.


----------



## JLW

bripat9643 said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> On this topic, I have addressed how English functions and what the words that bear on this question are and mean. No one has shown (or could show) that to be incorrect. History shows that many have tried to interpret the words to their political advantage. That the situation in the U.S. involved an infernal practice, slavery, and that economics was intimately joined thereto, makes this understandable, if not respectable.
> Feelings and thoughts and political passions are all mixed up in America. So, my position has been attacked as "Lincoln cultism", which it most certainly is not, "fascist", which it most certainly is not, "moronic" and other grade school playground names. My participation here is an intellectual exercise to keep mental processes flowing and, perhaps, to clarify for any possible neutral observers the argumentation taking place in the threads.
> To repeat one important point, the entire question is moot. The issue was settled in a disastrous and terribly costly war that America never fully recovered from. It was made necessary by the kind of refusal to calmly evaluate that is evident in the preceding posts. Today's enemies gloat over the possibilities to exploit the divisions that remain. Serving those enemies is, itself, seditious. Continue at your peril.
> 
> 
> 
> You're a Lincoln cultist who isn't fooling anyone.
Click to expand...

Lincoln cultist????? I had a tough day today, so thanks for the good belly laugh.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Since he doesn't even have a law degree, how do we know he's an "authority?"
> .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His training, experience, and long career in the law has been pointed out to you many times, stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about every geologist in 1950?  Did their training, experience, and long career in geology make them "valid authorities" on continental drift?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did I tell you about red herrings, you idiot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You told me you're an imbecile who believes there's such a thing as a valid appeal to authority.
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One more time: Do you want to know what it really means, or do you want to keep playing the ignorant clown?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already know what it means.  .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You very clearly don't. Would you like to learn what it means?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already know what it means.  I'm not the one who keeps weaseling.
> 
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, tell me what you think it means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've already told you numerous times.  If you claim 'A' is true because so-called expert 'B' says so, you have committed the logical fallacy known as "appeal to authority."
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok stupid, since you clearly aren't getting this, here:
> 
> "The _ad verecundiam_ fallacy concerns appeals to authority or expertise. Fundamentally, the fallacy involves accepting as evidence for a proposition the pronouncement of someone who is taken to be an authority but is not really an authority."
> 
> 
> 
> Fallacies (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's wrong, .....
Click to expand...


That's the definition, you ignorant fool. If you had ever - EVER - studied the subject,  you would know at least that much.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> ....
> That's wrong, moron.  Nothing is fact simply because some authority says so.
> 
> .....



Illogical and dishonest - AGAIN.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> ...
> It doesn't matter what their reasons were.  ...



 

You are so fucking stupid....


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DudleySmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...The war was started by Lincoln, and you will never be able to prove otherwise. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The shots fired at Fort Sumter prove otherwise, you idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
Click to expand...


Do you enjoy being beaten into submission again and again? You are nothing more than a punching bag at this point, stupid.


----------



## Winston

bripat9643 said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, that was pretty good. As pointed out above, however, while slavery was engine of Southern wealth production and led them to their erroneous attempt at secession, it was the sanctity of the Union that made war inevitable for those trying to break their commitment to their country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The union was sacred only to warmongers who wanted to confiscate the wealth of the South.
Click to expand...

 You know, I often find your posts totally ignorant.  But in this case, you have nailed it.  The reality is the North was perfectly willing to accept the slavery of the South as long as they got their money.  You can read countless editorials from the time period that attest to precisely that.  The real problem for the North was when the South planned to make Charlestown a duty free port.  That blew everything all to hell.  I mean that was the actual purpose of Fort Sumter, to collect the duties.
The truth of the matter is that the North profited as much from slavery as did the South.  In some cases, even more so.  Like New York City.  The insurance and shipping brokers in New York City made so much money off the plantation owners of the South that they actually considered secession as well.  And like I said, the prospect of a duty free port in Charlestown pretty much would have destroyed the harbors of New York City and Boston.

The reality of the situation is that laying the entire blame or slavery on the South is little more than a means of the North to escape their own responsibility for the slave trade.  I mean can you say "Brown University".  To prove the point a slave named Mark was Gibbeted in Massachusetts in 1755.  Twenty years later Paul Revere rode past him and it is noted in the famous poem called Paul Revere's Ride.  You people might want to look up Gibbeted.  So the North does not get a free pass on slavery.  Matter of fact, I would argue that they have a greater responsibility than the South.  And it is laughable to proclaim all the damn Yankees fought to end slavery.  That is historical revisionism of the highest order.


----------



## DudleySmith

Winston said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, that was pretty good. As pointed out above, however, while slavery was engine of Southern wealth production and led them to their erroneous attempt at secession, it was the sanctity of the Union that made war inevitable for those trying to break their commitment to their country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The union was sacred only to warmongers who wanted to confiscate the wealth of the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know, I often find your posts totally ignorant.  But in this case, you have nailed it.  The reality is the North was perfectly willing to accept the slavery of the South as long as they got their money.  You can read countless editorials from the time period that attest to precisely that.  The real problem for the North was when the South planned to make Charlestown a duty free port.  That blew everything all to hell.  I mean that was the actual purpose of Fort Sumter, to collect the duties.
> The truth of the matter is that the North profited as much from slavery as did the South.  In some cases, even more so.  Like New York City.  The insurance and shipping brokers in New York City made so much money off the plantation owners of the South that they actually considered secession as well.  And like I said, the prospect of a duty free port in Charlestown pretty much would have destroyed the harbors of New York City and Boston.
> 
> The reality of the situation is that laying the entire blame or slavery on the South is little more than a means of the North to escape their own responsibility for the slave trade.  I mean can you say "Brown University".  To prove the point a slave named Mark was Gibbeted in Massachusetts in 1755.  Twenty years later Paul Revere rode past him and it is noted in the famous poem called Paul Revere's Ride.  You people might want to look up Gibbeted.  So the North does not get a free pass on slavery.  Matter of fact, I would argue that they have a greater responsibility than the South.  And it is laughable to proclaim all the damn Yankees fought to end slavery.  That is historical revisionism of the highest order.
Click to expand...


New York City almost seceded as well, only to suddenly change their minds when word got back to the U.S. the Confederacy was negotiating to ship cotton directly to England from Charleston, bypassing the Northern shipping monopoly.

The North also continued to export food and grain during the war as they let hundreds of thousands of blacks die in contraband camps from starvation and disease.


----------



## Pogo

DudleySmith said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> On this topic, I have addressed how English functions and what the words that bear on this question are and mean. No one has shown (or could show) that to be incorrect. History shows that many have tried to interpret the words to their political advantage. That the situation in the U.S. involved an infernal practice, slavery, and that economics was intimately joined thereto, makes this understandable, if not respectable.
> Feelings and thoughts and political passions are all mixed up in America. So, my position has been attacked as "Lincoln cultism", which it most certainly is not, "fascist", which it most certainly is not, "moronic" and other grade school playground names. My participation here is an intellectual exercise to keep mental processes flowing and, perhaps, to clarify for any possible neutral observers the argumentation taking place in the threads.
> To repeat one important point, the entire question is moot. The issue was settled in a disastrous and terribly costly war that America never fully recovered from. It was made necessary by the kind of refusal to calmly evaluate that is evident in the preceding posts. Today's enemies gloat over the possibilities to exploit the divisions that remain. Serving those enemies is, itself, seditious. Continue at your peril.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's just Democrats trying to demonize the modern South, is all, with a pile of lies to boot. If the South was so horrible, black people would have left in far larger numbers; they stayed on, after the war, and ever since. That was because northerners were a lot nastier and far more crooked.
Click to expand...


BULLSHIT.


----------



## Jets

It seems people are not going to agree on what caused the civil war...


----------



## there4eyeM

Jets said:


> It seems people are not going to agree on what caused the civil war...


...or much of anything.


----------



## DudleySmith

Pogo said:


> DudleySmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> On this topic, I have addressed how English functions and what the words that bear on this question are and mean. No one has shown (or could show) that to be incorrect. History shows that many have tried to interpret the words to their political advantage. That the situation in the U.S. involved an infernal practice, slavery, and that economics was intimately joined thereto, makes this understandable, if not respectable.
> Feelings and thoughts and political passions are all mixed up in America. So, my position has been attacked as "Lincoln cultism", which it most certainly is not, "fascist", which it most certainly is not, "moronic" and other grade school playground names. My participation here is an intellectual exercise to keep mental processes flowing and, perhaps, to clarify for any possible neutral observers the argumentation taking place in the threads.
> To repeat one important point, the entire question is moot. The issue was settled in a disastrous and terribly costly war that America never fully recovered from. It was made necessary by the kind of refusal to calmly evaluate that is evident in the preceding posts. Today's enemies gloat over the possibilities to exploit the divisions that remain. Serving those enemies is, itself, seditious. Continue at your peril.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's just Democrats trying to demonize the modern South, is all, with a pile of lies to boot. If the South was so horrible, black people would have left in far larger numbers; they stayed on, after the war, and ever since. That was because northerners were a lot nastier and far more crooked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT.
Click to expand...

More bullshit; some Ynakee sweatshop operators brought some blacks north as scabs to bust strikes, or to work in the war industries, most of it long after the they were allegedly 'freed', and again most of them remained in the South, which is why you try and use some 'Fun With Numbers' percentages; even you know you're full of shit. lol@ '1,5 million', over anentire century. Doesn't sound like  a 'welcome mat' was rolled out, exactly, just desperate straw grasping by racist yankees hoping nobody noticed they butchered blacks and whites merely over money.

By 1910, over 90% of black people still lived in the South.


----------



## DudleySmith

Jets said:


> It seems people are not going to agree on what caused the civil war...



No need to agree; the Lincoln worshippers are just venal haters and wrong, is all. It's their evil they need to deal with.


----------



## Unkotare

DudleySmith said:


> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems people are not going to agree on what caused the civil war...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No need to agree; the Lincoln worshippers are just venal haters and wrong, is all. It's their evil they need to deal with.
Click to expand...


Frustrated that you have been proven wrong over and over again, wannabe?


----------



## DudleySmith

Unkotare said:


> DudleySmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems people are not going to agree on what caused the civil war...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No need to agree; the Lincoln worshippers are just venal haters and wrong, is all. It's their evil they need to deal with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frustrated that you have been proven wrong over and over again, wannabe?
Click to expand...


lol not hardly; you racists have never been a challenge, you just hope 'posting last' with nothing impresses the other gimps.


----------



## Unkotare

DudleySmith said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DudleySmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems people are not going to agree on what caused the civil war...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No need to agree; the Lincoln worshippers are just venal haters and wrong, is all. It's their evil they need to deal with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frustrated that you have been proven wrong over and over again, wannabe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol not hardly; you racists .....
Click to expand...


Say what? This coming from an apologist for the fucking criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' who led countless men to their deaths in order to protect the evil institution of slavery?


----------



## Correll

Winston said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, that was pretty good. As pointed out above, however, while slavery was engine of Southern wealth production and led them to their erroneous attempt at secession, it was the sanctity of the Union that made war inevitable for those trying to break their commitment to their country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The union was sacred only to warmongers who wanted to confiscate the wealth of the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know, I often find your posts totally ignorant.  But in this case, you have nailed it.  The reality is the North was perfectly willing to accept the slavery of the South as long as they got their money.  You can read countless editorials from the time period that attest to precisely that.  The real problem for the North was when the South planned to make Charlestown a duty free port.  That blew everything all to hell.  I mean that was the actual purpose of Fort Sumter, to collect the duties.
> The truth of the matter is that the North profited as much from slavery as did the South.  In some cases, even more so.  Like New York City.  The insurance and shipping brokers in New York City made so much money off the plantation owners of the South that they actually considered secession as well.  And like I said, the prospect of a duty free port in Charlestown pretty much would have destroyed the harbors of New York City and Boston.
> 
> The reality of the situation is that laying the entire blame or slavery on the South is little more than a means of the North to escape their own responsibility for the slave trade.  I mean can you say "Brown University".  To prove the point a slave named Mark was Gibbeted in Massachusetts in 1755.  Twenty years later Paul Revere rode past him and it is noted in the famous poem called Paul Revere's Ride.  You people might want to look up Gibbeted.  So the North does not get a free pass on slavery.  Matter of fact, I would argue that they have a greater responsibility than the South.  And it is laughable to proclaim all the damn Yankees fought to end slavery.  That is historical revisionism of the highest order.
Click to expand...



And teh cotton went to Europe to grow their textile mills.


----------



## Pogo

DudleySmith said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DudleySmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> On this topic, I have addressed how English functions and what the words that bear on this question are and mean. No one has shown (or could show) that to be incorrect. History shows that many have tried to interpret the words to their political advantage. That the situation in the U.S. involved an infernal practice, slavery, and that economics was intimately joined thereto, makes this understandable, if not respectable.
> Feelings and thoughts and political passions are all mixed up in America. So, my position has been attacked as "Lincoln cultism", which it most certainly is not, "fascist", which it most certainly is not, "moronic" and other grade school playground names. My participation here is an intellectual exercise to keep mental processes flowing and, perhaps, to clarify for any possible neutral observers the argumentation taking place in the threads.
> To repeat one important point, the entire question is moot. The issue was settled in a disastrous and terribly costly war that America never fully recovered from. It was made necessary by the kind of refusal to calmly evaluate that is evident in the preceding posts. Today's enemies gloat over the possibilities to exploit the divisions that remain. Serving those enemies is, itself, seditious. Continue at your peril.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's just Democrats trying to demonize the modern South, is all, with a pile of lies to boot. If the South was so horrible, black people would have left in far larger numbers; they stayed on, after the war, and ever since. That was because northerners were a lot nastier and far more crooked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More bullshit; some Ynakee sweatshop operators brought some blacks north as scabs to bust strikes, or to work in the war industries, most of it long after the they were allegedly 'freed', and again most of them remained in the South, which is why you try and use some 'Fun With Numbers' percentages; even you know you're full of shit. lol@ '1,5 million', over anentire century. Doesn't sound like  a 'welcome mat' was rolled out, exactly, just desperate straw grasping by racist yankees hoping nobody noticed they butchered blacks and whites merely over money.
> 
> By 1910, over 90% of black people still lived in the South.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately for your desperate ass I said nothing about "welcome mats" or any other value judgments that you're trying to plug in after the fact and in fact have delineated quite the opposite dynamic on this site where the topic has come up.  What I did there was toss into the dumpster your ridiculous fantasy about 'they stayed on, after the war, and ever since'.  Where the fuck did you think Chicago and Detroit and Cleveland and Philadelphia and Indianapolis (etc etc etc) got their black populations?  Tooth fairy?

FUCK outta here.


----------



## there4eyeM

These consequences of the war are testimony to poor management at all levels, from the individual to the President (and beyond to the tycoons of the epoch). As effects, however, they don't say much about the causes of that war. No one disputes that the general attitude toward blacks was different from others, though, at the same time, other groups were also viewed much more negatively and differently that today. The general population was not so enlightened as we noble and all knowing moderns.
The nation would never have had this war to resolve its existential validity if slavery had not been in the original mix. That fact denigrates or elevates neither side morally. Going on from that fact to moral and/or economic judgements is after this fact. The only other element is the nature of the nation. Did they put their differences apart and fight the mighty British Empire to establish what they called the Perpetual Union so that it could just fall apart at any moment, at any whim? The Civil War was necessitated by people who would not give up slavery and people who would not allow their nation to crumble.


----------



## Unkotare

there4eyeM said:


> These consequences of the war are testimony to poor management at all levels, from the individual to the President (and beyond to the tycoons of the epoch). As effects, however, they don't say much about the causes of that war. No one disputes that the general attitude toward blacks was different from others, though, at the same time, other groups were also viewed much more negatively and differently that today. The general population was not so enlightened as we noble and all knowing moderns.
> The nation would never have had this war to resolve its existential validity if slavery had not been in the original mix. That fact denigrates or elevates neither side morally. Going on from that fact to moral and/or economic judgements is after this fact. The only other element is the nature of the nation. Did they put their differences apart and fight the mighty British Empire to establish what they called the Perpetual Union so that it could just fall apart at any moment, at any whim? The Civil War was necessitated by people who would not give up slavery and people who would not allow their nation to crumble.


^^^^^^^^^^^


----------



## Winston

Unkotare said:


> DudleySmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DudleySmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems people are not going to agree on what caused the civil war...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No need to agree; the Lincoln worshippers are just venal haters and wrong, is all. It's their evil they need to deal with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frustrated that you have been proven wrong over and over again, wannabe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol not hardly; you racists .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Say what? This coming from an apologist for the fucking criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' who led countless men to their deaths in order to protect the evil institution of slavery?
Click to expand...


That is just stupid.  Those men of the confederacy were no more fighting to protect the institution of slavery than the damn yankees were fighting to end it.  I mean I am sick and tired of historical dumbasses, especially flippin ignorant ass Yankees, trying to claim the moral high ground just so they can deny their own responsibility for that institution of slavery. Was slavery illegal in Kentucky.  Well was it?  What about Texas.  LIncoln offered to allow Texas to keep that terrible institution of slavery if they would just not join the Confederacy.

What about that famous "Emancipation Proclamation".  Did it set free the slaves in Union occupied New Orleans?  Hell no, it only freed the slaves in Confederate controlled territories.  What a damn joke.  Got you some slaves in a tobacco farm in Kentucky, hell, you good to go.  And Lincoln, was he a man of principal, working hard to free those slaves.  Hell no, he believed the Negro was inferior, worked hard to keep Illinois white.  See, free states and slave states and the Missouri compromise, what free state usually meant was NO BLACKS WHATSOVER.  Read a history book, written in the 19th century, not the revisionist bullshit printed now.  During the Lincoln Douglas debates Lincoln advocated to ship all the Negros back to Africa.  You ever hear of a place called Liberia?

But hell, I guess I should be thankful.  I mean if it wasn't for the rapist of the Michigan militia my ass would not even be on this earth.  There is no way in hell you can convince me that the Yankees hold the moral high ground here.  They were rapists, thieves, scoundrels.  Stupid asshole descendent from the Michigan militia attempted to sell North Carolina's copy of the Constitution on ebay several years back.  Our governor, who was the attorney general at the time, got it back.  Like I said at the very beginning, the North was all too happy to accept the institution of slavery as long as they got their money.  When it looked like their gravy train might dry up they invaded, did you hear that, INVADED.  And that is what why those Confederate soldiers were fighting.


----------



## Dayton3

Oz and the Orchestra said:


> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> Only it wasn't.
> If Lincoln had stated that he was going to ban slavery and emancipate the slaves and the South refused. Then you could say it was fought over slavery but that never happened. Lincoln had no intention of banning slavery. It was just that as Sherman had pushed deep into Georgia it was a smart military tactic to cause maximum disruption.
> 
> And I'm as left-wing as you can get.
Click to expand...


That and by remaking the purpose of the Civil War to be "ending slavery" Lincoln made it a public relations cudgel to use against the British government.    The rank and file British public strongly opposed slavery so once the aim of the war was turned into "ending slavery" there was no possibility whatsoever that the British govt. was going to be willing to assist the south in preserving it.


----------



## DudleySmith

Winston said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DudleySmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DudleySmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems people are not going to agree on what caused the civil war...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No need to agree; the Lincoln worshippers are just venal haters and wrong, is all. It's their evil they need to deal with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frustrated that you have been proven wrong over and over again, wannabe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol not hardly; you racists .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Say what? This coming from an apologist for the fucking criminals of the so-called 'confederacy' who led countless men to their deaths in order to protect the evil institution of slavery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is just stupid.  Those men of the confederacy were no more fighting to protect the institution of slavery than the damn yankees were fighting to end it.  I mean I am sick and tired of historical dumbasses, especially flippin ignorant ass Yankees, trying to claim the moral high ground just so they can deny their own responsibility for that institution of slavery. Was slavery illegal in Kentucky.  Well was it?  What about Texas.  LIncoln offered to allow Texas to keep that terrible institution of slavery if they would just not join the Confederacy.
> 
> What about that famous "Emancipation Proclamation".  Did it set free the slaves in Union occupied New Orleans?  Hell no, it only freed the slaves in Confederate controlled territories.  What a damn joke.  Got you some slaves in a tobacco farm in Kentucky, hell, you good to go.  And Lincoln, was he a man of principal, working hard to free those slaves.  Hell no, he believed the Negro was inferior, worked hard to keep Illinois white.  See, free states and slave states and the Missouri compromise, what free state usually meant was NO BLACKS WHATSOVER.  Read a history book, written in the 19th century, not the revisionist bullshit printed now.  During the Lincoln Douglas debates Lincoln advocated to ship all the Negros back to Africa.  You ever hear of a place called Liberia?
> 
> But hell, I guess I should be thankful.  I mean if it wasn't for the rapist of the Michigan militia my ass would not even be on this earth.  There is no way in hell you can convince me that the Yankees hold the moral high ground here.  They were rapists, thieves, scoundrels.  Stupid asshole descendent from the Michigan militia attempted to sell North Carolina's copy of the Constitution on ebay several years back.  Our governor, who was the attorney general at the time, got it back.  Like I said at the very beginning, the North was all too happy to accept the institution of slavery as long as they got their money.  When it looked like their gravy train might dry up they invaded, did you hear that, INVADED.  And that is what why those Confederate soldiers were fighting.
Click to expand...


it's a stupid propaganda gimmick invented by dumbass political activists who think they're going to link the South's shift to Republicans to 'racism n stuff', when we all know it was Lincoln and the majority of 'abolitionists' who ran on the White Nationalist policies. These tards are just too stupid  and racist themselves to see the obvious.

And even more obvious black people chose to stay and live in the South rather than go north, 90% of them still living in the South until the early 1900's, and the majority remained here right up to today. So much for the claim the northern states and California were less racist than the South. Black voters in Harlem voted in about the xame percentages as backs in Mississippi until after Nixon was elected, in 'Enlightened liberal Democratic' New York City.


----------



## Unkotare

DudleySmith said:


> ..... link the South's shift to Republicans to 'racism n stuff....




No one but you has said that, dumbass.


----------



## Unkotare

Dayton3 said:


> .....That and by remaking the purpose of the Civil War to be "ending slavery" .......



America's purpose was to preserve the Union. The purpose of the criminal scumbags of the so-called 'confederacy' was to preserve slavery and destroy the Union.


----------



## DudleySmith

Pogo said:


> DudleySmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DudleySmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> On this topic, I have addressed how English functions and what the words that bear on this question are and mean. No one has shown (or could show) that to be incorrect. History shows that many have tried to interpret the words to their political advantage. That the situation in the U.S. involved an infernal practice, slavery, and that economics was intimately joined thereto, makes this understandable, if not respectable.
> Feelings and thoughts and political passions are all mixed up in America. So, my position has been attacked as "Lincoln cultism", which it most certainly is not, "fascist", which it most certainly is not, "moronic" and other grade school playground names. My participation here is an intellectual exercise to keep mental processes flowing and, perhaps, to clarify for any possible neutral observers the argumentation taking place in the threads.
> To repeat one important point, the entire question is moot. The issue was settled in a disastrous and terribly costly war that America never fully recovered from. It was made necessary by the kind of refusal to calmly evaluate that is evident in the preceding posts. Today's enemies gloat over the possibilities to exploit the divisions that remain. Serving those enemies is, itself, seditious. Continue at your peril.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's just Democrats trying to demonize the modern South, is all, with a pile of lies to boot. If the South was so horrible, black people would have left in far larger numbers; they stayed on, after the war, and ever since. That was because northerners were a lot nastier and far more crooked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More bullshit; some Ynakee sweatshop operators brought some blacks north as scabs to bust strikes, or to work in the war industries, most of it long after the they were allegedly 'freed', and again most of them remained in the South, which is why you try and use some 'Fun With Numbers' percentages; even you know you're full of shit. lol@ '1,5 million', over anentire century. Doesn't sound like  a 'welcome mat' was rolled out, exactly, just desperate straw grasping by racist yankees hoping nobody noticed they butchered blacks and whites merely over money.
> 
> By 1910, over 90% of black people still lived in the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for your desperate ass I said nothing about "welcome mats" or any other value judgments that you're trying to plug in after the fact and in fact have delineated quite the opposite dynamic on this site where the topic has come up.  What I did there was toss into the dumpster your ridiculous fantasy about 'they stayed on, after the war, and ever since'.  Where the fuck did you think Chicago and Detroit and Cleveland and Philadelphia and Indianapolis (etc etc etc) got their black populations?  Tooth fairy?
> 
> FUCK outta here.
Click to expand...


You're just too stupid to win any points, so get out yoruslef before you embarrass yourself even more with your idiot rubbish and inability to even look up basic stuff, dumbass. Go smoke some more meth and console yourself.


----------



## DudleySmith

Unkotare said:


> DudleySmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..... link the South's shift to Republicans to 'racism n stuff....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one but you has said that, dumbass.
Click to expand...


I realize you hate the fact tht it's a well known fact, and you tards are just repeating the idiotic nonsense the North was 'fightin slavery n stuff' and 'Honest Abe' the sleazebag railroad lawyer was just a poor hapless patriot n stuff opposed to Da Evul SlaveHolders out of the goodness of his heart, like you keep trying to pretend you are.


----------



## DudleySmith

Dayton3 said:


> Oz and the Orchestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> Only it wasn't.
> If Lincoln had stated that he was going to ban slavery and emancipate the slaves and the South refused. Then you could say it was fought over slavery but that never happened. Lincoln had no intention of banning slavery. It was just that as Sherman had pushed deep into Georgia it was a smart military tactic to cause maximum disruption.
> 
> And I'm as left-wing as you can get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That and by remaking the purpose of the Civil War to be "ending slavery" Lincoln made it a public relations cudgel to use against the British government.    The rank and file British public strongly opposed slavery so once the aim of the war was turned into "ending slavery" there was no possibility whatsoever that the British govt. was going to be willing to assist the south in preserving it.
Click to expand...


Actually the British need the food and commodities exports form the U.S. more than they needed the cotton, as they thought they could just start growing enough cotton in India and Egypt to replace the loss of the southern trade. The British were fine with slave labor, since they used a lot of it in the ME and India and China. Much of that met with failure, though, and as soon as the war was over they went back to the cleaner and higher quality cotton form the South; it as now cheaper thanks to sharecropping driving labor costs down and making black farm laborers even poorer than they were as slaves.


----------



## Unkotare

Dayton3 said:


> ...... once the aim of the war was turned into "ending slavery" there was no possibility whatsoever that the British govt. was going to be willing to assist the south in preserving it.



The British weren't going to recognize the so-called 'confederacy' because it was clearly illegitimate, and it was extremely likely to fail.  Once that happened, any European country that had tried to interfere would face a very hostile UNITED States.


----------



## Unkotare

...

America's purpose was to preserve the Union. The purpose of the criminal scumbags of the so-called 'confederacy' was to preserve slavery and destroy the Union.


----------



## DudleySmith

Unkotare said:


> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...... once the aim of the war was turned into "ending slavery" there was no possibility whatsoever that the British govt. was going to be willing to assist the south in preserving it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The British weren't going to recognize the so-called 'confederacy' because it was clearly illegitimate, and it was extremely likely to fail.  Once that happened, any European country that had tried to interfere would face a very hostile UNITED States.
Click to expand...


lol nonsense.


----------



## Pogo

DudleySmith said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DudleySmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DudleySmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> On this topic, I have addressed how English functions and what the words that bear on this question are and mean. No one has shown (or could show) that to be incorrect. History shows that many have tried to interpret the words to their political advantage. That the situation in the U.S. involved an infernal practice, slavery, and that economics was intimately joined thereto, makes this understandable, if not respectable.
> Feelings and thoughts and political passions are all mixed up in America. So, my position has been attacked as "Lincoln cultism", which it most certainly is not, "fascist", which it most certainly is not, "moronic" and other grade school playground names. My participation here is an intellectual exercise to keep mental processes flowing and, perhaps, to clarify for any possible neutral observers the argumentation taking place in the threads.
> To repeat one important point, the entire question is moot. The issue was settled in a disastrous and terribly costly war that America never fully recovered from. It was made necessary by the kind of refusal to calmly evaluate that is evident in the preceding posts. Today's enemies gloat over the possibilities to exploit the divisions that remain. Serving those enemies is, itself, seditious. Continue at your peril.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's just Democrats trying to demonize the modern South, is all, with a pile of lies to boot. If the South was so horrible, black people would have left in far larger numbers; they stayed on, after the war, and ever since. That was because northerners were a lot nastier and far more crooked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More bullshit; some Ynakee sweatshop operators brought some blacks north as scabs to bust strikes, or to work in the war industries, most of it long after the they were allegedly 'freed', and again most of them remained in the South, which is why you try and use some 'Fun With Numbers' percentages; even you know you're full of shit. lol@ '1,5 million', over anentire century. Doesn't sound like  a 'welcome mat' was rolled out, exactly, just desperate straw grasping by racist yankees hoping nobody noticed they butchered blacks and whites merely over money.
> 
> By 1910, over 90% of black people still lived in the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for your desperate ass I said nothing about "welcome mats" or any other value judgments that you're trying to plug in after the fact and in fact have delineated quite the opposite dynamic on this site where the topic has come up.  What I did there was toss into the dumpster your ridiculous fantasy about 'they stayed on, after the war, and ever since'.  Where the fuck did you think Chicago and Detroit and Cleveland and Philadelphia and Indianapolis (etc etc etc) got their black populations?  Tooth fairy?
> 
> FUCK outta here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're just too stupid to win any points, so get out yoruslef before you embarrass yourself even more with your idiot rubbish and inability to even look up basic stuff, dumbass. Go smoke some more meth and console yourself.
Click to expand...

 
Go fuck yourself.  I obliterated your senseless ass-ertion for the senseless idiocy it is, with facts.  Don't post senseless shit and you won't get it obliterated.  Ain't rocket surgery.


----------



## Unkotare

When the idiot 'confederates' torched their cotton crop, hoping to drive up prices, the British simply obtained what they needed from Brazil, Egypt, and India.


----------



## Unkotare

DudleySmith said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...... once the aim of the war was turned into "ending slavery" there was no possibility whatsoever that the British govt. was going to be willing to assist the south in preserving it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The British weren't going to recognize the so-called 'confederacy' because it was clearly illegitimate, and it was extremely likely to fail.  Once that happened, any European country that had tried to interfere would face a very hostile UNITED States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol nonsense.
Click to expand...


Common knowledge for anyone who has actually studied History. Lincoln sent Seward to Europe to make this perfectly clear, which Seward was quite inclined to do. Lincoln had to remind Seward not to threaten every country he visited with outright war.


----------



## DudleySmith

Pogo said:


> DudleySmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DudleySmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DudleySmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> On this topic, I have addressed how English functions and what the words that bear on this question are and mean. No one has shown (or could show) that to be incorrect. History shows that many have tried to interpret the words to their political advantage. That the situation in the U.S. involved an infernal practice, slavery, and that economics was intimately joined thereto, makes this understandable, if not respectable.
> Feelings and thoughts and political passions are all mixed up in America. So, my position has been attacked as "Lincoln cultism", which it most certainly is not, "fascist", which it most certainly is not, "moronic" and other grade school playground names. My participation here is an intellectual exercise to keep mental processes flowing and, perhaps, to clarify for any possible neutral observers the argumentation taking place in the threads.
> To repeat one important point, the entire question is moot. The issue was settled in a disastrous and terribly costly war that America never fully recovered from. It was made necessary by the kind of refusal to calmly evaluate that is evident in the preceding posts. Today's enemies gloat over the possibilities to exploit the divisions that remain. Serving those enemies is, itself, seditious. Continue at your peril.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's just Democrats trying to demonize the modern South, is all, with a pile of lies to boot. If the South was so horrible, black people would have left in far larger numbers; they stayed on, after the war, and ever since. That was because northerners were a lot nastier and far more crooked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More bullshit; some Ynakee sweatshop operators brought some blacks north as scabs to bust strikes, or to work in the war industries, most of it long after the they were allegedly 'freed', and again most of them remained in the South, which is why you try and use some 'Fun With Numbers' percentages; even you know you're full of shit. lol@ '1,5 million', over anentire century. Doesn't sound like  a 'welcome mat' was rolled out, exactly, just desperate straw grasping by racist yankees hoping nobody noticed they butchered blacks and whites merely over money.
> 
> By 1910, over 90% of black people still lived in the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for your desperate ass I said nothing about "welcome mats" or any other value judgments that you're trying to plug in after the fact and in fact have delineated quite the opposite dynamic on this site where the topic has come up.  What I did there was toss into the dumpster your ridiculous fantasy about 'they stayed on, after the war, and ever since'.  Where the fuck did you think Chicago and Detroit and Cleveland and Philadelphia and Indianapolis (etc etc etc) got their black populations?  Tooth fairy?
> 
> FUCK outta here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're just too stupid to win any points, so get out yoruslef before you embarrass yourself even more with your idiot rubbish and inability to even look up basic stuff, dumbass. Go smoke some more meth and console yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go fuck yourself.  I obliterated your senseless ass-ertion for the senseless idiocy it is, with facts.  Don't post senseless shit and you won't get it obliterated.  Ain't rocket surgery.
Click to expand...


So you've moved from meth to psychedelics. lol you've never 'obliterated' so much as a mosquito your entire life, gimp.


----------



## there4eyeM

Unkotare said:


> When the idiot 'confederates' torched their cotton crop, hoping to drive up prices, the British simply obtained what they needed from Brazil, Egypt, and India.


Self destructiveness exemplified


----------



## DudleySmith

Unkotare said:


> DudleySmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...... once the aim of the war was turned into "ending slavery" there was no possibility whatsoever that the British govt. was going to be willing to assist the south in preserving it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The British weren't going to recognize the so-called 'confederacy' because it was clearly illegitimate, and it was extremely likely to fail.  Once that happened, any European country that had tried to interfere would face a very hostile UNITED States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Common knowledge for anyone who has actually studied History.
Click to expand...


So you saying you never studied History. we already knew that so no need to confess now..


----------



## Unkotare

DudleySmith said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DudleySmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dayton3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...... once the aim of the war was turned into "ending slavery" there was no possibility whatsoever that the British govt. was going to be willing to assist the south in preserving it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The British weren't going to recognize the so-called 'confederacy' because it was clearly illegitimate, and it was extremely likely to fail.  Once that happened, any European country that had tried to interfere would face a very hostile UNITED States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Common knowledge for anyone who has actually studied History.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you [sic] saying you never studied History. we already knew that so no need to confess now.. [sic]
Click to expand...


Now we know you've never studied History _or_ English.


----------



## Unkotare

Winston said:


> ...Those men of the confederacy were no more fighting to protect the institution of slavery than .....



According to their own declarations they sure as hell were.


----------



## Pogo

DudleySmith said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DudleySmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DudleySmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DudleySmith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> On this topic, I have addressed how English functions and what the words that bear on this question are and mean. No one has shown (or could show) that to be incorrect. History shows that many have tried to interpret the words to their political advantage. That the situation in the U.S. involved an infernal practice, slavery, and that economics was intimately joined thereto, makes this understandable, if not respectable.
> Feelings and thoughts and political passions are all mixed up in America. So, my position has been attacked as "Lincoln cultism", which it most certainly is not, "fascist", which it most certainly is not, "moronic" and other grade school playground names. My participation here is an intellectual exercise to keep mental processes flowing and, perhaps, to clarify for any possible neutral observers the argumentation taking place in the threads.
> To repeat one important point, the entire question is moot. The issue was settled in a disastrous and terribly costly war that America never fully recovered from. It was made necessary by the kind of refusal to calmly evaluate that is evident in the preceding posts. Today's enemies gloat over the possibilities to exploit the divisions that remain. Serving those enemies is, itself, seditious. Continue at your peril.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's just Democrats trying to demonize the modern South, is all, with a pile of lies to boot. If the South was so horrible, black people would have left in far larger numbers; they stayed on, after the war, and ever since. That was because northerners were a lot nastier and far more crooked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More bullshit; some Ynakee sweatshop operators brought some blacks north as scabs to bust strikes, or to work in the war industries, most of it long after the they were allegedly 'freed', and again most of them remained in the South, which is why you try and use some 'Fun With Numbers' percentages; even you know you're full of shit. lol@ '1,5 million', over anentire century. Doesn't sound like  a 'welcome mat' was rolled out, exactly, just desperate straw grasping by racist yankees hoping nobody noticed they butchered blacks and whites merely over money.
> 
> By 1910, over 90% of black people still lived in the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for your desperate ass I said nothing about "welcome mats" or any other value judgments that you're trying to plug in after the fact and in fact have delineated quite the opposite dynamic on this site where the topic has come up.  What I did there was toss into the dumpster your ridiculous fantasy about 'they stayed on, after the war, and ever since'.  Where the fuck did you think Chicago and Detroit and Cleveland and Philadelphia and Indianapolis (etc etc etc) got their black populations?  Tooth fairy?
> 
> FUCK outta here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're just too stupid to win any points, so get out yoruslef before you embarrass yourself even more with your idiot rubbish and inability to even look up basic stuff, dumbass. Go smoke some more meth and console yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go fuck yourself.  I obliterated your senseless ass-ertion for the senseless idiocy it is, with facts.  Don't post senseless shit and you won't get it obliterated.  Ain't rocket surgery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you've moved from meth to psychedelics. lol you've never 'obliterated' so much as a mosquito your entire life, gimp.
Click to expand...


THE FUCKING CHART IS SITTING RIGHT ON YOUR SCREEN THERE DILDOBRAIN.  Complete with a fucking LINK.  I can't help you if you just don't have the stones to grapple with FUCKING REALITY.


----------



## Winston

Unkotare said:


> Winston said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Those men of the confederacy were no more fighting to protect the institution of slavery than .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to their own declarations they sure as hell were.
Click to expand...


Not all of them.  Not even close.  I mean it is comical for people today to attempt to justify the actions of the mob that attempted to stop the certification of the election results at the Capitol and then pontificate about the South, slavery, and the Civil War.  The real reason many states seceded is because of the election of Lincoln.  Hell, he wasn't even on the ballot in many Southern states.  He was a scoundrel, in the highest sense.  Even his nomination was a fiasco plagued in grift and bribery.  I mean Trump was an idiot, but at least he never locked up a SCOTUS judge because he ruled in a way he didn't like.  Secession, regardless of the reason, was a right each of the states were entitled to.  The Constitution was not some contract signed in perpetuity.  Massachusetts threatened to secede damn near every year prior to the Civil War.

The truth is the North's victory in the Civil War did not preserve the Union.  It destroyed it, as least as how it was founded.  And the whole obsession about slavery is nothing more than a red herring to divert attention away from that reality.  If you don't believe that, what other country eliminated slavery with a war?  Slavery was destined to die out, it would have already died out if not for Eli Whitney.  But even the cotton gin could not have preserved the institution of slavery once the industrial revolution started gaining steam.


----------



## Pogo

Winston said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Winston said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Those men of the confederacy were no more fighting to protect the institution of slavery than .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to their own declarations they sure as hell were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not all of them.  Not even close.  I mean it is comical for people today to attempt to justify the actions of the mob that attempted to stop the certification of the election results at the Capitol and then pontificate about the South, slavery, and the Civil War.  The real reason many states seceded is because of the election of Lincoln.  Hell, he wasn't even on the ballot in many Southern states.  He was a scoundrel, in the highest sense.  Even his nomination was a fiasco plagued in grift and bribery.  I mean Trump was an idiot, but at least he never locked up a SCOTUS judge because he ruled in a way he didn't like.  Secession, regardless of the reason, was a right each of the states were entitled to.  The Constitution was not some contract signed in perpetuity.  Massachusetts threatened to secede damn near every year prior to the Civil War.
> 
> The truth is the North's victory in the Civil War did not preserve the Union.  It destroyed it, as least as how it was founded.  And the whole obsession about slavery is nothing more than a red herring to divert attention away from that reality.  If you don't believe that, what other country eliminated slavery with a war?  Slavery was destined to die out, it would have already died out if not for Eli Whitney.  But even the cotton gin could not have preserved the institution of slavery once the industrial revolution started gaining steam.
Click to expand...


Lincoln wasn't on the ballots in (what would become) the Confederacy because the Republican Party was all of six years old and had not organized in the South, calculating (correctly) that their support would be elsewhere.  In those days you didn't get a ballot from the polling place, it was printed up by each political party.  And the Republicans didn't do it in the South, hadn't done so in 1856 and didn't officially run a POTUS candidate there until Grant in 1868.  Lincoln wasn't even on the ballot in his birth state of Kentucky until 1864.

What other country eliminated Slavery with a war?  That's easy.  Haiti, the second independence revolution in America, 1804.


----------



## Unkotare

" For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property "


" A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. "

" The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. "

" The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments "


"

The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.

With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our ruler."


----------



## Unkotare

" they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection. "

" She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time.  "


" They have, through the mails and hired emissaries, sent seditious pamphlets and papers among us to stir up servile insurrection and bring blood and carnage to our firesides. "


----------



## Unkotare

Winston said:


> ... Secession, regardless of the reason, was a right each of the states were entitled to.  ....



" the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede. "









						Texas v. White | law case
					

Texas v. White,   (1869), U.S. Supreme Court case in which it was held that the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede. In 1850 the state of Texas received $10,000,000 in federal government bonds in settlement of boundary claims. In 1861 the state seceded from...



					www.britannica.com


----------



## there4eyeM

Of all the preposterous and disingenuous arguments, trying to present the position of the "south" as innocent victim has absolutely got to be the ultimate absurdity. An economy and "culture" riding on the sweating, bleeding backs of a subjugated people is beneath contempt and worthy of no admiration. That workers in the north were little better off is no compensation. That capitalists function without human moral values is no justification. That politicians of all sides and flavors were (and are) corrupt cannot obscure the human disaster that the "south" exemplified. All those protesting the valor and standing of the self-proclaimed secessionists may fool themselves, but they fool no one else. When betrayal of their word and their nation is added, there remains nothing left on their side. No country defining itself as such could allow its being torn in half under any conditions, but certainly not for the purpose of demeaning human existence by foul, unholy strictures. The only apology the nation owes at all is that slavery was ever permitted.


----------



## gtopa1

TrumpSucks said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpSucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?
> 
> 
> 
> The end of slavery was one of the eventual outcomes of the war. Odd that every other country that had slaves was able to ban slavery without killing a million of its own citizens...UK and France for example.
> 
> No you silly person; the Civil War was about $....as usual.
> 
> Make no mistake; that slavery was ended was a good thing and overdue. You must also be aware that the North DESTROYED the South's ECONOMY. No money for reparations.
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The North destroyed the South's economy because the South made war upon the North. Remember Fort Sumpter?
Click to expand...

Since when was Sumter in South Carolina a Union fort...AFTER SC seceded??? And the massacre of Union Troops......NOT!!!

Greg


----------



## there4eyeM

Stop paying your local taxes and tell the city or county or whatever that you have seceded.


----------



## mikegriffith1

Humm. . . .  Well. . . .  When the Civil War began, there were more slave states in the Union than there were in the Confederacy. During the war, the Union created a slave state from part of the state of Virginia (West Virginia). Shortly before the war ended, the Confederacy had started a program of emancipation for all slaves who would volunteer to serve in the Confederate army. 

The Civil War was fought over the South's attempt to form an independent country, not over slavery.


----------



## Unkotare

More misleading half truths. ^^^^^^


----------



## mikegriffith1

It is certainly true that if there had been no slavery there would have been no civil war, but that does not mean that the war was fought over slavery. Before the war began, Lincoln was entirely willing to guarantee slavery's existence in the states where it already existed--he simply did not want slavery to spread in the western territories.


----------



## there4eyeM

Unkotare said:


> More misleading half truths. ^^^^^^


A little "late for the party" as well.


----------



## Pellinore

The Civil War was about slavery.  It was only about states' rights inasmuch as it was about the states' rights to own slaves.  Any other potential cause such as cultural differences, tariffs, nullification, resistance to tyranny, or Southern honor are supporting causes at best.  There are mountains of contemporaneous evidence to support this fact.  The US was about to outlaw slavery, and the Southern states seceded to protect their slavery.  

A lot of people weren't crazy about the idea of a brutal, bloody war for a bunch of Black people a thousand miles away, so Lincoln—being an expert politician—justified the war to them (and maybe to himself as well) as fighting for the Union, not the slaves.  There was never much doubt that the goal was to preserve the Union and then end slavery.  The main purpose of the Emancipation Proclamation (essentially an EO) was to tell everyone—especially Southern Blacks—that the US was ending slavery.  The President couldn't make laws so he couldn't end slavery; that was the job of Congress and the States, who did exactly that with the 13th Amendment as soon as the war was over.

The idea that the Civil War was not about slavery is a product of post-war spin by those attempting to depict the vanquished South as honorable defenders of their homeland rather than proponents of the barbaric and wholly rejected institution of chattel slavery.  The idea has clung on until today for various reasons, but it isn't based on an honest examination of the events.  The Civil War was about slavery.


----------

