# ...I just realized Lincoln was the Hitler of the 19th century.



## Liberty

They both committed ridiculous and pointless genocide...maybe no where near in similar methods or to the same ends, but they both killed a large enough amount of people that should taint their legacy as villainous in my opinion.


----------



## Kalam

Nah. A genocide is a systematic attempt to eradicate an entire group of people; Lincoln was after territory. Imperialistic, yes, but not genocidal or even in the same ballpark as the Holocaust.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Certainly not in the same league as Hitler, but he had no problem wiping out the southern population.


----------



## jillian

the southern population shouldn't have waged war against their country.

and hitler didn't target anyone committing treason.

might be one of the more absurd analogies i've seen.


----------



## Kalam

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Certainly not in the same league as Hitler, but he had no problem wiping out the southern population.



Not caring and deliberately attempting to destroy are two very different things, though I doubt he was truly guilty of either. I'd say that you more aptly described Sherman.


----------



## Kalam

jillian said:


> the southern population shouldn't have waged war against their country.



They didn't. The Confederate states were well within their rights to secede and demand that the US leave their territory.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Kalam said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly not in the same league as Hitler, but he had no problem wiping out the southern population.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not caring and deliberately attempting to destroy are two very different things, though I doubt he was truly guilty of either. I'd say that you more aptly described Sherman.
Click to expand...


Sherman and Sheridan certainly wanted to wipe out the southern population, but Lincoln gave Sherman the "thanks of the nation" for his work in the south.  Hard to say he didn't want to wipe out the south when he thanked Sherman for doing exactly that.


----------



## GHook93

He just freed the slaves (which was America's worst injustice in its short history), kept the nation together and got the 13th and 14th amendments passed. Yea he is a real bad guy. 

Where do you people come from? Mars?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

GHook93 said:


> He just freed the slaves (which was America's worst injustice in its short history), kept the nation together and got the 13th and 14th amendments passed. Yea he is a real bad guy.
> 
> Where do you people come from? Mars?



Lincoln didn't free any slaves.


----------



## Liability

Liberty said:


> They both committed ridiculous and pointless genocide...maybe no where near in similar methods or to the same ends, but they both killed a large enough amount of people that should taint their legacy as villainous in my opinion.



That is retarded.  You appear to be retarded.

It fits.


----------



## Kalam

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly not in the same league as Hitler, but he had no problem wiping out the southern population.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not caring and deliberately attempting to destroy are two very different things, though I doubt he was truly guilty of either. I'd say that you more aptly described Sherman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sherman and Sheridan certainly wanted to wipe out the southern population, but Lincoln gave Sherman the "thanks of the nation" for his work in the south.  Hard to say he didn't want to wipe out the south when he thanked Sherman for doing exactly that.
Click to expand...

I think he took a pragmatic, "ends justify means" approach to ending the war. I don't like Lincoln, but I'm not convinced that he harbored that kind of enmity toward Southern people in general.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

jillian said:


> the southern population shouldn't have waged war against their country.
> 
> and hitler didn't target anyone committing treason.
> 
> might be one of the more absurd analogies i've seen.



I guess this is the result of the education system in our country today. The south did not wage war against the north, they seceded from the north, then the north waged war to force them to back.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Kalam said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not caring and deliberately attempting to destroy are two very different things, though I doubt he was truly guilty of either. I'd say that you more aptly described Sherman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sherman and Sheridan certainly wanted to wipe out the southern population, but Lincoln gave Sherman the "thanks of the nation" for his work in the south.  Hard to say he didn't want to wipe out the south when he thanked Sherman for doing exactly that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think he took a pragmatic, "ends justify means" approach to ending the war. I don't like Lincoln, but I'm not convinced that he harbored that kind of enmity toward Southern people in general.
Click to expand...


I think he harbored enmity against anyone that refused to pay its tribute to his government, and had no problem having them murdered.


----------



## Kalam

GHook93 said:


> He just freed the slaves (which was America's worst injustice in its short history), kept the nation together and got the 13th and 14th amendments passed. Yea he is a real bad guy.
> 
> Where do you people come from? Mars?



Lincoln declared an end to slavery in a nation that he did not control. He did so in an attempt to undermine the Southern economy, not because of any moral commitment to combating racial injustice. That much becomes obvious when you recall that the Emancipation Proclamation did not affect the status of slaves in states that hadn't seceded - Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri.


----------



## GHook93

Kalam said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> the southern population shouldn't have waged war against their country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't. The Confederate states were well within their rights to secede and demand that the US leave their territory.
Click to expand...


Is that your Islamic thinking in work? States have no ABILITY to secede from the Union. Once your in your in!


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Kalam said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He just freed the slaves (which was America's worst injustice in its short history), kept the nation together and got the 13th and 14th amendments passed. Yea he is a real bad guy.
> 
> Where do you people come from? Mars?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln declared an end to slavery in a nation that he did not control. He did so in an attempt to undermine the Southern economy, not because of any moral commitment toward ending slavery on his part. That much becomes obvious when you recall that the Emancipation Proclamation did not affect the status of slaves in states that hadn't seceded - Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri.
Click to expand...


Not to mention the original thirteenth amendment, which was supported by Lincoln, would have made slavery a permanent institution.


----------



## Kalam

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sherman and Sheridan certainly wanted to wipe out the southern population, but Lincoln gave Sherman the "thanks of the nation" for his work in the south.  Hard to say he didn't want to wipe out the south when he thanked Sherman for doing exactly that.
> 
> 
> 
> I think he took a pragmatic, "ends justify means" approach to ending the war. I don't like Lincoln, but I'm not convinced that he harbored that kind of enmity toward Southern people in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think he harbored enmity against anyone that refused to pay its tribute to his government, and had no problem having them murdered.
Click to expand...


If you say so.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

GHook93 said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> the southern population shouldn't have waged war against their country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't. The Confederate states were well within their rights to secede and demand that the US leave their territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that your Islamic thinking in work? States have no ABILITY to secede from the Union. Once your in your in!
Click to expand...


I can't find that provision in the Constitution, perhaps you can point it out to us?


----------



## GHook93

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly not in the same league as Hitler, but he had no problem wiping out the southern population.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not caring and deliberately attempting to destroy are two very different things, though I doubt he was truly guilty of either. I'd say that you more aptly described Sherman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sherman and Sheridan certainly wanted to wipe out the southern population, but Lincoln gave Sherman the "thanks of the nation" for his work in the south.  Hard to say he didn't want to wipe out the south when he thanked Sherman for doing exactly that.
Click to expand...


War is hell! People, including civilians die. Its a fact of life. Too much Ron Paul on the brain, huh KKK? I would say the Civil War was our must just war!


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Kalam said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think he took a pragmatic, "ends justify means" approach to ending the war. I don't like Lincoln, but I'm not convinced that he harbored that kind of enmity toward Southern people in general.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think he harbored enmity against anyone that refused to pay its tribute to his government, and had no problem having them murdered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you say so.
Click to expand...


Condoning the murder of innocent civilians on any level means you must harbor some amount of enmity against them.


----------



## jillian

Kalam said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> the southern population shouldn't have waged war against their country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't. The Confederate states were well within their rights to secede and demand that the US leave their territory.
Click to expand...


No they weren't. But I'm not going to re-litigate the issue with you.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

GHook93 said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not caring and deliberately attempting to destroy are two very different things, though I doubt he was truly guilty of either. I'd say that you more aptly described Sherman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sherman and Sheridan certainly wanted to wipe out the southern population, but Lincoln gave Sherman the "thanks of the nation" for his work in the south.  Hard to say he didn't want to wipe out the south when he thanked Sherman for doing exactly that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> War is hell! People, including civilians die. Its a fact of life. Too much Ron Paul on the brain, huh KKK? I would say the Civil War was our must just war!
Click to expand...


Yes, civilians die in war.  It's why we should oppose war, especially an unnecessary war.  However, the difference between the deaths of civilians in the Civil War and other American wars is that southern civilians, and slaves, were specifically targeted by the Union.

It's also ironic that you call me "KKK" when it was you who just insulted someone based on their religion.


----------



## Kalam

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Not to mention the original thirteenth amendment, which was supported by Lincoln, would have made slavery a permanent institution.



Even in the current version, the government reserves the right to enslave you (without discussing the nature of the forced servitude) as long as you're convicted of a crime.


----------



## Liberty

GHook93 said:


> He just freed the slaves (which was America's worst injustice in its short history), kept the nation together and got the 13th and 14th amendments passed. Yea he is a real bad guy.
> 
> Where do you people come from? Mars?



And there was NO OTHER WAY to do this than allow over 600,000 people to be killed in a pointless war? On top of that, Lincoln himself even said he didnt give a shit about freeing slaves, his goal was to reunite the union, THAT WAS IT.


----------



## Liberty

jillian said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> the southern population shouldn't have waged war against their country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't. The Confederate states were well within their rights to secede and demand that the US leave their territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they weren't. But I'm not going to re-litigate the issue with you.
Click to expand...


im sorry can you perhaps show where in the constitution it says states are not allowed to leave the union. thanks.


----------



## Kalam

GHook93 said:


> Is that your Islamic thinking in work?


I'd call it common sense, but don't let that stop you from obsessing over my religion even when it's irrelevant to the discussion. 



GHook93 said:


> States have no ABILITY to secede from the Union. Once your in your in!


_Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people._​


----------



## Quantum Windbag

GHook93 said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> the southern population shouldn't have waged war against their country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't. The Confederate states were well within their rights to secede and demand that the US leave their territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that your Islamic thinking in work? States have no ABILITY to secede from the Union. Once your in your in!
Click to expand...


That is certainly true now, but was it true before the war?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Quantum Windbag said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't. The Confederate states were well within their rights to secede and demand that the US leave their territory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that your Islamic thinking in work? States have no ABILITY to secede from the Union. Once your in your in!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is certainly true now, but was it true before the war?
Click to expand...


The war didn't change the Constitution.  So if it was true before the war it remains true now.


----------



## Liberty

kalam, ive never seen you post before, i dont know why, maybe because i only show up on this site once or twice a month when i feel like makin an ass outa myself...

but with that said you seem like an educated dude, something rare in these parts, good stuff.


----------



## jillian

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that your Islamic thinking in work? States have no ABILITY to secede from the Union. Once your in your in!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is certainly true now, but was it true before the war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The war didn't change the Constitution.  So if it was true before the war it remains true now.
Click to expand...


the fact was they had no right to secede then and no right to secede now.


----------



## Kalam

jillian said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> the southern population shouldn't have waged war against their country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't. The Confederate states were well within their rights to secede and demand that the US leave their territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they weren't. But I'm not going to re-litigate the issue with you.
Click to expand...


It all seems pretty clear-cut to me. However, I'm sure that the history of the War of Northern Aggression is taught differently down here than it is in New York.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

jillian said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is certainly true now, but was it true before the war?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The war didn't change the Constitution.  So if it was true before the war it remains true now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the fact was they had no right to secede then and no right to secede now.
Click to expand...


Where does the Constitution say that a state that joins the Union can't leave?


----------



## Liberty

jillian said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is certainly true now, but was it true before the war?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The war didn't change the Constitution.  So if it was true before the war it remains true now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the fact was they had no right to secede then and no right to secede now.
Click to expand...


why dont you prove that? Oh, maybe because youre just spouting bullshit? Hm?


----------



## jillian

Liberty said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The war didn't change the Constitution.  So if it was true before the war it remains true now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the fact was they had no right to secede then and no right to secede now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why dont you prove that? Oh, maybe because youre just spouting bullshit? Hm?
Click to expand...


argue it with the supreme court.

that was their holding.

sorry i was more polite to you than you deserved.

i should have just said you're a nutbar.


----------



## Kalam

Liberty said:


> kalam, ive never seen you post before, i dont know why, maybe because i only show up on this site once or twice a month when i feel like makin an ass outa myself...
> 
> but with that said you seem like an educated dude, something rare in these parts, good stuff.



Thanks man, the feeling is mutual. You may not feel the same way if we ever argue religion or foreign policy, though.


----------



## syrenn

And here I thought everyone was likening obama to Lincon.


----------



## Liberty

jillian said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> the fact was they had no right to secede then and no right to secede now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why dont you prove that? Oh, maybe because youre just spouting bullshit? Hm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> argue it with the supreme court.
> 
> that was their holding.
> 
> sorry i was more polite to you than you deserved.
> 
> i should have just said you're a nutbar.
Click to expand...


wow, nice dodge. I gave you a chance, but an idiot will always be an idiot I guess. The constitution was written at an easy to read level for the 1700s, an idiot could understand it. You don't need a supreme fucking court to tell you what it says, so if you CAN in fact read, please point out where it says succession will result in conflict. Or, please show us a court case where the court rules that succession is illegal and will result in instant war. Thanks.


----------



## jillian

Liberty said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> why dont you prove that? Oh, maybe because youre just spouting bullshit? Hm?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> argue it with the supreme court.
> 
> that was their holding.
> 
> sorry i was more polite to you than you deserved.
> 
> i should have just said you're a nutbar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wow, nice dodge. I gave you a chance, but an idiot will always be an idiot I guess. The constitution was written at an easy to read level for the 1700s, an idiot could understand it. You don't need a supreme fucking court to tell you what it says, so if you CAN in fact read, please point out where it says succession will result in conflict. Or, please show us a court case where the court rules that succession is illegal and will result in instant war. Thanks.
Click to expand...


if that were the case, the 9 justices would always agree, nutbar.


----------



## Liberty

Kalam said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> kalam, ive never seen you post before, i dont know why, maybe because i only show up on this site once or twice a month when i feel like makin an ass outa myself...
> 
> but with that said you seem like an educated dude, something rare in these parts, good stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks man, the feeling is mutual. You may not feel the same way if we ever argue religion or foreign policy, though.
Click to expand...


listen, if you make sense and use logic, i respect differing views in debate. My whole reason for visiting sites like this is trying to learn something but it turns out I always feel like the one educating... anyway, its all good.


----------



## Liberty

jillian said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> argue it with the supreme court.
> 
> that was their holding.
> 
> sorry i was more polite to you than you deserved.
> 
> i should have just said you're a nutbar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wow, nice dodge. I gave you a chance, but an idiot will always be an idiot I guess. The constitution was written at an easy to read level for the 1700s, an idiot could understand it. You don't need a supreme fucking court to tell you what it says, so if you CAN in fact read, please point out where it says succession will result in conflict. Or, please show us a court case where the court rules that succession is illegal and will result in instant war. Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if that were the case, the 9 justices would always agree, nutbar.
Click to expand...


the idiot again, dodges the question.


----------



## WillowTree

Quantum Windbag said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> the southern population shouldn't have waged war against their country.
> 
> and hitler didn't target anyone committing treason.
> 
> might be one of the more absurd analogies i've seen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess this is the result of the education system in our country today. The south did not wage war against the north, they seceded from the north, then the north waged war to force them to back.
Click to expand...


don't argue with "the lawyer" "Ivy League I think"  she knows everything! Jeez.


----------



## Kalam

Liberty said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> kalam, ive never seen you post before, i dont know why, maybe because i only show up on this site once or twice a month when i feel like makin an ass outa myself...
> 
> but with that said you seem like an educated dude, something rare in these parts, good stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks man, the feeling is mutual. You may not feel the same way if we ever argue religion or foreign policy, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> listen, if you make sense and use logic, i respect differing views in debate. My whole reason for visiting sites like this is trying to learn something but it turns out I always feel like the one educating... anyway, its all good.
Click to expand...


I can respect that.


----------



## Liberty

also, i'd like to point out that the supreme court's job is not to interpret the constitution. It is simply to know the constitution as written, and make rulings based on challenges and such from legislation that congress decides to pass. Interpreting has NOTHING to do with it. AT ALL.


----------



## jillian

Liberty said:


> also, i'd like to point out that the supreme court's job is not to interpret the constitution. It is simply to know the constitution as written, and make rulings based on challenges and such from legislation that congress decides to pass. Interpreting has NOTHING to do with it. AT ALL.



I love when people who know zip, zilch, nada about the constitution try to make up what they think it means.

but you know what, i think i'll trust my professors more as well as the judges i've appeared before.

you can keep pretending you know something about the constitution. someone who doesn't know anything might even believe you.


----------



## Liberty

jillian said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> also, i'd like to point out that the supreme court's job is not to interpret the constitution. It is simply to know the constitution as written, and make rulings based on challenges and such from legislation that congress decides to pass. Interpreting has NOTHING to do with it. AT ALL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love when people who know zip, zilch, nada about the constitution try to make up what they think it means.
> 
> but you know what, i think i'll trust my professors more as well as the judges i've appeared before.
> 
> you can keep pretending you know something about the constitution. someone who doesn't know anything might even believe you.
Click to expand...


i can at least answer simple fucking questions and not ignore them, and back up my ideas and opinions. If I am PROVEN wrong, I will submit, but all you do is basically say "I disagree" WHICH IS NOT AN ARGUMENT. BREAK MY ARGUMENT.


----------



## Kalam

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think he harbored enmity against anyone that refused to pay its tribute to his government, and had no problem having them murdered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you say so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Condoning the murder of innocent civilians on any level means you must harbor some amount of enmity against them.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but I'm still not sure. To use a more modern example, I don't think that Madeleine Albright actually hated Iraqi children... she was just a callous asshole.

_Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: "We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it."_​


----------



## Dr Grump

Liberty said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> also, i'd like to point out that the supreme court's job is not to interpret the constitution. It is simply to know the constitution as written, and make rulings based on challenges and such from legislation that congress decides to pass. Interpreting has NOTHING to do with it. AT ALL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love when people who know zip, zilch, nada about the constitution try to make up what they think it means.
> 
> but you know what, i think i'll trust my professors more as well as the judges i've appeared before.
> 
> you can keep pretending you know something about the constitution. someone who doesn't know anything might even believe you.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i can at least answer simple fucking questions and not ignore them, and back up my ideas and opinions. If I am PROVEN wrong, I will submit, but all you do is basically say "I disagree" WHICH IS NOT AN ARGUMENT. BREAK MY ARGUMENT.
Click to expand...


Her argument would take all day to prepare....and if she wanted to put it in plain language for a simpleton like you to understand, probably three or four days....


----------



## jillian

Liberty said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> also, i'd like to point out that the supreme court's job is not to interpret the constitution. It is simply to know the constitution as written, and make rulings based on challenges and such from legislation that congress decides to pass. Interpreting has NOTHING to do with it. AT ALL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love when people who know zip, zilch, nada about the constitution try to make up what they think it means.
> 
> but you know what, i think i'll trust my professors more as well as the judges i've appeared before.
> 
> you can keep pretending you know something about the constitution. someone who doesn't know anything might even believe you.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i can at least answer simple fucking questions and not ignore them, and back up my ideas and opinions. If I am PROVEN wrong, I will submit, but all you do is basically say "I disagree" WHICH IS NOT AN ARGUMENT. BREAK MY ARGUMENT.
Click to expand...


i'm sorry... you don't think we're debating these issues, do you? i told you the court held they had no right to secede. they didn't have a right to secede and they still don't. whether you agree with that or not, there will NEVER be a court that says they have a right to secede.

no argument.

fahrshteit?


----------



## Liberty

Dr Grump said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love when people who know zip, zilch, nada about the constitution try to make up what they think it means.
> 
> but you know what, i think i'll trust my professors more as well as the judges i've appeared before.
> 
> you can keep pretending you know something about the constitution. someone who doesn't know anything might even believe you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i can at least answer simple fucking questions and not ignore them, and back up my ideas and opinions. If I am PROVEN wrong, I will submit, but all you do is basically say "I disagree" WHICH IS NOT AN ARGUMENT. BREAK MY ARGUMENT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Her argument would take all day to prepare....and if she wanted to put it in plain language for a simpleton like you to understand, probably three or four days....
Click to expand...


then i have NO CHOICE but to assume she is an idiot that is not worth a logical rational thinking man's time who is only trying to learn WHY someone thinks a certain way.


----------



## Kalam

jillian said:


> if that were the case, the 9 justices would always agree, nutbar.



Oh, come on. We both know that you're familiar with concepts like loose and strict constructionalism, judicial activism and restraint, etc.


----------



## Dr Grump

Liberty said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> i can at least answer simple fucking questions and not ignore them, and back up my ideas and opinions. If I am PROVEN wrong, I will submit, but all you do is basically say "I disagree" WHICH IS NOT AN ARGUMENT. BREAK MY ARGUMENT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Her argument would take all day to prepare....and if she wanted to put it in plain language for a simpleton like you to understand, probably three or four days....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> then i have NO CHOICE but to assume she is an idiot that is not worth a logical rational thinking man's time who is only trying to learn WHY someone thinks a certain way.
Click to expand...


Are you a lawyer?


----------



## AllieBaba

Liberty said:


> They both committed ridiculous and pointless genocide...maybe no where near in similar methods or to the same ends, but they both killed a large enough amount of people that should taint their legacy as villainous in my opinion.



My brother in law has always said the same thing.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

jillian said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love when people who know zip, zilch, nada about the constitution try to make up what they think it means.
> 
> but you know what, i think i'll trust my professors more as well as the judges i've appeared before.
> 
> you can keep pretending you know something about the constitution. someone who doesn't know anything might even believe you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i can at least answer simple fucking questions and not ignore them, and back up my ideas and opinions. If I am PROVEN wrong, I will submit, but all you do is basically say "I disagree" WHICH IS NOT AN ARGUMENT. BREAK MY ARGUMENT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i'm sorry... you don't think we're debating these issues, do you? i told you the court held they had no right to secede. they didn't have a right to secede and they still don't. whether you agree with that or not, there will NEVER be a court that says they have a right to secede.
> 
> no argument.
> 
> fahrshteit?
Click to expand...


Where in the Constitution did the Court find the language that says the states have no right to secede?


----------



## AllieBaba

Dr Grump said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Her argument would take all day to prepare....and if she wanted to put it in plain language for a simpleton like you to understand, probably three or four days....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then i have NO CHOICE but to assume she is an idiot that is not worth a logical rational thinking man's time who is only trying to learn WHY someone thinks a certain way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a lawyer?
Click to expand...


If everyone who was smarter than you were a lawyer, Grump, there would be a LOT of lawyers.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Dr Grump said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Her argument would take all day to prepare....and if she wanted to put it in plain language for a simpleton like you to understand, probably three or four days....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then i have NO CHOICE but to assume she is an idiot that is not worth a logical rational thinking man's time who is only trying to learn WHY someone thinks a certain way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a lawyer?
Click to expand...


One doesn't need to be a lawyer to have an opinion.


----------



## Liberty

jillian said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love when people who know zip, zilch, nada about the constitution try to make up what they think it means.
> 
> but you know what, i think i'll trust my professors more as well as the judges i've appeared before.
> 
> you can keep pretending you know something about the constitution. someone who doesn't know anything might even believe you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i can at least answer simple fucking questions and not ignore them, and back up my ideas and opinions. If I am PROVEN wrong, I will submit, but all you do is basically say "I disagree" WHICH IS NOT AN ARGUMENT. BREAK MY ARGUMENT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i'm sorry... you don't think we're debating these issues, do you? i told you the court held they had no right to secede. they didn't have a right to secede and they still don't. whether you agree with that or not, there will NEVER be a court that says they have a right to secede.
> 
> no argument.
> 
> fahrshteit?
Click to expand...


What court case? If you are so sure, why can't you present proof?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Liberty said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> i can at least answer simple fucking questions and not ignore them, and back up my ideas and opinions. If I am PROVEN wrong, I will submit, but all you do is basically say "I disagree" WHICH IS NOT AN ARGUMENT. BREAK MY ARGUMENT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i'm sorry... you don't think we're debating these issues, do you? i told you the court held they had no right to secede. they didn't have a right to secede and they still don't. whether you agree with that or not, there will NEVER be a court that says they have a right to secede.
> 
> no argument.
> 
> fahrshteit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What court case? If you are so sure, why can't you present proof?
Click to expand...


She's referring to Texas v. White which was a Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court tried to justify Lincoln's war by stating that there is no constitutional right to secession.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that your Islamic thinking in work? States have no ABILITY to secede from the Union. Once your in your in!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is certainly true now, but was it true before the war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The war didn't change the Constitution.  So if it was true before the war it remains true now.
Click to expand...


What the war did was settle the issue, even the Supreme Court recognizes that. 

Another thing, technically it did change the Constitution. The 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were a direct result of the Civil War.

Just saying.


----------



## Liberty

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> i'm sorry... you don't think we're debating these issues, do you? i told you the court held they had no right to secede. they didn't have a right to secede and they still don't. whether you agree with that or not, there will NEVER be a court that says they have a right to secede.
> 
> no argument.
> 
> fahrshteit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What court case? If you are so sure, why can't you present proof?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She's referring to Texas v. White which was a Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court tried to justify Lincoln's war by stating that there is no constitutional right to secession.
Click to expand...



THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!! Now I can go read up on it!!! That's all I wanted haha.


----------



## jillian

Liberty said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> i can at least answer simple fucking questions and not ignore them, and back up my ideas and opinions. If I am PROVEN wrong, I will submit, but all you do is basically say "I disagree" WHICH IS NOT AN ARGUMENT. BREAK MY ARGUMENT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i'm sorry... you don't think we're debating these issues, do you? i told you the court held they had no right to secede. they didn't have a right to secede and they still don't. whether you agree with that or not, there will NEVER be a court that says they have a right to secede.
> 
> no argument.
> 
> fahrshteit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What court case? If you are so sure, why can't you present proof?
Click to expand...


Read. Secession was a nullity because it could not legally occur.

Texas v. White


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Quantum Windbag said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is certainly true now, but was it true before the war?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The war didn't change the Constitution.  So if it was true before the war it remains true now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the war did was settle the issue, even the Supreme Court recognizes that.
> 
> Another thing, technically it did change the Constitution. The 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were a direct result of the Civil War.
> 
> Just saying.
Click to expand...


If it didn't change the Constitution then all the war did was kill people.  Might doesn't make right.  And I was referring to the issue of secession.  The Constitution was never amended to make secession illegal.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

WillowTree said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> the southern population shouldn't have waged war against their country.
> 
> and hitler didn't target anyone committing treason.
> 
> might be one of the more absurd analogies i've seen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess this is the result of the education system in our country today. The south did not wage war against the north, they seceded from the north, then the north waged war to force them to back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> don't argue with "the lawyer" "Ivy League I think"  she knows everything! Jeez.
Click to expand...


I covered that in my forst post on the board.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Liberty said:


> also, i'd like to point out that the supreme court's job is not to interpret the constitution. It is simply to know the constitution as written, and make rulings based on challenges and such from legislation that congress decides to pass. Interpreting has NOTHING to do with it. AT ALL.



Too bad everyone who has ever served on the court does not understand that simple truth.


----------



## Liberty

alright, so now that I am slightly briefed on Texas v White, my question is what does it say on the books is the penalty for cutting ties with washington DC? The supreme court in that case says the constitution does not allow succession (But did not cite anywhere that would show this to be true) but does not say the consequence. So, that is my question.


----------



## Kalam

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> i can at least answer simple fucking questions and not ignore them, and back up my ideas and opinions. If I am PROVEN wrong, I will submit, but all you do is basically say "I disagree" WHICH IS NOT AN ARGUMENT. BREAK MY ARGUMENT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i'm sorry... you don't think we're debating these issues, do you? i told you the court held they had no right to secede. they didn't have a right to secede and they still don't. whether you agree with that or not, there will NEVER be a court that says they have a right to secede.
> 
> no argument.
> 
> fahrshteit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where in the Constitution did the Court find the language that says the states have no right to secede?
Click to expand...


From Texas v. White (1869), Chief Justice Chase's opinion:
_The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and [p725] 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?_

Texas v. White​
Basically, the argument hinges on a concept from the Articles of Confederation and an irrelevant phrase from the Preamble.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Liberty said:


> alright, so now that I am slightly briefed on Texas v White, my question is what does it say on the books is the penalty for cutting ties with washington DC? The supreme court in that case says the constitution does not allow succession (But did not cite anywhere that would show this to be true) but does not say the consequence. So, that is my question.



Apparently you get destroyed.  That's the precedent set by the Civil War.


----------



## Dr Grump

Quantum Windbag said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> the southern population shouldn't have waged war against their country.
> 
> and hitler didn't target anyone committing treason.
> 
> might be one of the more absurd analogies i've seen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess this is the result of the education system in our country today. The south did not wage war against the north, they seceded from the north, then the north waged war to force them to back.
Click to expand...


Because ya know, when they seceded they didn't think a war would occur, did they?


----------



## jillian

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Apparently you get destroyed.  That's the precedent set by the Civil War.



that's what happens when people commit treason


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Kalam said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> i'm sorry... you don't think we're debating these issues, do you? i told you the court held they had no right to secede. they didn't have a right to secede and they still don't. whether you agree with that or not, there will NEVER be a court that says they have a right to secede.
> 
> no argument.
> 
> fahrshteit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where in the Constitution did the Court find the language that says the states have no right to secede?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From Texas v. White (1869), Chief Justice Chase's opinion:
> _The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and [p725] 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?_
> 
> Texas v. White​
> Basically, the argument hinges on a concept from the Articles of Confederation and an irrelevant phrase from the Preamble.
Click to expand...


Of course, if the Articles of Confederation were "perpetual" we'd still have them wouldn't we?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Dr Grump said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> the southern population shouldn't have waged war against their country.
> 
> and hitler didn't target anyone committing treason.
> 
> might be one of the more absurd analogies i've seen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess this is the result of the education system in our country today. The south did not wage war against the north, they seceded from the north, then the north waged war to force them to back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because ya know, when they seceded they didn't think a war would occur, did they?
Click to expand...


I'm sure they figured there would be a problem, but why should there have been a war?


----------



## jillian

Liberty said:


> alright, so now that I am slightly briefed on Texas v White, my question is what does it say on the books is the penalty for cutting ties with washington DC? The supreme court in that case says the constitution does not allow succession (But did not cite anywhere that would show this to be true) but does not say the consequence. So, that is my question.



there is no provision for terminating the relationship among the states. it was never considered to be anything but permanent.

the penalty is what any other treasonous act would be.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

jillian said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently you get destroyed.  That's the precedent set by the Civil War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that's what happens when people commit treason
Click to expand...


The Constitution defines treason thusly:

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

Sounds a lot like what Lincoln did.  So who was really guilty of treason?  And note that "seceding from the Union" is conspicuous only by its absence in the constitutional definition of treason.


----------



## Liberty

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> alright, so now that I am slightly briefed on Texas v White, my question is what does it say on the books is the penalty for cutting ties with washington DC? The supreme court in that case says the constitution does not allow succession (But did not cite anywhere that would show this to be true) but does not say the consequence. So, that is my question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently you get destroyed.  That's the precedent set by the Civil War.
Click to expand...


That is not law then I suppose, since no amendment makes succession illegal or no law was created that made it illegal? It was just some court saying it, not putting it "on the books" as law of the land?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> i can at least answer simple fucking questions and not ignore them, and back up my ideas and opinions. If I am PROVEN wrong, I will submit, but all you do is basically say "I disagree" WHICH IS NOT AN ARGUMENT. BREAK MY ARGUMENT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i'm sorry... you don't think we're debating these issues, do you? i told you the court held they had no right to secede. they didn't have a right to secede and they still don't. whether you agree with that or not, there will NEVER be a court that says they have a right to secede.
> 
> no argument.
> 
> fahrshteit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where in the Constitution did the Court find the language that says the states have no right to secede?
Click to expand...


If she actually knows about what she is talking about she will know it didn't. They just looked at the issue after the war and declared that the south was wrong.



> "The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible
> Union, composed of indestructible States. ... Considered, therefore, as
> transactions under the Constitution, the Ordinance of Secession, adopted
> by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and
> all the Acts of her Legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance,
> were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. ... Our
> conclusion, therefore, is, that Texas continued to be a State, and a State
> of the Union, notwithstanding the transactions to which we have referred."


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

jillian said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> alright, so now that I am slightly briefed on Texas v White, my question is what does it say on the books is the penalty for cutting ties with washington DC? The supreme court in that case says the constitution does not allow succession (But did not cite anywhere that would show this to be true) but does not say the consequence. So, that is my question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is no provision for terminating the relationship among the states. it was never considered to be anything but permanent.
> 
> the penalty is what any other treasonous act would be.
Click to expand...


The Constitution makes clear that it must explicitly say what the states are not permitted to do, and the states are not prohibited from seceding by the Constitution.


----------



## Liberty

jillian said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently you get destroyed.  That's the precedent set by the Civil War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that's what happens when people commit treason
Click to expand...


treason created this country, just fyi.


----------



## Kalam

jillian said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> i'm sorry... you don't think we're debating these issues, do you? i told you the court held they had no right to secede. they didn't have a right to secede and they still don't. whether you agree with that or not, there will NEVER be a court that says they have a right to secede.
> 
> no argument.
> 
> fahrshteit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What court case? If you are so sure, why can't you present proof?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read. Secession was a nullity because it could not legally occur.
> 
> Texas v. White
Click to expand...


That's not exactly the sentiment that was expressed in Williams v. Bruffy (1877), though:

_"...De facto governments of two kinds considered: 1. Such as exists after it has expelled the regularly constituted authorities from the seats of power and the public offices and established its own functionaries in their places so as to represent in fact the sovereignty of the nation. As far as other nations are concerned, such a government is treated as in most respects possessing rightful authority; its contracts and treaties are usually enforced; its acquisitions are retained; its legislation is in general recognized; and the rights acquired under it are, with few exceptions, respected after the restoration of the authorities which were expelled. 2. Such as exists where a portion of the inhabitants of a country have separated themselves from the parent state and established an independent government. *The validity of its acts, both against the parent state and the citizens or subjects thereof, depends entirely upon its ultimate success; if it fail to establish itself permanently, all such acts perish with it; if it succeed and become recognized, its acts from the commencement of its existence are upheld as those of an independent nation.*"_ 

WILLIAMS V. BRUFFY, 96 U. S. 176 :: Volume 96 :: 1877 :: Full Text :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez​


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Liberty said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> alright, so now that I am slightly briefed on Texas v White, my question is what does it say on the books is the penalty for cutting ties with washington DC? The supreme court in that case says the constitution does not allow succession (But did not cite anywhere that would show this to be true) but does not say the consequence. So, that is my question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently you get destroyed.  That's the precedent set by the Civil War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not law then I suppose, since no amendment makes succession illegal or no law was created that made it illegal? It was just some court saying it, not putting it "on the books" as law of the land?
Click to expand...


Of course.  As I said, the Court was simply trying to justify Lincoln's actions during the war.


----------



## Liberty

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently you get destroyed.  That's the precedent set by the Civil War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that's what happens when people commit treason
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution defines treason thusly:
> 
> "*Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them*, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
> 
> Sounds a lot like what Lincoln did.  So who was really guilty of treason?  And note that "seceding from the Union" is conspicuous only by its absence in the constitutional definition of treason.
Click to expand...


holy shit that is a great point!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Dr Grump

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> I'm sure they figured there would be a problem, but why should there have been a war?



Do you think if Lincoln had said 'please' they would have come back into the fold?


----------



## jillian

Liberty said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently you get destroyed.  That's the precedent set by the Civil War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that's what happens when people commit treason
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> treason created this country, just fyi.
Click to expand...


the difference between treason and revolution?

when you win you were a revolutionary.

when you lose, you committed treason.


----------



## Liberty

kalam nice!!! I am learning a lot tonight...but unfortunately betty boop over there is having some trouble proving her case with all of this evidence against her.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Quantum Windbag said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> i'm sorry... you don't think we're debating these issues, do you? i told you the court held they had no right to secede. they didn't have a right to secede and they still don't. whether you agree with that or not, there will NEVER be a court that says they have a right to secede.
> 
> no argument.
> 
> fahrshteit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where in the Constitution did the Court find the language that says the states have no right to secede?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If she actually knows about what she is talking about she will know it didn't. They just looked at the issue after the war and declared that the south was wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible
> Union, composed of indestructible States. ... Considered, therefore, as
> transactions under the Constitution, the Ordinance of Secession, adopted
> by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and
> all the Acts of her Legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance,
> were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. ... Our
> conclusion, therefore, is, that Texas continued to be a State, and a State
> of the Union, notwithstanding the transactions to which we have referred."
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Not to mention that if we accept the Court's ruling here, and I certainly don't, then where in the world was the authority of the federal government to force Reconstruction on the southern states to gain back their representation in the federal government?


----------



## jillian

Dr Grump said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure they figured there would be a problem, but why should there have been a war?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think if Lincoln had said 'please' they would have come back into the fold?
Click to expand...


only if he let them keep their slaves.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Dr Grump said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure they figured there would be a problem, but why should there have been a war?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think if Lincoln had said 'please' they would have come back into the fold?
Click to expand...


No.  Why should they have come back into the fold?


----------



## jillian

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Not to mention that if we accept the Court's ruling here, and I certainly don't, then where in the world was the authority of the federal government to force Reconstruction on the southern states to gain back their representation in the federal government?



kevin, you're a good kid. but this is where i want to smack you in the back of your head.... 

you HAVE TO ACCEPT THE COURT'S RULING.


----------



## Dr Grump

Quantum Windbag said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> i'm sorry... you don't think we're debating these issues, do you? i told you the court held they had no right to secede. they didn't have a right to secede and they still don't. whether you agree with that or not, there will NEVER be a court that says they have a right to secede.
> 
> no argument.
> 
> fahrshteit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where in the Constitution did the Court find the language that says the states have no right to secede?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If she actually knows about what she is talking about she will know it didn't. They just looked at the issue after the war and declared that the south was wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "*The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible
> Union, composed of indestructible States*. ... Considered, therefore, as
> transactions under the Constitution, the Ordinance of Secession, adopted
> by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and
> all the Acts of her Legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance,
> were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. ... Our
> conclusion, therefore, is, that Texas continued to be a State, and a State
> of the Union, notwithstanding the transactions to which we have referred."
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


My bold....


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

jillian said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> that's what happens when people commit treason
> 
> 
> 
> 
> treason created this country, just fyi.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the difference between treason and revolution?
> 
> when you win you were a revolutionary.
> 
> when you lose, you committed treason.
Click to expand...


So might makes right?


----------



## Dr Grump

Liberty said:


> kalam nice!!! I am learning a lot tonight...but unfortunately betty boop over there is having some trouble proving her case with all of this evidence against her.



From where I'm sitting she's whopping your arse...you just don't know it....


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

jillian said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure they figured there would be a problem, but why should there have been a war?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think if Lincoln had said 'please' they would have come back into the fold?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> only if he let them keep their slaves.
Click to expand...


He offered to do so and they still didn't want to rejoin.


----------



## Liberty

jillian, 

please address the constitutional definition of treason and the court case that kalam presented. Thanks.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Dr Grump said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> the southern population shouldn't have waged war against their country.
> 
> and hitler didn't target anyone committing treason.
> 
> might be one of the more absurd analogies i've seen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess this is the result of the education system in our country today. The south did not wage war against the north, they seceded from the north, then the north waged war to force them to back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because ya know, when they seceded they didn't think a war would occur, did they?
Click to expand...


Not having been there I have no idea what they thought about the possibility of war. I will point out that Virginia did not actually secede until war actually started, and did it more in protest of that action than out for any other reason. Maybe most people actually thought there was another way to solve the differences between the states, and war was more of a surprise than an inevitability.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

jillian said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention that if we accept the Court's ruling here, and I certainly don't, then where in the world was the authority of the federal government to force Reconstruction on the southern states to gain back their representation in the federal government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kevin, you're a good kid. but this is where i want to smack you in the back of your head....
> 
> you HAVE TO ACCEPT THE COURT'S RULING.
Click to expand...


Accept the fact that it is a legal reality?  Certainly.  Accept that they're correct?  Absolutely not.


----------



## Dr Grump

Quantum Windbag said:


> Not having been there I have no idea what they thought about the possibility of war. I will point out that Virginia did not actually secede until war actually started, and did it more in protest of that action than out for any other reason. Maybe most people actually thought there was another way to solve the differences between the states, and war was more of a surprise than an inevitability.



Maybe. But I would imagine most states on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line knew a war was inevitable....we'll never know.


----------



## Dr Grump

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention that if we accept the Court's ruling here, and I certainly don't, then where in the world was the authority of the federal government to force Reconstruction on the southern states to gain back their representation in the federal government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kevin, you're a good kid. but this is where i want to smack you in the back of your head....
> 
> you HAVE TO ACCEPT THE COURT'S RULING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Accept the fact that it is a legal reality?  Certainly.  Accept that they're correct?  Absolutely not.
Click to expand...


Finally, you get it....


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Dr Grump said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> kevin, you're a good kid. but this is where i want to smack you in the back of your head....
> 
> you HAVE TO ACCEPT THE COURT'S RULING.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Accept the fact that it is a legal reality?  Certainly.  Accept that they're correct?  Absolutely not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Finally, you get it....
Click to expand...




I'm pretty sure I've understood that distinction the entire time.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

jillian said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> alright, so now that I am slightly briefed on Texas v White, my question is what does it say on the books is the penalty for cutting ties with washington DC? The supreme court in that case says the constitution does not allow succession (But did not cite anywhere that would show this to be true) but does not say the consequence. So, that is my question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is no provision for terminating the relationship among the states. it was never considered to be anything but permanent.
> 
> the penalty is what any other treasonous act would be.
Click to expand...


War is the penalty for treason?

FYI
Under the constitution the only way to commit treason is to go to war with the United States. *Secession is not treason.* Maybe you should discuss the subtleties of this with your professors, you certainly are missing out on them here.


----------



## jillian

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Accept the fact that it is a legal reality?  Certainly.  Accept that they're correct?  Absolutely not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, you get it....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure I've understood that distinction the entire time.
Click to expand...


that didn't come across in your posts.

can you understand it was the only possible decision the Court could have made?


----------



## Dr Grump

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Accept the fact that it is a legal reality?  Certainly.  Accept that they're correct?  Absolutely not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, you get it....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure I've understood that distinction the entire time.
Click to expand...


Jill's talking about the law of the land as it stands. You're talking about how you would like it to be. Nowhere has Jillian stated that she liked or disliked the law, just what it is (although one could argue that her line on treason has her bending a certain way on the issue). She didn't make the law, she just knows its practicalities....and so do you it seems.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

jillian said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, you get it....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure I've understood that distinction the entire time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that didn't come across in your posts.
> 
> can you understand it was the only possible decision the Court could have made?
Click to expand...


I've told you multiple times that I'm only posting my opinions, but you've been convinced I think I'm some sort of constitutional scholar that the Supreme Court would actually take seriously.

No.  They could have actually upheld the Constitution and said Lincoln was wrong.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> alright, so now that I am slightly briefed on Texas v White, my question is what does it say on the books is the penalty for cutting ties with washington DC? The supreme court in that case says the constitution does not allow succession (But did not cite anywhere that would show this to be true) but does not say the consequence. So, that is my question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is no provision for terminating the relationship among the states. it was never considered to be anything but permanent.
> 
> the penalty is what any other treasonous act would be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution makes clear that it must explicitly say what the states are not permitted to do, and the states are not prohibited from seceding by the Constitution.
Click to expand...


Umm, no. The Constitution makes it clear what the Congress cannot do, and reserves any right not specifically given to Congress to the States.


----------



## Liberty

I'd like to see where betty is coming from, but I haven't seen much really. And after seeing the constitutional definition of treason, I am inclined to believe succession is not an act of treason assuming the succeeding state is peaceful about it.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Quantum Windbag said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is no provision for terminating the relationship among the states. it was never considered to be anything but permanent.
> 
> the penalty is what any other treasonous act would be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution makes clear that it must explicitly say what the states are not permitted to do, and the states are not prohibited from seceding by the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Umm, no. The Constitution makes it clear what the Congress cannot do, and reserves any right not specifically given to Congress to the States.
Click to expand...


The Constitution must explicitly say what the Congress can do for them to be allowed to do it, but it must explicitly say what the states cannot do for them to be prohibited from doing it.


----------



## jillian

Quantum Windbag said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> alright, so now that I am slightly briefed on Texas v White, my question is what does it say on the books is the penalty for cutting ties with washington DC? The supreme court in that case says the constitution does not allow succession (But did not cite anywhere that would show this to be true) but does not say the consequence. So, that is my question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is no provision for terminating the relationship among the states. it was never considered to be anything but permanent.
> 
> the penalty is what any other treasonous act would be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> War is the penalty for treason?
> 
> FYI
> Under the constitution the only way to commit treason is to go to war with the United States. *Secession is not treason.* Maybe you should discuss the subtleties of this with your professors, you certainly are missing out on them here.
Click to expand...


my 'professors' are quite a number of years in my past. but thanks.

at the end of the civil war, they wanted to strip the confederate soldiers of their guns for committing treason. lincoln felt it better to allow people to go on and try to mend fences once the war ended.

but that isn't a legal issue, per se. that's an historical issue.

and i'll tell you a secret, there isn't a lot of focus on the issue because it's fairly well disposed of.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

jillian said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention that if we accept the Court's ruling here, and I certainly don't, then where in the world was the authority of the federal government to force Reconstruction on the southern states to gain back their representation in the federal government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kevin, you're a good kid. but this is where i want to smack you in the back of your head....
> 
> you HAVE TO ACCEPT THE COURT'S RULING.
Click to expand...


This is where some people get confused concerning freedom. All he has to do is live with the consequences, and accept them if he chooses to actively reject the ruling, He does not have to accept it.


----------



## Dr Grump

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> I've told you multiple times that I'm only posting my opinions, but you've been convinced I think I'm some sort of constitutional scholar that the Supreme Court would actually take seriously.
> 
> No.  They could have actually upheld the Constitution and said Lincoln was wrong.



Let's turn it around. You say nowhere in the constitution does it say they can't secede (as you understand it). Where in the constitution does it say they can? And if that particular base isn't covered, what is the right thing to do?

I ask this question because I can see in the next 100-150 years a couple of states seceding - Arizona, New Mexico and perhaps southern California as the Hispanic population takes hold. And not to Mexico either. I think a lot of the anti-immigration crowd fail to realise that just because an American citizen has a Latino surname they somehow want to become part of Mexico. I think most do not. They see it for the corrupt shithole that it is. However, I can see them wanting to break away from the US due to cultural issues once they become the majority...


----------



## Quantum Windbag

jillian said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, you get it....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure I've understood that distinction the entire time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that didn't come across in your posts.
> 
> can you understand it was the only possible decision the Court could have made?
Click to expand...


Of course it was, because the political climate demanded it. Does that make it right?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Dr Grump said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've told you multiple times that I'm only posting my opinions, but you've been convinced I think I'm some sort of constitutional scholar that the Supreme Court would actually take seriously.
> 
> No.  They could have actually upheld the Constitution and said Lincoln was wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's turn it around. You say nowhere in the constitution does it say they can't secede (as you understand it). Where in the constitution does it say they can? And if that particular base isn't covered, what is the right thing to do?
> 
> I ask this question because I can see in the next 100-150 years a couple of states seceding - Arizona, New Mexico and perhaps southern California as the Hispanic population takes hold. And not to Mexico either. I think a lot of the anti-immigration crowd fail to realise that just because an American citizen has a Latino surname they somehow want to become part of Mexico. I think most do not. They see it for the corrupt shithole that it is. However, I can see them wanting to break away from the US due to cultural issues once they become the majority...
Click to expand...


No where does the Constitution mention secession at all.  It neither affirms nor denies secession.  However, the Constitution was setup so that it had to list the powers of the federal government, and the prohibitions on the states.  The 10th Amendment makes this clear.  This means that if something is not explicitly stated as a power of the federal government, then the federal government is not authorized to do that.  If a state is not explicitly prohibited by the Constitution from doing something, then it has the authority to do that.  Basically, the Constitution works in an opposite way regarding federal and state governments.

Since the Constitution does not mention secession whatsoever, the federal government is not authorized to deny secession and the states are not prohibited from seceding.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution makes clear that it must explicitly say what the states are not permitted to do, and the states are not prohibited from seceding by the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Umm, no. The Constitution makes it clear what the Congress cannot do, and reserves any right not specifically given to Congress to the States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution must explicitly say what the Congress can do for them to be allowed to do it, but it must explicitly say what the states cannot do for them to be prohibited from doing it.
Click to expand...


My apologies, I misread your post. Can you simply accept that I am not perfect and go on from there?


----------



## Liberty

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've told you multiple times that I'm only posting my opinions, but you've been convinced I think I'm some sort of constitutional scholar that the Supreme Court would actually take seriously.
> 
> No.  They could have actually upheld the Constitution and said Lincoln was wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's turn it around. You say nowhere in the constitution does it say they can't secede (as you understand it). Where in the constitution does it say they can? And if that particular base isn't covered, what is the right thing to do?
> 
> I ask this question because I can see in the next 100-150 years a couple of states seceding - Arizona, New Mexico and perhaps southern California as the Hispanic population takes hold. And not to Mexico either. I think a lot of the anti-immigration crowd fail to realise that just because an American citizen has a Latino surname they somehow want to become part of Mexico. I think most do not. They see it for the corrupt shithole that it is. However, I can see them wanting to break away from the US due to cultural issues once they become the majority...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No where does the Constitution mention secession at all.  It neither affirms nor denies secession.  However, the Constitution was setup so that it had to list the powers of the federal government, and the prohibitions on the states.  The 10th Amendment makes this clear.  This means that if something is not explicitly stated as a power of the federal government, then the federal government is not authorized to do that.  If a state is not explicitly prohibited by the Constitution from doing something, then it has the authority to do that.  Basically, the Constitution works in an opposite way regarding federal and state governments.
> 
> Since the Constitution does not mention secession whatsoever, the federal government is not authorized to deny secession and the states are not prohibited from seceding.
Click to expand...


That's the kind of rational, logical, point that I like. Well done, I definitely agree.


----------



## JakeStarkey

After reading the pages and pages of opining, the conclusion is simple: secession is only viable if it succeeds; if it doesn't, then one is a traitor, not a successful secessionist.

Kevin and  the others certainly argue their case, and I enjoy reading their posts.

Nonetheless, AL made the right decisions, told the Old South "no", and then crushed it when the region revolted against the constitutional and electoral process.  Much good came from it: (1) the union was transformed into a nation, (2) the new inventions in technology and the modern industrial revolution propelled ever increasingly the growing transformation of America from a rural agricultural society to one of the new factory cities and immigration, and (3) slavery was forever ended by December 1865.

And, needless to say, a better society evolved from the nation than could have from the union.


----------



## jillian

Liberty said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's turn it around. You say nowhere in the constitution does it say they can't secede (as you understand it). Where in the constitution does it say they can? And if that particular base isn't covered, what is the right thing to do?
> 
> I ask this question because I can see in the next 100-150 years a couple of states seceding - Arizona, New Mexico and perhaps southern California as the Hispanic population takes hold. And not to Mexico either. I think a lot of the anti-immigration crowd fail to realise that just because an American citizen has a Latino surname they somehow want to become part of Mexico. I think most do not. They see it for the corrupt shithole that it is. However, I can see them wanting to break away from the US due to cultural issues once they become the majority...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No where does the Constitution mention secession at all.  It neither affirms nor denies secession.  However, the Constitution was setup so that it had to list the powers of the federal government, and the prohibitions on the states.  The 10th Amendment makes this clear.  This means that if something is not explicitly stated as a power of the federal government, then the federal government is not authorized to do that.  If a state is not explicitly prohibited by the Constitution from doing something, then it has the authority to do that.  Basically, the Constitution works in an opposite way regarding federal and state governments.
> 
> Since the Constitution does not mention secession whatsoever, the federal government is not authorized to deny secession and the states are not prohibited from seceding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the kind of rational, logical, point that I like. Well done, I definitely agree.
Click to expand...


very nice... except that it's simply wrong.

the constitution does not HAVE to mention secession because it wasn't ever anticipated. what the constitution did was say that acting against the U.S. was treason and gave both the courts and congress jurisdiction over that crime.

secession is acting against the U.S.

you can try to sugar coat it  but that's what it is.


----------



## jillian

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> The Constitution must explicitly say what the Congress can do for them to be allowed to do it, but it must explicitly say what the states cannot do for them to be prohibited from doing it.



that's untrue. and you know it is. the general welfare clause and a number of other clauses make it so.

if the states were supposed to be as powerful as you pretend they are, the articles of confederation would still be in effect.

this construct you've created simply doesn't exist in any real world.


----------



## Kalam

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> The Constitution must explicitly say what the Congress can do for them to be allowed to do it



We have to disagree on this point -

Article I, Section 8, Clause 18:
_"The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."_​


----------



## xsited1

jillian said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No where does the Constitution mention secession at all.  It neither affirms nor denies secession.  However, the Constitution was setup so that it had to list the powers of the federal government, and the prohibitions on the states.  The 10th Amendment makes this clear.  This means that if something is not explicitly stated as a power of the federal government, then the federal government is not authorized to do that.  If a state is not explicitly prohibited by the Constitution from doing something, then it has the authority to do that.  Basically, the Constitution works in an opposite way regarding federal and state governments.
> 
> Since the Constitution does not mention secession whatsoever, the federal government is not authorized to deny secession and the states are not prohibited from seceding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the kind of rational, logical, point that I like. Well done, I definitely agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> very nice... except that it's simply wrong.
> 
> the constitution does not HAVE to mention secession because it wasn't ever anticipated. what the constitution did was say that acting against the U.S. was treason and gave both the courts and congress jurisdiction over that crime.
> 
> secession is acting against the U.S.
> 
> you can try to sugar coat it  but that's what it is.
Click to expand...


Secession is treason?  That reminds me of the last paragraph of the Declaration of Independence:



> We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.  And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.



The Founders of the United States were definitely guilty of treason.


----------



## hortysir

Great thread, Liberty.
And I'm honestly impressed with people's replies.
This discussion has turned very ugly so often.

When did you have your "Aha moment", Liberty?

Reading through this thread, and looking at the "Thanks" given, it's easy to see who has been subjected to revisionist history.

Lincoln was the same kind of Republican so many accuse Bush of being.
Instead of being, "This war is about the oil", Lincoln's war was about the tobacco, the citrus, the cotton, the agricultural riches that the south had.

Lincoln fired the first shot.

He proposed an amendment that would have made slavery legal, and up to the states, and and worded in such a way as to make it permanent. His home state of Illinois was the first state to ratify it, but the war escalated before others could sign it.

Compare the number of slaves received in to northern ports to the number received in to southern ports.

Etched in stone, at the Lincoln Memorial, is his own words that say that his primary goal was to restore the Union.


> "If I could free all the slaves and preserve the Union I would do that.   If I could free none of the slaves and preserve the Union I would do  that.  If I could free some slaves and leave others is place and save  the Union, I would do that also."



With so many negative opinions about the south and our affection for the Confederate flag, it's amazing that, after almost 200 posts, no one has said anything about the one in my avatar.
Most people only recognize the much vilified "X" shaped battle flag and attack it as a symbol of racism and slave-holders. But they don't educate themselves enough to recognize a real Confederate flag.

Keep up your reading, Liberty.
There's a LOT of fascinating stuff out there.



> This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit  it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can  exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their  revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.  	_  --- Abraham Lincoln_


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

jillian said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution must explicitly say what the Congress can do for them to be allowed to do it, but it must explicitly say what the states cannot do for them to be prohibited from doing it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that's untrue. and you know it is. the general welfare clause and a number of other clauses make it so.
> 
> if the states were supposed to be as powerful as you pretend they are, the articles of confederation would still be in effect.
> 
> this construct you've created simply doesn't exist in any real world.
Click to expand...


Except that they actually don't.  The framers didn't say at the Constitutional Convention that the general welfare clause or the interstate commerce clause should be interpreted in such a way as to give the federal government authority to do anything it wants.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Kalam said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution must explicitly say what the Congress can do for them to be allowed to do it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have to disagree on this point -
> 
> Article I, Section 8, Clause 18:
> _"The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."_​
Click to expand...


Yes, the laws necessary to do what they are explicitly authorized by the Constitution to do.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Dr Grump said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where in the Constitution did the Court find the language that says the states have no right to secede?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If she actually knows about what she is talking about she will know it didn't. They just looked at the issue after the war and declared that the south was wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "*The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible
> Union, composed of indestructible States*. ... Considered, therefore, as
> transactions under the Constitution, the Ordinance of Secession, adopted
> by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and
> all the Acts of her Legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance,
> were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. ... Our
> conclusion, therefore, is, that Texas continued to be a State, and a State
> of the Union, notwithstanding the transactions to which we have referred."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My bold....
Click to expand...


Take a gander at that word in red. The fact that the court could point to nothing in the constitution to support its argument is pretty clear from the fact that they had to resort to conjecture to make their case.


----------



## JWBooth

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently you get destroyed.  That's the precedent set by the Civil War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not law then I suppose, since no amendment makes succession illegal or no law was created that made it illegal? It was just some court saying it, not putting it "on the books" as law of the land?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course.  As I said, the Court was simply trying to justify Lincoln's actions during the war.
Click to expand...


Chase had been in the cabinet during the war, others were Lincoln appointees.  Given their ties to Lincoln, their employment during the war, is there any doubt that this case was decided the way it was?  A legal justification for the northern war on southern secession was needed and the SC delivered.


----------



## GHook93

Where is the constitution does it say you have a right to privacy? Where does it stop people from murdering and raping other people?

Please find it!



Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've told you multiple times that I'm only posting my opinions, but you've been convinced I think I'm some sort of constitutional scholar that the Supreme Court would actually take seriously.
> 
> No.  They could have actually upheld the Constitution and said Lincoln was wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's turn it around. You say nowhere in the constitution does it say they can't secede (as you understand it). Where in the constitution does it say they can? And if that particular base isn't covered, what is the right thing to do?
> 
> I ask this question because I can see in the next 100-150 years a couple of states seceding - Arizona, New Mexico and perhaps southern California as the Hispanic population takes hold. And not to Mexico either. I think a lot of the anti-immigration crowd fail to realise that just because an American citizen has a Latino surname they somehow want to become part of Mexico. I think most do not. They see it for the corrupt shithole that it is. However, I can see them wanting to break away from the US due to cultural issues once they become the majority...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No where does the Constitution mention secession at all.  It neither affirms nor denies secession.  However, the Constitution was setup so that it had to list the powers of the federal government, and the prohibitions on the states.  The 10th Amendment makes this clear.  This means that if something is not explicitly stated as a power of the federal government, then the federal government is not authorized to do that.  If a state is not explicitly prohibited by the Constitution from doing something, then it has the authority to do that.  Basically, the Constitution works in an opposite way regarding federal and state governments.
> 
> Since the Constitution does not mention secession whatsoever, the federal government is not authorized to deny secession and the states are not prohibited from seceding.
Click to expand...


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

GHook93 said:


> Where is the constitution does it say you have a right to privacy? Where does it stop people from murdering and raping other people?
> 
> Please find it!
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's turn it around. You say nowhere in the constitution does it say they can't secede (as you understand it). Where in the constitution does it say they can? And if that particular base isn't covered, what is the right thing to do?
> 
> I ask this question because I can see in the next 100-150 years a couple of states seceding - Arizona, New Mexico and perhaps southern California as the Hispanic population takes hold. And not to Mexico either. I think a lot of the anti-immigration crowd fail to realise that just because an American citizen has a Latino surname they somehow want to become part of Mexico. I think most do not. They see it for the corrupt shithole that it is. However, I can see them wanting to break away from the US due to cultural issues once they become the majority...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No where does the Constitution mention secession at all.  It neither affirms nor denies secession.  However, the Constitution was setup so that it had to list the powers of the federal government, and the prohibitions on the states.  The 10th Amendment makes this clear.  This means that if something is not explicitly stated as a power of the federal government, then the federal government is not authorized to do that.  If a state is not explicitly prohibited by the Constitution from doing something, then it has the authority to do that.  Basically, the Constitution works in an opposite way regarding federal and state governments.
> 
> Since the Constitution does not mention secession whatsoever, the federal government is not authorized to deny secession and the states are not prohibited from seceding.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


The right to privacy would be covered by the 4th, 5th, and 9th amendments.  As for where the Constitution stops people from doing anything, it doesn't.  It was designed to setup the federal government.


----------



## Liberty

Now, correct me if I am wrong but it was my understanding that the constitution was set up not to give others rights, but to put limitations on the federal government. This is why amendments say things such as "No law shall be created that...." is because it is setting out what the federal congress can't pass. Peoples' rights are ordained on them for being human, Locke's natural law concept had a great deal of influence on the framers. And this is why BO has said things like the constitution is just "negative liberties" because it puts these limitations on the federal government.

Now, assuming this is correct, all the 10th amendment does is basically says "If we forgot anything, you can't do that either." and then leaves up it up to the states and the people. Therefore, murder, rape, robbery, and even secession is all a state issue. That seems to make the most sense to me, and it would make sense that the federal government and federal courts would LIKE to say that that is treason and such, the way I see it is that is just scare tactics because they know it is not illegal.

That is what I'm taking from this thread anyway.

On a second note, what is, if not secession are the states' logical recourse towards an Orwellian nightmare?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution must explicitly say what the Congress can do for them to be allowed to do it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have to disagree on this point -
> 
> Article I, Section 8, Clause 18:
> _"The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the laws necessary to do what they are explicitly authorized by the Constitution to do.
Click to expand...


That is not what it says.  You say it is, and that doesn't mean anything.  You are trying to revise history.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> If she actually knows about what she is talking about she will know it didn't. They just looked at the issue after the war and declared that the south was wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My bold....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take a gander at that word in red. The fact that the court could point to nothing in the constitution to support its argument is pretty clear from the fact that they had to resort to conjecture to make their case.
Click to expand...


Only in your mind.


----------



## Samson

Bush = Hitler

Obama = Hitler

now Lincoln = Hitler

One thing you gotta admit, Hitler made an impression on the simple-minded.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Why is that the libertarians and other wing nuts are so interested in Hitler?  I have a family member, older now, quite well off, votes conservative conservative, and devours everything about Hitler and the Third Reich.  I know others like him.


----------



## Samson

JakeStarkey said:


> Why is that the libertarians and other wing nuts are so interested in Hitler?  I have a family member, older now, quite well off, votes conservative conservative, and devours everything about Hitler and the Third Reich.  I know others like him.



He was a colorful character who wasn't homosexual?


----------



## bodecea

Quantum Windbag said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> the southern population shouldn't have waged war against their country.
> 
> and hitler didn't target anyone committing treason.
> 
> might be one of the more absurd analogies i've seen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess this is the result of the education system in our country today. The south did not wage war against the north, they seceded from the north, then the north waged war to force them to back.
Click to expand...


So..the South didn't fire first.   Dang textbooks.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The South seceded.  The South fired on Ft. Sumter and the flag.  The north, Republican and Democrat alike, rallied to Old Glory and the Union, because South's cannonade of the fort was metaphorically spitting on the flag and pissing on the graves of the patriots of the War of Independence.  What the heck did the South think would happen?


----------



## Samson

JakeStarkey said:


> The South seceded.  The South fired on Ft. Sumter and the flag.  The north, Republican and Democrat alike, rallied to Old Glory and the Union, because South's cannonade of the fort was metaphorically spitting on the flag and pissing on the graves of the patriots of the War of Independence.  What the heck did the South think would happen?





Precisely.

Lincoln was actually at odds about how to react to the seccession, and was interested in a peaceful solution, warning the Southern States that Federal Property would remain in the USA.

Confederates ignored this, and attacked Ft Sumter.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Samson said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South seceded.  The South fired on Ft. Sumter and the flag.  The north, Republican and Democrat alike, rallied to Old Glory and the Union, because South's cannonade of the fort was metaphorically spitting on the flag and pissing on the graves of the patriots of the War of Independence.  What the heck did the South think would happen?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Precisely.
> 
> Lincoln was actually at odds about how to react to the seccession, and was interested in a peaceful solution, warning the Southern States that Federal Property would remain in the USA.
> 
> Confederates ignored this, and attacked Ft Sumter.
Click to expand...


Lincoln was more than willing to have the South come back to the Union with its slavery guaranteed as long as (1) slavery could not be exported to the rest of the country, particularly the territories; (2) the South returned all federal possessions in their respective states to the national government; and (3) the South respected the consequences of the electoral and constitutional processes of the Election of 1860.

The war and its awful consequences is solely the fault of the South, its culture, and its leadership.


----------



## hortysir

Samson said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South seceded.  The South fired on Ft. Sumter and the flag.  The north, Republican and Democrat alike, rallied to Old Glory and the Union, because South's cannonade of the fort was metaphorically spitting on the flag and pissing on the graves of the patriots of the War of Independence.  What the heck did the South think would happen?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Precisely.
> 
> Lincoln was actually at odds about how to react to the seccession, and was interested in a peaceful solution, warning the Southern States that Federal Property would remain in the USA.
> 
> Confederates ignored this, and attacked Ft Sumter.
Click to expand...

South Carolina had already seceded and Union forces refused to leave.
They were an invading force.
For a bunch of people that didn't mind Iraqis firing on us for being an occupying force, ya'll sure seem to think that this isn't justified.


----------



## rightwinger

I never realized that Hitler freed the slaves


----------



## hortysir

I never realized Lincoln ever freed a single Union slave


----------



## JBeukema

jillian said:


> the southern population shouldn't have waged war against their country.


they didn't


nor should have the colonists


----------



## JBeukema

Kalam said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> the southern population shouldn't have waged war against their country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't. The Confederate states were well within their rights to secede and demand that the US leave their territory.
Click to expand...

just like with the brits


----------



## JBeukema

GHook93 said:


> He just freed the slaves


lincoln never freed a single slave


----------



## JBeukema

Quantum Windbag said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> the southern population shouldn't have waged war against their country.
> 
> and hitler didn't target anyone committing treason.
> 
> might be one of the more absurd analogies i've seen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess this is the result of the education system in our country today. The south did not wage war against the north, they seceded from the north, then the north waged war to force them to back.
Click to expand...

blue coats = red coats


----------



## JBeukema

GHook93 said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> the southern population shouldn't have waged war against their country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't. The Confederate states were well within their rights to secede and demand that the US leave their territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that your Islamic thinking in work? States have no ABILITY to secede from the Union. Once your in your in!
Click to expand...

the Brits said the same thing about a colony once it was in the empire


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JakeStarkey said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have to disagree on this point -
> 
> Article I, Section 8, Clause 18:
> _"The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."_​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the laws necessary to do what they are explicitly authorized by the Constitution to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not what it says.  You say it is, and that doesn't mean anything.  You are trying to revise history.
Click to expand...


You say it isn't, and that doesn't mean anything.


----------



## JBeukema

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He just freed the slaves (which was America's worst injustice in its short history), kept the nation together and got the 13th and 14th amendments passed. Yea he is a real bad guy.
> 
> Where do you people come from? Mars?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln declared an end to slavery in a nation that he did not control. He did so in an attempt to undermine the Southern economy, not because of any moral commitment toward ending slavery on his part. That much becomes obvious when you recall that the Emancipation Proclamation did not affect the status of slaves in states that hadn't seceded - Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not to mention the original thirteenth amendment, which was supported by Lincoln, would have made slavery a permanent institution.
Click to expand...

true



The Corwin Amendment was passed by the House on  March 1, 1861 and the Senate on March 3, 1861. President Buchanan  signed it the same day, which was also his last full day in office; it  was later ratified by three states: Ohio, Maryland and Illinois.[22]  This proposed amendment would have forbidden the adoption any  constitutional amendment that would have abolished or restricted  slavery, or permitted the Congress to do so. This proposal was an  unsuccessful attempt to convince the Southern states not to secede from the  Union.
 Abraham Lincoln, in his first inaugural address on March 4, 1861,  specifically referred to this amendment:[23][24]
"I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution...has passed  Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never  interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that  of persons held to service. I have no objection to its being made  express and irrevocable."​


----------



## JBeukema

jillian said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> the southern population shouldn't have waged war against their country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't. The Confederate states were well within their rights to secede and demand that the US leave their territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they weren't. But I'm not going to re-litigate the issue with you.
Click to expand...

Where does the Constitution state that the People are slaves, not free persons, and have surrendered by their birth within these borders the right to self-determination?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Samson said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South seceded.  The South fired on Ft. Sumter and the flag.  The north, Republican and Democrat alike, rallied to Old Glory and the Union, because South's cannonade of the fort was metaphorically spitting on the flag and pissing on the graves of the patriots of the War of Independence.  What the heck did the South think would happen?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Precisely.
> 
> Lincoln was actually at odds about how to react to the seccession, and was interested in a peaceful solution, warning the Southern States that Federal Property would remain in the USA.
> 
> Confederates ignored this, and attacked Ft Sumter.
Click to expand...


That would be incorrect.  Lincoln threatened that if the south didn't pay its tribute to the federal government then there would be an invasion.  He had to orchestrate Fort Sumter because public opinion was against forcing the south back into the Union.  Up to that point most people believed in the right of secession.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

hortysir said:


> I never realized Lincoln ever freed a single Union slave



Or southern slave for that matter.


----------



## JBeukema

jillian said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> argue it with the supreme court.
> 
> that was their holding.
> 
> sorry i was more polite to you than you deserved.
> 
> i should have just said you're a nutbar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wow, nice dodge. I gave you a chance, but an idiot will always be an idiot I guess. The constitution was written at an easy to read level for the 1700s, an idiot could understand it. You don't need a supreme fucking court to tell you what it says, so if you CAN in fact read, please point out where it says succession will result in conflict. Or, please show us a court case where the court rules that succession is illegal and will result in instant war. Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if that were the case, the 9 justices would always agree, nutbar.
Click to expand...


you assume they care only about what it says and not their own ideologies, politics, and what they think it _should_ mean...


----------



## Mr Natural

You Southern folks really need to get over this Civil War fixation of yours.  

You fought, you lost.  Move on it's 2010.


----------



## JBeukema

jillian said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love when people who know zip, zilch, nada about the constitution try to make up what they think it means.
> 
> but you know what, i think i'll trust my professors more as well as the judges i've appeared before.
> 
> you can keep pretending you know something about the constitution. someone who doesn't know anything might even believe you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i can at least answer simple fucking questions and not ignore them, and back up my ideas and opinions. If I am PROVEN wrong, I will submit, but all you do is basically say "I disagree" WHICH IS NOT AN ARGUMENT. BREAK MY ARGUMENT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i'm sorry... you don't think we're debating these issues, do you? i told you the court held they had no right to secede. they didn't have a right to secede and they still don't. whether you agree with that or not, there will NEVER be a court that says they have a right to secede.
> 
> no argument.
> 
> fahrshteit?
Click to expand...

So if SCOTUS ruled that women had no right to leave the house without their husbands or they reversed the rulings outlawing spousal rape.... you'd be cool with that and believe whatever they said, since it came from SCOUTS?


----------



## JBeukema

jillian said:


> Secession was a nullity because it could not legally occur.



I'm pretty sure the King said the same thing...


----------



## JBeukema

Kalam said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> i'm sorry... you don't think we're debating these issues, do you? i told you the court held they had no right to secede. they didn't have a right to secede and they still don't. whether you agree with that or not, there will NEVER be a court that says they have a right to secede.
> 
> no argument.
> 
> fahrshteit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where in the Constitution did the Court find the language that says the states have no right to secede?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From Texas v. White (1869), Chief Justice Chase's opinion:_The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and [p725] 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?_
> 
> Texas v. White​Basically, the argument hinges on a concept from the Articles of Confederation and an irrelevant phrase from the Preamble.
Click to expand...

Shame neither of those are legally binding or relevant.

It was a purely political decision- it was the Fed announces that the Fed was right.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Liberty said:


> They both committed ridiculous and pointless genocide...maybe no where near in similar methods or to the same ends, but they both killed a large enough amount of people that should taint their legacy as villainous in my opinion.



Welcome to the boards you retarded punching bag.  You're gonna love it here.

Lincoln fought a war for an ideal which was freedom.  The southerners were the ones that wanted to keep slaves.

By the way, if you look at how the SOUTHERN people treated blacks, it's very similar to how Hitler treated the Jews.  Forced labor, intensive punishment for slight infractions.........no, if you want to compare anything from the Civil War to Nazi Germany, it should be the slaveowners.

Why?  Because the slaveowners were discriminating based on racial identity, just like Hitler.

If anything, Lincoln was more like Churchill.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Mr Clean said:


> You Southern folks really need to get over this Civil War fixation of yours.
> 
> You fought, you lost.  Move on it's 2010.



Well I'm from Northeast Ohio, so technically I guess I "won."


----------



## JBeukema

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where in the Constitution did the Court find the language that says the states have no right to secede?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From Texas v. White (1869), Chief Justice Chase's opinion:_The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and [p725] 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?_
> 
> Texas v. White​Basically, the argument hinges on a concept from the Articles of Confederation and an irrelevant phrase from the Preamble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, if the Articles of Confederation were "perpetual" we'd still have them wouldn't we?
Click to expand...

You have given out too much Reputation in the last 24 hours, try again later.


----------



## JBeukema

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently you get destroyed.  That's the precedent set by the Civil War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that's what happens when people commit treason
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution defines treason thusly:
> 
> "*Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them*, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
> 
> Sounds a lot like what Lincoln did.  So who was really guilty of treason?  And note that "seceding from the Union" is conspicuous only by its absence in the constitutional definition of treason.
Click to expand...


funny... it doesn't say 'it'- the USA as a singular entity. It says 'they', plural- the States as sovereign bodies.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

ABikerSailor said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> They both committed ridiculous and pointless genocide...maybe no where near in similar methods or to the same ends, but they both killed a large enough amount of people that should taint their legacy as villainous in my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome to the boards you retarded punching bag.  You're gonna love it here.
> 
> Lincoln fought a war for an ideal which was freedom.  The southerners were the ones that wanted to keep slaves.
> 
> By the way, if you look at how the SOUTHERN people treated blacks, it's very similar to how Hitler treated the Jews.  Forced labor, intensive punishment for slight infractions.........no, if you want to compare anything from the Civil War to Nazi Germany, it should be the slaveowners.
> 
> Why?  Because the slaveowners were discriminating based on racial identity, just like Hitler.
> 
> If anything, Lincoln was more like Churchill.
Click to expand...


Forcing a people to live under a government they don't want is fighting for freedom?

War is peace, freedom is slavery, etc... etc...


----------



## Dr Gregg

what a bunch of crap the OP is. For one, the huge death toll was the South refusing to ever give up even though the north had better organization during the war. Second, they are the ones that wanted to secede. Plus, Lincoln after the north one didn't punish people of the south for the war.

And what do you think would of happened if the south won and seceded? How many other wars would of been fought over land, and we wouldn't be the United sTates of american anymore. who knows how long it would of taken to free slaves./


----------



## ABikerSailor

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> They both committed ridiculous and pointless genocide...maybe no where near in similar methods or to the same ends, but they both killed a large enough amount of people that should taint their legacy as villainous in my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome to the boards you retarded punching bag.  You're gonna love it here.
> 
> Lincoln fought a war for an ideal which was freedom.  The southerners were the ones that wanted to keep slaves.
> 
> By the way, if you look at how the SOUTHERN people treated blacks, it's very similar to how Hitler treated the Jews.  Forced labor, intensive punishment for slight infractions.........no, if you want to compare anything from the Civil War to Nazi Germany, it should be the slaveowners.
> 
> Why?  Because the slaveowners were discriminating based on racial identity, just like Hitler.
> 
> If anything, Lincoln was more like Churchill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Forcing a people to live under a government they don't want is fighting for freedom?
> 
> War is peace, freedom is slavery, etc... etc...
Click to expand...


What were the slaveowners doing to the blacks?  Giving them a vote?

How fucking stupid are you anyway?  I'm guessing you ate lead paint chips as a child.


----------



## Dr Gregg

This thread I see has a lot of cookoo conspiracy theorist nonsense all making up their own history


----------



## Dr Gregg

ABikerSailor said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome to the boards you retarded punching bag.  You're gonna love it here.
> 
> Lincoln fought a war for an ideal which was freedom.  The southerners were the ones that wanted to keep slaves.
> 
> By the way, if you look at how the SOUTHERN people treated blacks, it's very similar to how Hitler treated the Jews.  Forced labor, intensive punishment for slight infractions.........no, if you want to compare anything from the Civil War to Nazi Germany, it should be the slaveowners.
> 
> Why?  Because the slaveowners were discriminating based on racial identity, just like Hitler.
> 
> If anything, Lincoln was more like Churchill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forcing a people to live under a government they don't want is fighting for freedom?
> 
> War is peace, freedom is slavery, etc... etc...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What were the slaveowners doing to the blacks?  Giving them a vote?
> 
> How fucking stupid are you anyway?  I'm guessing you ate lead paint chips as a child.
Click to expand...


Yup, he's the name nut claiming that Americans were terrorist during WWII. Another person that likes to make up their own history


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

ABikerSailor said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome to the boards you retarded punching bag.  You're gonna love it here.
> 
> Lincoln fought a war for an ideal which was freedom.  The southerners were the ones that wanted to keep slaves.
> 
> By the way, if you look at how the SOUTHERN people treated blacks, it's very similar to how Hitler treated the Jews.  Forced labor, intensive punishment for slight infractions.........no, if you want to compare anything from the Civil War to Nazi Germany, it should be the slaveowners.
> 
> Why?  Because the slaveowners were discriminating based on racial identity, just like Hitler.
> 
> If anything, Lincoln was more like Churchill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forcing a people to live under a government they don't want is fighting for freedom?
> 
> War is peace, freedom is slavery, etc... etc...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What were the slaveowners doing to the blacks?  Giving them a vote?
> 
> How fucking stupid are you anyway?  I'm guessing you ate lead paint chips as a child.
Click to expand...


So you think the British were right during the Revolutionary War, since the colonies were practicing slavery, right?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Dr Gregg said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Forcing a people to live under a government they don't want is fighting for freedom?
> 
> War is peace, freedom is slavery, etc... etc...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What were the slaveowners doing to the blacks?  Giving them a vote?
> 
> How fucking stupid are you anyway?  I'm guessing you ate lead paint chips as a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup, he's the name nut claiming that Americans were terrorist during WWII. Another person that likes to make up their own history
Click to expand...


Please find the post where I called Americans during WWII terrorists.


----------



## JBeukema

jillian said:


> you HAVE TO ACCEPT THE COURT'S RULING.




Just as we were to accept the Kings?


----------



## SpidermanTuba

jillian said:


> the southern population shouldn't have waged war against their country.



Well that's an easy thing to say now - the south lost. What about certain British citizens who live in America waging war on their country? Round about 1776 or so? You've got no problem with that, right?


----------



## ABikerSailor

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Forcing a people to live under a government they don't want is fighting for freedom?
> 
> War is peace, freedom is slavery, etc... etc...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What were the slaveowners doing to the blacks?  Giving them a vote?
> 
> How fucking stupid are you anyway?  I'm guessing you ate lead paint chips as a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think the British were right during the Revolutionary War, since the colonies were practicing slavery, right?
Click to expand...


You're one of those teabagging revisionist history assholes ain't ya?

Slavery was practiced all over the WORLD for a bit.  Lincoln figured out it was wrong, and when he started to take steps to stop it, THAT is when the south decided to leave the union.

Where do you study your history, the back of a Kool Aid packet?


----------



## JBeukema

Dr Grump said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where in the Constitution did the Court find the language that says the states have no right to secede?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If she actually knows about what she is talking about she will know it didn't. They just looked at the issue after the war and declared that the south was wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "*The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible
> Union, composed of indestructible States*. ... Considered, therefore, as
> transactions under the Constitution, the Ordinance of Secession, adopted
> by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and
> all the Acts of her Legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance,
> were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. ... Our
> conclusion, therefore, is, that Texas continued to be a State, and a State
> of the Union, notwithstanding the transactions to which we have referred."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My bold....
Click to expand...


Whoever wrote that is fucking retarded. With a vote from the legislatures and Congress, a state can be destroyed, split in two, three, or twenty- or merged with another.

That's what the Constitution says.

*Section 3*

1:   New States may be  admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor  any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States,  without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.


THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION - We the People


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

ABikerSailor said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> What were the slaveowners doing to the blacks?  Giving them a vote?
> 
> How fucking stupid are you anyway?  I'm guessing you ate lead paint chips as a child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think the British were right during the Revolutionary War, since the colonies were practicing slavery, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're one of those teabagging revisionist history assholes ain't ya?
> 
> Slavery was practiced all over the WORLD for a bit.  Lincoln figured out it was wrong, and when he started to take steps to stop it, THAT is when the south decided to leave the union.
> 
> Where do you study your history, the back of a Kool Aid packet?
Click to expand...


So was that a yes, or a no?


----------



## ABikerSailor

No, I don't think they were right.  They kept slaves as well.

The British were taxing this country unjustly, and that is why the Revolution happened.

Try again.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

ABikerSailor said:


> No, I don't think they were right.  They kept slaves as well.
> 
> The British were taxing this country unjustly, and that is why the Revolution happened.
> 
> Try again.



The north kept slaves as well.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't think they were right.  They kept slaves as well.
> 
> The British were taxing this country unjustly, and that is why the Revolution happened.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The north kept slaves as well.
Click to expand...


Really?  Then why did the slaves run from the south to the north?

I'll give you a hint........it's called freedom.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

ABikerSailor said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't think they were right.  They kept slaves as well.
> 
> The British were taxing this country unjustly, and that is why the Revolution happened.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The north kept slaves as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Then why did the slaves run from the south to the north?
> 
> I'll give you a hint........it's called freedom.
Click to expand...


Apparently you've never heard of the border states.


----------



## Dr Gregg

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Dr Gregg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> What were the slaveowners doing to the blacks?  Giving them a vote?
> 
> How fucking stupid are you anyway?  I'm guessing you ate lead paint chips as a child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, he's the name nut claiming that Americans were terrorist during WWII. Another person that likes to make up their own history
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please find the post where I called Americans during WWII terrorists.
Click to expand...

Right, deny it, like I'm going to go through tons of threads. YOu most certainly did


----------



## JBeukema

ABikerSailor said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't think they were right.  They kept slaves as well.
> 
> The British were taxing this country unjustly, and that is why the Revolution happened.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The north kept slaves as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Then why did the slaves run from the south to the north?
> 
> I'll give you a hint........it's called freedom.
Click to expand...


They were on their way to Canada. The North was along the way.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Dr Gregg said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Gregg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, he's the name nut claiming that Americans were terrorist during WWII. Another person that likes to make up their own history
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please find the post where I called Americans during WWII terrorists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right, deny it, like I'm going to go through tons of threads. YOu most certainly did
Click to expand...


http://www.usmessageboard.com/educa...an-who-armed-atomic-bomb-dropped-on-japs.html

I believe that's the thread you're referencing, so now that I've done most of your work for you perhaps you can find the post where I called Americans terrorists?


----------



## industry7

jillian said:


> the southern population shouldn't have waged war against their country.
> 
> and hitler didn't target anyone committing treason.
> 
> might be one of the more absurd analogies i've seen.



Actually states have a right to succeed, but the north throw a hissy fit and started a war.


----------



## Liberty

ABikerSailor said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> They both committed ridiculous and pointless genocide...maybe no where near in similar methods or to the same ends, but they both killed a large enough amount of people that should taint their legacy as villainous in my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome to the boards you retarded punching bag.  You're gonna love it here.
> 
> Lincoln fought a war for an ideal which was freedom.  The southerners were the ones that wanted to keep slaves.
> 
> By the way, if you look at how the SOUTHERN people treated blacks, it's very similar to how Hitler treated the Jews.  Forced labor, intensive punishment for slight infractions.........no, if you want to compare anything from the Civil War to Nazi Germany, it should be the slaveowners.
> 
> Why?  Because the slaveowners were discriminating based on racial identity, just like Hitler.
> 
> If anything, Lincoln was more like Churchill.
Click to expand...


you do realize that free black men in the south were slave owners right


----------



## Dr.Traveler

It seems a debate on "Sherman's March to the Sea" is destined to come up every 6 months or so here.

I still have the same opinion on the topic:  

Don't go to war if you aren't ready for the consequences.

Whether the South was justified or not to try to leave, whether the South legally could leave or not... all that is distraction from the central issue.  When you make a decision you *know* will lead to war you'd best make ready to deal with pretty terrible consequences.


----------



## Mr Natural

industry7 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> the southern population shouldn't have waged war against their country.
> 
> and hitler didn't target anyone committing treason.
> 
> might be one of the more absurd analogies i've seen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually states have a right to succeed, but the north throw a hissy fit and started a war.
Click to expand...


Who fired the first shot?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Mr Clean said:


> industry7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> the southern population shouldn't have waged war against their country.
> 
> and hitler didn't target anyone committing treason.
> 
> might be one of the more absurd analogies i've seen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually states have a right to succeed, but the north throw a hissy fit and started a war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who fired the first shot?
Click to expand...


Who instigated that shot?


----------



## Mr Natural

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> industry7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually states have a right to succeed, but the north throw a hissy fit and started a war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who fired the first shot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who instigated that shot?
Click to expand...


The South by demanding that the *US* Army surrender a *US* fort.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Mr Clean said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who fired the first shot?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who instigated that shot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The South by demanding that the *US* Army surrender a *US* fort.
Click to expand...


That would be incorrect.  Lincoln knew that the south would not allow him to resupply that fort, and he needed that incident to get public opinion on his side for a war.


----------



## Mr Natural

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who instigated that shot?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The South by demanding that the *US* Army surrender a *US* fort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be incorrect.  Lincoln knew that the south would not allow him to resupply that fort, and he needed that incident to get public opinion on his side for a war.
Click to expand...


Doesn't change the fact that the South fired the first shot.


----------



## Dr.Traveler

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who instigated that shot?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The South by demanding that the *US* Army surrender a *US* fort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be incorrect.  Lincoln knew that the south would not allow him to resupply that fort, and he needed that incident to get public opinion on his side for a war.
Click to expand...


Then the intelligent thing for the South at that point would have been to walk off the field.  If you know that the other side needs a reason to fight, don't give it to them.

I've seen a lot of arguments about the responsibility for the Civil War, who fired first, etc, but everything I've ever studied on the issue shows that if the South wanted to, they could have won independence without a shot fired.  Emancipate the slaves and you pick up European backing immediately.  Make a decision to let the North fire first and you get public opinion on your side and undercut the support for the war right away.

For the South, a conventional war with the North was unwinnable.  The absolute only shot the South had was to demoralize the North quickly or bring the Europeans in immediately.  In spite of that, the South seemed to make bad decision after bad decision.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Mr Clean said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South by demanding that the *US* Army surrender a *US* fort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be incorrect.  Lincoln knew that the south would not allow him to resupply that fort, and he needed that incident to get public opinion on his side for a war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't change the fact that the South fired the first shot.
Click to expand...


So you're ok with Lincoln deliberately antagonizing the south to start a war?


----------



## Mr Natural

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would be incorrect.  Lincoln knew that the south would not allow him to resupply that fort, and he needed that incident to get public opinion on his side for a war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't change the fact that the South fired the first shot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're ok with Lincoln deliberately antagonizing the south to start a war?
Click to expand...


So you're OK with a rebel force firing on a US fort?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Dr.Traveler said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South by demanding that the *US* Army surrender a *US* fort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be incorrect.  Lincoln knew that the south would not allow him to resupply that fort, and he needed that incident to get public opinion on his side for a war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then the intelligent thing for the South at that point would have been to walk off the field.  If you know that the other side needs a reason to fight, don't give it to them.
> 
> I've seen a lot of arguments about the responsibility for the Civil War, who fired first, etc, but everything I've ever studied on the issue shows that if the South wanted to, they could have won independence without a shot fired.  Emancipate the slaves and you pick up European backing immediately.  Make a decision to let the North fire first and you get public opinion on your side and undercut the support for the war right away.
> 
> For the South, a conventional war with the North was unwinnable.  The absolute only shot the South had was to demoralize the North quickly or bring the Europeans in immediately.  In spite of that, the South seemed to make bad decision after bad decision.
Click to expand...


There can be no question that the south made bad decisions.  Judging from the way the Civil War went down firing on Fort Sumter would have to be judged as a huge mistake, but that doesn't change the fact that it was Lincoln who wanted the war and not the south.  And of course you're correct about slavery, it was certainly one of their downfalls.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Mr Clean said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't change the fact that the South fired the first shot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're ok with Lincoln deliberately antagonizing the south to start a war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're OK with a rebel force firing on a US fort?
Click to expand...


I'm perfectly fine with a sovereign nation protesting against a foreign military within their borders.  I certainly wouldn't want a Chinese fort here in the U.S.


----------



## hortysir

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're ok with Lincoln deliberately antagonizing the south to start a war?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're OK with a rebel force firing on a US fort?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm perfectly fine with a sovereign nation protesting against a foreign military within their borders.  I certainly wouldn't want a Chinese fort here in the U.S.
Click to expand...

psssst......




It's called Wal-Mart


----------



## JakeStarkey

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Dr.Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would be incorrect.  Lincoln knew that the south would not allow him to resupply that fort, and he needed that incident to get public opinion on his side for a war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then the intelligent thing for the South at that point would have been to walk off the field.  If you know that the other side needs a reason to fight, don't give it to them.
> 
> I've seen a lot of arguments about the responsibility for the Civil War, who fired first, etc, but everything I've ever studied on the issue shows that if the South wanted to, they could have won independence without a shot fired.  Emancipate the slaves and you pick up European backing immediately.  Make a decision to let the North fire first and you get public opinion on your side and undercut the support for the war right away.
> 
> For the South, a conventional war with the North was unwinnable.  The absolute only shot the South had was to demoralize the North quickly or bring the Europeans in immediately.  In spite of that, the South seemed to make bad decision after bad decision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There can be no question that the south made bad decisions.  Judging from the way the Civil War went down firing on Fort Sumter would have to be judged as a huge mistake, but that doesn't change the fact that it was Lincoln who wanted the war and not the south.  And of course you're correct about slavery, it was certainly one of their downfalls.
Click to expand...


Lincoln made it very clear that the South could stay in the Union with its slaves and its culture constitutionally protected.  The South ignored constitutional and electoral process, and waged war against the North.

The South was completely at fault in the matter.


----------



## JBeukema

Mr Clean said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't change the fact that the South fired the first shot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're ok with Lincoln deliberately antagonizing the south to start a war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're OK with a rebel force firing on a US fort?
Click to expand...


As okay as he is with a rebel force firing in the Crown, I imagine.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The South was never a sovereign nation, period.


----------



## Kalam

ABikerSailor said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't think they were right.  They kept slaves as well.
> 
> The British were taxing this country unjustly, and that is why the Revolution happened.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The north kept slaves as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Then why did the slaves run from the south to the north?
> 
> I'll give you a hint........it's called freedom.
Click to expand...

I'd call it false hope.

"Yes, I will pull off that liberal's halo that he spends such efforts cultivating! The North's liberals have been for so long pointing accusing fingers at the South and getting away with it that they have fits when they are exposed as the world's worst hypocrites....America's most dangerous and threatening black man is the one who has been kept sealed up by the Northerner in the black ghettoes - the Northern white power structure's system to keep talking democracy while keeping the black man out of sight somewhere, around the corner." - The Autobiography of Malcolm X, pp. 276-277​
Being black anywhere in the United States pretty much meant living as a pariah until the mid-20th century.


----------



## Mr Natural

JakeStarkey said:


> The South was never a sovereign nation, period.



They like to think they were.


----------



## JBeukema

funny that they want to argue the validity of the American Revolution and self-determination


if there's some actual justification for attacking the Confederacy, argue that case


----------



## Dr.Traveler

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Dr.Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would be incorrect.  Lincoln knew that the south would not allow him to resupply that fort, and he needed that incident to get public opinion on his side for a war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then the intelligent thing for the South at that point would have been to walk off the field.  If you know that the other side needs a reason to fight, don't give it to them.
> 
> I've seen a lot of arguments about the responsibility for the Civil War, who fired first, etc, but everything I've ever studied on the issue shows that if the South wanted to, they could have won independence without a shot fired.  Emancipate the slaves and you pick up European backing immediately.  Make a decision to let the North fire first and you get public opinion on your side and undercut the support for the war right away.
> 
> For the South, a conventional war with the North was unwinnable.  The absolute only shot the South had was to demoralize the North quickly or bring the Europeans in immediately.  In spite of that, the South seemed to make bad decision after bad decision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There can be no question that the south made bad decisions.  Judging from the way the Civil War went down firing on Fort Sumter would have to be judged as a huge mistake, but that doesn't change the fact that it was Lincoln who wanted the war and not the south.  And of course you're correct about slavery, it was certainly one of their downfalls.
Click to expand...


I still to this day think that if you'd had someone with the political skills equal to Lee's military skills in a leadership role in the South, they'd have walked free.  From a military stand point the South was in an unwinnable situation, but from a political stand point the South was literally holding all the cards.  The Europeans were looking for an opening to break up American Hegemony in the New World, Abolishionists were a fringe movement right up to the outbreak of war, and public opinion wasn't really in favor of fighting the South.

Instead, the South played right into Lincoln's hands.  Once they blew the political options, they lost the war.  It was only a matter of time.

That's why the whole question of who started it remains largely moot.  Whether it was the North or the South that started it, the South lost and the North won because the South took the worst possible path towards independence.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The South acted stupidly and illegitimately from the get go.  It got what it deserved: crushing.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't think they were right.  They kept slaves as well.
> 
> The British were taxing this country unjustly, and that is why the Revolution happened.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The north kept slaves as well.
Click to expand...


Here you go 'tard..........



> Slavery in the United States
> Main article: Slavery in the United States
> 
> Although the trans-Atlantic slave trade ended shortly after the American Revolution, slavery remained a central economic institution in the Southern states. All the Northern states passed emancipation acts between 1780 and 1804; most of these arranged for gradual emancipation.[108] In the South, however, slavery expanded with the westward movement of population. Historian Peter Kolchin wrote, "By breaking up existing families and forcing slaves to relocate far from everyone and everything they knew" this migration "replicated (if on a reduced level) many of [the] horrors" of the Atlantic slave trade.[109] Historian Ira Berlin called this forced migration the Second Middle Passage. Characterizing it as the "central event in the life of a slave between the American Revolution and the Civil War, Berlin wrote that whether they were uprooted themselves or simply lived in fear that they or their families would be involuntarily moved, "the massive deportation traumatized black people, both slave and free."[110] By 1860, 500,000 slaves had grown to 4 million. As long as slavery expanded, it remained profitable and powerful and was unlikely to disappear. Antislavery forces, however, proposed to put it on the path to extinction by stopping further expansion. If it became unprofitable, few people would spend the large sums of cash needed to buy and keep slaves, and the system would fade away quietly as it had in most countries in world history.
> 
> The plantation system, based on tobacco growing in Virginia, North Carolina, and Kentucky, and rice in South Carolina, expanded into lush new cotton lands in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippiand needed more slaves. But slave importation became illegal in 1808. Although complete statistics are lacking, it is estimated that 1,000,000 slaves moved west from the Old South between 1790 and 1860. Most of the slaves were moved from Maryland, Virginia, and the Carolinas. Michael Tadman, in a 1989 book Speculators and Slaves: Masters, Traders, and Slaves in the Old South, indicates that 6070% of interregional migrations were the result of the sale of slaves. In 1820 a child in the Upper South had a 30% chance to be sold south by 1860.[111]
> 
> Political division over slavery was temporarily resolved by the Compromise of 1850 which sought to divide new territories between slave and free states. However, the status of Kansas was left unresolved, producing bloody clashes between pro-slavery and anti-slavery settlers.[112] In 1860, the election of Abraham Lincoln as President on a program of limiting slavery led to the secession of Southern States and the outbreak of the US Civil War. Although Lincoln initially disclaimed any intention to interfere with slavery, the progress of the war produced the Emancipation Proclamation freeing slaves in Southern states still in revolt, and ultimately the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in December 1865, which ended legalized slavery in the United States.



You know.........computers can be used for a great deal more than displays of stupidity as you are doing right now.

They can also be used to look up things to discover facts.

Might wanna try wikipedia sometime.


----------



## GHook93

Nice Kalam quote a Black Supremacist Anti-America! NICE!



Kalam said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The north kept slaves as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Then why did the slaves run from the south to the north?
> 
> I'll give you a hint........it's called freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'd call it false hope.
> 
> "Yes, I will pull off that liberal's halo that he spends such efforts cultivating! The North's liberals have been for so long pointing accusing fingers at the South and getting away with it that they have fits when they are exposed as the world's worst hypocrites....America's most dangerous and threatening black man is the one who has been kept sealed up by the Northerner in the black ghettoes - the Northern white power structure's system to keep talking democracy while keeping the black man out of sight somewhere, around the corner." - The Autobiography of Malcolm X, pp. 276-277​
> Being black anywhere in the United States pretty much meant living as a pariah until the mid-20th century.
Click to expand...


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

ABikerSailor said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't think they were right.  They kept slaves as well.
> 
> The British were taxing this country unjustly, and that is why the Revolution happened.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The north kept slaves as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here you go 'tard..........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery in the United States
> Main article: Slavery in the United States
> 
> Although the trans-Atlantic slave trade ended shortly after the American Revolution, slavery remained a central economic institution in the Southern states. All the Northern states passed emancipation acts between 1780 and 1804; most of these arranged for gradual emancipation.[108] In the South, however, slavery expanded with the westward movement of population. Historian Peter Kolchin wrote, "By breaking up existing families and forcing slaves to relocate far from everyone and everything they knew" this migration "replicated (if on a reduced level) many of [the] horrors" of the Atlantic slave trade.[109] Historian Ira Berlin called this forced migration the Second Middle Passage. Characterizing it as the "central event in the life of a slave between the American Revolution and the Civil War, Berlin wrote that whether they were uprooted themselves or simply lived in fear that they or their families would be involuntarily moved, "the massive deportation traumatized black people, both slave and free."[110] By 1860, 500,000 slaves had grown to 4 million. As long as slavery expanded, it remained profitable and powerful and was unlikely to disappear. Antislavery forces, however, proposed to put it on the path to extinction by stopping further expansion. If it became unprofitable, few people would spend the large sums of cash needed to buy and keep slaves, and the system would fade away quietly as it had in most countries in world history.
> 
> The plantation system, based on tobacco growing in Virginia, North Carolina, and Kentucky, and rice in South Carolina, expanded into lush new cotton lands in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippiand needed more slaves. But slave importation became illegal in 1808. Although complete statistics are lacking, it is estimated that 1,000,000 slaves moved west from the Old South between 1790 and 1860. Most of the slaves were moved from Maryland, Virginia, and the Carolinas. Michael Tadman, in a 1989 book Speculators and Slaves: Masters, Traders, and Slaves in the Old South, indicates that 6070% of interregional migrations were the result of the sale of slaves. In 1820 a child in the Upper South had a 30% chance to be sold south by 1860.[111]
> 
> Political division over slavery was temporarily resolved by the Compromise of 1850 which sought to divide new territories between slave and free states. However, the status of Kansas was left unresolved, producing bloody clashes between pro-slavery and anti-slavery settlers.[112] In 1860, the election of Abraham Lincoln as President on a program of limiting slavery led to the secession of Southern States and the outbreak of the US Civil War. Although Lincoln initially disclaimed any intention to interfere with slavery, the progress of the war produced the Emancipation Proclamation freeing slaves in Southern states still in revolt, and ultimately the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in December 1865, which ended legalized slavery in the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know.........computers can be used for a great deal more than displays of stupidity as you are doing right now.
> 
> They can also be used to look up things to discover facts.
> 
> Might wanna try wikipedia sometime.
Click to expand...


There were five slave-states that remained with the Union.  I wonder why Lincoln didn't free their slaves?


----------



## Kalam

GHook93 said:


> Nice Kalam quote a Black Supremacist Anti-America! NICE!
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Then why did the slaves run from the south to the north?
> 
> I'll give you a hint........it's called freedom.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd call it false hope.
> 
> "Yes, I will pull off that liberal's halo that he spends such efforts cultivating! The North's liberals have been for so long pointing accusing fingers at the South and getting away with it that they have fits when they are exposed as the world's worst hypocrites....America's most dangerous and threatening black man is the one who has been kept sealed up by the Northerner in the black ghettoes - the Northern white power structure's system to keep talking democracy while keeping the black man out of sight somewhere, around the corner." - The Autobiography of Malcolm X, pp. 276-277​
> Being black anywhere in the United States pretty much meant living as a pariah until the mid-20th century.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ng56xdIsDBQ]YouTube - Malcolm X talks about Islam and race[/ame]

_"I'm not anti-American, and I didn't come here to condemn America - I want to make that very clear! I came here to tell the truth - and if the truth condemns America, then she stands condemned!"_


----------



## Dr Gregg

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Dr Gregg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please find the post where I called Americans during WWII terrorists.
> 
> 
> 
> Right, deny it, like I'm going to go through tons of threads. YOu most certainly did
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/educa...an-who-armed-atomic-bomb-dropped-on-japs.html
> 
> I believe that's the thread you're referencing, so now that I've done most of your work for you perhaps you can find the post where I called Americans terrorists?
Click to expand...




Take your pic of your made up history and making shit up about the past, brings up your track record of making up your own history. 

And the bolded part, its essentially calling them terrorists. Spin it and deny it all you want, comparing US in WWII to al qaeda is not calling them terrorists 



Kevin_Kennedy said:


> I don't think the Japanese civilians brought Hiroshima on themselves.  The government's policies certainly created the environment for Hiroshima.  *But I personally wish our government didn't choose to play the role of al-Qaeda in this analogy*.


Along with the rest of your revisionist history tripe





Kevin_Kennedy said:


> So playing your part in the massacring of the Japanese people makes you a war hero?  Sounds more like a war criminal to me.





Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Well I wouldn't have provoked the Japanese into attacking us in the first place, and his economic policies left much to be desired.





Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Grown ups don't generally refer to each other as "wingnuts" in civil conversation.  If you can't see how vaporizing innocent civilians is aggressive, then I'm afraid we have little more to discuss.  But you know, as well as I do, that had Germany or Japan dropped a nuke on us or anyone else they would have gone down in history as war-criminals.





Kevin_Kennedy said:


> If vaporizing innocent civilians isn't a war crime then nothing in the history of the world has been a war crime.





Kevin_Kennedy said:


> My point is that a mainland invasion of Japan was as unnecessary as dropping the bombs, but we just had to have an unconditional surrender regardless of the lives lost in the process.





Kevin_Kennedy said:


> After what we did should we still be allowed to have a military?  Yes, well I'm sure glad the U.S. government bombed Japan so they could then steal from the American taxpayer to rebuild Japan.  Excellent.





Kevin_Kennedy said:


> So it's better for us to radiate the citizens of Japan rather than have Japan "terrorize" people in the Pacific?  I'm not so sure, but I don't personally make much distinction between two different forms of evil.


----------



## Dr Gregg

Dr.Traveler said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South by demanding that the *US* Army surrender a *US* fort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be incorrect.  Lincoln knew that the south would not allow him to resupply that fort, and he needed that incident to get public opinion on his side for a war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then the intelligent thing for the South at that point would have been to walk off the field.  If you know that the other side needs a reason to fight, don't give it to them.
> 
> I've seen a lot of arguments about the responsibility for the Civil War, who fired first, etc, but everything I've ever studied on the issue shows that if the South wanted to, they could have won independence without a shot fired.  Emancipate the slaves and you pick up European backing immediately.  Make a decision to let the North fire first and you get public opinion on your side and undercut the support for the war right away.
> 
> For the South, a conventional war with the North was unwinnable.  The absolute only shot the South had was to demoralize the North quickly or bring the Europeans in immediately.  In spite of that, the South seemed to make bad decision after bad decision.
Click to expand...


and I still want these people bitching about the civil war to tell me what would of happened if the south did secede? Why do they hate the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
UNITED the key word


----------



## Dr Gregg

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would be incorrect.  Lincoln knew that the south would not allow him to resupply that fort, and he needed that incident to get public opinion on his side for a war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't change the fact that the South fired the first shot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're ok with Lincoln deliberately antagonizing the south to start a war?
Click to expand...


Yes, to keep the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA united


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Dr Gregg said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Gregg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right, deny it, like I'm going to go through tons of threads. YOu most certainly did
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/educa...an-who-armed-atomic-bomb-dropped-on-japs.html
> 
> I believe that's the thread you're referencing, so now that I've done most of your work for you perhaps you can find the post where I called Americans terrorists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Take your pic of your made up history and making shit up about the past, brings up your track record of making up your own history.
> 
> And the bolded part, its essentially calling them terrorists. Spin it and deny it all you want, comparing US in WWII to al qaeda is not calling them terrorists
> 
> 
> Along with the rest of your revisionist history tripe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> After what we did should we still be allowed to have a military?  Yes, well I'm sure glad the U.S. government bombed Japan so they could then steal from the American taxpayer to rebuild Japan.  Excellent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it's better for us to radiate the citizens of Japan rather than have Japan "terrorize" people in the Pacific?  I'm not so sure, but I don't personally make much distinction between two different forms of evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Well the first quote is the only relevant quote to your claim.  Of course you took out the post I was responding to.



Kevin_Kennedy said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would be incorrect.  The Japanese did not give the order to drop the nukes on Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so you think 9/11 was caused by the US government's foreign policy (blowback), but you don't think the Japanese government brought Hiroshima on itself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think the Japanese civilians brought Hiroshima on themselves.  The government's policies certainly created the environment for Hiroshima.  But I personally wish our government didn't choose to play the role of al-Qaeda in this analogy.
Click to expand...


Clearly Elvis initiated the comparison, whereas I followed it to its logical conclusion.


----------



## JBeukema

Dr Gregg said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't change the fact that the South fired the first shot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're ok with Lincoln deliberately antagonizing the south to start a war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, to keep the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA united
Click to expand...

What about keeping th British Empire united?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Dr Gregg said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't change the fact that the South fired the first shot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're ok with Lincoln deliberately antagonizing the south to start a war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, to keep the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA united
Click to expand...


So you think forcing people to live under a government against their will, murdering innocent civilians (both free and slave alike), and destroying their cities kept us "united?"


----------



## JakeStarkey

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Dr Gregg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're ok with Lincoln deliberately antagonizing the south to start a war?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, to keep the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA united
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think forcing people to live under a government against their will, murdering innocent civilians (both free and slave alike), and destroying their cities kept us "united?"
Click to expand...


Yeah, son, we are united.  Whether you like or not is not important.  What is remains that you accept history for it is.  You lost.  Get over it.  A libertarian model of governance as you desire will never happen here.  Get over it.


----------



## hortysir

Dr Gregg said:


> and I still want these people bitching about the civil war to tell me what would of happened if the south did secede? Why do they hate the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
> UNITED the key word


Actually the key word is "THE".
As opposed to "THESE" united states


----------



## Toro

Is this a joke thread?


----------



## hortysir

Abraham Lincoln said:
			
		

> &#8220;I will say then that I am not, nor have ever been, in favor of  bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the  black and white races &#8211; that I am not nor have been in favor of making  voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor  to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that  there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I  believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of  social and political equality.  And inasmuch as they cannot so live,  while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and  inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the  superior position assigned to the white race.&#8221;


* 
Lincoln-Douglas Debate - Sept. 18, 1858
*


----------



## JakeStarkey

hortysir said:


> Abraham Lincoln said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will say then that I am not, nor have ever been, in favor of  bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the  black and white races  that I am not nor have been in favor of making  voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor  to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that  there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I  believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of  social and political equality.  And inasmuch as they cannot so live,  while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and  inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the  superior position assigned to the white race.
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Lincoln-Douglas Debate - Sept. 18, 1858
> *
Click to expand...


You are a history thug.  One, Lincoln is not an original white supremacist.  Two, the South refused to accept constitutional and electoral process.  Three, the South fired on Old Glory.  Four, hortysir is as silly as those who defended the South in 1832, 1850, 1860-1861, and those who do today: simply looniness.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Toro said:


> Is this a joke thread?



David Duke's four followers are posting here, obviously, and the extreme libertarians adopt the CW as a cause.  What the forget is that when they interferred with JCD's administration, he would have put then against a wall.


----------



## Old Rocks

Well, Kevin states that we owe nothing to those that fought in WW2, because it was an unjust war on our part. So take what he says concerning the Civil War in light of that.

Lincoln's genius speech at Gettysburg said all that needed to be said concerning the reasons for the Civil War. The South lost, they were backward and primitive socially, politically, and economically. They were also aggressive, and had little morality about their fellow man. Slavers tend to be that way.

My Great-Grandfather fought with the 11th Illinois at Fort Donaldson, Shiloh, and many other engagements. He was on the side of what was right, as much as there can be such a side in any war.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Old Rocks said:


> Well, Kevin states that we owe nothing to those that fought in WW2, because it was an unjust war on our part. So take what he says concerning the Civil War in light of that.
> 
> Lincoln's genius speech at Gettysburg said all that needed to be said concerning the reasons for the Civil War. The South lost, they were backward and primitive socially, politically, and economically. They were also aggressive, and had little morality about their fellow man. Slavers tend to be that way.
> 
> My Great-Grandfather fought with the 11th Illinois at Fort Donaldson, Shiloh, and many other engagements. He was on the side of what was right, as much as there can be such a side in any war.



Another distortion of what I said.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

ABikerSailor said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't think they were right.  They kept slaves as well.
> 
> The British were taxing this country unjustly, and that is why the Revolution happened.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The north kept slaves as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here you go 'tard..........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery in the United States
> Main article: Slavery in the United States
> 
> Although the trans-Atlantic slave trade ended shortly after the American Revolution, slavery remained a central economic institution in the Southern states. All the Northern states passed emancipation acts between 1780 and 1804; most of these arranged for gradual emancipation.[108] In the South, however, slavery expanded with the westward movement of population. Historian Peter Kolchin wrote, "By breaking up existing families and forcing slaves to relocate far from everyone and everything they knew" this migration "replicated (if on a reduced level) many of [the] horrors" of the Atlantic slave trade.[109] Historian Ira Berlin called this forced migration the Second Middle Passage. Characterizing it as the "central event in the life of a slave between the American Revolution and the Civil War, Berlin wrote that whether they were uprooted themselves or simply lived in fear that they or their families would be involuntarily moved, "the massive deportation traumatized black people, both slave and free."[110] By 1860, 500,000 slaves had grown to 4 million. As long as slavery expanded, it remained profitable and powerful and was unlikely to disappear. Antislavery forces, however, proposed to put it on the path to extinction by stopping further expansion. If it became unprofitable, few people would spend the large sums of cash needed to buy and keep slaves, and the system would fade away quietly as it had in most countries in world history.
> 
> The plantation system, based on tobacco growing in Virginia, North Carolina, and Kentucky, and rice in South Carolina, expanded into lush new cotton lands in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippiand needed more slaves. But slave importation became illegal in 1808. Although complete statistics are lacking, it is estimated that 1,000,000 slaves moved west from the Old South between 1790 and 1860. Most of the slaves were moved from Maryland, Virginia, and the Carolinas. Michael Tadman, in a 1989 book Speculators and Slaves: Masters, Traders, and Slaves in the Old South, indicates that 6070% of interregional migrations were the result of the sale of slaves. In 1820 a child in the Upper South had a 30% chance to be sold south by 1860.[111]
> 
> Political division over slavery was temporarily resolved by the Compromise of 1850 which sought to divide new territories between slave and free states. However, the status of Kansas was left unresolved, producing bloody clashes between pro-slavery and anti-slavery settlers.[112] In 1860, the election of Abraham Lincoln as President on a program of limiting slavery led to the secession of Southern States and the outbreak of the US Civil War. Although Lincoln initially disclaimed any intention to interfere with slavery, the progress of the war produced the Emancipation Proclamation freeing slaves in Southern states still in revolt, and ultimately the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in December 1865, which ended legalized slavery in the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know.........computers can be used for a great deal more than displays of stupidity as you are doing right now.
> 
> They can also be used to look up things to discover facts.
> 
> Might wanna try wikipedia sometime.
Click to expand...


If you insist on using Wikipedia, try this page.

Slave and free states - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Speaking of the Gettysburg Address, let's analyze it shall we?



> that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.



Now, obviously, Lincoln was referring to the United States here, but this makes no sense.  For starters, the United States was not under threat.  The Confederacy wanted only independence, not to take over the United States.  Secondly, it was Lincoln fighting against "government of the people."  The people of the southern states did not want to be governed by Lincoln or the northern states any longer, so they decided to create a government of, by, and for their people.


----------



## HUGGY

Liberty said:


> They both committed ridiculous and pointless genocide...maybe no where near in similar methods or to the same ends, but they both killed a large enough amount of people that should taint their legacy as villainous in my opinion.



*...I just realized Lincoln was the Hitler of the 19th century. 
*

Sometimes it is better not to share every halfwit idea that pops in your head.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Speaking of the Gettysburg Address, let's analyze it shall we?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, obviously, Lincoln was referring to the United States here, but this makes no sense.  For starters, the United States was not under threat.  The Confederacy wanted only independence, not to take over the United States.  Secondly, it was Lincoln fighting against "government of the people."  The people of the southern states did not want to be governed by Lincoln or the northern states any longer, so they decided to create a government of, by, and for their people.
Click to expand...


The governments of the southern states warred against the nation, the government of which was the Congress of the United States.  Thus the South warred against "the people".


----------



## JakeStarkey

HUGGY said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> They both committed ridiculous and pointless genocide...maybe no where near in similar methods or to the same ends, but they both killed a large enough amount of people that should taint their legacy as villainous in my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *...I just realized Lincoln was the Hitler of the 19th century.
> *
> 
> Sometimes it is better not to share every halfwit idea that pops in your head.
Click to expand...


There is no logical set of comparisons to validate the OP.  Fail.


----------



## Kalam

Old Rocks said:


> Lincoln's genius speech at Gettysburg said all that needed to be said concerning the reasons for the Civil War. The South lost, they were backward and primitive socially, politically, and economically. They were also aggressive, and had little morality about their fellow man. Slavers tend to be that way.
> 
> My Great-Grandfather fought with the 11th Illinois at Fort Donaldson, Shiloh, and many other engagements. He was on the side of what was right, as much as there can be such a side in any war.





Is that what they tell you up there? That the north was a moral and principled bastion against Southern barbarity? That you were dragged into war by Southern aggression and a moral obligation to end slavery?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Kalam said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln's genius speech at Gettysburg said all that needed to be said concerning the reasons for the Civil War. The South lost, they were backward and primitive socially, politically, and economically. They were also aggressive, and had little morality about their fellow man. Slavers tend to be that way.
> 
> My Great-Grandfather fought with the 11th Illinois at Fort Donaldson, Shiloh, and many other engagements. He was on the side of what was right, as much as there can be such a side in any war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that what they tell you up there? That the north was a moral and principled bastion against Southern barbarity? That you were dragged into war by Southern aggression and a moral obligation to end slavery?
Click to expand...


Kalam, the North was not "a moral and principled bastion," but it did fight against Southern aggression, rightfully so.


----------



## Kalam

JakeStarkey said:


> Kalam, the North was not "a moral and principled bastion," but it did fight against Southern aggression, rightfully so.



States withdrew from the Union peacefully and formed a new nation. US forces refused to vacate the territory of the Confederate States when asked to do so; this was a casus belli as far as the South was concerned.


----------



## JBeukema

Kalam said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam, the North was not &quot;a moral and principled bastion,&quot; but it did fight against Southern aggression, rightfully so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> States withdrew from the Union peacefully and formed a new nation. US forces refused to vacate the territory of the Confederate States when asked to do so; this was a casus belli as far as the South was concerned.
Click to expand...


 Like when the Redcoats wouldn't leave Boston?


----------



## JWBooth

Old Rocks said:


> Well, Kevin states that we owe nothing to those that fought in WW2, because it was an unjust war on our part. So take what he says concerning the Civil War in light of that.
> 
> Lincoln's genius speech at Gettysburg said all that needed to be said concerning the reasons for the Civil War. The South lost, they were backward and primitive socially, politically, and economically. They were also aggressive, and had little morality about their fellow man. Slavers tend to be that way.
> 
> My Great-Grandfather fought with the 11th Illinois at Fort Donaldson, Shiloh, and many other engagements. He was on the side of what was right, as much as there can be such a side in any war.



*[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Note                on the Gettysburg Address[/FONT]*

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman,  Times, serif]*by                H.L. Mencken*[/FONT]​ [FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times,  serif]The                Gettysburg speech was at once the shortest and the most  famous oration                in American history...the highest emotion reduced to a few  poetical                phrases. Lincoln himself never even remotely approached  it. It is                genuinely stupendous. But let us not forget that it is  poetry, not                logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it. Put  it into                the cold words of everyday. The doctrine is simply this:  that the                Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their  lives to                the cause of self-determination  that government of the  people,                by the people, for the people, should not perish from the  earth.                It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union  soldiers                in the battle actually fought against self-determination;  it was                the Confederates who fought for the right of their people  to govern                themselves.[/FONT]​


----------



## paperview

"[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times,  serif]                It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union   soldiers                in the battle actually fought against  self-determination;  it was                the Confederates who fought  for the right of their people  to govern                themselves."

Yes, and the self determination to own people.

Fully one-third of those _southerners _were disallowed by those same confederates to not only govern themselves, but own their own bodies.

Some noble-ass fight for self-determination, wasn't it?
[/FONT]


----------



## paperview

Dr Grump said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not having been there I have no idea what they thought about the possibility of war. I will point out that Virginia did not actually secede until war actually started, and did it more in protest of that action than out for any other reason. Maybe most people actually thought there was another way to solve the differences between the states, and war was more of a surprise than an inevitability.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe. But I would imagine most states on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line knew a war was inevitable....we'll never know.
Click to expand...


True.  Read any papers of the day at the time.  The secession bubble had been building for a years and years before.  Hell, in 1850 SC threatened to seceded and in 1852, a convention was held and secession was laid out.

It was positively inevitable.  Lincoln, of the new anti-slavery party being elected, was the final straw.


----------



## paperview

So many errors in your posts.



hortysir said:


> ...
> 
> Lincoln fired the first shot.



No, he didn't.  You may consider he agitated, but he did not fire the first shot.


> He proposed an amendment that would have made slavery legal, and up to the states, and and worded in such a way as to make it permanent. His home state of Illinois was the first state to ratify it, but the war escalated before others could sign it.



He did not propose that amendment.  He wasn't even president when it was proposed and Illinois was not the first state to ratify it.  It wasn't even the second.



> Compare the number of slaves received in to northern ports to the number received in to southern ports.



Huh?  Importation of slaves was abolished in 1808. What was your point with this comment?



> Etched in stone, at the Lincoln Memorial, is his own words that say that his primary goal was to restore the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> "If I could free all the slaves and preserve the Union I would do that.   If I could free none of the slaves and preserve the Union I would do  that.  If I could free some slaves and leave others is place and save  the Union, I would do that also."
Click to expand...


That isn't etched in stone in the Lincoln Memorial.

His second inaugural address and the Gettysburg Address is.
Suggest you read what really _is_ etched in stone there:
Abraham Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address
*"...Woe unto the world because of offences!  for it  must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the  offence cometh!" *

*If we shall suppose that American Slavery is one  of those offences which, in the providence of God, must needs come,  but which, having continued through His appointed time, *

*He now wills  to remove, and that He gives to both North and South, this terrible  war, as the woe due to those by whom the offence came, shall we  discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which  the believers in a Living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we  hope--fervently do we pray--that this mighty scourge of war may  speedily pass away. *

*Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all  the wealth piled by the bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of  unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood  drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the  sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be  said "the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether'*

*With malice toward none; with charity for  all..."*​


----------



## paperview

JBeukema said:


> lincoln never freed a single slave




He most certainly did. Some were free from the very first day of the EP.
Estimates of the number of slaves freed immediately by the  Emancipation Proclamation are uncertain. But "a contemporary estimate  put the 'contraband' population of Union-occupied North Carolina at  10,000, and the Sea Islands of South Carolina also had a substantial  population. *It seems likely therefore that at least 20,000 slaves were  freed immediately by the Emancipation Proclamation."*
[Keith Poulter, "Slaves Immediately Freed by the Emancipation  Proclamation" North & South vol. 5 no. 1 (December 2001), p. 48]\


This Union-occupied zone where freedom began at once included "areas in  eastern North Carolina, the Mississippi Valley . . . the Tennessee  Valley of northern Alabama, the Shenandoah Valley, a large region of  Arkansas, and the Sea Islands of Georgia and South Carolina" 

  Although some counties of Union-occupied Virginia were exempted from  the Proclamation, "the lower Shenandoah Valley, and the area around  Alexandria" were not.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation#cite_note-SIFBEP-1
Booker T. Washington, as a boy of 9 in  Virginia, remembered the day in early 1865: [ Harris, "After the Emancipation Proclamation", p. 45]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation#cite_note-19
As the great day drew nearer, there was more singing in the slave  quarters than usual. It was bolder, had more ring, and lasted later into  the night. Most of the verses of the plantation songs had some  reference to freedom.... Some man who seemed to be a stranger (a United  States officer, I presume) made a little speech and then read a rather  long paperthe Emancipation Proclamation, I think. After the reading we  were told that we were all free, and could go when and where we pleased.  My mother, who was standing by my side, leaned over and kissed her  children, while tears of joy ran down her cheeks. She explained to us  what it all meant, that this was the day for which she had been so long  praying, but fearing that she would never live to see.​ Also, Lincoln's  signature rested not only on the Emancipation Proclamation, but on the 13th Amendment Resolution. 
He was not even required to place his signature there, yet he did.


----------



## paperview

Liberty said:


> you do realize that free black men in the south were slave owners right



Very few.  Most who did (and some were women) were mulatto.

Still, regardless, after Lincoln's Emancipation, *ALL FREE BLACKS WERE DECLARED SLAVES BY JEFFERSON DAVIS.*



In a broadside dated *January 5, 1863*, and published at Richmond  ---> an image of that broadside: ---->http://international.loc.gov/rbc/rbpe/rbpe18/rbpe187/18702100/001dr.jpg

"An Address To the People of the Free States by the President of the  Southern Confederacy..."  

*"...all free Negroes in the  Southern Confederacy shall be placed on the slave status, and deemed to  be chattels, they and their issue forever."

So EVEN THOSE FREE BLACKS "WHO WERE SLAVE OWNERS"
AFTER 1863 WERE NO LONGER FREE!*

*Even their children and children's children were bonded into slavery  FOREVER!  *


----------



## Old Rocks

Kalam said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln's genius speech at Gettysburg said all that needed to be said concerning the reasons for the Civil War. The South lost, they were backward and primitive socially, politically, and economically. They were also aggressive, and had little morality about their fellow man. Slavers tend to be that way.
> 
> My Great-Grandfather fought with the 11th Illinois at Fort Donaldson, Shiloh, and many other engagements. He was on the side of what was right, as much as there can be such a side in any war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that what they tell you up there? That the north was a moral and principled bastion against Southern barbarity? That you were dragged into war by Southern aggression and a moral obligation to end slavery?
Click to expand...


No, that is what history tells us. By depending on slavery, the south never developed a strong middle class. And slavery is second only to genocide in the pantheon of man's sins against man.

By failing to have a middle class, the south never developed either industry, nor schools that were for all citizens. Their society was one of the elite, the poor, and slaves. The elite were educated, if they desired to be so, the poor were semi-literate, at best, and the slaves were punished if caught trying to learn to read. That was the southern society at the time of the rebellion.

Had the South succeeded in balkenizing the North American continent, the nation that you enjoy would not exist today. The United States are just that, a war was fought and won to maintain this nation, and to make it a more just nation.


----------



## editec

Liberty said:


> They both committed ridiculous and pointless genocide...maybe no where near in similar methods or to the same ends, but they both killed a large enough amount of people that should taint their legacy as villainous in my opinion.


 


And a mountain is just like a molehill because they're both made of dirt.


----------



## paperview

editec said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> They both committed ridiculous and pointless genocide...maybe no where near in similar methods or to the same ends, but they both killed a large enough amount of people that should taint their legacy as villainous in my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And a mountain is just like a molehill because they're both made of dirt.
Click to expand...

Yep...and to rip a little off of ole Twain, they are about as similar as lightning and a lightening bug.


----------



## paperview

Old Rocks said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln's genius speech at Gettysburg said all that needed to be said concerning the reasons for the Civil War. The South lost, they were backward and primitive socially, politically, and economically. They were also aggressive, and had little morality about their fellow man. Slavers tend to be that way.
> 
> My Great-Grandfather fought with the 11th Illinois at Fort Donaldson, Shiloh, and many other engagements. He was on the side of what was right, as much as there can be such a side in any war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that what they tell you up there? That the north was a moral and principled bastion against Southern barbarity? That you were dragged into war by Southern aggression and a moral obligation to end slavery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that is what history tells us. By depending on slavery, the south never developed a strong middle class. And slavery is second only to genocide in the pantheon of man's sins against man.
> 
> By failing to have a middle class, the south never developed either industry, nor schools that were for all citizens. Their society was one of the elite, the poor, and slaves. The elite were educated, if they desired to be so, the poor were semi-literate, at best, and the slaves were punished if caught trying to learn to read. That was the southern society at the time of the rebellion.
> 
> Had the South succeeded in balkenizing the North American continent, the nation that you enjoy would not exist today. The United States are just that, a war was fought and won to maintain this nation, and to make it a more just nation.
Click to expand...

It always amazes me - the people who point to the Constitution and Declaration of Independence to find justification for secession, are the same folks who discard the phrase "all men are created equal" and fought hard to uphold the right to legally hold human beings in bondage.


----------



## paperview

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who instigated that shot?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The South by demanding that the *US* Army surrender a *US* fort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be incorrect.  Lincoln knew that the south would not allow him to resupply that fort, and he needed that incident to get public opinion on his side for a war.
Click to expand...

Kevin, if for example, Kentucky decided it wanted to secede, could it just take over Fort Knox and take it as its own, simply because it resides in Kentucky?


----------



## paperview

Kalam said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln's genius speech at Gettysburg said all that needed to be said concerning the reasons for the Civil War. The South lost, they were backward and primitive socially, politically, and economically. They were also aggressive, and had little morality about their fellow man. Slavers tend to be that way.
> 
> My Great-Grandfather fought with the 11th Illinois at Fort Donaldson, Shiloh, and many other engagements. He was on the side of what was right, as much as there can be such a side in any war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that what they tell you up there? That the north was a moral and principled bastion against Southern barbarity? That you were dragged into war by Southern aggression and a moral obligation to end slavery?
Click to expand...

The North had its flaws as well, but most of the Northern states had long before abolished slavery, most northern states abolished it in the 18th Century.

"The feeling of anti-slavery, which it was well known was very general among  the people of the North..."

This was written January 1861.  Do you know where it came from?


----------



## JakeStarkey

paperview said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln's genius speech at Gettysburg said all that needed to be said concerning the reasons for the Civil War. The South lost, they were backward and primitive socially, politically, and economically. They were also aggressive, and had little morality about their fellow man. Slavers tend to be that way.
> 
> My Great-Grandfather fought with the 11th Illinois at Fort Donaldson, Shiloh, and many other engagements. He was on the side of what was right, as much as there can be such a side in any war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that what they tell you up there? That the north was a moral and principled bastion against Southern barbarity? That you were dragged into war by Southern aggression and a moral obligation to end slavery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The North had its flaws as well, but most of the Northern states had long before abolished slavery, most northern states abolished it in the 18th Century.
> 
> "The feeling of anti-slavery, which it was well known was very general among  the people of the North..."
> 
> This was written January 1861.  Do you know where it came from?
Click to expand...


The tone and mood of the sentence, the dating of the sentence, and the context of this discussion ~ all lead me to think that it must be from one of the secession ordinances of one of the states.


----------



## paperview

JakeStarkey said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that what they tell you up there? That the north was a moral and principled bastion against Southern barbarity? That you were dragged into war by Southern aggression and a moral obligation to end slavery?
> 
> 
> 
> The North had its flaws as well, but most of the Northern states had long before abolished slavery, most northern states abolished it in the 18th Century.
> 
> "The feeling of anti-slavery, which it was well known was very general among  the people of the North..."
> 
> This was written January 1861.  Do you know where it came from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The tone and mood of the sentence, the dating of the sentence, and the context of this discussion ~ all lead me to think that it must be from one of the secession ordinances of one of the states.
Click to expand...



You are correct, Sir.

Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Georgia Secession

Georgia Secesh Document.

This is also in there this part: "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."

Pretty much a fuck-you to  those who say Lincoln didn't give a shit about slavery.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The nay-sayers, very limited in their education on this topic, for starters, do not know the difference between "anti-slavery" and "abolition."  I know they don't understand the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

We are all indebted to Paperview's skill in this area.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

paperview said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South by demanding that the *US* Army surrender a *US* fort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be incorrect.  Lincoln knew that the south would not allow him to resupply that fort, and he needed that incident to get public opinion on his side for a war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Kevin, if for example, Kentucky decided it wanted to secede, could it just take over Fort Knox and take it as its own, simply because it resides in Kentucky?
Click to expand...


With the precedent of the Civil War guiding the federal government it'd be more likely that Kentucky would be invaded and placed under martial law.  However, if the federal government were willing to acknowledge Kentucky's right to leave the Union a mutual agreement could be discussed regarding Fort Knox.  Obviously the building itself would likely go to Kentucky, unless Kentucky chose to allow the Union to remain there for whatever reason.  You forget that the Confederates tried to peacefully discuss paying their portion of the national debt and buying all federal property within their borders, but Lincoln refused to even meet with them.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Kevin, the confeds grabbed fed properties wherever they could before offering to pay for them.  Your problem is that you believe that a state is equal to the national government.  When a state ratified the Constitution or later joined the union, it gave up its own sovereignty and adopted the principles of  federalism.  No where in the Constitution is a state granted the right to secession whereas Section I 8: 16 clearly gives the national government precedence over the states.  The tail cannot wag the dog.


----------



## JBeukema

paperview said:


> "[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times,  serif]                It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union   soldiers                in the battle actually fought against  self-determination;  it was                the Confederates who fought  for the right of their people  to govern                themselves."
> 
> Yes, and the self determination to own people.
> 
> Fully one-third of those _southerners _were disallowed by those same confederates to not only govern themselves, but own their own bodies.
> 
> Some noble-ass fight for self-determination, wasn't it?
> [/FONT]




Yep. One hell of a fight against slavery, wasn't it?

Tell me what proclamation Lincoln gave to free the slaves in the Union.


----------



## JBeukema

paperview said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not having been there I have no idea what they thought about the possibility of war. I will point out that Virginia did not actually secede until war actually started, and did it more in protest of that action than out for any other reason. Maybe most people actually thought there was another way to solve the differences between the states, and war was more of a surprise than an inevitability.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe. But I would imagine most states on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line knew a war was inevitable....we'll never know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.  Read any papers of the day at the time.  The secession bubble had been building for a years and years before.  Hell, in 1850 SC threatened to seceded and in 1852, a convention was held and secession was laid out.
> 
> It was positively inevitable.  Lincoln, of the new anti-slavery party being elected, was the final straw.
Click to expand...





If the North gave a damned about the *******, why did the North not free their own slaves during the conflict?


----------



## JBeukema

paperview said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> lincoln never freed a single slave
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He most certainly did. Some were free from the very first day of the EP.
Click to expand...



The EP was not sent to he slave states in the North and Lincoln had no authority on the CSA. Lincoln took no actions to demand any slaves be freed n the Union. You want to give him undue credit for any good that may have been done by others. He made it clear that he never gave a damn about the slaves


----------



## JBeukema

paperview said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that what they tell you up there? That the north was a moral and principled bastion against Southern barbarity? That you were dragged into war by Southern aggression and a moral obligation to end slavery?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that is what history tells us. By depending on slavery, the south never developed a strong middle class. And slavery is second only to genocide in the pantheon of man's sins against man.
> 
> By failing to have a middle class, the south never developed either industry, nor schools that were for all citizens. Their society was one of the elite, the poor, and slaves. The elite were educated, if they desired to be so, the poor were semi-literate, at best, and the slaves were punished if caught trying to learn to read. That was the southern society at the time of the rebellion.
> 
> Had the South succeeded in balkenizing the North American continent, the nation that you enjoy would not exist today. The United States are just that, a war was fought and won to maintain this nation, and to make it a more just nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It always amazes me - the people who point to the Constitution and Declaration of Independence to find justification for secession, are the same folks who discard the phrase "all men are created equal" and fought hard to uphold the right to legally hold human beings in bondage.
Click to expand...



If the North had used arms to free slaves and fight for liberty, you might have some sort of point, But they didn't. There were still slave states in the Union and Lincoln made no effort to free all the slaves in the North. The North fought purely for the economic strength that come with the Southern territories.

There was a just war to be fought, but the Union never fought it.


----------



## JBeukema

paperview said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South by demanding that the *US* Army surrender a *US* fort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be incorrect.  Lincoln knew that the south would not allow him to resupply that fort, and he needed that incident to get public opinion on his side for a war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Kevin, if for example, Kentucky decided it wanted to secede, could it just take over Fort Knox and take it as its own, simply because it resides in Kentucky?
Click to expand...



Did we take Boston and all in it simply because it resided in Boston when we seceded and told the King to go fuck himself?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JakeStarkey said:


> Kevin, the confeds grabbed fed properties wherever they could before offering to pay for them.  Your problem is that you believe that a state is equal to the national government.  When a state ratified the Constitution or later joined the union, it gave up its own sovereignty and adopted the principles of  federalism.  No where in the Constitution is a state granted the right to secession whereas Section I 8: 16 clearly gives the national government precedence over the states.  The tail cannot wag the dog.



So they gave up their own sovereignty for the principles of federalism?  What is federalism but a system whereby the member states of a union retain their sovereignty?


----------



## elvis

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Dr Gregg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> What were the slaveowners doing to the blacks?  Giving them a vote?
> 
> How fucking stupid are you anyway?  I'm guessing you ate lead paint chips as a child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, he's the name nut claiming that Americans were terrorist during WWII. Another person that likes to make up their own history
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please find the post where I called Americans during WWII terrorists.
Click to expand...


you've called our veterans war criminals, which is just as bad, if not worse.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

elvis said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Gregg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, he's the name nut claiming that Americans were terrorist during WWII. Another person that likes to make up their own history
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please find the post where I called Americans during WWII terrorists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you've called our veterans war criminals, which is just as bad, if not worse.
Click to expand...


I called one person in particular, and one small group of veterans in general, war criminals.  But that's because I don't believe Americans deserve special treatment when they do horrible things, and you know if the situation had been reversed we'd have no problem referring to the Japanese as war criminals.


----------



## elvis

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please find the post where I called Americans during WWII terrorists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you've called our veterans war criminals, which is just as bad, if not worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I called one person in particular, and one small group of veterans in general, war criminals.  But that's because I don't believe Americans deserve special treatment when they do horrible things, and you know if the situation had been reversed we'd have no problem referring to the Japanese as war criminals.
Click to expand...


First off, war crimes are committed by states, not individuals.  bin laden, for example, is not a war criminal, but simply a criminal.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

elvis said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> you've called our veterans war criminals, which is just as bad, if not worse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I called one person in particular, and one small group of veterans in general, war criminals.  But that's because I don't believe Americans deserve special treatment when they do horrible things, and you know if the situation had been reversed we'd have no problem referring to the Japanese as war criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First off, war crimes are committed by states, not individuals.  bin laden, for example, is not a war criminal, but simply a criminal.
Click to expand...


Oh I don't know, we certainly had no problem charging people with war crimes during and after WWII.  War crimes are definitely committed by states and I would say that dropping the nuclear bomb was a war crime committed by the U.S. government under Truman's administration, but also by those soldiers who followed that order.

Now you might be right that war crimes can only be committed by states and by individuals acting on behalf of a state.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

paperview said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that what they tell you up there? That the north was a moral and principled bastion against Southern barbarity? That you were dragged into war by Southern aggression and a moral obligation to end slavery?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that is what history tells us. By depending on slavery, the south never developed a strong middle class. And slavery is second only to genocide in the pantheon of man's sins against man.
> 
> By failing to have a middle class, the south never developed either industry, nor schools that were for all citizens. Their society was one of the elite, the poor, and slaves. The elite were educated, if they desired to be so, the poor were semi-literate, at best, and the slaves were punished if caught trying to learn to read. That was the southern society at the time of the rebellion.
> 
> Had the South succeeded in balkenizing the North American continent, the nation that you enjoy would not exist today. The United States are just that, a war was fought and won to maintain this nation, and to make it a more just nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It always amazes me - the people who point to the Constitution and Declaration of Independence to find justification for secession, are the same folks who discard the phrase "all men are created equal" and fought hard to uphold the right to legally hold human beings in bondage.
Click to expand...


Since I am one of the people who are saying that the secession of the south was constitutional I challenge you to show were i fought to enslave anyone. The Civil War was almost 100 years before I was born, I was not there.

If you want to claim the major issue was slavery, please explain to me why Northern states had slaves even after the war began. Why did the Emancipation proclamation only addrees the issue of slavery in the South, and promise that they could keep their slaves if they returned to the Union before 1 January 1863?


----------



## Dr Gregg

elvis said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Gregg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, he's the name nut claiming that Americans were terrorist during WWII. Another person that likes to make up their own history
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please find the post where I called Americans during WWII terrorists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you've called our veterans war criminals, which is just as bad, if not worse.
Click to expand...


Plus he called us during wwii "al quaeda".

He'll just deny it and act like we misinterpreted, like he said above in regards to the US being unjustified in being in WWII, and claiming they were the aggressors against Japan. Sounds like someone who just like to argue something, regardless of what bullshit he spews forth and how absurd that argument is. Must be a lawyer


----------



## JakeStarkey

JBeukema said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that is what history tells us. By depending on slavery, the south never developed a strong middle class. And slavery is second only to genocide in the pantheon of man's sins against man.
> 
> By failing to have a middle class, the south never developed either industry, nor schools that were for all citizens. Their society was one of the elite, the poor, and slaves. The elite were educated, if they desired to be so, the poor were semi-literate, at best, and the slaves were punished if caught trying to learn to read. That was the southern society at the time of the rebellion.
> 
> Had the South succeeded in balkenizing the North American continent, the nation that you enjoy would not exist today. The United States are just that, a war was fought and won to maintain this nation, and to make it a more just nation.
> 
> 
> 
> It always amazes me - the people who point to the Constitution and Declaration of Independence to find justification for secession, are the same folks who discard the phrase "all men are created equal" and fought hard to uphold the right to legally hold human beings in bondage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If the North had used arms to free slaves and fight for liberty, you might have some sort of point, But they didn't. There were still slave states in the Union and Lincoln made no effort to free all the slaves in the North. The North fought purely for the economic strength that come with the Southern territories.
> 
> There was a just war to be fought, but the Union never fought it.
Click to expand...


JB, on this you are incorrect.  Lincoln certainly realized that slavery was the root cause of the war, from which all other causes were secondary and from which they budded.  

Lincoln was anti-slavery not pro-abolition, until it became clear the slaves were being used by the South to impeded the North's effort to subdue it, and he moved over to ending slavery forever.  Thus Lincoln emancipated the slaves in the region of insurrection, where he certainly had legal authority if not physical ability to enforce it.  As the areas were captured, the slaves became automatically free.  Lincoln supported the 13th Amendment that would end all slavery with its ratification in December 1865.

So, yes, verily yes, the United States fought the just war against the South.


----------



## JakeStarkey

JBeukema said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would be incorrect.  Lincoln knew that the south would not allow him to resupply that fort, and he needed that incident to get public opinion on his side for a war.
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin, if for example, Kentucky decided it wanted to secede, could it just take over Fort Knox and take it as its own, simply because it resides in Kentucky?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did we take Boston and all in it simply because it resided in Boston when we seceded and told the King to go fuck himself?
Click to expand...


Your analogy is based on the false premise that the colonies were seceding from the Empire.  They were not, rather they were in outright revolution.  What the colonists did was criminal in the eyes of the British legal system.  The colonists got away with it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin, the confeds grabbed fed properties wherever they could before offering to pay for them.  Your problem is that you believe that a state is equal to the national government.  When a state ratified the Constitution or later joined the union, it gave up its own sovereignty and adopted the principles of  federalism.  No where in the Constitution is a state granted the right to secession whereas Section I 8: 16 clearly gives the national government precedence over the states.  The tail cannot wag the dog.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So they gave up their own sovereignty for the principles of federalism?  What is federalism but a system whereby the member states of a union retain their sovereignty?
Click to expand...


A false definition of federalism.  Go look it up.  The member states did not retain their sovereignty any more than did the new states that came into the union.  Since the Constitution did not grant that power to the states, then an amendment would have been needed to grant the states such power.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Quantum Windbag said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that is what history tells us. By depending on slavery, the south never developed a strong middle class. And slavery is second only to genocide in the pantheon of man's sins against man.
> 
> By failing to have a middle class, the south never developed either industry, nor schools that were for all citizens. Their society was one of the elite, the poor, and slaves. The elite were educated, if they desired to be so, the poor were semi-literate, at best, and the slaves were punished if caught trying to learn to read. That was the southern society at the time of the rebellion.
> 
> Had the South succeeded in balkenizing the North American continent, the nation that you enjoy would not exist today. The United States are just that, a war was fought and won to maintain this nation, and to make it a more just nation.
> 
> 
> 
> It always amazes me - the people who point to the Constitution and Declaration of Independence to find justification for secession, are the same folks who discard the phrase "all men are created equal" and fought hard to uphold the right to legally hold human beings in bondage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since I am one of the people who are saying that the secession of the south was constitutional I challenge you to show were i fought to enslave anyone. The Civil War was almost 100 years before I was born, I was not there.
> 
> If you want to claim the major issue was slavery, please explain to me why Northern states had slaves even after the war began. Why did the Emancipation proclamation only addrees the issue of slavery in the South, and promise that they could keep their slaves if they returned to the Union before 1 January 1863?
Click to expand...


You are misdefining issues as causes; they are two different things.  Preserving the Union was the immediate issue of the war.  Slavery was the primary cause of the war.

Ask paper view for copies of all of the documentation she has posted here and in other threads why the southerners of the time believed slavery to be the primary cause of the war.  Good reading!


----------



## hortysir

paperview said:


> So many errors in your posts.
> 
> 
> 
> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Lincoln fired the first shot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, he didn't.  You may consider he agitated, but he did not fire the first shot.
> 
> 
> 
> He proposed an amendment that would have made slavery legal, and up to the states, and and worded in such a way as to make it permanent. His home state of Illinois was the first state to ratify it, but the war escalated before others could sign it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He did not propose that amendment.  He wasn't even president when it was proposed and Illinois was not the first state to ratify it.  It wasn't even the second.
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?  Importation of slaves was abolished in 1808. What was your point with this comment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Etched in stone, at the Lincoln Memorial, is his own words that say that his primary goal was to restore the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> "If I could free all the slaves and preserve the Union I would do that.   If I could free none of the slaves and preserve the Union I would do  that.  If I could free some slaves and leave others is place and save  the Union, I would do that also."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That isn't etched in stone in the Lincoln Memorial.
> 
> His second inaugural address and the Gettysburg Address is.
> Suggest you read what really _is_ etched in stone there:
> Abraham Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address*"...Woe unto the world because of offences!  for it  must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the  offence cometh!" *
> 
> *If we shall suppose that American Slavery is one  of those offences which, in the providence of God, must needs come,  but which, having continued through His appointed time, *
> 
> *He now wills  to remove, and that He gives to both North and South, this terrible  war, as the woe due to those by whom the offence came, shall we  discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which  the believers in a Living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we  hope--fervently do we pray--that this mighty scourge of war may  speedily pass away. *
> 
> *Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all  the wealth piled by the bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of  unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood  drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the  sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be  said "the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether'*
> 
> *With malice toward none; with charity for  all..."*​
Click to expand...

Apologies for the "first shot" comment.
Agitated it? Yes.

One month after Lincoln was elected (you're right he didn't propose it, Buchanon did)  it was proposed to leave slavery to the states.
Prior to his inauguration wouldn't Lincoln, as a Congressman, been instrumental in ratifying this?


> "ARTICLE THIRTEEN, No amendment shall be made to  the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to  abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions  thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws  of said State."
> In other words, President Buchanan had signed a  resolve that would have forever permitted slavery, and upheld states'  rights. Only one State, Illinois, Lincoln's home state, had ratified  this proposed amendment before the Civil War broke out in 1861.



And I assure you that inside the museum area of the Lincoln Memorial is a wall that has the entire speech of the quote I cited.


Truth is:

 Lincoln was a white supremacist that cared more about keeping THESE United States joined as one country than he did about slaves.

The north was just as culpable in the slave trade for importing and selling the slaves as the south was for buying and using them.

Slaves weren't cheap and the majority of southerners weren't rich, so you can't fault the entire southern half for slavery.
The majority of Confederate soldiers only saw it as the Union army invading their homes and towns.


While you're digging and researching, Liberty, check out the origins of our Pledge of Allegiance


----------



## paperview

JakeStarkey said:


> Kevin, the confeds grabbed fed properties wherever they could before offering to pay for them.  Your problem is that you believe that a state is equal to the national government.  When a state ratified the Constitution or later joined the union, it gave up its own sovereignty and adopted the principles of  federalism.  No where in the Constitution is a state granted the right to secession whereas Section I 8: 16 clearly gives the national government precedence over the states.  The tail cannot wag the dog.



I'm in and out here, so I can't stay and debate like I'd like to, duties outside abound, but quicjkly...

You seem to have answered well some of the rebuttals. 

There really was no serious effort to negotiate pay for federal properties. There would have had to have been some sort of treaty drawn up as well to allow access to some of the ports, IF.  If...

Confederates out and out stole, then held Federal properties hostage. The "pay" thing is a red herring.  They were never serious about paying for it, and correctly, yes, Lincoln would not have been willing to negotiate either.  
Federal property bought and paid for by the entire citizenry was not negotiable. 

As a historical note, it should be mentioned, *BEFORE FORT SUMTER 
- The South DID Fire on a ship  sent to supply Fort Sumter PRIOR to the first shot we are much more familiar with.  The name of the ship  was Star of the West.*

Read all about it:  JANUARY  19, 1861
 - Before Lincoln was even sworn into office.

They also seized a steamship, and made it their own: 
*THE STEAMSHIP "MARION." ; SEIZED  BY THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TO BE CONVERTED INTO A MAN-OF-WAR.*

http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/major-anderson-ft-sumter_Dir/star-of-the-west.htm


----------



## paperview

hortysir said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> So many errors in your posts.
> 
> 
> 
> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Lincoln fired the first shot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, he didn't.  You may consider he agitated, but he did not fire the first shot.
> He did not propose that amendment.  He wasn't even president when it was proposed and Illinois was not the first state to ratify it.  It wasn't even the second.
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?  Importation of slaves was abolished in 1808. What was your point with this comment?
> 
> That isn't etched in stone in the Lincoln Memorial.
> 
> His second inaugural address and the Gettysburg Address is.
> Suggest you read what really _is_ etched in stone there:
> Abraham Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address*"...Woe unto the world because of offences!  for it  must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the  offence cometh!" *
> 
> *If we shall suppose that American Slavery is one  of those offences which, in the providence of God, must needs come,  but which, having continued through His appointed time, *
> 
> *He now wills  to remove, and that He gives to both North and South, this terrible  war, as the woe due to those by whom the offence came, shall we  discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which  the believers in a Living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we  hope--fervently do we pray--that this mighty scourge of war may  speedily pass away. *
> 
> *Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all  the wealth piled by the bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of  unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood  drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the  sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be  said "the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether'*
> 
> *With malice toward none; with charity for  all..."*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apologies for the "first shot" comment.
> Agitated it? Yes.
> 
> One month after Lincoln was elected (you're right he didn't propose it, Buchanon did)  it was proposed to leave slavery to the states.
> Prior to his inauguration wouldn't Lincoln, as a Congressman, been instrumental in ratifying this?
> 
> 
> 
> "ARTICLE THIRTEEN, No amendment shall be made to  the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to  abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions  thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws  of said State."
> In other words, President Buchanan had signed a  resolve that would have forever permitted slavery, and upheld states'  rights. Only one State, Illinois, Lincoln's home state, had ratified  this proposed amendment before the Civil War broke out in 1861.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I assure you that inside the museum area of the Lincoln Memorial is a wall that has the entire speech of the quote I cited.
> 
> 
> Truth is:
> 
> Lincoln was a white supremacist that cared more about keeping THESE United States joined as one country than he did about slaves.
> 
> The north was just as culpable in the slave trade for importing and selling the slaves as the south was for buying and using them.
> 
> Slaves weren't cheap and the majority of southerners weren't rich, so you can't fault the entire southern half for slavery.
> The majority of Confederate soldiers only saw it as the Union army invading their homes and towns.
> 
> 
> While you're digging and researching, Liberty, check out the origins of our Pledge of Allegiance
Click to expand...


No, Buchanan didn't either.  It was called the Corwin Amendment because...hey, I'll give you 3 guesses to figure out who proposed it.  (hint: It's in the name of the Amendment.) 

I'm not going to continue with your little escapade of inaccuracies, cause it appears you are all over the map. (WTF?  Pledge of Allegiance?  What the hell does a Socialist composed oath written in 1892 have to do with this discussion?) 
 Frankly, you don't seem to be worth my time. 

I'll be nicer when you're smarter. ;0


----------



## paperview

JBeukema said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe. But I would imagine most states on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line knew a war was inevitable....we'll never know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True.  Read any papers of the day at the time.  The secession bubble had been building for a years and years before.  Hell, in 1850 SC threatened to seceded and in 1852, a convention was held and secession was laid out.
> 
> It was positively inevitable.  Lincoln, of the new anti-slavery party being elected, was the final straw.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the North gave a damned about the <RACIST SLUR DELETED BY PAPERVIEW>, why did the North not free their own slaves during the conflict?
Click to expand...

The fact you use such a disgusting term to refer to black people tells me all I need to know about you.

Thanks for saving me some time.


----------



## paperview

One other word to leave you with from Lincoln, in his *1862* Annual Message to Congress::

"*In giving freedom to the slave, we assure  freedom to the free *
&#8211;honorable alike in what we give, and what we preserve. We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best, hope of earth."


----------



## JBeukema

elvis said:


> First off, war crimes are committed by states, not individuals.




So the Nuremberg trials was really one trial against a State and not a series of hearings regarding the crimes of the individuals involved?



> Justice Newman [of the US Court of Appeals] added:"The liability of  private individuals for committing _war crimes _has been  recognized since World War I and was confirmed at Nuremberg after World  War II."​


Legal Definition of War Crimes



> Whoever, whether inside or outside the United  States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in  subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life  or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall  also be subject to the penalty of death.



Clearly addresses individuals


> (c) * Definition. * As used in this section the term war crime means  any conduct
> ...
> 
> (4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict  and contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or  Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as  amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996),  when the United States is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or  causes serious injury to civilians.



United States Code: Title 18,2441. War crimes | LII / Legal Information Institute


Refuted and dismissed


----------



## paperview

OOh.  Have I mentioned yet how stoooooopid the title of this thread is?







The Great Emancipator.  He Rests at Peace.


----------



## Mr Natural

I don't remember Lincoln preaching anything about world domination or the extermination of ethnic groups.

I must have been asleep during that part of the lecture.


----------



## paperview

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who instigated that shot?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The South by demanding that the *US* Army surrender a *US* fort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be incorrect.  Lincoln knew that the south would not allow him to resupply that fort, and he needed that incident to get public opinion on his side for a war.
Click to expand...

Lincoln wasn't even President when the first shot was fired, Kevin.


----------



## JBeukema

JakeStarkey said:


> Lincoln certainly realized that slavery was the root cause of the war, from which all other causes were secondary and from which they budded.



The South fought for slavery because it was the cornerstone of their economy, as well as for their racist views. The North didn't fight for slaver, but even ad their own slaves; they were motivated by economics more than any other factor.


> Thus Lincoln emancipated the slaves in the region of insurrection,



Impossible by definition. There was no 'region of insurrection'; the CSA was not trying to take over the government any more than the FF were trying to take over the British Empire. Both were wars for independence.

The CSA left the Union, meaning that Lincoln had no more authority than the King.





> where he certainly had legal authority if not physical ability to enforce it.  As the areas were captured, the slaves became automatically free.  Lincoln supported the 13th Amendment that would end all slavery with its ratification in December 1865.




He also supported the original, which was to have a very different effect.



> So, yes, verily yes, the United States fought the just war against the South.



They did not. There was a just war to be fought but the Union did not fight it, for they did not fight for the just reason and cause for which there was to fight.

You probably think America fought a just war against Hitler, as well, despite the fact that we never cared about the Jews, we had our own eugenics movement and forced sterilizations, we ignored 'Europe's Problem', we were in contact with NAZI 'doctors' thorugh much of the war, and we only went reluctantly into war against Hitler after he declared war on us following the Japanese attack.

There was a just war to be fought, but we did not fight it. We fought our own war for our own reasons and what was just had nothing to do with it. That the enemy happened to be the same merely provided an opportunity for great propaganda.


----------



## JBeukema

JakeStarkey said:


> they were in outright revolution.


Fail.

Did they try to depose the king? Did they have any plans to storm the palace? Did they seek to destroy the Empire and remove the kings head, taking control of the Crown?

No.


It was a war for independence, not a revolution. America has never seen a revolution except in paintings of that waged by the French.


----------



## JBeukema

paperview said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> True.  Read any papers of the day at the time.  The secession bubble had been building for a years and years before.  Hell, in 1850 SC threatened to seceded and in 1852, a convention was held and secession was laid out.
> 
> It was positively inevitable.  Lincoln, of the new anti-slavery party being elected, was the final straw.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the North gave a damned about the <RACIST SLUR DELETED BY PAPERVIEW>, why did the North not free their own slaves during the conflict?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact you use such a disgusting term to refer to black people tells me all I need to know about you.
> 
> Thanks for saving me some time.
Click to expand...



That's how they viewed them. They didn't care about the '*******'. If you can't accept the reality of the mindset of those involved, then you're utterly hopeless.


----------



## paperview

The Northern & Lincoln's view of Slavery:






The South's view:


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Dr Gregg said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please find the post where I called Americans during WWII terrorists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you've called our veterans war criminals, which is just as bad, if not worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Plus he called us during wwii "al quaeda".
> 
> He'll just deny it and act like we misinterpreted, like he said above in regards to the US being unjustified in being in WWII, and claiming they were the aggressors against Japan. Sounds like someone who just like to argue something, regardless of what bullshit he spews forth and how absurd that argument is. Must be a lawyer
Click to expand...


Again, you're purposefully misinterpreting what I said regarding al-Qaeda.  It was in fact Elvis who initiated that comparison, as I've already shown.

Oh, and I think Jillian and CrimsonWhite would be able to tell you that I am in no way shape or form a lawyer.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JakeStarkey said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin, the confeds grabbed fed properties wherever they could before offering to pay for them.  Your problem is that you believe that a state is equal to the national government.  When a state ratified the Constitution or later joined the union, it gave up its own sovereignty and adopted the principles of  federalism.  No where in the Constitution is a state granted the right to secession whereas Section I 8: 16 clearly gives the national government precedence over the states.  The tail cannot wag the dog.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So they gave up their own sovereignty for the principles of federalism?  What is federalism but a system whereby the member states of a union retain their sovereignty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A false definition of federalism.  Go look it up.  The member states did not retain their sovereignty any more than did the new states that came into the union.  Since the Constitution did not grant that power to the states, then an amendment would have been needed to grant the states such power.
Click to expand...


You clearly have no idea how the Constitution doles out power.  I'm not going to bother explaining it again, however.  I've probably done so a few times in this thread already.


----------



## paperview

This was the _Cornerstone_ of what the South was fighting for:


----------



## JakeStarkey

JBeukema said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> they were in outright revolution.
> 
> 
> 
> Fail.
> 
> Did they try to depose the king? Did they have any plans to storm the palace? Did they seek to destroy the Empire and remove the kings head, taking control of the Crown?
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> It was a war for independence, not a revolution. America has never seen a revolution except in paintings of that waged by the French.
Click to expand...


Your belief fails because it does not meet the evidence.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So they gave up their own sovereignty for the principles of federalism?  What is federalism but a system whereby the member states of a union retain their sovereignty?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A false definition of federalism.  Go look it up.  The member states did not retain their sovereignty any more than did the new states that came into the union.  Since the Constitution did not grant that power to the states, then an amendment would have been needed to grant the states such power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You clearly have no idea how the Constitution doles out power.  I'm not going to bother explaining it again, however.  I've probably done so a few times in this thread already.
Click to expand...


Kevin, your belief is not evidence, it is merely fail.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

paperview said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South by demanding that the *US* Army surrender a *US* fort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be incorrect.  Lincoln knew that the south would not allow him to resupply that fort, and he needed that incident to get public opinion on his side for a war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln wasn't even President when the first shot was fired, Kevin.
Click to expand...


He wasn't President in April of 1861?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

paperview said:


> The Northern & Lincoln's view of Slavery:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The South's view:



Lincoln believed African-Americans deserved equal rights, but only so long as they weren't in America.  They could have equal rights wherever he deported them to.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JakeStarkey said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> A false definition of federalism.  Go look it up.  The member states did not retain their sovereignty any more than did the new states that came into the union.  Since the Constitution did not grant that power to the states, then an amendment would have been needed to grant the states such power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly have no idea how the Constitution doles out power.  I'm not going to bother explaining it again, however.  I've probably done so a few times in this thread already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kevin, your belief is not evidence, it is merely fail.
Click to expand...


The words of the Constitution itself, however, are evidence.  And that has been posted in this thread multiple times I believe.


----------



## JBeukema

How about looking at Lincoln's real views, as expressed before the propaganda machine had to justify things in retrospect?

"Judge Douglas has said to you that he has  not been able to get an                  answer out of me to the question whether I am in favor of Negro                  citizenship. So far as I know, the Judge never asked me the question                   before. (applause from audience) He shall have no occasion to ever                  ask it again, for I tell him very frankly that I am not in favor of                  Negro citizenship. (renewed applause) If the state of Illinois has                  the power to grant Negroes citizenship, I shall be opposed to it.                  (cries of "here, here" and "good, good" from audience) That is all                  I have to say." -- *Abraham Lincoln*, Speech at Springfield,                  Illinois, June 1857                 

_"Negro Equality!          Fudge!!  How long in the government of a God, great enough to  make and maintain this Universe, shall there continue knaves          to vend, and fools to gulp, so low a piece of demagoguism as  this?"


_*Fourth debate with Stephen A. Douglas at  Charleston,          Illinois on September 18, 1858 :*  "_I will say  then  that I am not, nor ever have been          in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political  equality of the White and black races, (Applause) - that I          am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurers  of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, not to intermarry          with White people; and I will say in addition to this that  there is a physical difference between the White and black races          which I believe will forever forbid the two races living  together on equal terms of social and political equality.  And          inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together  there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I          as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior  position assigned to the White race..."

_[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]*"In the course of his  reply,    the Senator remarked that he had always considered this a government  made for    the white people and not for the Negroes. Why, in point of mere fact, I  think    so, too."
  -From, Speech at Peoria, Illinois
  Oct. 1854 (Vol. II)

*[/FONT]"I am a little uneasy about the                  abolishment of slavery in this District [of Columbia]." --                  *Abraham Lincoln*, 1862                 

"We know that some Southern men                  do free their slaves, go North and become tip-top abolitionists,                  while some Northern Men go South and become most cruel masters.                  When Southern people tell us that they are no more responsible                  for the origin of slavery than we are, I acknowledge the fact.                  When it is said the institution exists, and it is very difficult                  to get rid of in any satisfactory way, I can understand and                  appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not                  doing what I should not know what to do as to the existing                  institution. My first impulse would possibly be to free all                  slaves and send them to Liberia to their own native land. But a                  moment's reflection would convince me that this would not be                  best for them. If they were all landed there in a day they would                  all perish in the next ten days, and there is not surplus money                  enough to carry them there in many times ten days. What then?                  Free them all and keep them among us as underlings. Is it quite                  certain that this would alter their conditions? Free them and                  make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings                  will not admit of this, and if mine would, we well know that                  those of the great mass of whites will not. We cannot make them                  our equals. A system of gradual emancipation might well be                  adopted, and I will not undertake to judge our Southern friends                  for tardiness in this matter." -- *Abraham Lincoln* in                  speeches at Peoria, Illinois                 

"What I would most desire would                  be the separation of the white and black races." --  *                 Abraham Lincoln*, Spoken at Springfield, Illinois on July                  17th, 1858; from Abraham Lincoln: Complete Works, 1894, Volume                  1, page 273                 


"The point the Republican party                  wanted to stress was to oppose making slave States out of the                  newly acquired territory, not abolishing slavery as it then                  existed. " -- *Abraham Lincoln* in a speech at Peoria,                  Illinois                 

 "I have no purpose directly or  				indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the  				States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do  				so, and I have no inclination to do so." *Abraham Lincoln's*  				Inaugural Address on the Capitol steps, 1861 				

 What I do about  				slavery and the colored race, I do because it helps save the  				Union." -- *Abraham Lincoln* in a letter to Horace Greeley 				


Lincoln never gave a damn about the slaves- they were merely pawns he could use to secure his own power and keep the Confederates subject to Union rule.

 				"If we turn 200,000 armed Negroes  				in the South, among their former owners, from whom we have taken  				their arms, it will inevitably lead to a race war. It cannot be  				done. The Negroes must be gotten rid of." 				​  				Ben Butler responded to this by  				saying: "Why not send them to Panama to dig the canal?" Lincoln  				was delighted with this suggestion, and asked Butler to consult  				Seward at once. Only a few days later, John Wilkes Booth  				assassinated Lincoln and one of his conspirators wounded Seward. 				​


----------



## paperview

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would be incorrect.  Lincoln knew that the south would not allow him to resupply that fort, and he needed that incident to get public opinion on his side for a war.
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln wasn't even President when the first shot was fired, Kevin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He wasn't President in April of 1861?
Click to expand...

The first shots were fired in January of 1861.

Buchanan was President and he was trying to resupply Sumter. 






They took a ship  and seized it as well, "The Marion."


Then converted her to a Man of War ship.  



Star of the West


*Yes, the first shots were fired even before Lincoln was president. *


----------



## paperview

Amazing how the man the South itself  claimed was Anti-Slavery and the party they billed as Anti-slavery, never "gave a damn about the slaves." 

Makesyawonder, huh?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

paperview said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln wasn't even President when the first shot was fired, Kevin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He wasn't President in April of 1861?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The first shots were fired in January of 1861.
> 
> Buchanan was President and he was trying to resupply Sumter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They took a ship  and seized it as well, "The Marion."
> 
> 
> Then converted her to a Man of War ship.
> 
> 
> 
> Star of the West
> 
> 
> *Yes, the first shots were fired even before Lincoln was president. *
Click to expand...


The Fort Sumter incident seen as the spark that started the war, however, occurred in April.  Lincoln needed this incident because he knew northern public sentiment was against war, and he had every intention of invading the south.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

paperview said:


> Amazing how the man the South itself  claimed was Anti-Slavery and the party they billed as Anti-slavery, never "gave a damn about the slaves."
> 
> Makesyawonder, huh?



Lincoln was anti-slavery, but not for a good reason.  He not only opposed black people moving into the western territories, he opposed black people in the country at all.  He wanted the work that slaves would normally do for free white people to have and be paid for, and he wanted to deport all African-Americans out of the country.


----------



## paperview

Congratulations, JBeukema.  You understand, Big red fonty and all, what an astute politician says to assuage to drumbeats of war. 

You should pat yourself on the back.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

paperview said:


> Congratulations, JBeukema.  You understand, Big red fonty and all, what an astute politician says to assuage to drumbeats of war.
> 
> You should pat yourself on the back.



Oh, so _those_ were his lies.


----------



## paperview

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> He wasn't President in April of 1861?
> 
> 
> 
> The first shots were fired in January of 1861.
> 
> Buchanan was President and he was trying to resupply Sumter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They took a ship  and seized it as well, "The Marion."
> 
> 
> Then converted her to a Man of War ship.
> 
> 
> 
> Star of the West
> 
> 
> *Yes, the first shots were fired even before Lincoln was president. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Fort Sumter incident seen as the spark that started the war, however, occurred in April.  Lincoln needed this incident because he knew northern public sentiment was against war, and he had every intention of invading the south.
Click to expand...

It was the major opening blow, but history records the first shots as being well before that event.  

The South *FIRED UPON THE UNION SHIPS IN JANUARY of 1861*, and warned any attempt to supply the Forts would be considered an Act of War. 

THEY started, even before Lincoln set foot in the Office of the Presidency.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

paperview said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first shots were fired in January of 1861.
> 
> Buchanan was President and he was trying to resupply Sumter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They took a ship  and seized it as well, "The Marion."
> 
> 
> Then converted her to a Man of War ship.
> 
> 
> 
> Star of the West
> 
> 
> *Yes, the first shots were fired even before Lincoln was president. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Fort Sumter incident seen as the spark that started the war, however, occurred in April.  Lincoln needed this incident because he knew northern public sentiment was against war, and he had every intention of invading the south.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was the major opening blow, but history records the first shots as being well before that event.
> 
> The South *FIRED UPON THE UNION SHIPS IN JANUARY of 1861*, and warned any attempt to supply the Forts would be considered an Act of War.
> 
> THEY started, even before Lincoln set foot in the Office of the Presidency.
Click to expand...


Yes, but I'm not sure what your point is, unless you're trying to make my point?  Lincoln knew they'd take it as an act of war, and he used that to start the war.


----------



## paperview

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Congratulations, JBeukema.  You understand, Big red fonty and all, what an astute politician says to assuage to drumbeats of war.
> 
> You should pat yourself on the back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so _those_ were his lies.
Click to expand...

His legacy will not be diminished, KK. 







No matter how much you rattle and whine.

History made his place at the Eternal Table.


----------



## paperview

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Fort Sumter incident seen as the spark that started the war, however, occurred in April.  Lincoln needed this incident because he knew northern public sentiment was against war, and he had every intention of invading the south.
> 
> 
> 
> It was the major opening blow, but history records the first shots as being well before that event.
> 
> The South *FIRED UPON THE UNION SHIPS IN JANUARY of 1861*, and warned any attempt to supply the Forts would be considered an Act of War.
> 
> THEY started, even before Lincoln set foot in the Office of the Presidency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but I'm not sure what your point is, unless you're trying to make my point?  Lincoln knew they'd take it as an act of war, and he used that to start the war.
Click to expand...

The South - *THEY STARTED THE WAR.*

Well before Lincoln.  

They shot. They Stole Federal property.  THEY made their bed.

They lied in it. 

To your eternal regret.  To this Country's blessed Salvation. 

THANK YOU ABRAHAM LINCOLN.


----------



## JBeukema

> His legacy will not be diminished, KK.



A legacy of racism, segregation, and arguing aginst deporting an entire race simply because the negroe was better off as slaves?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

paperview said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Congratulations, JBeukema.  You understand, Big red fonty and all, what an astute politician says to assuage to drumbeats of war.
> 
> You should pat yourself on the back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so _those_ were his lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His legacy will not be diminished, KK.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how much you rattle and whine.
> 
> History made his place at the Eternal Table.
Click to expand...


I'm well aware.  People like to believe a false view of history because it makes Lincoln out to be a great hero.  We as people like to believe in heroes.  Heroes like Luke Skywalker, Frodo Baggins, Hercules, Robin Hood, etc...  But these heroes, like our idea of Lincoln, are works of fiction.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

paperview said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was the major opening blow, but history records the first shots as being well before that event.
> 
> The South *FIRED UPON THE UNION SHIPS IN JANUARY of 1861*, and warned any attempt to supply the Forts would be considered an Act of War.
> 
> THEY started, even before Lincoln set foot in the Office of the Presidency.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but I'm not sure what your point is, unless you're trying to make my point?  Lincoln knew they'd take it as an act of war, and he used that to start the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The South - *THEY STARTED THE WAR.*
> 
> Well before Lincoln.
> 
> They shot. They Stole Federal property.  THEY made their bed.
> 
> They lied in it.
> 
> To your eternal regret.  To this Country's blessed Salvation.
> 
> THANK YOU ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
Click to expand...


Lincoln forced them to start the war, because he wanted the war.


----------



## paperview

JBeukema said:


> His legacy will not be diminished, KK.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A legacy of racism, segregation, and arguing aginst deporting an entire race simply because the negroe was better off as slaves?
Click to expand...

To the man who refers to the black man with racist slurs:  You make no sense.

Further:  The American Colonization Society was founded by Abolitionists.


----------



## paperview

> I'm well aware.  People like to believe a false view of history because  it makes Lincoln out to be a great hero.  We as people like to believe  in heroes.  Heroes like Luke Skywalker, Frodo Baggins, Hercules, Robin  Hood, etc...  But these heroes, like our idea of Lincoln, are works of  fiction.


Four million men, women and children in bondage - freed - is not _fiction_ KK.

K.


----------



## paperview

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but I'm not sure what your point is, unless you're trying to make my point?  Lincoln knew they'd take it as an act of war, and he used that to start the war.
> 
> 
> 
> The South - *THEY STARTED THE WAR.*
> 
> Well before Lincoln.
> 
> They shot. They Stole Federal property.  THEY made their bed.
> 
> They lied in it.
> 
> To your eternal regret.  To this Country's blessed Salvation.
> 
> THANK YOU ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lincoln forced them to start the war, because he wanted the war.
Click to expand...

How could Lincoln make the South fire upon Federal ships in January 1861 Kevin?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

paperview said:


> I'm well aware.  People like to believe a false view of history because  it makes Lincoln out to be a great hero.  We as people like to believe  in heroes.  Heroes like Luke Skywalker, Frodo Baggins, Hercules, Robin  Hood, etc...  But these heroes, like our idea of Lincoln, are works of  fiction.
> 
> 
> 
> Four million men, women and children in bondage - freed - is not _fiction_ KK.
> 
> K.
Click to expand...


And how many people had to die for that to allegedly happen?  And I say allegedly because, again, I don't believe for a second the war was fought to free these people.  Lincoln's own words make that clear.  Did the war speed up the process by which they were freed?  Yes, and that's certainly a good thing.  But why were we the only nation that allegedly had to fight a war to accomplish this?  Every other civilized country freed their slaves peacefully.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly have no idea how the Constitution doles out power.  I'm not going to bother explaining it again, however.  I've probably done so a few times in this thread already.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin, your belief is not evidence, it is merely fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The words of the Constitution itself, however, are evidence.  And that has been posted in this thread multiple times I believe.
Click to expand...


You refuse to accept the fact the Constitution does not support your belief.  So what, you are wrong.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

paperview said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South - *THEY STARTED THE WAR.*
> 
> Well before Lincoln.
> 
> They shot. They Stole Federal property.  THEY made their bed.
> 
> They lied in it.
> 
> To your eternal regret.  To this Country's blessed Salvation.
> 
> THANK YOU ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln forced them to start the war, because he wanted the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How could Lincoln make the South fire upon Federal ships in January 1861 Kevin?
Click to expand...


I'm obviously referring to the April Ft. Sumter incident, where Lincoln belligerently tried to resupply knowing full well the south would attack giving him the excuse he needed to go to war.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JakeStarkey said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin, your belief is not evidence, it is merely fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The words of the Constitution itself, however, are evidence.  And that has been posted in this thread multiple times I believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You refuse to accept the fact the Constitution does not support your belief.  So what, you are wrong.
Click to expand...


The same could be said of you, Jake.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Fort Sumter incident seen as the spark that started the war, however, occurred in April.  Lincoln needed this incident because he knew northern public sentiment was against war, and he had every intention of invading the south.
> 
> 
> 
> It was the major opening blow, but history records the first shots as being well before that event.
> 
> The South *FIRED UPON THE UNION SHIPS IN JANUARY of 1861*, and warned any attempt to supply the Forts would be considered an Act of War.
> 
> THEY started, even before Lincoln set foot in the Office of the Presidency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but I'm not sure what your point is, unless you're trying to make my point?  Lincoln knew they'd take it as an act of war, and he used that to start the war.
Click to expand...


Kevin, this is unimportant in and of itself.  Lincoln knew that the South was bent on war, knew all he had to do was wait, knew that the northern Democrats would support him when the South acted stupidly.  They were, he did, and they did.


----------



## paperview

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm well aware.  People like to believe a false view of history because  it makes Lincoln out to be a great hero.  We as people like to believe  in heroes.  Heroes like Luke Skywalker, Frodo Baggins, Hercules, Robin  Hood, etc...  But these heroes, like our idea of Lincoln, are works of  fiction.
> 
> 
> 
> Four million men, women and children in bondage - freed - is not _fiction_ KK.
> 
> K.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how many people had to die for that to allegedly happen?  And I say allegedly because, again, I don't believe for a second the war was fought to free these people.  Lincoln's own words make that clear.  Did the war speed up the process by which they were freed?  Yes, and that's certainly a good thing.  But why were we the only nation that allegedly had to fight a war to accomplish this?  Every other civilized country freed their slaves peacefully.
Click to expand...

Because the South loved their slaves.  Simple.  

They would not give them up without a fight.  Lazy Southerners needed someone to do their work for them and make them feel superior.  

Lots of them still feel this way.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JakeStarkey said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was the major opening blow, but history records the first shots as being well before that event.
> 
> The South *FIRED UPON THE UNION SHIPS IN JANUARY of 1861*, and warned any attempt to supply the Forts would be considered an Act of War.
> 
> THEY started, even before Lincoln set foot in the Office of the Presidency.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but I'm not sure what your point is, unless you're trying to make my point?  Lincoln knew they'd take it as an act of war, and he used that to start the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kevin, this is unimportant in and of itself.  Lincoln knew that the South was bent on war, knew all he had to do was wait, knew that the northern Democrats would support him when the South acted stupidly.  They were, he did, and they did.
Click to expand...


Apparently you've never heard of the "Peace Democrats," also known as the "Copperheads."  And I think it's pretty clear that the south was not going to attack without provocation, as evidenced by the fact that they didn't.


----------



## JakeStarkey

JBeukema said:


> His legacy will not be diminished, KK.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A legacy of racism, segregation, and arguing aginst deporting an entire race simply because the negroe was better off as slaves?
Click to expand...


They were not better off as slaves, and all of the white race bears the guilt for racism, segregation, and colonization.  You are foolish if you want AL to have acted as Robert F. Kennedy were president in 1860.  So. . .

(1) get a grip on reality, and

(2) research and tell us where Lincoln stood on the African American, civil rights, and voting the day before he was shot.


----------



## paperview

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln forced them to start the war, because he wanted the war.
> 
> 
> 
> How could Lincoln make the South fire upon Federal ships in January 1861 Kevin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm obviously referring to the April Ft. Sumter incident, where Lincoln belligerently tried to resupply knowing full well the south would attack giving him the excuse he needed to go to war.
Click to expand...

I don't care if you're referring to that.

I AM referring to the* FIRST SHOTS FIRED*.  In January.  Before Lincoln was even President.

Did you even know of this incident before I brought it up?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

paperview said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Four million men, women and children in bondage - freed - is not _fiction_ KK.
> 
> K.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And how many people had to die for that to allegedly happen?  And I say allegedly because, again, I don't believe for a second the war was fought to free these people.  Lincoln's own words make that clear.  Did the war speed up the process by which they were freed?  Yes, and that's certainly a good thing.  But why were we the only nation that allegedly had to fight a war to accomplish this?  Every other civilized country freed their slaves peacefully.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the South loved their slaves.  Simple.
> 
> They would not give them up without a fight.  Lazy Southerners needed someone to do their work for them and make them feel superior.
> 
> Lots of them still feel this way.
Click to expand...


So American slaveowners were different from slaveowners in every other civilized country?  Those slaveowners weren't lazy, didn't want someone to do their work for them, or make them feel superior?  This was purely an American phenomenon?


----------



## paperview

OK.  I really have to get out now and get some outside chores done.

Damn I love debating this topic.

Layta.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

paperview said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> How could Lincoln make the South fire upon Federal ships in January 1861 Kevin?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm obviously referring to the April Ft. Sumter incident, where Lincoln belligerently tried to resupply knowing full well the south would attack giving him the excuse he needed to go to war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't care if you're referring to that.
> 
> I AM referring to the* FIRST SHOTS FIRED*.  In January.  Before Lincoln was even President.
> 
> Did you even know of this incident before I brought it up?
Click to expand...


Ok, well I don't care what you're referring to.

So there.


----------



## JakeStarkey

KevinKennedy believes in a false history.

When we were going through this late last summer here on the thread (give Kevin credit for persistence if not for error), I sent his arguments (not his name, though) to a friend who teaches history.  He gladly used KK's arguments between Lincoln's hammer and the anvil of the Civil War.  My friend said the students ate it up and wrote very nuanced, sophisticated papers about Lincoln and race and his growing evolution on that matter over the last ten years of his life.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JakeStarkey said:


> KevinKennedy believes in a false history.
> 
> When we were going through this late last summer here on the thread (give Kevin credit for persistence if not for error), I sent his arguments (not his name, though) to a friend who teaches history.  He gladly used KK's arguments between Lincoln's hammer and the anvil of the Civil War.  My friend said the students ate it up and wrote very nuanced, sophisticated papers about Lincoln and race and his growing evolution on that matter over the last ten years of his life.



"Kennedy" is not my real last name, so it doesn't matter if you give my name out.

I'm not surprised that these students didn't accept my arguments regarding Lincoln, providing this story is true.  I've found that most students, and people in general, will believe the version of history they learned in middle school no matter what evidence is provided against it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

KevinKennedy, I would never reveal anyone's identify (real or pseudonym) at all.  Those who try to do that here are scumbags, pure and simple, folks who spew vile and bile.

You are one of the most pleasant individuals here if the most persistent in your error.

Your comments and questions always make me think, and through them, I have come to a greater, deeper, and more wonderful appreciation of Abraham Lincoln.

I thank you for your role in that.


----------



## paperview

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> KevinKennedy believes in a false history.
> 
> When we were going through this late last summer here on the thread (give Kevin credit for persistence if not for error), I sent his arguments (not his name, though) to a friend who teaches history.  He gladly used KK's arguments between Lincoln's hammer and the anvil of the Civil War.  My friend said the students ate it up and wrote very nuanced, sophisticated papers about Lincoln and race and his growing evolution on that matter over the last ten years of his life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Kennedy" is not my real last name, so it doesn't matter if you give my name out.
> 
> I'm not surprised that these students didn't accept my arguments regarding Lincoln, providing this story is true.  I've found that most students, and people in general, will believe the version of history they learned in middle school no matter what evidence is provided against it.
Click to expand...

I learned very little about the history of the civil war in school.

Most of my knowledge comes from touching and transcribing thousands of pieces of original Civil War history - letters, diaries, journals and documents, some of which are in museums now.

 Also from reading the original source pamphlets, magazines, newspapers  and books, written AT THE TIME OF THE WAR.


.


----------



## paperview

JakeStarkey said:


> KevinKennedy, I would never reveal anyone's identify (real or pseudonym) at all.  Those who try to do that here are scumbags, pure and simple, folks who spew vile and bile.
> 
> You are one of the most pleasant individuals here if the most persistent in your error.
> 
> Your comments and questions always make me think, and through them, I have come to a greater, deeper, and more wonderful appreciation of Abraham Lincoln.
> 
> I thank you for your role in that.


I agree.  Kevin, though frightfully wrong in his confederate-leaning views of the war, is for the most part, civil and respectful.

I can fully appreciate his passion, and do admire his courteousness in debate.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

JakeStarkey said:


> You are misdefining issues as causes; they are two different things.  Preserving the Union was the immediate issue of the war.  Slavery was the primary cause of the war.
> 
> Ask paper view for copies of all of the documentation she has posted here and in other threads why the southerners of the time believed slavery to be the primary cause of the war.  Good reading!



I am not, she is the one using that language. I am asking her to explain why if, as she insists, that slavery is the primary cause of the war, did the North not free slaves in their states. Why did slave owners fight to free slaves? Why did people who opposed slavery fight to keep them?

Any historian will tell you that the issues, or causes, of the Civil War were complex. The North was so powerful politically that they could ignore the concerns of the minority of the south, and enact laws and policies without regard to the opinions of those affected by them. (Does this sound familiar to anyone?) This marginalization of the agrarian south by the industrial north was the actual cause of the civil war, regardless of what people then believed.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

paperview said:


> OOh.  Have I mentioned yet how stoooooopid the title of this thread is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Great Emancipator.  He Rests at Peace.



I have to agree about the title of the thread.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Quantum Windbag said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are misdefining issues as causes; they are two different things.  Preserving the Union was the immediate issue of the war.  Slavery was the primary cause of the war.
> 
> Ask paper view for copies of all of the documentation she has posted here and in other threads why the southerners of the time believed slavery to be the primary cause of the war.  Good reading!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not, she is the one using that language. I am asking her to explain why if, as she insists, that slavery is the primary cause of the war, did the North not free slaves in their states. Why did slave owners fight to free slaves? Why did people who opposed slavery fight to keep them?
> 
> Any historian will tell you that the issues, or causes, of the Civil War were complex. The North was so powerful politically that they could ignore the concerns of the minority of the south, and enact laws and policies without regard to the opinions of those affected by them. (Does this sound familiar to anyone?) This marginalization of the agrarian south by the industrial north was the actual cause of the civil war, regardless of what people then believed.
Click to expand...


Your answer is in your first paragraph.  

Every secondary cause of the war was subsumed in slavery.  That is why a small minority of the North had not freed its slaves by 1861, and I am pretty sure that other than Delaware, states like Maryland and Kentucky and Missouri and territories like the Indian nations or Utah territory had more in common with states' rights activists in the South.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

JBeukema said:


> There was a just war to be fought, but we did not fight it. We fought our own war for our own reasons and what was just had nothing to do with it. That the enemy happened to be the same merely provided an opportunity for great propaganda.



And the ad men wrote the history texts. The spoils of war, to the victors goes the right to write history.


----------



## JakeStarkey

In this case, the history has been competently written.  The immediate issue was unionism, the primary cause was slavery, and the South was morally wrong.  Check the motives of those who argue otherwise.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

JakeStarkey said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are misdefining issues as causes; they are two different things.  Preserving the Union was the immediate issue of the war.  Slavery was the primary cause of the war.
> 
> Ask paper view for copies of all of the documentation she has posted here and in other threads why the southerners of the time believed slavery to be the primary cause of the war.  Good reading!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not, she is the one using that language. I am asking her to explain why if, as she insists, that slavery is the primary cause of the war, did the North not free slaves in their states. Why did slave owners fight to free slaves? Why did people who opposed slavery fight to keep them?
> 
> Any historian will tell you that the issues, or causes, of the Civil War were complex. The North was so powerful politically that they could ignore the concerns of the minority of the south, and enact laws and policies without regard to the opinions of those affected by them. (Does this sound familiar to anyone?) This marginalization of the agrarian south by the industrial north was the actual cause of the civil war, regardless of what people then believed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your answer is in your first paragraph.
> 
> Every secondary cause of the war was subsumed in slavery.  That is why a small minority of the North had not freed its slaves by 1861, and I am pretty sure that other than Delaware, states like Maryland and Kentucky and Missouri and territories like the Indian nations or Utah territory had more in common with states' rights activists in the South.
Click to expand...


This from a guy who believes the Constitution says something it does not, despite the fact that the Supreme Court has said his interpretation is wrong. Forgive me if I prefer to ask for clarification from someone who can at least get facts straight, and does not feel a need to distort them.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

JakeStarkey said:


> In this case, the history has been competently written.  The immediate issue was unionism, the primary cause was slavery, and the South was morally wrong.  Check the motives of those who argue otherwise.



They were morally wrong?

Was Sherman morally right when he marched through the south, ordering his men to commit war crimes that he had previously had men hung for? Moral agents do not commit immoral acts in defense of morality. Perhaps you should check the morality of the people you now claim were the moral ones.


----------



## paperview

Was the US Morally right to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? 

Think carefully before you answer.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Quantum Windbag said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not, she is the one using that language. I am asking her to explain why if, as she insists, that slavery is the primary cause of the war, did the North not free slaves in their states. Why did slave owners fight to free slaves? Why did people who opposed slavery fight to keep them?
> 
> Any historian will tell you that the issues, or causes, of the Civil War were complex. The North was so powerful politically that they could ignore the concerns of the minority of the south, and enact laws and policies without regard to the opinions of those affected by them. (Does this sound familiar to anyone?) This marginalization of the agrarian south by the industrial north was the actual cause of the civil war, regardless of what people then believed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your answer is in your first paragraph.
> 
> Every secondary cause of the war was subsumed in slavery.  That is why a small minority of the North had not freed its slaves by 1861, and I am pretty sure that other than Delaware, states like Maryland and Kentucky and Missouri and territories like the Indian nations or Utah territory had more in common with states' rights activists in the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This from a guy who believes the Constitution says something it does not, despite the fact that the Supreme Court has said his interpretation is wrong. Forgive me if I prefer to ask for clarification from someone who can at least get facts straight, and does not feel a need to distort them.
Click to expand...


Son, SCOTUS does not disagree with me (you do), and what SCOTUS has to say has nothing to do with the causes of the Civil War.

Now you can debate on the issues and leave personality out of it, or you will continue to fail.


----------



## paperview

Quantum Windbag said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are misdefining issues as causes; they are two different things.  Preserving the Union was the immediate issue of the war.  Slavery was the primary cause of the war.
> 
> Ask paper view for copies of all of the documentation she has posted here and in other threads why the southerners of the time believed slavery to be the primary cause of the war.  Good reading!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not, she is the one using that language. I am asking her to explain why if, as she insists, that slavery is the primary cause of the war, did the North not free slaves in their states. Why did slave owners fight to free slaves? Why did people who opposed slavery fight to keep them?
> 
> Any historian will tell you that the issues, or causes, of the Civil War were complex. The North was so powerful politically that they could ignore the concerns of the minority of the south, and enact laws and policies without regard to the opinions of those affected by them. (Does this sound familiar to anyone?) This marginalization of the agrarian south by the industrial north was the actual cause of the civil war, regardless of what people then believed.
Click to expand...

When you talk about "The North" in regards to a slavery presence, you refer generally to the border states.  Where I'm from, "The North" is the Northeastern US.  We abolished slavery long before the Civil War, most states in the 18th Century. 

I'm from New England.  Semantically, I understand why the term is used in reference to the Civil War, but to me, I have a hard time calling Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri,  Delaware, and West Virginia "the North" - but I understand why.  And if you understood the "strategery" (thank you GW) of war, you would understand the necessity of maintaining the buffer of these states. Missouri & Kentucky had a hell of a shit storm as well maintaining their "northern" status. 

In regards to your second paragraph, it was only after 60 some odd years of our nation's founding, the South began to lose power.  They had it - in Congress, and in the Presidency, for the most part for fully the entire first quadrant of this country.

Hell, they had it so powerfully, they were even able to implement a gag-rule in congress to prohibit even the MENTION of slavery.  How about that?

A rule that forbade a country founded on Free Speech, from even discussing a topic in the lawmakers den.  Pretty nifty, eh?

It was only when the South lost their grip of powerful Rule, it was then, and only then - they freaked.


----------



## JakeStarkey

paperview said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are misdefining issues as causes; they are two different things.  Preserving the Union was the immediate issue of the war.  Slavery was the primary cause of the war.
> 
> Ask paper view for copies of all of the documentation she has posted here and in other threads why the southerners of the time believed slavery to be the primary cause of the war.  Good reading!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not, she is the one using that language. I am asking her to explain why if, as she insists, that slavery is the primary cause of the war, did the North not free slaves in their states. Why did slave owners fight to free slaves? Why did people who opposed slavery fight to keep them?
> 
> Any historian will tell you that the issues, or causes, of the Civil War were complex. The North was so powerful politically that they could ignore the concerns of the minority of the south, and enact laws and policies without regard to the opinions of those affected by them. (Does this sound familiar to anyone?) This marginalization of the agrarian south by the industrial north was the actual cause of the civil war, regardless of what people then believed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you talk about "The North" in regards to a slavery presence, you refer generally to the border states.  Where I'm from, "The North" is the Northeastern US.  We abolished slavery long before the Civil War, most states in the 18th Century.
> 
> I'm from New England.  Semantically, I understand why the term is used in reference to the Civil War, but to me, I have a hard time calling Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri,  Delaware, and West Virginia "the North" - but I understand why.  And if you understood the "strategery" (thank you GW) of war, you would understand the necessity of maintaining the buffer of these states. Missouri & Kentucky had a hell of a shit storm as well maintaining their "northern" status.
> 
> In regards to your second paragraph, it was only after 60 some odd years of our nation's founding, the South began to lose power.  They had it - in Congress, and in the Presidency, for the most part for fully the entire first quadrant of this country.
> 
> Hell, they had it so powerfully, they were even able to implement a gag-rule in congress to prohibit even the MENTION of slavery.  How about that?
> 
> A rule that forbade a country founded on Free Speech, from even discussing a topic in the lawmakers den.  Pretty nifty, eh?
> 
> It was only when the South lost their grip of powerful Rule, it was then, and only then - they freaked.
Click to expand...


The gag rule was the issue that drove John Q. Adams to define the South as anti-American and antithetical to Constitutional ideals, such as free speech and petition.  He argued that the nature of a slave culture undermined everyone's freedom.

He was right.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

paperview said:


> Was the US Morally right to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
> 
> Think carefully before you answer.



Wouldn't know. I do know it was the best strategic decision, and that it was made for that reason, not because it was moral.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

paperview said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are misdefining issues as causes; they are two different things.  Preserving the Union was the immediate issue of the war.  Slavery was the primary cause of the war.
> 
> Ask paper view for copies of all of the documentation she has posted here and in other threads why the southerners of the time believed slavery to be the primary cause of the war.  Good reading!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not, she is the one using that language. I am asking her to explain why if, as she insists, that slavery is the primary cause of the war, did the North not free slaves in their states. Why did slave owners fight to free slaves? Why did people who opposed slavery fight to keep them?
> 
> Any historian will tell you that the issues, or causes, of the Civil War were complex. The North was so powerful politically that they could ignore the concerns of the minority of the south, and enact laws and policies without regard to the opinions of those affected by them. (Does this sound familiar to anyone?) This marginalization of the agrarian south by the industrial north was the actual cause of the civil war, regardless of what people then believed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you talk about "The North" in regards to a slavery presence, you refer generally to the border states.  Where I'm from, "The North" is the Northeastern US.  We abolished slavery long before the Civil War, most states in the 18th Century.
> 
> I'm from New England.  Semantically, I understand why the term is used in reference to the Civil War, but to me, I have a hard time calling Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri,  Delaware, and West Virginia "the North" - but I understand why.  And if you understood the "strategery" (thank you GW) of war, you would understand the necessity of maintaining the buffer of these states. Missouri & Kentucky had a hell of a shit storm as well maintaining their "northern" status.
> 
> In regards to your second paragraph, it was only after 60 some odd years of our nation's founding, the South began to lose power.  They had it - in Congress, and in the Presidency, for the most part for fully the entire first quadrant of this country.
> 
> Hell, they had it so powerfully, they were even able to implement a gag-rule in congress to prohibit even the MENTION of slavery.  How about that?
> 
> A rule that forbade a country founded on Free Speech, from even discussing a topic in the lawmakers den.  Pretty nifty, eh?
> 
> It was only when the South lost their grip of powerful Rule, it was then, and only then - they freaked.
Click to expand...


New England still had slaves well into the 1800s, check the census figures if you don't believe me. (Not very many I will admit, but they were there. And there were probably more that did not get counted in the census even after they were gone officially.) That throws your 18th century date argument out the window.

Imagine that, a party in power of Congress prohibiting the discussion of dissenting points of view through parliamentary tactics. Good thing nothing like that happens today.

The south was loosing its political clout and reacted like anyone who was loosing their grip on power would, by trying to hold on to it, they took the ball and went home. The result was a war which settled the issue of secession. SCOTUS merely affirmed that when they later issued the rubber stamp decision in White.

Please note that I have never defended slavery, and I personally think it is reprehensible. It is just that my personal reading and research has led me to believe that the war was not about slavery, it was just an issue that was timely for Lincoln, and one he, like any politician, capitalized on when it suited him. He deserves credit for what he did, but we need to remember that his motives were not necessarily noble.

As results are what really matter, give him the credit. But do not idolize him.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

JakeStarkey said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your answer is in your first paragraph.
> 
> Every secondary cause of the war was subsumed in slavery.  That is why a small minority of the North had not freed its slaves by 1861, and I am pretty sure that other than Delaware, states like Maryland and Kentucky and Missouri and territories like the Indian nations or Utah territory had more in common with states' rights activists in the South.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This from a guy who believes the Constitution says something it does not, despite the fact that the Supreme Court has said his interpretation is wrong. Forgive me if I prefer to ask for clarification from someone who can at least get facts straight, and does not feel a need to distort them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Son, SCOTUS does not disagree with me (you do), and what SCOTUS has to say has nothing to do with the causes of the Civil War.
> 
> Now you can debate on the issues and leave personality out of it, or you will continue to fail.
Click to expand...


You are correct, SCOTUS does not disagree with you. I mis phrased that, you disagree with SCOTUS. You claimed that the Constitution prohibits swearing oaths through religion, yet every oath acknowledges God, which means they acknowledge a religion.

The court has been remarkable in its inconsistency in ruling on the separation of church and state. They have struck down allowing religious displays in some cases, and allowed them in others, The resultant muddle of precedents allows anyone who who wants to prognosticate think he can be an authority.

The truth is that even when lower courts correctly rule that Congress selling a parcel of land upon which a cross is built did not meet the requirement to remove the display said cross they can get overruled by SCOTUS. The ruling that a parcel of land in the middle of a national park did not qualify as government endorsement of religion stands up to logic only if you are a conservative christian.

Whatever it is you think the constitution say about religion, the truth is even legal scholars and judges don't know what it says.


----------



## paperview

Quantum Windbag said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not, she is the one using that language. I am asking her to explain why if, as she insists, that slavery is the primary cause of the war, did the North not free slaves in their states. Why did slave owners fight to free slaves? Why did people who opposed slavery fight to keep them?
> 
> Any historian will tell you that the issues, or causes, of the Civil War were complex. The North was so powerful politically that they could ignore the concerns of the minority of the south, and enact laws and policies without regard to the opinions of those affected by them. (Does this sound familiar to anyone?) This marginalization of the agrarian south by the industrial north was the actual cause of the civil war, regardless of what people then believed.
> 
> 
> 
> When you talk about "The North" in regards to a slavery presence, you refer generally to the border states.  Where I'm from, "The North" is the Northeastern US.  We abolished slavery long before the Civil War, most states in the 18th Century.
> 
> I'm from New England.  Semantically, I understand why the term is used in reference to the Civil War, but to me, I have a hard time calling Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri,  Delaware, and West Virginia "the North" - but I understand why.  And if you understood the "strategery" (thank you GW) of war, you would understand the necessity of maintaining the buffer of these states. Missouri & Kentucky had a hell of a shit storm as well maintaining their "northern" status.
> 
> In regards to your second paragraph, it was only after 60 some odd years of our nation's founding, the South began to lose power.  They had it - in Congress, and in the Presidency, for the most part for fully the entire first quadrant of this country.
> 
> Hell, they had it so powerfully, they were even able to implement a gag-rule in congress to prohibit even the MENTION of slavery.  How about that?
> 
> A rule that forbade a country founded on Free Speech, from even discussing a topic in the lawmakers den.  Pretty nifty, eh?
> 
> It was only when the South lost their grip of powerful Rule, it was then, and only then - they freaked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> New England still had slaves well into the 1800s, check the census figures if you don't believe me. (Not very many I will admit, but they were there. And there were probably more that did not get counted in the census even after they were gone officially.) That throws your 18th century date argument out the window.
> 
> Imagine that, a party in power of Congress prohibiting the discussion of dissenting points of view through parliamentary tactics. Good thing nothing like that happens today.
> 
> The south was loosing its political clout and reacted like anyone who was loosing their grip on power would, by trying to hold on to it, they took the ball and went home. The result was a war which settled the issue of secession. SCOTUS merely affirmed that when they later issued the rubber stamp decision in White.
> 
> Please note that I have never defended slavery, and I personally think it is reprehensible. It is just that my personal reading and research has led me to believe that the war was not about slavery, it was just an issue that was timely for Lincoln, and one he, like any politician, capitalized on when it suited him. He deserves credit for what he did, but we need to remember that his motives were not necessarily noble.
> 
> As results are what really matter, give him the credit. But do not idolize him.
Click to expand...

Slavery was abolished in New England.  That means the few that were there, were not sactioned by the state.  All what?  12 of them?

New Jersey (not NE) had like 18 in 1860 who were old woman servants who were [FONT=verdana, arial][FONT=verdana, arial]"apprentices for life," due to an arcane loophole in the law.

Regarding your continued obstinacy to deny the war was not primarily about slavery, one needs only to read the secession documents to understand: It was.

Peruse.  No one could read these and not say, as Jeff Davis and VP Stephens did, it was the CORNERSTONE of the Confederacy:

[/FONT][/FONT]South Carolina Declarations of Causes of Seceding States American Civil War
Mississippi Declarations of Causes of Seceding States
Georgia Declarations of Causes of Seceding States Civil War
Texas Declarations of Causes of Seceding States
[FONT=verdana, arial][FONT=verdana, arial]

[/FONT][/FONT]


----------



## elvis

JBeukema said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> First off, war crimes are committed by states, not individuals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the Nuremberg trials was really one trial against a State and not a series of hearings regarding the crimes of the individuals involved?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Newman [of the US Court of Appeals] added:"The liability of  private individuals for committing _war crimes _has been  recognized since World War I and was confirmed at Nuremberg after World  War II."​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Legal Definition of War Crimes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whoever, whether inside or outside the United  States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in  subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life  or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall  also be subject to the penalty of death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly addresses individuals
> 
> 
> 
> (c) * Definition.&#8212; * As used in this section the term &#8220;war crime&#8221; means  any conduct&#8212;
> ...
> 
> (4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict  and contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or  Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as  amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996),  when the United States is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or  causes serious injury to civilians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> United States Code: Title 18,2441. War crimes | LII / Legal Information Institute
> 
> 
> Refuted and dismissed
Click to expand...


those were state actors.  bin Laden is a non-state actor.  Individuals who are state actors can be war criminals.  Is that better, fuckface?


----------



## Kalam

Quantum Windbag said:


> Was Sherman morally right when he marched through the south, ordering his men to commit war crimes that he had previously had men hung for?


No.



paperview said:


> Was the US Morally right to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?


No. 

See? That wasn't so hard.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

paperview said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> KevinKennedy believes in a false history.
> 
> When we were going through this late last summer here on the thread (give Kevin credit for persistence if not for error), I sent his arguments (not his name, though) to a friend who teaches history.  He gladly used KK's arguments between Lincoln's hammer and the anvil of the Civil War.  My friend said the students ate it up and wrote very nuanced, sophisticated papers about Lincoln and race and his growing evolution on that matter over the last ten years of his life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Kennedy" is not my real last name, so it doesn't matter if you give my name out.
> 
> I'm not surprised that these students didn't accept my arguments regarding Lincoln, providing this story is true.  I've found that most students, and people in general, will believe the version of history they learned in middle school no matter what evidence is provided against it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I learned very little about the history of the civil war in school.
> 
> Most of my knowledge comes from touching and transcribing thousands of pieces of original Civil War history - letters, diaries, journals and documents, some of which are in museums now.
> 
> Also from reading the original source pamphlets, magazines, newspapers  and books, written AT THE TIME OF THE WAR.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Wasn't referring to you in any backhanded way.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

paperview said:


> Was the US Morally right to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
> 
> Think carefully before you answer.



Well I believe I've already addressed that in this thread, and the answer is no.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

paperview said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you talk about "The North" in regards to a slavery presence, you refer generally to the border states.  Where I'm from, "The North" is the Northeastern US.  We abolished slavery long before the Civil War, most states in the 18th Century.
> 
> I'm from New England.  Semantically, I understand why the term is used in reference to the Civil War, but to me, I have a hard time calling Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri,  Delaware, and West Virginia "the North" - but I understand why.  And if you understood the "strategery" (thank you GW) of war, you would understand the necessity of maintaining the buffer of these states. Missouri & Kentucky had a hell of a shit storm as well maintaining their "northern" status.
> 
> In regards to your second paragraph, it was only after 60 some odd years of our nation's founding, the South began to lose power.  They had it - in Congress, and in the Presidency, for the most part for fully the entire first quadrant of this country.
> 
> Hell, they had it so powerfully, they were even able to implement a gag-rule in congress to prohibit even the MENTION of slavery.  How about that?
> 
> A rule that forbade a country founded on Free Speech, from even discussing a topic in the lawmakers den.  Pretty nifty, eh?
> 
> It was only when the South lost their grip of powerful Rule, it was then, and only then - they freaked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New England still had slaves well into the 1800s, check the census figures if you don't believe me. (Not very many I will admit, but they were there. And there were probably more that did not get counted in the census even after they were gone officially.) That throws your 18th century date argument out the window.
> 
> Imagine that, a party in power of Congress prohibiting the discussion of dissenting points of view through parliamentary tactics. Good thing nothing like that happens today.
> 
> The south was loosing its political clout and reacted like anyone who was loosing their grip on power would, by trying to hold on to it, they took the ball and went home. The result was a war which settled the issue of secession. SCOTUS merely affirmed that when they later issued the rubber stamp decision in White.
> 
> Please note that I have never defended slavery, and I personally think it is reprehensible. It is just that my personal reading and research has led me to believe that the war was not about slavery, it was just an issue that was timely for Lincoln, and one he, like any politician, capitalized on when it suited him. He deserves credit for what he did, but we need to remember that his motives were not necessarily noble.
> 
> As results are what really matter, give him the credit. But do not idolize him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Slavery was abolished in New England.  That means the few that were there, were not sactioned by the state.  All what?  12 of them?
> 
> New Jersey (not NE) had like 18 in 1860 who were old woman servants who were [FONT=verdana, arial][FONT=verdana, arial]"apprentices for life," due to an arcane loophole in the law.
> 
> Regarding your continued obstinacy to deny the war was not primarily about slavery, one needs only to read the secession documents to understand: It was.
> 
> Peruse.  No one could read these and not say, as Jeff Davis and VP Stephens did, it was the CORNERSTONE of the Confederacy:
> 
> [/FONT][/FONT]South Carolina Declarations of Causes of Seceding States American Civil War
> Mississippi Declarations of Causes of Seceding States
> Georgia Declarations of Causes of Seceding States Civil War
> Texas Declarations of Causes of Seceding States
> [FONT=verdana, arial][FONT=verdana, arial]
> 
> [/FONT][/FONT]
Click to expand...


Nevertheless, there were slaves in NE into the mid 1800s, at least half a century after slavery was "officially" abolished. My opinion on the matter is that laws and intentions do not matter as much as facts, and the fact is that there were slaves in the northern states throughout the Civil War. 

I did not say that slavery was a major issue in secession. I claimed, and still do, that it was not the primary cause of the war. There were slave states on both sides of the conflict, and until someone explains why people had to go to war with someone else to free slaves they owned I will not believe that slavery was why they went to war. That simply does not make sense to me, nor, I suspect, most people capable of critical thinking.


----------



## syrenn

Quantum Windbag said:


> I will not believe that slavery was why they went to war.



The civil war started over the issue of states rights, not over slavery. Slavery only became an issue half way though the war. Lincoln needed something to substantiate the war, something more to justify the incredible carnage. This was a war  that for the first time people could see, the advent of photography was coming into its own and brought the bloody mess  up front and personal.

Lincoln was up for re-election with an unpopular war on his hands. The book "Uncle toms Cabin" was fresh in the minds of people and  it gave a " greater cause" that northerners could understand and grasp. Lincoln needed a greater purpose for making this country into the UNITED STATS other then economical reasons.


----------



## JBeukema

JBeukema said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> First off, war crimes are committed by states, not individuals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the Nuremberg trials was really one trial against a State and not a series of hearings regarding the crimes of the individuals involved?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Newman [of the US Court of Appeals] added:"The liability of  private individuals for committing _war crimes _has been  recognized since World War I and was confirmed at Nuremberg after World  War II."​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Legal Definition of War Crimes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whoever, whether inside or outside the United  States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in  subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life  or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall  also be subject to the penalty of death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly addresses individuals
> 
> 
> 
> (c) * Definition. * As used in this section the term war crime means  any conduct
> ...
> 
> (4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict  and contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or  Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as  amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996),  when the United States is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or  causes serious injury to civilians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> United States Code: Title 18,2441. War crimes | LII / Legal Information Institute
> 
> 
> Refuted and dismissed
Click to expand...




			
				elvis said:
			
		

> Hi, you have received -122 reputation points from elvis.
> Reputation was given for *this* post.
> 
> Comment:
> good evening, proletarian, you ****.
> 
> Regards,
> elvis
> 
> Note: This is an automated message.






So you're the sort to get mad when the facts don't agree with your bullshit, I see


----------



## JBeukema

JakeStarkey said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin, your belief is not evidence, it is merely fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The words of the Constitution itself, however, are evidence.  And that has been posted in this thread multiple times I believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You refuse to accept the fact the Constitution does not support your belief.  So what, you are wrong.
Click to expand...

The States have all powers not expressly denied them or given to the Fed.

10th amendment


----------



## JBeukema

JakeStarkey said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His legacy will not be diminished, KK.
> 
> 
> 
> A legacy of racism, segregation, and arguing aginst deporting an entire race simply because the negroe was better off as slaves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They were not better off as slaves
Click to expand...


Tell it to your hero. He said they were.





> and all of the white race bears the guilt for racism, segregation, and colonization.


Bullshit. Take your race-baiting ass elsewhere. I am not responsible for for anything another man's ancestors did to yet another man's ancestors anymore than you are responsible for any crime your grandfather committed. Grow the fuck up, move on, and take responsibility for your own damned self and your own actions and stop blaming the evil White Devil for your own fuckups.


> (1) get a grip on reality


Looked in a mirror lately?


> (2) research and tell us where Lincoln stood on the African American, civil rights, and voting the day before he was shot.


I already showed you what he really believed:




JBeukema said:


> How about looking at Lincoln's real views, as  expressed before the propaganda machine had to justify things in  retrospect?
> 
> "Judge Douglas has said to you that he  has  not been able to get an                  answer out of me to the  question whether I am in favor of Negro                  citizenship. So  far as I know, the Judge never asked me the question                    before. (applause from audience) He shall have no occasion to ever                   ask it again, for I tell him very frankly that I am not in  favor of                  Negro citizenship. (renewed applause) If the  state of Illinois has                  the power to grant Negroes  citizenship, I shall be opposed to it.                  (cries of "here,  here" and "good, good" from audience) That is all                  I  have to say." -- *Abraham Lincoln*, Speech at Springfield,                   Illinois, June 1857
> 
> _"Negro Equality!          Fudge!!  How long in the  government of a God, great enough to  make and maintain this Universe,  shall there continue knaves          to vend, and fools to gulp, so low a  piece of demagoguism as  this?"
> 
> 
> _*Fourth debate with Stephen A. Douglas at   Charleston,          Illinois on September 18, 1858 :*  "_I will  say  then  that I am not, nor ever have been          in favor of  bringing about in any way the social and political  equality of the  White and black races, (Applause) - that I          am not nor ever have  been in favor of making voters or jurers  of Negroes, nor of qualifying  them to hold office, not to intermarry          with White people; and I  will say in addition to this that  there is a physical difference  between the White and black races          which I believe will forever  forbid the two races living  together on equal terms of social and  political equality.  And          inasmuch as they cannot so live, while  they do remain together  there must be the position of superior and  inferior, and I          as much as any other man am in favor of having  the superior  position assigned to the White race..."
> 
> _[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]*"In the course  of his  reply,    the Senator remarked that he had always considered  this a government  made for    the white people and not for the Negroes.  Why, in point of mere fact, I  think    so, too."
> -From, Speech at Peoria, Illinois
> Oct. 1854 (Vol. II)
> 
> *[/FONT]"I am a little uneasy about  the                  abolishment of slavery in this District [of  Columbia]." --                  *Abraham Lincoln*, 1862
> 
> "We know that some  Southern men                  do free their slaves, go North and become  tip-top abolitionists,                  while some Northern Men go South  and become most cruel masters.                  When Southern people  tell us that they are no more responsible                  for the  origin of slavery than we are, I acknowledge the fact.                   When it is said the institution exists, and it is very difficult                   to get rid of in any satisfactory way, I can understand and                   appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for  not                  doing what I should not know what to do as to the  existing                  institution. My first impulse would possibly  be to free all                  slaves and send them to Liberia to their  own native land. But a                  moment's reflection would  convince me that this would not be                  best for them. If  they were all landed there in a day they would                  all  perish in the next ten days, and there is not surplus money                   enough to carry them there in many times ten days. What then?                   Free them all and keep them among us as underlings. Is it  quite                  certain that this would alter their conditions?  Free them and                  make them politically and socially our  equals? My own feelings                  will not admit of this, and if  mine would, we well know that                  those of the great mass  of whites will not. We cannot make them                  our equals. A  system of gradual emancipation might well be                  adopted,  and I will not undertake to judge our Southern friends                   for tardiness in this matter." -- *Abraham Lincoln* in                   speeches at Peoria, Illinois
> 
> "What I would most  desire would                  be the separation of the white and black  races." --  *                 Abraham Lincoln*, Spoken at  Springfield, Illinois on July                  17th, 1858; from Abraham  Lincoln: Complete Works, 1894, Volume                  1, page 273
> 
> 
> "The point the  Republican party                  wanted to stress was to oppose making  slave States out of the                  newly acquired territory, not  abolishing slavery as it then                  existed. " -- *Abraham  Lincoln* in a speech at Peoria,                  Illinois
> 
> "I have no purpose directly or                  indirectly  to interfere with the institution of slavery in the                   States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right  to do                  so, and I have no inclination to do so." *Abraham  Lincoln's*                  Inaugural Address on the Capitol steps,  1861
> 
> What I do about                   slavery and the colored race, I do because it helps save  the                  Union." -- *Abraham Lincoln* in a letter to  Horace Greeley
> 
> 
> Lincoln never gave a damn about the slaves- they were merely pawns he  could use to secure his own power and keep the Confederates subject to  Union rule.
> 
> "If we turn 200,000 armed Negroes                  in  the South, among their former owners, from whom we have taken                   their arms, it will inevitably lead to a race war. It  cannot be                  done. The Negroes must be gotten rid of."                  ​                  Ben Butler responded to  this by                  saying: "Why not send them to Panama to dig the  canal?" Lincoln                  was delighted with this suggestion,  and asked Butler to consult                  Seward at once. Only a few  days later, John Wilkes Booth                  assassinated Lincoln and  one of his conspirators wounded Seward.                 ​





suck on it


----------



## JBeukema

The union never fought to for Negroe. They fought only for the self-interest of the Union.


----------



## JBeukema

JakeStarkey said:


> In this case, the history has been competently written.  The immediate issue was unionism, the primary cause was slavery, and the South was morally wrong.  Check the motives of those who argue otherwise.



Both Union and CSA were wrong.

If you really look at history, you'll see that there's often nobody who's really in the right or fighting for any real principles or cause.


----------



## JBeukema

paperview said:


> Was the US Morally right to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
> 
> Think carefully before you answer.



They were wrong in slaughtering countless civilians.

There motivation was hazy- they mostly cared about saving the lives of their own men.


If you think the world is as simple as a dichotomous right and wrong in all situations [or very often at all], you are a fool.


----------



## paperview

JBeukema said:


> How about looking at Lincoln's real views, as expressed before the propaganda machine had to justify things in retrospect?
> 
> <blah blah>



It's interesting when you take those "quotes" (some of which were manufactured) in context.
I'm out for the morning soon, soon, but I'll let a few of these suffice:

You posted: "Judge Douglas has said to you that he   has  not been able to get an                  answer out of me to the   question whether I am in favor of Negro                  citizenship.  So  far as I know, the Judge never asked me the question                     before. (applause from audience) He shall have no occasion to ever                    ask it again, for I tell him very frankly that I am not  in  favor of                  Negro citizenship. (renewed applause) If  the  state of Illinois has                  the power to grant Negroes   citizenship, I shall be opposed to it.                  (cries of "here,   here" and "good, good" from audience) That is all                  I   have to say." -- *Abraham Lincoln*, Speech at Springfield,                    Illinois, June 1857​Here is the actual speech: 
Judge  Douglas  has said to you that he has not been able to get from me  an answer  to the question  whether I am in favor of negro-citizenship. So far as I know, the Judge never asked me the question before. [Applause.] He  shall have no occasion to ever ask it again, for I tell him very frankly that I am not  in favor  of negro  citizenship. [Renewed applause.]  
This furnishes me an occasion for saying a few words upon the subject. I mentioned in a certain speech of mine which has  been printed, that the Supreme Court had decided that a negro could not possibly be made a citizen, and without saying what was my ground of complaint in regard to that, or whether I had any ground of complaint, Judge Douglas has from that thing manufactured nearly every thing that he ever says about my disposition to produce an equality between the negroes and the white people. [Laughter and applause.] If any one will read my speech, he  will find I mentioned that as one of the points decided in the course of the Supreme Court opinions, but I did not state what objection I had to it. But Judge Douglas tells the people what my objection was when I did not tell them myself. [Loud applause and laughter.] Now my opinion is that the different States have the power to make a negro a citizen under the Constitution of the United States if they choose. The Dred Scott decision decides that they have not that power. If the State of Illinois had that power I should be opposed to the exercise of it. [Cries of "good,'' "good,'' and applause.] That is all I have to say about it. ​See what the liars did with that quote?  Do you see it?

You posted: "Negro Equality!          Fudge!!  How long in the   government of a God, great enough to  make and maintain this Universe,   shall there continue knaves          to vend, and fools to gulp, so low a   piece of demagoguism as  this?"​No one ever heard Lincoln utter these words. No transcript exists where these words are used by Lincoln."In the course of his reply, the Senator remarked that he had always considered this a government made for the white people and not for the Negroes. Why, in point of mere fact, I think so, too."
-From, Speech at Peoria, Illinois, Oct. 1854 (Vol. II)​Here is the actual speech at Peoria: Speech on the Repeal of the Missouri Compromise
  I dare anyone to read that speech in full and tell me what they come away with.
To the point though, another out of context quote.  What was actually said:  In the course of his reply, Senator Douglas remarked, in substance, that  he had always considered this government was made for the white people  and not for the negroes. Why, in point of mere fact, I think so too. But  in this remark of the Judge, there is a significance, which I think is  the key to the great mistake (if there is any such mistake) which he has  made in this Nebraska measure. It shows that the Judge has no very  vivid impression that the negro is a human; and consequently has no idea  that there can be any moral question in legislating about him. In his  view, the question of whether a new country shall be slave or free, is a  matter of as utter indifference, as it is whether his neighbor shall  plant his farm with tobacco, or stock it with horned cattle. Now,  whether this view is right or wrong, it is very certain that the great  mass of mankind take a totally different view. They consider slavery a  great moral wrong; and their feelings against it, is not evanescent, but  eternal. It lies at the very foundation of their sense of justice; and it  cannot be trifled with. It is a great and durable element of popular  action, and, I think, no statesman can safely disregard it.​You quote:"I am a little uneasy about  the                   abolishment of slavery in this District [of  Columbia]." --                   *Abraham Lincoln*, 1862                  ​What he actually said: "I am a little uneasy about the abolishment of slavery in this  District, not but I would be glad to see it abolished, but as to the  time and manner of doing it. If some one or more of the border-states  would move fast, I should greatly prefer it; but if this can not be in a  reasonable time, I would like the bill to have the three main  features---gradual---compensation---and vote of the people"​Lincoln clearly  supported emancipation in DC,  but, as he makes clear time and again, was concerned about the timing and  the means.

And this? 
"If we turn 200,000 armed Negroes                   in  the South, among their former owners, from whom we have  taken                   their arms, it will inevitably lead to a race  war. It  cannot be                  done. The Negroes must be gotten rid  of."​Lie. Lincoln never said that. 

I could go on, but I have business to do.  See?  The Lincoln haters have to LIE to make their "point."  Ask yourself: _ Why?_


----------



## Dr Grump

JBeukema said:


> Dr Gregg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're ok with Lincoln deliberately antagonizing the south to start a war?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, to keep the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA united
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about keeping th British Empire united?
Click to expand...


The United Kingdom is still the United Kingdom....


----------



## JakeStarkey

Don't misquote me, Quantum.  I said the Constitution prohibits religious test oaths.  It does. 

Don't try to hijack the thread again about religion and the Constitution.  That is not what the OP is about.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Quantum Windbag said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> New England still had slaves well into the 1800s, check the census figures if you don't believe me. (Not very many I will admit, but they were there. And there were probably more that did not get counted in the census even after they were gone officially.) That throws your 18th century date argument out the window.
> 
> Imagine that, a party in power of Congress prohibiting the discussion of dissenting points of view through parliamentary tactics. Good thing nothing like that happens today.
> 
> The south was loosing its political clout and reacted like anyone who was loosing their grip on power would, by trying to hold on to it, they took the ball and went home. The result was a war which settled the issue of secession. SCOTUS merely affirmed that when they later issued the rubber stamp decision in White.
> 
> Please note that I have never defended slavery, and I personally think it is reprehensible. It is just that my personal reading and research has led me to believe that the war was not about slavery, it was just an issue that was timely for Lincoln, and one he, like any politician, capitalized on when it suited him. He deserves credit for what he did, but we need to remember that his motives were not necessarily noble.
> 
> As results are what really matter, give him the credit. But do not idolize him.
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was abolished in New England.  That means the few that were there, were not sactioned by the state.  All what?  12 of them?
> 
> New Jersey (not NE) had like 18 in 1860 who were old woman servants who were [FONT=verdana, arial][FONT=verdana, arial]"apprentices for life," due to an arcane loophole in the law.
> 
> Regarding your continued obstinacy to deny the war was not primarily about slavery, one needs only to read the secession documents to understand: It was.
> 
> Peruse.  No one could read these and not say, as Jeff Davis and VP Stephens did, it was the CORNERSTONE of the Confederacy:
> 
> [/FONT][/FONT]South Carolina Declarations of Causes of Seceding States American Civil War
> Mississippi Declarations of Causes of Seceding States
> Georgia Declarations of Causes of Seceding States Civil War
> Texas Declarations of Causes of Seceding States
> [FONT=verdana, arial][FONT=verdana, arial]
> 
> [/FONT][/FONT]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nevertheless, there were slaves in NE into the mid 1800s, at least half a century after slavery was "officially" abolished. My opinion on the matter is that laws and intentions do not matter as much as facts, and the fact is that there were slaves in the northern states throughout the Civil War.
> 
> I did not say that slavery was a major issue in secession. I claimed, and still do, that it was not the primary cause of the war. There were slave states on both sides of the conflict, and until someone explains why people had to go to war with someone else to free slaves they owned I will not believe that slavery was why they went to war. That simply does not make sense to me, nor, I suspect, most people capable of critical thinking.
Click to expand...


Your argument is that the North and West went to war to end slavery, and you are quite wrong.

No, the U.S. went to war against a rebellious section to preserve the union.  The primary cause of the war was slavery.  Every other cause is subsumed in slavery.


----------



## JakeStarkey

syrenn said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will not believe that slavery was why they went to war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The civil war started over the issue of states rights, not over slavery. Slavery only became an issue half way though the war. Lincoln needed something to substantiate the war, something more to justify the incredible carnage. This was a war  that for the first time people could see, the advent of photography was coming into its own and brought the bloody mess  up front and personal.
> 
> Lincoln was up for re-election with an unpopular war on his hands. The book "Uncle toms Cabin" was fresh in the minds of people and  it gave a " greater cause" that northerners could understand and grasp. Lincoln needed a greater purpose for making this country into the UNITED STATS other then economical reasons.
Click to expand...


Slavery was the main cause of the war.  The primary issue was preservation of the union.  I agree that Syrenn has it correct that Lincoln expanded the moral base to include emancipation.


----------



## JakeStarkey

JBeukema said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The words of the Constitution itself, however, are evidence.  And that has been posted in this thread multiple times I believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You refuse to accept the fact the Constitution does not support your belief.  So what, you are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The States have all powers not expressly denied them or given to the Fed.
> 
> 10th amendment
Click to expand...


That is your interpretation, I get that.


----------



## JakeStarkey

JBeukema said:


> <snip the nonsense>
> 
> Such anger and angst.  So let's get you right.  No slave is "better off" than a free man (100s of thousands escaped from slavery before the war; half a million ran away to union army lines during the war).  The immediate issue was preservation of unionism, the primary cause was slavery.  If you are imbued with racism, that's your tuff luck.  Your "feelings" do not negate the realities of the war and its effects 150 years later.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Slavery is wrong.  Don't believe?  Check Exodus.

Slavery is still wrong.  The corporations are making slaves of the middle class and poor.


----------



## Dr Gregg

the History Channel's "America The story of us" stressed it was largely about slavery and issues dealing with western expansion and which areas would be slave or no slave states.  They also mentioned that once Lincoln got elected the south started talking about secession because they feared Lincoln would abolish slavery


----------



## JakeStarkey

ABikerSailor said:


> Slavery is wrong.  Don't believe?  Check Exodus.
> 
> Slavery is still wrong.  The corporations are making slaves of the middle class and poor.



The corporations have not succeeded yet.  That is exactly the world The Rabbi and other corporatists wish to create, with them and the boards of directors leading it.


----------



## Mr Natural

JakeStarkey said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery is wrong.  Don't believe?  Check Exodus.
> 
> Slavery is still wrong.  The corporations are making slaves of the middle class and poor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The corporations have not succeeded yet.  That is exactly the world The Rabbi and other corporatists wish to create, with them and the boards of directors leading it.
Click to expand...


Ask a corporatist it's favorite wet dream come true is, and the answer would than likely be free labor.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Dr Grump said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Gregg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, to keep the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA united
> 
> 
> 
> What about keeping th British Empire united?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The United Kingdom is still the United Kingdom....
Click to expand...


And the U.S. would still have been the U.S.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Dr Gregg said:


> the History Channel's "America The story of us" stressed it was largely about slavery and issues dealing with western expansion and which areas would be slave or no slave states.  They also mentioned that once Lincoln got elected the south started talking about secession because they feared Lincoln would abolish slavery



Well if the History Channel said it...


----------



## Dr Gregg

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Dr Gregg said:
> 
> 
> 
> the History Channel's "America The story of us" stressed it was largely about slavery and issues dealing with western expansion and which areas would be slave or no slave states.  They also mentioned that once Lincoln got elected the south started talking about secession because they feared Lincoln would abolish slavery
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well if the History Channel said it...
Click to expand...


as opposed to, "you said it".


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Dr Gregg said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Gregg said:
> 
> 
> 
> the History Channel's "America The story of us" stressed it was largely about slavery and issues dealing with western expansion and which areas would be slave or no slave states.  They also mentioned that once Lincoln got elected the south started talking about secession because they feared Lincoln would abolish slavery
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well if the History Channel said it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> as opposed to, "you said it".
Click to expand...


I don't expect people to simply take my word for it, however.  There's been ample evidence given in this thread to show that Lincoln did not fight the Civil War to free the slaves.


----------



## JBeukema

paperview said:


> You posted:"Negro Equality!          Fudge!!  How long in the   government of a God, great enough to  make and maintain this Universe,   shall there continue knaves          to vend, and fools to gulp, so low a   piece of demagoguism as  this?"​No one ever heard Lincoln utter these words. No transcript exists where these words are used by Lincoln.



Note for speech, ca. Sept 1859

The Yale book of quotations - Google Books


Negro equality!  Fudge! [19th c. equivalent of...]  How long, in the government of a God, great enough to make and maintain this Universe, shall there continue knaves to vend, and fools to gulp, so low a piece of demagougism [sp.-DS] as this. (v. 3, p. 399.  Fragments: Notes for Speeches, Sept. 6, 1859) 

The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln - Google Books



> To the point though, another out of context quote.  What was actually said:In the course of his reply, Senator Douglas remarked, in substance, that  he had always considered this government was made for the white people  and not for the negroes. Why, in point of mere fact, I think so too. But  in this remark of the Judge, there is a significance, which I think is  the key to the great mistake (if there is any such mistake) (?)which he has  made in this Nebraska measure. It shows that the Judge has no very  vivid impression that the negro is a human; and consequently has no idea  that there can be any moral question in legislating about him. In his  view, the question of whether a new country shall be slave or free, is a  matter of as utter indifference, as it is whether his neighbor shall  plant his farm with tobacco, or stock it with horned cattle. Now,  whether this view is right or wrong, it is very certain that the great  mass of mankind take a totally different view. [They? Lincoln says nothing of agreeing with those of condemning slavery]They consider slavery a  great moral wrong; and their feelings against it, is not evanescent, but  eternal. It lies at the very foundation of their sense of justice; and it  cannot be trifled with. It is a great and durable element of popular  action, and, I think, no statesman can safely disregard it.[So he's advising him on the political ramifications of an unpopular platform while not actually disagreeing with him]​


----------



## JBeukema

JakeStarkey said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You refuse to accept the fact the Constitution does not support your belief.  So what, you are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> The States have all powers not expressly denied them or given to the Fed.
> 
> 10th amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is your interpretation, I get that.
Click to expand...

It's not an interpretation.

It's a fact.

It's what is says in plain English.


----------



## JBeukema

JakeStarkey said:


> Such anger and angst.  So let's get you right.  No slave is "better off" than a free man (100s of thousands escaped from slavery before the war; half a million ran away to union army lines during the war).  The immediate issue was preservation of unionism, the primary cause was slavery.  If you are imbued with racism, that's your tuff luck.  Your "feelings" do not negate the realities of the war and its effects 150 years later.


it was your hero who said it

I just quoted your hero and showed his true colours


----------



## JBeukema

Dr Gregg said:


> the History Channel's "America The story of us" stressed it was largely about slavery and issues dealing with western expansion and which areas would be slave or no slave states.  They also mentioned that once Lincoln got elected the south started talking about secession because they feared Lincoln would abolish slavery


Like the Tea Parties/Confederates when Obama was elected?


----------



## ABikerSailor

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Dr Gregg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well if the History Channel said it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> as opposed to, "you said it".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't expect people to simply take my word for it, however.  There's been ample evidence given in this thread to show that Lincoln did not fight the Civil War to free the slaves.
Click to expand...


  Yeah.......because the posters on USMB are much better qualified than the scholars and historians on the History Channel, right?

You really are a first water idiot.


----------



## JakeStarkey

JBeukema said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> The States have all powers not expressly denied them or given to the Fed.
> 
> 10th amendment
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is your interpretation, I get that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not an interpretation.
> 
> It's a fact.
> 
> It's what is says in plain English.
Click to expand...


Talk to SCOTUS.

And please use Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln to give us all of the speech of a quote so that it can be put into context.

You are not doing that.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

ABikerSailor said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Gregg said:
> 
> 
> 
> as opposed to, "you said it".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't expect people to simply take my word for it, however.  There's been ample evidence given in this thread to show that Lincoln did not fight the Civil War to free the slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah.......because the posters on USMB are much better qualified than the scholars and historians on the History Channel, right?
> 
> You really are a first water idiot.
Click to expand...


The ever classic appeal to authority.

My assumption is that the History Channel had on scholars and historians who furthered the idea of the "official" version of history, and didn't even entertain the idea of conflicting ideas from scholars and historians who disagree.  I also doubt anything that could even possibly paint Lincoln in a negative light was even mentioned, let alone discussed at any real length.


----------



## JBeukema

JakeStarkey said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is your interpretation, I get that.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not an interpretation.
> 
> It's a fact.
> 
> It's what is says in plain English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Talk to SCOTUS.
> 
> And please use Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln to give us all of the speech of a quote so that it can be put into context.
> 
> You are not doing that.
Click to expand...


What the fuck does anything Lincoln ever said have to do with what's written in the Constitution?


----------



## JakeStarkey

JBeukema said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not an interpretation.
> 
> It's a fact.
> 
> It's what is says in plain English.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Talk to SCOTUS.
> 
> And please use Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln to give us all of the speech of a quote so that it can be put into context.
> 
> You are not doing that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the fuck does anything Lincoln ever said have to do with what's written in the Constitution?
Click to expand...


When you deflect, you lose respect.

Use the link, huh?  It will help you tremendously.


----------



## syrenn

JakeStarkey said:


> No, the U.S. went to war against a rebellious section to preserve the union.  The primary cause of the war was slavery.  Every other cause is subsumed in slavery.




The primary cause  again was slavery. Slavery _became _the moral high grounds on which the north took its final stand.


----------



## JakeStarkey

syrenn said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the U.S. went to war against a rebellious section to preserve the union.  The primary cause of the war was slavery.  Every other cause is subsumed in slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The primary cause  again was slavery. Slavery _became _the moral high grounds on which the north took its final stand.
Click to expand...


I would refine that only to the extent to note that the primary _issue _was preserving the union.  The primary _cause _was slavery, which would be used later by Lincoln to gain the moral high ground.


----------



## syrenn

JakeStarkey said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was the main cause of the war.  The primary issue was preservation of the union.  I agree that Syrenn has it correct that Lincoln expanded the moral base to include emancipation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you. But again you are confusing what the main cause of the war was. It was not slavery. It was about preserving the union. Lincoln finally adopted the idea of ending slavery as a last resort to gain support, to preserve the union.
> 
> Slavery gave the civil war a moral campus that other wise it did not have.
> 
> We are no longer a union of states. We are the United States of America.
Click to expand...


----------



## syrenn

JakeStarkey said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the U.S. went to war against a rebellious section to preserve the union.  The primary cause of the war was slavery.  Every other cause is subsumed in slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The primary cause  again was slavery. Slavery _became _the moral high grounds on which the north took its final stand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would refine that only to the extent to note that the primary _issue _was preserving the union.  The primary _cause _was slavery, which would be used later by Lincoln to gain the moral high ground.
Click to expand...


No I think the end "morality" was slavery. Slavery became and issue. Slavery was not the cause.


----------



## Dr Gregg

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Dr Gregg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well if the History Channel said it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> as opposed to, "you said it".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't expect people to simply take my word for it, however.  There's been ample evidence given in this thread to show that Lincoln did not fight the Civil War to free the slaves.
Click to expand...


Yes, there was more reasons, and it wasn't solely to free the slaves as so many believe.  But slavery was most certainly a big part of it, along with preserving the union.


----------



## JBeukema

JakeStarkey said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Talk to SCOTUS.
> 
> And please use Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln to give us all of the speech of a quote so that it can be put into context.
> 
> You are not doing that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck does anything Lincoln ever said have to do with what's written in the Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you deflect, you lose respect.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Ten stop doing it.


Now answer the question:What does anything Lincoln ever said have to do with the Tenth Amendment and its meaning?


----------



## JBeukema

You two are saying the same damned thing and merely arguing your preferred semantics


----------



## JakeStarkey

syrenn said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The primary cause  again was slavery. Slavery _became _the moral high grounds on which the north took its final stand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would refine that only to the extent to note that the primary _issue _was preserving the union.  The primary _cause _was slavery, which would be used later by Lincoln to gain the moral high ground.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I think the end "morality" was slavery. Slavery became and issue. Slavery was not the cause.
Click to expand...


The evidence contradicts that.  All other causes were subsumed in slavery, including states' rights.  The primary issue was the south refusing to bow to electoral and constitutional process in the election of 1860.


----------



## JBeukema

> refusing to bow to electoral and constitutional process in the election  of 1860.


Read; Exerting their rights and constitutional powers and expecting the Fed to obey the limits placed upon it by that same document.

Lincoln set the stage for all the abuse of federal power and the stripping away of the member States' sovereignty, and rightful authority that we see today.


----------



## syrenn

JakeStarkey said:


> The evidence contradicts that.  All other causes were subsumed in slavery, including states' rights.  The primary issue was the south refusing to bow to electoral and constitutional process in the election of 1860.



I think we are having a problem with semantics.  I refer to "cause" as what the original starting point of the war was, its original reason to being.


----------



## syrenn

JBeukema said:


> refusing to bow to electoral and constitutional process in the election  of 1860.
> 
> 
> 
> Read; Exerting their rights and constitutional powers and expecting the Fed to obey the limits placed upon it by that same document.
> 
> Lincoln set the stage for all the abuse of federal power and the stripping away of the member States' sovereignty, and rightful authority that we see today.
Click to expand...


*Exactly!*

Which is why Lincoln needed something else to bolster his stance on waging war. And that was Slavery.


----------



## JBeukema

syrenn said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> refusing to bow to electoral and constitutional process in the election  of 1860.
> 
> 
> 
> Read; Exerting their rights and constitutional powers and expecting the Fed to obey the limits placed upon it by that same document.
> 
> Lincoln set the stage for all the abuse of federal power and the stripping away of the member States' sovereignty, and rightful authority that we see today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Exactly!*
> 
> Which is why Lincoln needed something else to bolster his stance on waging war. And that was Slavery.
Click to expand...


-which he himself said he had no authority to do anything about, as I quoted, and which he still never cared about, as shown by his failure to free the slaves in the Union while attempting to force the CSA to free the slaves as though he had any authority to do so.

There was a just war to be waged against those who would enslave their fellow Man, but Lincoln and the Union never fought that war. As with WWII later on, we had no interest in fighting the just war. We sought our own war for our own reasons [preserving the strength of the union and the CSA's economic resources; Hitler's declaration's of war]- that the enemy was the same merely allowed for great propaganda to fool those who don't look past the posters and statues of a man made into a demi-god.


----------



## Mr Natural

syrenn said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> refusing to bow to electoral and constitutional process in the election  of 1860.
> 
> 
> 
> Read; Exerting their rights and constitutional powers and expecting the Fed to obey the limits placed upon it by that same document.
> 
> Lincoln set the stage for all the abuse of federal power and the stripping away of the member States' sovereignty, and rightful authority that we see today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Exactly!*
> 
> Which is why Lincoln needed something else to bolster his stance on waging war. And that was Slavery.
Click to expand...



Just like Cheney/Bush needed an excuse to invade Iraq.


----------



## hortysir

paperview said:


> No, Buchanan didn't either.  It was called the Corwin Amendment because...hey, I'll give you 3 guesses to figure out who proposed it.  (hint: It's in the name of the Amendment.)
> 
> I'm not going to continue with your little escapade of inaccuracies, cause it appears you are all over the map. (WTF?  Pledge of Allegiance?  What the hell does a Socialist composed oath written in 1892 have to do with this discussion?)
> Frankly, you don't seem to be worth my time.
> 
> I'll be nicer when you're smarter. ;0




***** On December 3, 1860, the month after Lincoln was  elected, President Buchanan asked Congress to propose an "explanatory  amendment". It was to be another 13th Amendment, to eradicate and  cover-up the deletion of the Original Thirteenth Title of Nobility and  Honour Amendment. This proposed amendment, which would have forever  legalized slavery, was signed by President Lincoln shortly after he took  office. ************

:cheers:


----------



## JakeStarkey

JBeukema said:


> refusing to bow to electoral and constitutional process in the election  of 1860.
> 
> 
> 
> Read; Exerting their rights and constitutional powers and expecting the Fed to obey the limits placed upon it by that same document.
> 
> Lincoln set the stage for all the abuse of federal power and the stripping away of the member States' sovereignty, and rightful authority that we see today.
Click to expand...


No, JB, you, and along with the South, expected your perverted expectations of the Constitution to be met by reasonable Americans.  A secret for you: no!


----------



## JakeStarkey

JBeukema said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read; Exerting their rights and constitutional powers and expecting the Fed to obey the limits placed upon it by that same document.
> 
> Lincoln set the stage for all the abuse of federal power and the stripping away of the member States' sovereignty, and rightful authority that we see today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Exactly!*
> 
> Which is why Lincoln needed something else to bolster his stance on waging war. And that was Slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> -which he himself said he had no authority to do anything about, as I quoted, and which he still never cared about, as shown by his failure to free the slaves in the Union while attempting to force the CSA to free the slaves as though he had any authority to do so.
> 
> There was a just war to be waged against those who would enslave their fellow Man, but Lincoln and the Union never fought that war. As with WWII later on, we had no interest in fighting the just war. We sought our own war for our own reasons [preserving the strength of the union and the CSA's economic resources; Hitler's declaration's of war]- that the enemy was the same merely allowed for great propaganda to fool those who don't look past the posters and statues of a man made into a demi-god.
Click to expand...


Nonsense.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Dr Gregg said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Gregg said:
> 
> 
> 
> as opposed to, "you said it".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't expect people to simply take my word for it, however.  There's been ample evidence given in this thread to show that Lincoln did not fight the Civil War to free the slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, there was more reasons, and it wasn't solely to free the slaves as so many believe.  But slavery was most certainly a big part of it, along with preserving the union.
Click to expand...


It wasn't fought to free the slaves at all, again, as Lincoln himself said.


----------



## JakeStarkey

hortysir said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, Buchanan didn't either.  It was called the Corwin Amendment because...hey, I'll give you 3 guesses to figure out who proposed it.  (hint: It's in the name of the Amendment.)
> 
> I'm not going to continue with your little escapade of inaccuracies, cause it appears you are all over the map. (WTF?  Pledge of Allegiance?  What the hell does a Socialist composed oath written in 1892 have to do with this discussion?)
> Frankly, you don't seem to be worth my time.
> 
> I'll be nicer when you're smarter. ;0
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ***** On December 3, 1860, the month after Lincoln was  elected, President Buchanan asked Congress to propose an "explanatory  amendment". It was to be another 13th Amendment, to eradicate and  cover-up the deletion of the Original Thirteenth Title of Nobility and  Honour Amendment. This proposed amendment, which would have forever  legalized slavery, was signed by President Lincoln shortly after he took  office. ************
> 
> :cheers:
Click to expand...


The poster above did not have the guts to give you the provenance of this "amendment."

So query TONA Research Committee - The Thirteenth Article of Amendment and read and chuckle.  A little research will reveal that no provenance for the amendment exists.

In other words, our reactionary moon bats are flying erratically beneath the sublunary atmosphere, snapping at shadows!   

Quantam Windbag and Big Fitz should be ready recruits, along with Si Modo and Mudwhistle and cmike and others.  Have fun, guys.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

JBeukema said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> In this case, the history has been competently written.  The immediate issue was unionism, the primary cause was slavery, and the South was morally wrong.  Check the motives of those who argue otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both Union and CSA were wrong.
> 
> If you really look at history, you'll see that there's often nobody who's really in the right or fighting for any real principles or cause.
Click to expand...


I was just thinking this myself this morning. Amazing how clearly one can think when they actually get a good solid night of sleep.


----------



## paperview

hortysir said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, Buchanan didn't either.  It was called the Corwin Amendment because...hey, I'll give you 3 guesses to figure out who proposed it.  (hint: It's in the name of the Amendment.)
> 
> I'm not going to continue with your little escapade of inaccuracies, cause it appears you are all over the map. (WTF?  Pledge of Allegiance?  What the hell does a Socialist composed oath written in 1892 have to do with this discussion?)
> Frankly, you don't seem to be worth my time.
> 
> I'll be nicer when you're smarter. ;0
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ***** On December 3, 1860, the month after Lincoln was  elected, President Buchanan asked Congress to propose an "explanatory  amendment". It was to be another 13th Amendment, to eradicate and  cover-up the deletion of the Original Thirteenth Title of Nobility and  Honour Amendment. This proposed amendment, which would have forever  legalized slavery, was signed by President Lincoln shortly after he took  office. ************
> 
> :cheers:
Click to expand...

I don't know where you get your information from (well, actually, I do, it's neo-confederate sites) -- Lincoln did not sign the Corwin Amendment.

He did tacitly support it and transmitted a copy of the joint resolution to amend the constitution to the Governors of the states, but he did not "sign the amendment."

Presidents play no role in the Constitutional Amendment process.


----------



## JBeukema

JakeStarkey said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> refusing to bow to electoral and constitutional process in the election  of 1860.
> 
> 
> 
> Read; Exerting their rights and constitutional powers and expecting the Fed to obey the limits placed upon it by that same document.
> 
> Lincoln set the stage for all the abuse of federal power and the stripping away of the member States' sovereignty, and rightful authority that we see today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, JB, you, and along with the South, expected your perverted expectations of the Constitution to be met by reasonable Americans.  A secret for you: no!
Click to expand...



Show me where the Constitution says the States/People are denied the right to secede.

If you can't, then they have it- that's what the 10th amendment states in plain english.

There is no room for opinion when the matter is spelled out in simple English to be derived from the most basic logical deduction.

_The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor  prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,  or to the people.

_​


----------



## JakeStarkey

Slavery was wrong, guys, and it proved a pox on all Americans, as it rightfully should.  And, yes, JB, racial guilt applies even to those who pretend they have none of it.


----------



## paperview

More on the Corwin Amendment:  Abraham Lincoln and the Corwin Amendment


----------



## elvis

JBeukema said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read; Exerting their rights and constitutional powers and expecting the Fed to obey the limits placed upon it by that same document.
> 
> Lincoln set the stage for all the abuse of federal power and the stripping away of the member States' sovereignty, and rightful authority that we see today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, JB, you, and along with the South, expected your perverted expectations of the Constitution to be met by reasonable Americans.  A secret for you: no!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where the Constitution says the States/People are denied the right to secede.
> 
> If you can't, then they have it- that's what the 10th amendment states in plain english.
> 
> There is no room for opinion when the matter is spelled out in simple English to be derived from the most basic logical deduction.
> 
> _The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor  prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,  or to the people.
> 
> _​
Click to expand...


do you think states currently have the right to secede?


----------



## JBeukema

JakeStarkey said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Exactly!*
> 
> Which is why Lincoln needed something else to bolster his stance on waging war. And that was Slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -which he himself said he had no authority to do anything about, as I quoted, and which he still never cared about, as shown by his failure to free the slaves in the Union while attempting to force the CSA to free the slaves as though he had any authority to do so.
> 
> There was a just war to be waged against those who would enslave their fellow Man, but Lincoln and the Union never fought that war. As with WWII later on, we had no interest in fighting the just war. We sought our own war for our own reasons [preserving the strength of the union and the CSA's economic resources; Hitler's declaration's of war]- that the enemy was the same merely allowed for great propaganda to fool those who don't look past the posters and statues of a man made into a demi-god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
Click to expand...

It's been twice posted in large red text for you blind morons to see.

GO read it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

paperview said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, Buchanan didn't either.  It was called the Corwin Amendment because...hey, I'll give you 3 guesses to figure out who proposed it.  (hint: It's in the name of the Amendment.)
> 
> I'm not going to continue with your little escapade of inaccuracies, cause it appears you are all over the map. (WTF?  Pledge of Allegiance?  What the hell does a Socialist composed oath written in 1892 have to do with this discussion?)
> Frankly, you don't seem to be worth my time.
> 
> I'll be nicer when you're smarter. ;0
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ***** On December 3, 1860, the month after Lincoln was  elected, President Buchanan asked Congress to propose an "explanatory  amendment". It was to be another 13th Amendment, to eradicate and  cover-up the deletion of the Original Thirteenth Title of Nobility and  Honour Amendment. This proposed amendment, which would have forever  legalized slavery, was signed by President Lincoln shortly after he took  office. ************
> 
> :cheers:
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know where you get your information from (well, actually, I do, it's neo-confederate sites) -- Lincoln did not sign the Corwin Amendment.
> 
> He did tacitly support it and transmitted a copy of the joint resolution to amend the constitution to the Governors of the states, but he did not "sign the amendment."
> 
> Presidents play no role in the Constitutional Amendment process.
Click to expand...


hortysir is not referring to the Corwin amendment.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

elvis said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, JB, you, and along with the South, expected your perverted expectations of the Constitution to be met by reasonable Americans.  A secret for you: no!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where the Constitution says the States/People are denied the right to secede.
> 
> If you can't, then they have it- that's what the 10th amendment states in plain english.
> 
> There is no room for opinion when the matter is spelled out in simple English to be derived from the most basic logical deduction.
> 
> _The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor  prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,  or to the people.
> 
> _​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> do you think states currently have the right to secede?
Click to expand...


Well the legal reality is that secession was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Texas v. White, but in my opinion that decision had no basis in the Constitution.  So I would say the right exists, but would most certainly be shut down by the federal government.


----------



## Liability

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Dr Gregg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't expect people to simply take my word for it, however.  There's been ample evidence given in this thread to show that Lincoln did not fight the Civil War to free the slaves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, there was more reasons, and it wasn't solely to free the slaves as so many believe.  But slavery was most certainly a big part of it, along with preserving the union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wasn't fought to free the slaves at all, again, as Lincoln himself said.
Click to expand...


It was not originally fought with the notion of freeing slaves or of ending that hideous institution, perhaps.

But anyone who denies that slavery and the institution of slavery wasn't one of the major impetuses for the Civil War is engaging in ridiculous historical revisionism.  The Southern States would never have deemed it expedient to secede from the Union were it not for the fact that their fucking diabolical institution was in danger.  Had the North never given a flying fuck about Slavery, the South would certainly have been content to remain a part of the Union.


----------



## JBeukema

JakeStarkey said:


> Slavery was wrong, guys, and it proved a pox on all Americans, as it rightfully should.  And, yes, JB, racial guilt applies even to those who pretend they have none of it.



1) Yes, slavery was wrong- including when it was still practiced in the Union during the war. 

2) 'Racial Guilt' is bullshit spread by the like of Sharpton to provide people with an excuse for not bettering themselves by blaming the descendent's of long dead men. My White ancestors didn't even come here until long after slavery ended, so you and all the rest of your retarded friends can fuck off and start taking responsibility for your own damned selves.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

JakeStarkey said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was abolished in New England.  That means the few that were there, were not sactioned by the state.  All what?  12 of them?
> 
> New Jersey (not NE) had like 18 in 1860 who were old woman servants who were [FONT=verdana, arial][FONT=verdana, arial]"apprentices for life," due to an arcane loophole in the law.
> 
> Regarding your continued obstinacy to deny the war was not primarily about slavery, one needs only to read the secession documents to understand: It was.
> 
> Peruse.  No one could read these and not say, as Jeff Davis and VP Stephens did, it was the CORNERSTONE of the Confederacy:
> 
> [/FONT][/FONT]South Carolina Declarations of Causes of Seceding States American Civil War
> Mississippi Declarations of Causes of Seceding States
> Georgia Declarations of Causes of Seceding States Civil War
> Texas Declarations of Causes of Seceding States
> [FONT=verdana, arial][FONT=verdana, arial]
> 
> [/FONT][/FONT]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nevertheless, there were slaves in NE into the mid 1800s, at least half a century after slavery was "officially" abolished. My opinion on the matter is that laws and intentions do not matter as much as facts, and the fact is that there were slaves in the northern states throughout the Civil War.
> 
> I did not say that slavery was a major issue in secession. I claimed, and still do, that it was not the primary cause of the war. There were slave states on both sides of the conflict, and until someone explains why people had to go to war with someone else to free slaves they owned I will not believe that slavery was why they went to war. That simply does not make sense to me, nor, I suspect, most people capable of critical thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your argument is that the North and West went to war to end slavery, and you are quite wrong.
> 
> No, the U.S. went to war against a rebellious section to preserve the union.  The primary cause of the war was slavery.  Every other cause is subsumed in slavery.
Click to expand...


Where did I say that? I have continually said that the war was not about slavery, that the north did not fight to free slaves. And you claim I cannot read.

Are you insisting that the justifiers who come along after an event have the right to change facts to make it more palatable?


----------



## JakeStarkey

The legal reality, yes, that no right exists for states to leave the union.  And that is how the great majority of Americans thought in 1861.


----------



## JBeukema

elvis said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, JB, you, and along with the South, expected your perverted expectations of the Constitution to be met by reasonable Americans.  A secret for you: no!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where the Constitution says the States/People are denied the right to secede.
> 
> If you can't, then they have it- that's what the 10th amendment states in plain english.
> 
> There is no room for opinion when the matter is spelled out in simple English to be derived from the most basic logical deduction.
> 
> _The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor  prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,  or to the people.
> 
> _​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> do you think states currently have the right to secede?
Click to expand...

Yes.

They have the Constitutional right until any amendment declares otherwise and they and the People shall always have the moral right to self-determination, just as the FF had the right to throw off their own government and send the Redcoats back across the ocean.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Liability said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Gregg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, there was more reasons, and it wasn't solely to free the slaves as so many believe.  But slavery was most certainly a big part of it, along with preserving the union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't fought to free the slaves at all, again, as Lincoln himself said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was not originally fought with the notion of freeing slaves or of ending that hideous institution, perhaps.
> 
> But anyone who denies that slavery and the institution of slavery wasn't one of the major impetuses for the Civil War is engaging in ridiculous historical revisionism.  The Southern States would never have deemed it expedient to secede from the Union were it not for the fact that their fucking diabolical institution was in danger.  Had the North never given a flying fuck about Slavery, the South would certainly have been content to remain a part of the Union.
Click to expand...


I agree that the issue of slavery had a role to play in the decision of the southern states to secede, their own secession documents make that clear.  As to whether they would have seceded if they didn't feel slavery was threatened, I have to disagree.  There had been an ongoing dispute between the north and the south since long before the Civil War over the issue of tariffs, and it came to ahead with the election of Abraham Lincoln who was a staunch supporter of high tariffs.


----------



## hortysir

I would like to repeat that this is the most 'civil' discussion I've ever taken part in on this matter.
I've learned some new stuff and learned that some people refuse to try and learn new things about history.


----------



## JakeStarkey

JBeukema said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was wrong, guys, and it proved a pox on all Americans, as it rightfully should.  And, yes, JB, racial guilt applies even to those who pretend they have none of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Yes, slavery was wrong- including when it was still practiced in the Union during the war.
> 
> 2) 'Racial Guilt' is bullshit spread by the like of Sharpton to provide people with an excuse for not bettering themselves by blaming the descendent's of long dead men. My White ancestors didn't even come here until long after slavery ended, so you and all the rest of your retarded friends can fuck off and start taking responsibility for your own damned selves.
Click to expand...


#1 - I agree with you.

#2 - That you refuse to accept that you had opportunity in an Euro-American culture that was generally denied to peoples of color does not exonerate you.  Your denial merely illustrates your ignorance and lack of that on the matter.


----------



## JBeukema

JakeStarkey said:


> The legal reality, yes, that no right exists for states to leave the union.  And that is how the great majority of Americans thought in 1861.


I don't care what 'the great majority of Americans' think

The legal reality is that they have the right until the Constitution is amended to take it away. That is what the Tenth Amendment states clearly.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JakeStarkey said:


> The legal reality, yes, that no right exists for states to leave the union.  And that is how the great majority of Americans thought in 1861.



That's incorrect.  Until April of 1861 with the attack on Fort Sumter northern opinion was against war and forcing the south back into the Union.


----------



## JakeStarkey

JBeukema said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where the Constitution says the States/People are denied the right to secede.
> 
> If you can't, then they have it- that's what the 10th amendment states in plain english.
> 
> There is no room for opinion when the matter is spelled out in simple English to be derived from the most basic logical deduction.
> 
> _The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor  prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,  or to the people.
> 
> _​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> do you think states currently have the right to secede?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.
> 
> They have the Constitutional right until any amendment declares otherwise and they and the People shall always have the moral right to self-determination, just as the FF had the right to throw off their own government and send the Redcoats back across the ocean.
Click to expand...


No, no indication at all exists states had a right secede except in the minds of delusional individuals.


----------



## paperview

JakeStarkey said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, Buchanan didn't either.  It was called the Corwin Amendment because...hey, I'll give you 3 guesses to figure out who proposed it.  (hint: It's in the name of the Amendment.)
> 
> I'm not going to continue with your little escapade of inaccuracies, cause it appears you are all over the map. (WTF?  Pledge of Allegiance?  What the hell does a Socialist composed oath written in 1892 have to do with this discussion?)
> Frankly, you don't seem to be worth my time.
> 
> I'll be nicer when you're smarter. ;0
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ***** On December 3, 1860, the month after Lincoln was  elected, President Buchanan asked Congress to propose an "explanatory  amendment". It was to be another 13th Amendment, to eradicate and  cover-up the deletion of the Original Thirteenth Title of Nobility and  Honour Amendment. This proposed amendment, which would have forever  legalized slavery, was signed by President Lincoln shortly after he took  office. ************
> 
> :cheers:
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The poster above did not have the guts to give you the provenance of this "amendment."
> 
> So query TONA Research Committee - The Thirteenth Article of Amendment and read and chuckle.  A little research will reveal that no provenance for the amendment exists.
> 
> In other words, our reactionary moon bats are flying erratically beneath the sublunary atmosphere, snapping at shadows!
> 
> Quantam Windbag and Big Fitz should be ready recruits, along with Si Modo and Mudwhistle and cmike and others.  Have fun, guys.
Click to expand...

No Jake.  The Corwin Amendment existed.  There were actually two "almost" 13th Amendments. 

Corwin was a last ditch effort and really had no true punch or legitimacy.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The legal reality, yes, that no right exists for states to leave the union.  And that is how the great majority of Americans thought in 1861.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's incorrect.  Until April of 1861 with the attack on Fort Sumter northern opinion was against war and forcing the south back into the Union.
Click to expand...


Be correct.  The northern democrats were against war but not for letting the South leave.

The utter stupidity of the South in firing on Ft. Sumter sealed its fate.


----------



## JakeStarkey

paperview said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> ***** On December 3, 1860, the month after Lincoln was  elected, President Buchanan asked Congress to propose an "explanatory  amendment". It was to be another 13th Amendment, to eradicate and  cover-up the deletion of the Original Thirteenth Title of Nobility and  Honour Amendment. This proposed amendment, which would have forever  legalized slavery, was signed by President Lincoln shortly after he took  office. ************
> 
> :cheers:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The poster above did not have the guts to give you the provenance of this "amendment."
> 
> So query TONA Research Committee - The Thirteenth Article of Amendment and read and chuckle.  A little research will reveal that no provenance for the amendment exists.
> 
> In other words, our reactionary moon bats are flying erratically beneath the sublunary atmosphere, snapping at shadows!
> 
> Quantam Windbag and Big Fitz should be ready recruits, along with Si Modo and Mudwhistle and cmike and others.  Have fun, guys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No Jake.  The Corwin Amendment existed.  There were actually two "almost" 13th Amendments.
> 
> Corwin was a last ditch effort and really had no true punch or legitimacy.
Click to expand...


I know about "Corwin".  I as simply giggling about TONA.  Look it up: what a hoot!


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

hortysir said:


> I would like to repeat that this is the most 'civil' discussion I've ever taken part in on this matter.
> I've learned some new stuff and learned that some people refuse to try and learn new things about history.



Many of us have had this discussion many times over on this board, and none seem willing to give an inch.  But that's alright, so long as we can respect each other's opinion then the discussion is a success in my opinion.


----------



## paperview

JakeStarkey said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> ***** On December 3, 1860, the month after Lincoln was  elected, President Buchanan asked Congress to propose an "explanatory  amendment". It was to be another 13th Amendment, to eradicate and  cover-up the deletion of the Original Thirteenth Title of Nobility and  Honour Amendment. This proposed amendment, which would have forever  legalized slavery, was signed by President Lincoln shortly after he took  office. ************
> 
> :cheers:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know where you get your information from (well, actually, I do, it's neo-confederate sites) -- Lincoln did not sign the Corwin Amendment.
> 
> He did tacitly support it and transmitted a copy of the joint resolution to amend the constitution to the Governors of the states, but he did not "sign the amendment."
> 
> Presidents play no role in the Constitutional Amendment process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> hortysir is not referring to the Corwin amendment.
Click to expand...

Yes, he is.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Dr Gregg said:


> the History Channel's "America The story of us" stressed it was largely about slavery and issues dealing with western expansion and which areas would be slave or no slave states.  They also mentioned that once Lincoln got elected the south started talking about secession because they feared Lincoln would abolish slavery



Isn't that the channel with Ancient Astronauts, UFO Hunters, Mystery Quest, and Nostradamus Effect?


----------



## JBeukema

JakeStarkey said:


> #2 - That you refuse to accept that you had opportunity in an Euro-American culture that was generally denied to peoples of color does not exonerate you.  Your denial merely illustrates your ignorance and lack of that on the matter.



I had no opportunities that any negroe doesn't have when he sets down the crack pipe and decide to leave the ghetto in search of a better life. The Negroe today has greater opportunities than the White man and is given preference in admission to schools and for employment under the system of racial discrimination deemed 'affirmative action'. Despite this, or possibly because of the sense of inferiority and dependence that it instills in young Black children, large swaths of the Negro race remain unable or unwilling to participate in society as equals. The Chinese and the Irish have all overcome past and current discrimination to integrate and succeed- even the Latiino, who still faces great discrimination to this day, is making great strides, save for the radical racist element that speaks the tongue of the Spaniards while crying for a rebuilding of the Aztec Imper despite his Mayan and Italian heritage. The problem with the Negro race is the attitude which permeates it, which blames everyone but himself for his unwillingness to make progress.


----------



## paperview

JakeStarkey said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The poster above did not have the guts to give you the provenance of this "amendment."
> 
> So query TONA Research Committee - The Thirteenth Article of Amendment and read and chuckle.  A little research will reveal that no provenance for the amendment exists.
> 
> In other words, our reactionary moon bats are flying erratically beneath the sublunary atmosphere, snapping at shadows!
> 
> Quantam Windbag and Big Fitz should be ready recruits, along with Si Modo and Mudwhistle and cmike and others.  Have fun, guys.
> 
> 
> 
> No Jake.  The Corwin Amendment existed.  There were actually two "almost" 13th Amendments.
> 
> Corwin was a last ditch effort and really had no true punch or legitimacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know about "Corwin".  I as simply giggling about TONA.  Look it up: what a hoot!
Click to expand...

Oh, I know full well about the "Missing 13th Amendment."  I have Circa 1840's and 1850's books that have the Constitution in it that contain that Amendment.

Wild.  

(And I made good money off those issues. lol. )


----------



## JBeukema

JakeStarkey said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> do you think states currently have the right to secede?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> They have the Constitutional right until any amendment declares otherwise and they and the People shall always have the moral right to self-determination, just as the FF had the right to throw off their own government and send the Redcoats back across the ocean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, no indication at all exists states had a right secede except in the minds of delusional individuals.
Click to expand...

 _The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor  prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,  or to the people.
_
Show me exactly where in the Constitution the right to self determination is taken away. Show me where the Constitution says they can't.

There's no room for 'opinion' or 'interpretation'- the matter could not be clearer.​


----------



## hortysir

paperview said:


> I don't know where you get your information from (well, actually, I do, it's neo-confederate sites) -- Lincoln did not sign the Corwin Amendment.
> 
> He did tacitly support it and transmitted a copy of the joint resolution to amend the constitution to the Governors of the states, but he did not "sign the amendment."
> 
> Presidents play no role in the Constitutional Amendment process.


As to where I get my info:
The Original 13th Amendment, by The AWARE Group
Notice the ".ca"? Wouldn;t that signify a Canadian site? Hardly "neo-confederate".

WADR, if what you said about handling so many original documents, I do value your opinion.
Just as Kevin stated, earlier, I'm not trying to defend slavery whatsoever. I, also, have never believed in it and had a hard time understanding why it was even condoned in my Bible.
It's just that, from the info that I've read, I just don;t see Lincoln as the hero so many make him out to be.
I am, however, always happy to read anything ya'll wanna push my way.


----------



## Liability

JakeStarkey said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> do you think states currently have the right to secede?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> They have the Constitutional right until any amendment declares otherwise and they and the People shall always have the moral right to self-determination, just as the FF had the right to throw off their own government and send the Redcoats back across the ocean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, no indication at all exists states had a right secede except in the minds of delusional individuals.
Click to expand...


There is such an indication, of course.  The Union was formed by the AGREEMENT of the STATES under the terms and conditions of the Constitution.  Since the constitution is SILENT as to the terms on which a member STATE may withdraw, logic suggests that the very process by which the Union was formed (agreement) is the process by which it may be withdrawn from.   This is especially true where one of the Parties (the Federal entity) fails to abide by the terms and conditions and restrictions imposed upon it.

If I (a member State) cede to the Union a portion of my sovereignty (which the Constitution clearly spells out) but reserve to myself all other incidents of that sovereignty, then I remain a sovereign state.  I do not require permission from the Union my agreement helped make to withdraw from that Union.

As a purely pragmatic matter, Lincoln arguably had no choice other than to try to defeat the effort of the Southern States claiming their own secession.  And the SCOTUS determination notwithstanding, a rational view of the Constitution STILL implies the right to secede.

I consider it a very interesting (potentially devastating) question: * if a number of States tried to secede today, would President Obama emulate Lincoln?*  Would we really take up arms, today, brother against brother, when the stakes do not involve morality issues like slavery?  I cannot believe that President Obama would choose to become a new Civil War President.  He'd preside (politely), in my view, over the dissolution of the Union rather than permit us to take up arms against ourselves.

I am not at all convinced that this makes him morally (or in ANY other way) superior to old Abe.  Far from it.  I think this weak poseur in the Oval Office is the worst mistake the nation ever made in choosing a President.


----------



## syrenn

Individual colony(states) rights is what this country is all about. We fought the British to gain those rights. Those rights were never flexed until the south tested them. 

Lincoln understood that for this country to survive, the union need to stay intact. The north need the resources of the south. The south need the industrial might of the north. 

The country was expanding and the larger point was if new states were going to be allowed to have slavery or not, to be decided by and for each state. At the time the north and south were about equal in power in reference to yes and no. New states held the balance of power. The south understood that if the balance shifted against them then the national government could change their way of life by popular mandate.

Before that could happen the south decided to push for states rights and secede from the union. 

The civil war began about economics.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

JakeStarkey said:


> Slavery was wrong, guys, and it proved a pox on all Americans, as it rightfully should.  And, yes, JB, racial guilt applies even to those who pretend they have none of it.



Does it also apply to the Africans who sold other Africans into slavery? If it does, how do they know which side of racial guilt they should be on? Should they feel guilty because their ancestors dealt in slaves, or should they feel free because their ancestors were slaves. Racial guilt is nothing but propaganda arising out of a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible.


----------



## paperview

hortysir said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know where you get your information from (well, actually, I do, it's neo-confederate sites) -- Lincoln did not sign the Corwin Amendment.
> 
> He did tacitly support it and transmitted a copy of the joint resolution to amend the constitution to the Governors of the states, but he did not "sign the amendment."
> 
> Presidents play no role in the Constitutional Amendment process.
> 
> 
> 
> As to where I get my info:
> The Original 13th Amendment, by The AWARE Group
> Notice the ".ca"? Wouldn;t that signify a Canadian site? Hardly "neo-confederate".
> 
> WADR, if what you said about handling so many original documents, I do value your opinion.
> Just as Kevin stated, earlier, I'm not trying to defend slavery whatsoever. I, also, have never believed in it and had a hard time understanding why it was even condoned in my Bible.
> It's just that, from the info that I've read, I just don;t see Lincoln as the hero so many make him out to be.
> I am, however, always happy to read anything ya'll wanna push my way.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your civility and willingness to learn.  I am here to learn too.  

There is never enough one can know.

I think you & I will get along just fine.  

Cheers.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Quantum Windbag said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was wrong, guys, and it proved a pox on all Americans, as it rightfully should.  And, yes, JB, racial guilt applies even to those who pretend they have none of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does it also apply to the Africans who sold other Africans into slavery? If it does, how do they know which side of racial guilt they should be on? Should they feel guilty because their ancestors dealt in slaves, or should they feel free because their ancestors were slaves. Racial guilt is nothing but propaganda arising out of a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible.
Click to expand...


Argued and dismissed.  We are talking about "us".


----------



## JBeukema

JakeStarkey said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was wrong, guys, and it proved a pox on all Americans, as it rightfully should.  And, yes, JB, racial guilt applies even to those who pretend they have none of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does it also apply to the Africans who sold other Africans into slavery? If it does, how do they know which side of racial guilt they should be on? Should they feel guilty because their ancestors dealt in slaves, or should they feel free because their ancestors were slaves. Racial guilt is nothing but propaganda arising out of a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Argued and dismissed.  We are talking about "us".
Click to expand...


In other words, you have no answer.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Your question is not pertinent to our responsibility for the crime of slavery in the British colonies and thereafter in America.

OK, officer, let me go, because he shot the guy, too.

Sheesh.


----------



## Oscar Wao

JakeStarkey said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was wrong, guys, and it proved a pox on all Americans, as it rightfully should. And, yes, JB, racial guilt applies even to those who pretend they have none of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does it also apply to the Africans who sold other Africans into slavery? If it does, how do they know which side of racial guilt they should be on? Should they feel guilty because their ancestors dealt in slaves, or should they feel free because their ancestors were slaves. Racial guilt is nothing but propaganda arising out of a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Argued and dismissed. We are talking about "us".
Click to expand...

Nope.  Still valid.

If anything, black slavery is the fault of Africans themselves.  Yeah, the white man bought the slave, but they weren't offered up by the white man.

Ultimately, Africans are responsible for the enslavement of their own people.


----------



## Oscar Wao

JakeStarkey said:


> Your question is not pertinent to our responsibility for the crime of slavery in the British colonies and thereafter in America.
> 
> OK, officer, let me go, because he shot the guy, too.
> 
> Sheesh.


The point is that slavery is not and should not made out to be ultimately the white man's fault.


----------



## syrenn

Oscar Wao said:


> Nope.  Still valid.
> If anything, black slavery is the fault of Africans themselves.  Yeah, the white man bought the slave, but they weren't offered up by the white man.
> Ultimately, Africans are responsible for the enslavement of their own people.



Try and get them to admit that.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Oscar Wao said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your question is not pertinent to our responsibility for the crime of slavery in the British colonies and thereafter in America.
> 
> OK, officer, let me go, because he shot the guy, too.
> 
> Sheesh.
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that slavery is not and should not made out to be ultimately the white man's fault.
Click to expand...

Why couldn't you have said that in the first place, Wao?

All the peoples of the 15th century practiced slavery on the various continents.  So, yes, white, Indians, Africans, aborigines, Eskimos, JBs practiced it.  How does that excuse our ancestors from doing it, and how does that excuse us from realizing that whites in this country after 1900 had very specific entitlements that peoples of color did not?  

Those of us who came out of lower working white class environments benefited because we were white, thus our descendants benefited from our advantages and advancement up the socio-economic ladder in America.

And, Syrenn, African responsibility for slavery does not excuse us, period.


----------



## Oscar Wao

We're talking about slavery in the late 1700s-late 1800s, yes?  In that case, it still is NOT the white's fault.  It's not excusable but does not mean that it is what drove the CW either.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Oscar Wao said:


> We're talking about slavery in the late 1700s-late 1800s, yes?  In that case, it still is NOT the white's fault.  It's not excusable but does not mean that it is what drove the CW either.



Non sequitur, young Wao.  Captive labor of a 'despised' race so considered by whites absolutely was the main cause of the Civil War.  The South did not want to give up its servant labor and the North did not want economic competition from slavery in the territories.

Now anyone who believes that most northerns were driven by abolitionism is crazy.  Being anti-slavery like Lincoln and millions upon millions of northerners did not mean they were abolitionists.


----------



## syrenn

Oscar Wao said:


> We're talking about slavery in the late 1700s-late 1800s, yes?  In that case, it still is NOT the white's fault.  It's not excusable but does not mean that it is what drove the CW either.



The issue of slavery did drive the civil war. Slavery did not become an officially stated issue until well past the half way point though. Lincoln was up for re- election during an unpopular war. Slavery was what moralized the fight.

The south grew the cotton
The north milled the cotton
Both grew wealthy on cotton
All was made possible by slave labor


----------



## JakeStarkey

syrenn said:


> Oscar Wao said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're talking about slavery in the late 1700s-late 1800s, yes?  In that case, it still is NOT the white's fault.  It's not excusable but does not mean that it is what drove the CW either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The issue of slavery did drive the civil war. Slavery did not become an officially stated issue until well past the half way point though. Lincoln was up for re- election during an unpopular war. Slavery was what moralized the fight.
> 
> The south grew the cotton
> The north milled the cotton
> Both grew wealthy on cotton
> All was made possible by slave labor
Click to expand...


OK, you are right, it's semantics, not interpretation.


----------



## syrenn

JakeStarkey said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oscar Wao said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're talking about slavery in the late 1700s-late 1800s, yes?  In that case, it still is NOT the white's fault.  It's not excusable but does not mean that it is what drove the CW either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The issue of slavery did drive the civil war. Slavery did not become an officially stated issue until well past the half way point though. Lincoln was up for re- election during an unpopular war. Slavery was what moralized the fight.
> 
> The south grew the cotton
> The north milled the cotton
> Both grew wealthy on cotton
> All was made possible by slave labor
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, you are right, it's semantics, not interpretation.
Click to expand...


  
Good to know


----------



## Quantum Windbag

JakeStarkey said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was wrong, guys, and it proved a pox on all Americans, as it rightfully should.  And, yes, JB, racial guilt applies even to those who pretend they have none of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does it also apply to the Africans who sold other Africans into slavery? If it does, how do they know which side of racial guilt they should be on? Should they feel guilty because their ancestors dealt in slaves, or should they feel free because their ancestors were slaves. Racial guilt is nothing but propaganda arising out of a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Argued and dismissed.  We are talking about "us".
Click to expand...


Us who? Am I a white whose famly owned slaves, or am I a black whose family were slaves? Perhaps I am both. Or neither. How would you know?

Slavery existed in every culture in history. Everyone on the planet has had ancestors who have been slaves, and who have owned slaves.


----------



## syrenn

Quantum Windbag said:


> Us who? Am I a white who owned slaves, or am I a black whose family were slaves? Perhaps I am both. Or neither. How would you know?



You forgot an African who's family immigrated to the US and who's ancestors were slave catchers and traders.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

syrenn said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Us who? Am I a white who owned slaves, or am I a black whose family were slaves? Perhaps I am both. Or neither. How would you know?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot an African who's family immigrated to the US and who's ancestors were slave catchers and traders.
Click to expand...


Damn, I sure did.


----------



## syrenn

Quantum Windbag said:


> Damn, I sure did.



Never underestimate a smart ass!     *God its good to be a smart ass*


----------



## JakeStarkey

Quantum Windbag said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does it also apply to the Africans who sold other Africans into slavery? If it does, how do they know which side of racial guilt they should be on? Should they feel guilty because their ancestors dealt in slaves, or should they feel free because their ancestors were slaves. Racial guilt is nothing but propaganda arising out of a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Argued and dismissed.  We are talking about "us".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Us who? Am I a white whose famly owned slaves, or am I a black whose family were slaves? Perhaps I am both. Or neither. How would you know?
> 
> Slavery existed in every culture in history. Everyone on the planet has had ancestors who have been slaves, and who have owned slaves.
Click to expand...


So?  We are still the product of our history.


----------



## Liability

JakeStarkey said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Argued and dismissed.  We are talking about "us".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Us who? Am I a white whose famly owned slaves, or am I a black whose family were slaves? Perhaps I am both. Or neither. How would you know?
> 
> Slavery existed in every culture in history. Everyone on the planet has had ancestors who have been slaves, and who have owned slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So?  We are still the product of our history.
Click to expand...


Not really.  That is, at best, an over-statement.

We are what we are.

We may have a history.  And we may have learned from our history.

But we, ourselves, are NOT our own history.

I never owned another human being.  I bear zero guilt over the fact that some of our forebears did.

those who insist I bear some guilt over things done long before I was even born are squarely delusional and irrational.

I have an alibi, I tell you.  I wasn't there.  I wasn't even born yet.  Best alibi of all time.   And totally valid, too.


----------



## syrenn

And what happens if it was your ancestors who died to free the slaves?


----------



## jillian

Quantum Windbag said:


> They were morally wrong?
> 
> Was Sherman morally right when he marched through the south, ordering his men to commit war crimes that he had previously had men hung for? Moral agents do not commit immoral acts in defense of morality. Perhaps you should check the morality of the people you now claim were the moral ones.



yes. they were morally wrong. there is no justification for owning another person... not ever.

was sherman right?

yes.... and he didn't commit war crimes. I really don't think it appropriate to measure warfare then against warfare now... and even then, I'm not certain that given the same limitations as to firepower, that the same type of warmaking wouldn't be appropriate.


----------



## jillian

syrenn said:


> And what happens if it was your ancestors who died to free the slaves?



was it?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

jillian said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were morally wrong?
> 
> Was Sherman morally right when he marched through the south, ordering his men to commit war crimes that he had previously had men hung for? Moral agents do not commit immoral acts in defense of morality. Perhaps you should check the morality of the people you now claim were the moral ones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes. they were morally wrong. there is no justification for owning another person... not ever.
> 
> was sherman right?
> 
> yes.... and he didn't commit war crimes. I really don't think it appropriate to measure warfare then against warfare now... and even then, I'm not certain that given the same limitations as to firepower, that the same type of warmaking wouldn't be appropriate.
Click to expand...


Targeting civilians isn't a war crime?


----------



## jillian

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were morally wrong?
> 
> Was Sherman morally right when he marched through the south, ordering his men to commit war crimes that he had previously had men hung for? Moral agents do not commit immoral acts in defense of morality. Perhaps you should check the morality of the people you now claim were the moral ones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes. they were morally wrong. there is no justification for owning another person... not ever.
> 
> was sherman right?
> 
> yes.... and he didn't commit war crimes. I really don't think it appropriate to measure warfare then against warfare now... and even then, I'm not certain that given the same limitations as to firepower, that the same type of warmaking wouldn't be appropriate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Targeting civilians isn't a war crime?
Click to expand...


did they target civilians?

or was the population an insurgent body?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

jillian said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes. they were morally wrong. there is no justification for owning another person... not ever.
> 
> was sherman right?
> 
> yes.... and he didn't commit war crimes. I really don't think it appropriate to measure warfare then against warfare now... and even then, I'm not certain that given the same limitations as to firepower, that the same type of warmaking wouldn't be appropriate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Targeting civilians isn't a war crime?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> did they target civilians?
> 
> or was the population an insurgent body?
Click to expand...


The entire population along with the slaves?


----------



## Kalam

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Targeting civilians isn't a war crime?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> did they target civilians?
> 
> or was the population an insurgent body?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The entire population along with the slaves?
Click to expand...


Yes. Don't bother arguing; she and her ilk use the same "insurgent population" excuse to justify slaughtering Palestinian children. Watch out, because "human shields" is up next.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The Palestinian cowardly criminal "jihadists" use children as shields.

The Israeli army is the shield in front of its children.

Kalam, you are wrong before Allah, who despises you and those like you.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sherman's army waged "total war" because the Southrens were bushwacking his soldiers.  Thus the citizens caught it.  As Sherman told Grant, "Tough luck."


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JakeStarkey said:


> Sherman's army waged "total war" because the Southrens were bushwacking his soldiers.  Thus the citizens caught it.  As Sherman told Grant, "Tough luck."



I don't think the murder of innocent civilians can be justified, let alone justified by "tough luck."


----------



## JakeStarkey

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sherman's army waged "total war" because the Southrens were bushwacking his soldiers.  Thus the citizens caught it.  As Sherman told Grant, "Tough luck."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the murder of innocent civilians can be justified, let alone justified by "tough luck."
Click to expand...


You can take it up with Sherman and the southern bushwackers in the next life.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JakeStarkey said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sherman's army waged "total war" because the Southrens were bushwacking his soldiers.  Thus the citizens caught it.  As Sherman told Grant, "Tough luck."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the murder of innocent civilians can be justified, let alone justified by "tough luck."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can take it up with Sherman and the southern bushwackers in the next life.
Click to expand...


So you can't justify slavery but you can justify murder?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the murder of innocent civilians can be justified, let alone justified by "tough luck."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can take it up with Sherman and the southern bushwackers in the next life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you can't justify slavery but you can justify murder?
Click to expand...


Actually you justify slavery and condemn what you call "murder".


----------



## syrenn

Sherman knew a basic tenant of warfare. Brake the back of the support system.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Syrenn, that's a great point.  The North waged a limited war through the summer of 1862, hoping to draw the South with its slaves voluntarily back into the Union.  McClellan's botched James River offensive and Pope's solid thrashing at 2nd Manassas (2nd Bull Run) made Lincoln understand that he would have to full throttle.  He had the horses in numbers and the generals to do it: Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, and many more who would break the back of the South without mercy.  Oh, my, did they do just that!


----------



## syrenn

JakeStarkey said:


> Syrenn, that's a great point.  The North waged a limited war through the summer of 1862, hoping to draw the South with its slaves voluntarily back into the Union.  McClellan's botched James River offensive and Pope's solid thrashing at 2nd Manassas (2nd Bull Run) made Lincoln understand that he would have to full throttle.  He had the horses in numbers and the generals to do it: Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, and many more who would break the back of the South without mercy.  Oh, my, did they do just that!




My oh My! 

Someone who knows that McClellan was a pussy and was scared to death to engage the enemy. A man who knows about a second Manassas! 

Yes, Lincoln had it within his power to kick the shit out of the south, he was hesitant to do that.  Sherman was not.


----------



## jillian

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> So you can't justify slavery but you can justify murder?



war isn't 'murder'. it's other things, but not that.

is there anything you think is worth fighting for?

i don't think anyone says war is pretty... and certainly, one hopes it's rarely necessary, but when you fight, you have to fight to win.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JakeStarkey said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can take it up with Sherman and the southern bushwackers in the next life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you can't justify slavery but you can justify murder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually you justify slavery and condemn what you call "murder".
Click to expand...


Actually I don't justify slavery by saying "tough luck."


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

jillian said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you can't justify slavery but you can justify murder?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> war isn't 'murder'. it's other things, but not that.
> 
> is there anything you think is worth fighting for?
> 
> i don't think anyone says war is pretty... and certainly, one hopes it's rarely necessary, but when you fight, you have to fight to win.
Click to expand...


So basically anything you do in war is justified because it's war?  Personally, I see war in and of itself as mass murder, but there's still a difference between innocent civilians and soldiers.

Yes.  I personally feel the colonists were justified in fighting against the British in the Revolutionary War, and I think the Confederacy was justified in fighting against the Union in the Civil War.  That doesn't mean I support the Confederacy, however.  Slavery, inscription, suspension of habeas corpus, and rampant inflation were some of the horrible things the Confederacy resorted to during the war.


----------



## jillian

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you can't justify slavery but you can justify murder?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> war isn't 'murder'. it's other things, but not that.
> 
> is there anything you think is worth fighting for?
> 
> i don't think anyone says war is pretty... and certainly, one hopes it's rarely necessary, but when you fight, you have to fight to win.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So basically anything you do in war is justified because it's war?  Personally, I see war in and of itself as mass murder, but there's still a difference between innocent civilians and soldiers.
> 
> Yes.  I personally feel the colonists were justified in fighting against the British in the Revolutionary War, and I think the Confederacy was justified in fighting against the Union in the Civil War.  That doesn't mean I support the Confederacy, however.  Slavery, inscription, suspension of habeas corpus, and rampant inflation were some of the horrible things the Confederacy resorted to during the war.
Click to expand...


did you really just say that the south 'resorted to slavery' DURING the civil war?

seriously?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

jillian said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> war isn't 'murder'. it's other things, but not that.
> 
> is there anything you think is worth fighting for?
> 
> i don't think anyone says war is pretty... and certainly, one hopes it's rarely necessary, but when you fight, you have to fight to win.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So basically anything you do in war is justified because it's war?  Personally, I see war in and of itself as mass murder, but there's still a difference between innocent civilians and soldiers.
> 
> Yes.  I personally feel the colonists were justified in fighting against the British in the Revolutionary War, and I think the Confederacy was justified in fighting against the Union in the Civil War.  That doesn't mean I support the Confederacy, however.  Slavery, inscription, suspension of habeas corpus, and rampant inflation were some of the horrible things the Confederacy resorted to during the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> did you really just say that the south 'resorted to slavery' DURING the civil war?
> 
> seriously?
Click to expand...


I'm sure you got my point from what I said, obviously I'm aware slavery predated the Civil War.  Did you want to actually respond to my post?


----------



## Kalam

JakeStarkey said:


> The Palestinian cowardly criminal "jihadists" use children as shields.
> 
> The Israeli army is the shield in front of its children.


No thread would be complete without some goy golem reiterating Zionist propaganda points. 



JakeStarkey said:


> Kalam, you are wrong before Allah, who despises you and those like you.


You know nothing of me and even less of Him (SWT). 

_They seek to deceive Allah and those who believe and they deceive only themselves and they perceive not. In their hearts is a disease, so Allah increased their disease, and for them is a painful chastisement because they lie. And when it is said to them, Make not mischief in the land, they say: We are but peacemakers. Now surely they are the mischief-makers, but they perceive not. And when it is said to them, Believe as the people believe, they say: Shall we believe as the fools believe? Now surely they are the fools, but they know not._ - 2:9-13​


----------



## Quantum Windbag

jillian said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were morally wrong?
> 
> Was Sherman morally right when he marched through the south, ordering his men to commit war crimes that he had previously had men hung for? Moral agents do not commit immoral acts in defense of morality. Perhaps you should check the morality of the people you now claim were the moral ones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes. they were morally wrong. there is no justification for owning another person... not ever.
> 
> was sherman right?
> 
> yes.... and he didn't commit war crimes. I really don't think it appropriate to measure warfare then against warfare now... and even then, I'm not certain that given the same limitations as to firepower, that the same type of warmaking wouldn't be appropriate.
Click to expand...


He ordered his men to commit acts that he had hung them for just the year before. As a graduate of West Point he knew about the laws and customs of war, and had probably heard about Peter von Hagenbach, who was convicted of war crimes in 1474. Why are you assuming that war crimes is a modern convention? The Hague Convention was based on treaties and conventions that date back to the 7th century.

I am not holding him to modern standards, i am trying to hold him to his.


----------



## Dirk the Daring

Mr Clean said:


> You Southern folks really need to get over this Civil War fixation of yours.
> 
> You fought, you lost.  Move on it's 2010.



Idiot.

'You black people really need to get over this slavery fixtation of yours.'  

'You jewish people really need to get over this holocaust fixation of yours.'

'You female people really need to get over this non-voting fixation of yours.'  

'You anti-Bush people really need to get over this 'stolen-election' fixation of yours.'  

'You fought, you lost.  Move on its 2010.'


----------



## JBeukema

JakeStarkey said:


> JBs practiced it.



O RLY?

You've evidence of shit assertion?


> How does that excuse our ancestors from doing it, and how does that excuse us from realizing that whites in this country after 1900 had very specific entitlements that peoples of color did not?



Entitlements?


> Those of us who came out of lower working white class environments benefited because we were white



O rly? Your 'White Privilege' was being poor and having to work just like the Negroes have the opportunity to do?


> , thus our descendants benefited from our advantages





Are you retarded?

Anyone here Irish whose ancestors built the railroads next to the Chinese?


----------



## JBeukema

syrenn said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Us who? Am I a white who owned slaves, or am I a black whose family were slaves? Perhaps I am both. Or neither. How would you know?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot an African who's family immigrated to the US and who's ancestors were slave catchers and traders.
Click to expand...



Or those whose ancestors were White abolitionists who helped slaves escape or who came here later.

Jake's just a sad racebaiter who desperately wants anyone to be responsible for a black man's failure except the man himself.


----------



## JBeukema

JakeStarkey said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can take it up with Sherman and the southern bushwackers in the next life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you can't justify slavery but you can justify murder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually you justify slavery and condemn what you call "murder".
Click to expand...

Do link to where he defended slavery.


----------



## JBeukema

jillian said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you can't justify slavery but you can justify murder?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> war isn't 'murder'. it's other things, but not that.
> 
> is there anything you think is worth fighting for?
> 
> i don't think anyone says war is pretty... and certainly, one hopes it's rarely necessary, but when you fight, you have to fight to win.
Click to expand...

killing unarmed women and children is murder

to do so in times of war under the guise of war is a crime of war


----------



## paperview

Were those Southern civilians ACTIVELY aiding and abetting the Confederate cause?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you can't justify slavery but you can justify murder?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually you justify slavery and condemn what you call "murder".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I don't justify slavery by saying "tough luck."
Click to expand...


Deflection.  But, yes, you seem to justify slavery and condemn war as "murder".  You really need to do better than that.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Kalam said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinian cowardly criminal "jihadists" use children as shields.
> 
> The Israeli army is the shield in front of its children.
> 
> 
> 
> No thread would be complete without some goy golem reiterating Zionist propaganda points.
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam, you are wrong before Allah, who despises you and those like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know nothing of me and even less of Him (SWT).
> 
> _They seek to deceive Allah and those who believe and they deceive only themselves and they perceive not. In their hearts is a disease, so Allah increased their disease, and for them is a painful chastisement because they lie. And when it is said to them, Make not mischief in the land, they say: We are but peacemakers. Now surely they are the mischief-makers, but they perceive not. And when it is said to them, Believe as the people believe, they say: Shall we believe as the fools believe? Now surely they are the fools, but they know not._ - 2:9-13​
Click to expand...


You are worse than a non-believer before Allah.

The jihadists are cowards, pure and simple, and terrorist propaganda is just that, jihadist propaganda.  Your 'martyrs' are merely dead cowards.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Quantum Windbag said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were morally wrong?
> 
> Was Sherman morally right when he marched through the south, ordering his men to commit war crimes that he had previously had men hung for? Moral agents do not commit immoral acts in defense of morality. Perhaps you should check the morality of the people you now claim were the moral ones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes. they were morally wrong. there is no justification for owning another person... not ever.
> 
> was sherman right?
> 
> yes.... and he didn't commit war crimes. I really don't think it appropriate to measure warfare then against warfare now... and even then, I'm not certain that given the same limitations as to firepower, that the same type of warmaking wouldn't be appropriate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He ordered his men to commit acts that he had hung them for just the year before. As a graduate of West Point he knew about the laws and customs of war, and had probably heard about Peter von Hagenbach, who was convicted of war crimes in 1474. Why are you assuming that war crimes is a modern convention? The Hague Convention was based on treaties and conventions that date back to the 7th century.
> 
> I am not holding him to modern standards, i am trying to hold him to his.
Click to expand...


Windbag, stop the huffing and puffing.  Give some evidence of Sherman's war crimes.


----------



## paperview

Champ Ferguson
might tell you a thing or two about murdering civilians.
"...At the start of the war, Ferguson organized a unit and started  attacking civilians believed to support the Union. Occasionally, his  guerrilla band cooperated with Confederate military units led by Brig.  Gen. John Hunt Morgan and Maj. Gen. Joseph Wheeler. Some evidence indicates Ferguson was  actually made a captain of partisan rangers by Morgan. However,  Ferguson's men were seldom subject to military discipline and frequently  violated the normal rules of warfare.
 There are legends of Ferguson's alleged sadism, including stories  that he decapitated prisoners and rolled their heads down hillsides and  was willing to kill elderly and bedridden men."​How about Jefferson Davis' Partisan Ranger Act 

How about the other guerrilla forces the Confederates used?

When you acknowledge those, you have to then acknowledge the Confederate Government and the civilian South shared some of the  blame for the Union's hard war policy.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Dirk the Daring said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> You Southern folks really need to get over this Civil War fixation of yours.
> 
> You fought, you lost.  Move on it's 2010.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Idiot.
> 
> 'You black people really need to get over this slavery fixtation of yours.'
> 
> 'You jewish people really need to get over this holocaust fixation of yours.'
> 
> 'You female people really need to get over this non-voting fixation of yours.'
> 
> 'You anti-Bush people really need to get over this 'stolen-election' fixation of yours.'
> 
> 'You fought, you lost.  Move on its 2010.'
Click to expand...


The Southern way of live was an evil in American life, while blacks, jews, women, etc., fought the good fight.  The South fought the bad fight, and it was right, proper, and justified that it was destroyed.  Get over it, for true pride in Southern heritage does not include defending its role in the Civil War.


----------



## JakeStarkey

JBeukema said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> JBs practiced it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> O RLY?
> 
> You've evidence of shit assertion?
> 
> 
> 
> How does that excuse our ancestors from doing it, and how does that excuse us from realizing that whites in this country after 1900 had very specific entitlements that peoples of color did not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Entitlements?
> 
> 
> 
> Those of us who came out of lower working white class environments benefited because we were white
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> O rly? Your 'White Privilege' was being poor and having to work just like the Negroes have the opportunity to do?
> 
> 
> 
> , thus our descendants benefited from our advantages
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you retarded?
> 
> Anyone here Irish whose ancestors built the railroads next to the Chinese?
Click to expand...


Your argument is pathetic.  The descendents of whites, including the Irish, had advantages because they were white that the peoples of colors did not.

If you deny that, you are either incredibly ignorant or mentally feeble or malignantly motivated.

Are you white supremacist, JB?


----------



## JakeStarkey

paperview said:


> Were those Southern civilians ACTIVELY aiding and abetting the Confederate cause?



I am beginning to realize that some here whose argumentation I admire in other threads are merely racist and support white supremacy here, although they are not brave enough to own up to it.


----------



## paperview

The Confederates were not fighting for government 
of the people, 
by the people, 
for  the people -- The only _people_ they fought for were white  Southerners.


----------



## JBeukema

JakeStarkey said:


> The descendents of whites, including the Irish, had advantages because they were white that the peoples of colors did not.



Like?


What are the negroes denied today? They're even given preferential treatment and have since 'Affirmative Action' began.


The Negroe's continued failure is the fault of only the Negroe.



> Are you white supremacist, JB?



Sure, why not, it's always amusing to watch you make a bigger fool of yourself than usual.


----------



## paperview

JakeStarkey said:


> ...
> Are you white supremacist, JB?


I'm not positive about that, though I am leaning towards the evidence he is.

We know he is a racist.


----------



## JBeukema

paperview said:


> The Confederates were not fighting for government
> of the people,
> by the people,
> for  the people -- The only _people_ they fought for were white  Southerners.




And the Union had slaves, too. And Lincoln made it clear he had no intention of freeing them.


Nobody in that war was fighting a just war.


----------



## JBeukema

paperview said:


> We know he is a racist.


Because I refuse to blame the Evil White Man for all the world's ills?


----------



## paperview

JBeukema said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> We know he is a racist.
> 
> 
> 
> Because I refuse to blame the Evil White Man for all the world's ills?
Click to expand...

No, because of your words here. 
That, and your use of a vile racist slur to describe black people.


----------



## JBeukema

paperview said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> We know he is a racist.
> 
> 
> 
> Because I refuse to blame the Evil White Man for all the world's ills?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, because of your words here.
> That, and your use of a vile racist slur to describe black people.
Click to expand...


Did you not receive your latest census form?

Wait, I get it now- Obama's a white supremacist!


----------



## paperview

JBeukema said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because I refuse to blame the Evil White Man for all the world's ills?
> 
> 
> 
> No, because of your words here.
> That, and your use of a vile racist slur to describe black people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you not receive your latest census form?
> 
> Wait, I get it now- Obama's a white supremacist!
Click to expand...

You used much worse than the term "Negro" - that word means black.  It is not racist.

You know the slur you've used here - and it is despicable.


----------



## JakeStarkey

JB is a specious arguer, he is clearly racist, and I believe he is a white supremacist.

I can honor KevinKennedy for his argument, as wrong as it is, because it is grounded in the Constitution.

JB, on the other hand, is grounded in the dynamics of race, which is vile.


----------



## paperview

JakeStarkey said:


> JB is a specious arguer, he is clearly racist, and I believe he is a white supremacist.
> 
> I can honor KevinKennedy for his argument, as wrong as it is, because it is grounded in the Constitution.
> 
> JB, on the other hand, is grounded in the dynamics of race, which is vile.


I agree with everything you wrote here.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I have run out of rep, paper view, but I will catch you up with it when I can.  JB is fun to read in other threads, but his racisim, like Proletarian's, when it pops out makes me feel ill.  I wonder why he hates.


----------



## paperview

JakeStarkey said:


> I have run out of rep, paper view, but I will catch you up with it when I can.  JB is fun to read in other threads, but his racisim, like Proletarian's, when it pops out makes me feel ill.  I wonder why he hates.


Thanks JS.  

Like most racists, it is to award themselves a sense of superiority and compensate for their own insecurities and lack of self-esteem.

Simple, really.


----------



## paperview

Dirk the Daring said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> You Southern folks really need to get over this Civil War fixation of yours.
> 
> You fought, you lost.  Move on it's 2010.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Idiot.
> 
> 'You black people really need to get over this slavery fixtation of yours.'
> 
> 'You jewish people really need to get over this holocaust fixation of yours.'
> 
> 'You female people really need to get over this non-voting fixation of yours.'
> 
> ....
> 
> 'You fought, you lost.  Move on its 2010.'
Click to expand...


What you appear to be saying is blacks, Jews and women are justified in holding a long grudge for their oppression.

I don't think you really meant to do that, did you?


----------



## syrenn

paperview said:


> The Confederates were not fighting for government
> of the people,
> by the people,
> for  the people -- The only _people_ they fought for were white  Southerners.



of the people, 
by the people, 
for  the people 

Is part a speech Lincoln gave near towards the end of the civil war. He did not mean it about fighting the war but what the country as a whole. Lincoln vision of how the country should be.  

There are fine distinctions that are being missed. The south was not fighting to keep slaves, even if that was the end result. The south was fighting for its right to govern its own individual state as it saw fit. A right given to each state in the not yet 100 year old constitution. 

The government (the north) stood fast to the idea that all of the states were a union, a single whole, of which none could secede.


----------



## syrenn

JakeStarkey said:


> The Southern way of live was an evil in American life, while blacks, jews, women, etc., fought the good fight.  The South fought the bad fight, and it was right, proper, and justified that it was destroyed.  Get over it, for true pride in Southern heritage does not include defending its role in the Civil War.



 And there is where I think  part the problem is. _Everyone_ needs to get over it, including the blacks. 

This is the year 2010 and _everyone_ needs to take responsibility for their own lives now, today, and not use history as a crutch.


----------



## syrenn

paperview said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> We know he is a racist.
> 
> 
> 
> Because I refuse to blame the Evil White Man for all the world's ills?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, because of your words here.
> That, and your use of a vile racist slur to describe black people.
Click to expand...


I don't actually think what he said here is a racist comment. 

And they are not black people now, "black" is considered offensive now according to the latest PC, rules, they are african americans. 

Now before you get all up in arms that im jumping you paperview im just stating a fact about the black part


----------



## paperview

syrenn said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because I refuse to blame the Evil White Man for all the world's ills?
> 
> 
> 
> No, because of your words here.
> That, and your use of a vile racist slur to describe black people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't actually think what he said here is a racist comment.
> 
> And they are not black people now, "black" is considered offensive now according to the latest PC, rules, they are african americans.
> 
> Now before you get all up in arms that im jumping you paperview im just stating a fact about the black part
Click to expand...

Bucky here refers to blacks, African Americans...whatever you want to call them - and has in this thread as - the n word.


Yes.  It's a vile, racist slur. 

You may not see it that way.  I do.


----------



## paperview

syrenn said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederates were not fighting for government
> of the people,
> by the people,
> for  the people -- The only _people_ they fought for were white  Southerners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> of the people,
> by the people,
> for  the people
> 
> Is part a speech Lincoln gave near towards the end of the civil war. He did not mean it about fighting the war but what the country as a whole. Lincoln vision of how the country should be.
> 
> There are fine distinctions that are being missed. The south was not fighting to keep slaves, even if that was the end result. The south was fighting for its right to govern its own individual state as it saw fit. A right given to each state in the not yet 100 year old constitution.
Click to expand...

Yes *yawn* -- for the 100th time, I know...they were fighting about States Rights.

The right to own human beings. 




> The government (the north) stood fast to the idea that all of the states  were a union, a single whole, of which none could secede.


Yes, and the North delivered the answer to the secession question with a mind numbing _Fuck no!_


----------



## JakeStarkey

I agree that we all need to move past the Civil War, including black Americans, but I don't want us to forget it, or the fact that some are trying to revise it, such as QW and JB and KK, into something it certainly was not.

The use of the n-word is vile in any context, unless that context is the direct quoted material of the contemporaries of that age.

None of us have the right to use such words casually whatsoever, certainly not on this board.


----------



## syrenn

paperview said:


> Bucky here refers to blacks, African Americans...whatever you want to call them - and has in this thread as - the n word.
> Yes.  It's a vile, racist slur.
> You may not see it that way.  I do.



Here is the thing. ******* call each other ******. So long as they call each other ****** it should not be considered offensive to anyone.

And please note that I have not called anyone that, or refereed to anyone here as that.


----------



## jillian

syrenn said:


> And there is where I think  part the problem is. _Everyone_ needs to get over it, including the blacks.
> 
> This is the year 2010 and _everyone_ needs to take responsibility for their own lives now, today, and not use history as a crutch.



You might be right. On the other hand, the O/P analogized Lincoln with Hitler and other people have called the actions of the Union forces during the civil war - war criimes. Seems to me that there's only one group of people who need to get over it.

And they're the ones who still won't acknowledge that the civil war was about states' rights only to the extent that the 'states' in question wanted slavery to remain legal and didn't like those mean old northerners (substititute northern elites or whatever else you want to call it) making them stop owning people.


----------



## syrenn

JakeStarkey said:


> I agree that we all need to move past the Civil War, including black Americans, but I don't want us to forget it, or the fact that some are trying to revise it, such as QW and JB and KK, into something it certainly was not.



What do you think? Have i got my facts straight and remember correctly?


----------



## JakeStarkey

syrenn said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that we all need to move past the Civil War, including black Americans, but I don't want us to forget it, or the fact that some are trying to revise it, such as QW and JB and KK, into something it certainly was not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think? Have i got my facts straight and remember correctly?
Click to expand...


I think so.


----------



## syrenn

jillian said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there is where I think  part the problem is. _Everyone_ needs to get over it, including the blacks.
> 
> This is the year 2010 and _everyone_ needs to take responsibility for their own lives now, today, and not use history as a crutch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might be right. On the other hand, the O/P analogized Lincoln with Hitler and other people have called the actions of the Union forces during the civil war - war criimes. Seems to me that there's only one group of people who need to get over it.
> 
> And they're the ones who still won't acknowledge that the civil war was about states' rights only to the extent that the 'states' in question wanted slavery to remain legal and didn't like those mean old northerners (substititute northern elites or whatever else you want to call it) making them stop owning people.
Click to expand...


The analogy is, sad to say correct. The civil war was responsible for killing more Americans citizens then any of the other wars *combined.* I would call that genocide wouldn't you?

Again, States rights were a right given under the Constitution. The south flexed that right. The Constitution does not stipulate what those rights individual states must or must not do, what they can and can not do.


----------



## paperview

syrenn said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bucky here refers to blacks, African Americans...whatever you want to call them - and has in this thread as - the n word.
> Yes.  It's a vile, racist slur.
> You may not see it that way.  I do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the thing. ******* call each other ******. So long as they call each other ****** it should not be considered offensive to anyone.
> 
> And please note that I have not called anyone that, or refereed to anyone here as that.
Click to expand...

Are you really serious?

So long as some black people call themselves that, it's OK for you or any one else to refer to them that way?

Wow.


----------



## JakeStarkey

paperview said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bucky here refers to blacks, African Americans...whatever you want to call them - and has in this thread as - the n word.
> Yes.  It's a vile, racist slur.
> You may not see it that way.  I do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the thing. ******* call each other ******. So long as they call each other ****** it should not be considered offensive to anyone.
> 
> And please note that I have not called anyone that, or refereed to anyone here as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you really serious?
> 
> So long as some black people call themselves that, it's OK for you or any one else to refer to them that way?
> 
> Wow.
Click to expand...


Syrenn, civilized people don't use the word.  It doesn't matter what other people do.  For example: "Well, Johnny raped her, too!"  Excuse the crudity, but your argument does not sit well with me.


----------



## paperview

JakeStarkey said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the thing. ******* call each other ******. So long as they call each other ****** it should not be considered offensive to anyone.
> 
> And please note that I have not called anyone that, or refereed to anyone here as that.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really serious?
> 
> So long as some black people call themselves that, it's OK for you or any one else to refer to them that way?
> 
> Wow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Syrenn, civilized people don't use the word.  It doesn't matter what other people do.  For example: "Well, Johnny raped her, too!"  Excuse the crudity, but your argument does not sit well with me.
Click to expand...

I dare her to walk up to a group of black folks and call them that.

You & I know she wouldn't.  And she knows why she wouldn't.

How she can possibly justify it and think it is not  offensive is beyond my comprehension.


----------



## jillian

syrenn said:


> The analogy is, sad to say correct. The civil war was responsible for killing more Americans citizens then any of the other wars *combined.* I would call that genocide wouldn't you?
> 
> Again, States rights were a right given under the Constitution. The south flexed that right. The Constitution does not stipulate what those rights individual states must or must not do, what they can and can not do.



The analogy isn't correct. And the reason that the civil war killed more american citizens is because BOTH SIDES WERE AMERICAN.

Genocide is specifically wiping out a race or group of people. That wasn't it. We don't know each other yet, but I can tell you that I have real issues with people misusing terms like that simply to achieve a visceral response. Genocide has specific meanings. 

As I said, the specific states' right in question was the ownership of human beings. If States were supposed to have the type of rights that you imply, we'd still be living under the Articles of Confederation.


----------



## syrenn

paperview said:


> Are you really serious?
> So long as some black people call themselves that, it's OK for you or any one else to refer to them that way?
> Wow.



I am really serious, yes. If I choose to, yes. So long as the black population does not condemn their own from calling each other that, and until that day comes when they stop calling each other that, the word should not be considered offensive.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The word is patently offensive.  Period.


----------



## JBeukema

paperview said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, because of your words here.
> That, and your use of a vile racist slur to describe black people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you not receive your latest census form?
> 
> Wait, I get it now- Obama's a white supremacist!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You used much worse than the term "Negro" - that word means black.  It is not racist.
> 
> You know the slur you've used here - and it is despicable.
Click to expand...

Do cite where I called anyone by a 'slur'.

I suspect you're going to try to link to somewhere I explained the thinking of another party, and I look forward to you demonstrating your lack of reading comprehension yet again.


----------



## paperview

syrenn said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really serious?
> So long as some black people call themselves that, it's OK for you or any one else to refer to them that way?
> Wow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am really serious, yes. If I choose to, yes. So long as the black population does not condemn their own from calling each other that, and until that day comes when they stop calling each other that, the word should not be considered offensive.
Click to expand...

I can only conclude you are one of two things:  Very young or very stupid.

I don't think you're either.

That leaves one other option.


----------



## JBeukema

JakeStarkey said:


> JB, on the other hand, is grounded in the dynamics of race,







-says the guy who blames all the evil White people for all the world's problems and tells people there skin colour is a crime of which they are guilty


----------



## JBeukema

paperview said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, because of your words here.
> That, and your use of a vile racist slur to describe black people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't actually think what he said here is a racist comment.
> 
> And they are not black people now, "black" is considered offensive now according to the latest PC, rules, they are african americans.
> 
> Now before you get all up in arms that im jumping you paperview im just stating a fact about the black part
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bucky here refers to blacks, African Americans...whatever you want to call them - and has in this thread as - the n word.
> 
> 
> Yes.  It's a vile, racist slur.
> 
> You may not see it that way.  I do.
Click to expand...


Link?

Do display your lack of reading comprehension again for us


----------



## syrenn

jillian said:


> The analogy isn't correct. And the reason that the civil war killed more american citizens is because BOTH SIDES WERE AMERICAN.



I KNOW!



jillian said:


> Genocide is specifically wiping out a race or group of people. That wasn't it. We don't know each other yet, but I can tell you that I have real issues with people misusing terms like that simply to achieve a visceral response. Genocide has specific meanings.



ok I will try again. Analogy. Genocide.  "group of people"= the American people. 



jillian said:


> As I said, the specific states' right in question was the ownership of human beings. If States were supposed to have the type of rights that you imply, we'd still be living under the Articles of Confederation.



It makes no different upon which state right was in question. The south technically did have the right. The war was fought to keep the union together.

The articles of confederation was the constitution on which the southern states wished to abide. As far as I know the south lost.


----------



## JBeukema

JakeStarkey said:


> the fact that some are trying to revise it, such as QW and JB and KK, into something it certainly was not.



The only ones trying to revise it are morons like you who claim that Lincoln waged some great moral war against slavery.


----------



## JBeukema

jillian said:


> And they're the ones who still won't acknowledge that the civil war was about states' rights only to the extent that the 'states' in question wanted slavery to remain legal and didn't like those mean old northerners (substititute northern elites or whatever else you want to call it) making them stop owning people.




If the Union were fighting to end slavery, the Union would have no slaves


If Lincoln was fighting to free the slaves, he'd have freed the slaves in the Union


The Union had slaves and Lincoln freed them not.


The North fought no war over slavery.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The South did not have the technical right to secede, and was accordingly punished for it, with the entire American people.  Yes, whites have benefited because of their ancestors here right through the 1950s.  Any who argues this is clearly involved in the dynamics of race and avoidance of guilt.  No, the CW was not "genocide" in any meaningful sense of the word.

I happen to find both of you, JB and Syrenn, interesting to dialogue with, but for me no middle ground exists on these issues.  I will always be opposite you on these.


----------



## JakeStarkey

JBeukema said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> And they're the ones who still won't acknowledge that the civil war was about states' rights only to the extent that the 'states' in question wanted slavery to remain legal and didn't like those mean old northerners (substititute northern elites or whatever else you want to call it) making them stop owning people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the Union were fighting to end slavery, the Union would have no slaves
> 
> 
> If Lincoln was fighting to free the slaves, he'd have freed the slaves in the Union
> 
> 
> The Union had slaves and Lincoln freed them not.
> 
> 
> The North fought no war over slavery.
Click to expand...


False premise, false conclusion.


----------



## JBeukema

paperview said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bucky here refers to blacks, African Americans...whatever you want to call them - and has in this thread as - the n word.
> Yes.  It's a vile, racist slur.
> You may not see it that way.  I do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the thing. ******* call each other ******. So long as they call each other ****** it should not be considered offensive to anyone.
> 
> And please note that I have not called anyone that, or refereed to anyone here as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you really serious?
> 
> So long as some black people call themselves that, it's OK for you or any one else to refer to them that way?
> 
> Wow.
Click to expand...



OIC, White people aren't allowed to call someone what they call themselves.

Racist piece of shit.


----------



## JBeukema

JakeStarkey said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the thing. ******* call each other ******. So long as they call each other ****** it should not be considered offensive to anyone.
> 
> And please note that I have not called anyone that, or refereed to anyone here as that.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really serious?
> 
> So long as some black people call themselves that, it's OK for you or any one else to refer to them that way?
> 
> Wow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Syrenn, civilized people don't use the word.  It doesn't matter what other people do.  For example: "Well, Johnny raped her, too!"  Excuse the crudity, but your argument does not sit well with me.
Click to expand...



Right, because calling you what you call yourself is the same as raping you


----------



## paperview

JBeukema said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't actually think what he said here is a racist comment.
> 
> And they are not black people now, "black" is considered offensive now according to the latest PC, rules, they are african americans.
> 
> Now before you get all up in arms that im jumping you paperview im just stating a fact about the black part
> 
> 
> 
> Bucky here refers to blacks, African Americans...whatever you want to call them - and has in this thread as - the n word.
> 
> 
> Yes.  It's a vile, racist slur.
> 
> You may not see it that way.  I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Do display your lack of reading comprehension again for us
Click to expand...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2309235-post241.html

Paperview:  True.  Read any papers of  the day at the time.  The secession bubble had been building for a years  and years before.  Hell, in 1850 SC threatened to seceded and in 1852, a  convention was held and secession was laid out.

It was positively inevitable.  Lincoln, of the new anti-slavery party  being elected, was the final straw.  


  JBeukema: 


If the North gave a damned about the *******, why did the North not free  their own slaves during the conflict?

Care to back track some more?


----------



## JakeStarkey

JBeukema said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> the fact that some are trying to revise it, such as QW and JB and KK, into something it certainly was not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only ones trying to revise it are morons like you who claim that Lincoln waged some great moral war against slavery.
Click to expand...


You are the only one using moronic assertions, JB.  Lincoln waged a war to preserve the union and co-opted emancipation as a moral tool to further his war aim.  It also happened to be the right, moral act.  If you have trouble with that: no one cares.


----------



## syrenn

JakeStarkey said:


> Syrenn, civilized people don't use the word.  It doesn't matter what other people do.  For example: "Well, Johnny raped her, too!"  Excuse the crudity, but your argument does not sit well with me.



Agreed. Do I use that term in reference to black people when I speak(post)?  I consider myself a civilized person.

My point is that I hear black people call each other ****** all the time. If they do not consider it offensive why should anyone else? Do I condone the word or calling black people that; no I do not. 

P.S JS no offense taken with the "crudity"


----------



## JBeukema

paperview said:


> I dare her to walk up to a group of black folks and call them that.
> 
> You & I know she wouldn't.  And she knows why she wouldn't.



Are you implying that blacks are a violent and ignorant race?


----------



## JakeStarkey

syrenn said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Syrenn, civilized people don't use the word.  It doesn't matter what other people do.  For example: "Well, Johnny raped her, too!"  Excuse the crudity, but your argument does not sit well with me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. Do I use that term in reference to black people when I speak(post)?  I consider myself a civilized person.
> 
> My point is that I hear black people call each other ****** all the time. If they do not consider it offensive why should anyone else? Do I condone the word or calling black people that; no I do not.
Click to expand...


They are idiots then, I agree.


----------



## paperview

The racists always out themselves.  

Always.

Eventually.


----------



## JakeStarkey

JBeukema said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dare her to walk up to a group of black folks and call them that.
> 
> You & I know she wouldn't.  And she knows why she wouldn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you implying that blacks are a violent and ignorant race?
Click to expand...


Syrenn is inferring nothing of the sort.  I am afraid you are, though, and that is incredibly disappointing.


----------



## JBeukema

JakeStarkey said:


> The South did not have the technical right to secede




Show me where the Constitution says people no longer have a right to self-determination

_The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor  prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,  or to the people._​


> and was accordingly punished for it, with the entire American people.  Yes, whites have benefited because of their ancestors here right through the 1950s



So it ended 60 years ago and you're too racist to acknowledge it except when you do so by accident?


> .  Any who argues this is clearly involved in the dynamics of race and avoidance of guilt.




OIC, when people don't agree with you, you, the racist who paints all Whites as the devil, call the other side racist because you have no intelligent argument.

Typical.

 No, the CW was not "genocide" in any meaningful sense of the word.



> I will always be opposite you on these.




You are opposed to truth and reality- simple irrefutable facts.


BTW, America has never experienced a civil war.


----------



## JBeukema

JakeStarkey said:


> False premise



Oh? So someone who's fighting to end slavery* would* have slaves themselves? That's how you'd know they were against slavery?


----------



## JBeukema

paperview said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bucky here refers to blacks, African Americans...whatever you want to call them - and has in this thread as - the n word.
> 
> 
> Yes.  It's a vile, racist slur.
> 
> You may not see it that way.  I do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Do display your lack of reading comprehension again for us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/2309235-post241.html
> 
> Paperview:  True.  Read any papers of  the day at the time.  The secession bubble had been building for a years  and years before.  Hell, in 1850 SC threatened to seceded and in 1852, a  convention was held and secession was laid out.
> 
> It was positively inevitable.  Lincoln, of the new anti-slavery party  being elected, was the final straw.
> 
> 
> JBeukema:
> 
> 
> If the North gave a damned about the *******, why did the North not free  their own slaves during the conflict?
> 
> Care to back track some more?
Click to expand...




I knew you'd do that.


Thanks for displaying your lack of reading comprehension for us again 

The fact is the Northeners didn't care about the ******* any more than America cared about the kikes or people like Jake care about the White Devil.

If you can't accept the truth about the mindset your beloved heroes, that's your problem.


----------



## JakeStarkey

This is my day for morons.  JB can't stand that his whining and pining are aptly shoved in his face, so he neg reps me.  JB, stop whining, son!  You are wrong.  There is nothing you can do about it.  No one is buying your racist tripe.


----------



## JBeukema

JakeStarkey said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> the fact that some are trying to revise it, such as QW and JB and KK, into something it certainly was not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only ones trying to revise it are morons like you who claim that Lincoln waged some great moral war against slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the only one using moronic assertions, JB.  Lincoln waged a war to preserve the union and co-opted emancipation as a moral tool to further his war aim.  It also happened to be the right, moral act.  If you have trouble with that: no one cares.
Click to expand...

Did he now?

So he freed all of the slaves in the Union?


----------



## JBeukema

paperview said:


> The racists always out themselves.
> 
> Always.
> 
> Eventually.


Yes, Jake has.


----------



## JakeStarkey

JBeukema said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Do display your lack of reading comprehension again for us
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/2309235-post241.html
> 
> Paperview:  True.  Read any papers of  the day at the time.  The secession bubble had been building for a years  and years before.  Hell, in 1850 SC threatened to seceded and in 1852, a  convention was held and secession was laid out.
> 
> It was positively inevitable.  Lincoln, of the new anti-slavery party  being elected, was the final straw.
> 
> 
> JBeukema:
> 
> 
> If the North gave a damned about the *******, why did the North not free  their own slaves during the conflict?
> 
> Care to back track some more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I knew you'd do that.
> 
> 
> Thanks for displaying your lack of reading comprehension for us again
> 
> The fact is the Northeners didn't care about the ******* any more than America cared about the kikes or people like Jake care about the White Devil.
> 
> If you can't accept the truth about the mindset your beloved heroes, that's your problem.
Click to expand...


JB has proven his moral illness and inability to rationally discuss.  That's a shame, for he has some talent, but so did Goebbels and Streicher.


----------



## JBeukema

JakeStarkey said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dare her to walk up to a group of black folks and call them that.
> 
> You & I know she wouldn't.  And she knows why she wouldn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you implying that blacks are a violent and ignorant race?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Syrenn is inferring nothing of the sort.  I am afraid you are, though, and that is incredibly disappointing.
Click to expand...



Interesting.

Paperview says something and you defend her by saying that Syrenn didn't say it.

You people truly are dimwitted, aren't you?


----------



## JakeStarkey

JBeukema said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only ones trying to revise it are morons like you who claim that Lincoln waged some great moral war against slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the only one using moronic assertions, JB.  Lincoln waged a war to preserve the union and co-opted emancipation as a moral tool to further his war aim.  It also happened to be the right, moral act.  If you have trouble with that: no one cares.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did he now?
> 
> So he freed all of the slaves in the Union?
Click to expand...


Your theories about the CW are flatly wrong in historical fact and accuracy.  Get over it, JB.  All racists eventually are hoisted on their own petard, as you have done several times today.


----------



## syrenn

paperview said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really serious?
> So long as some black people call themselves that, it's OK for you or any one else to refer to them that way?
> Wow.
> 
> 
> 
> Syrenn, civilized people don't use the word.  It doesn't matter what other people do.  For example: "Well, Johnny raped her, too!"  Excuse the crudity, but your argument does not sit well with me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dare her to walk up to a group of black folks and call them that.
> You & I know she wouldn't.  And she knows why she wouldn't.
> How she can possibly justify it and think it is not  offensive is beyond my comprehension.
Click to expand...


And there in lays my point. I wouldn't. I wouldn't dream if it, its rather rude.

But they on the other had do call each other just that.


----------



## paperview

JakeStarkey said:


> This is my day for morons.  JB can't stand that his whining and pining are aptly shoved in his face, so he neg reps me.  JB, stop whining, son!  You are wrong.  There is nothing you can do about it.  No one is buying your racist tripe.


He neg repped me too. 

It's how he handles it when his own words are shoved into his racist face.


----------



## JBeukema

JakeStarkey said:


> T.  No one is buying your racist tripe.




Racist tripe like saying people are guilty of an offense because of the colour of their skin?


----------



## syrenn

paperview said:


> The racists always out themselves.
> Always.
> Eventually.



If you are aiming that at me dear, your should just say it.


----------



## JBeukema

JakeStarkey said:


> Goebbels and Streicher.






First you claim an entire race is guilty and should be ashamed of their skin colour ('racial guilt', in you own words), then you pull a Beck?



And you expect to be taken seriously?


----------



## JBeukema

JakeStarkey said:


> Your theories about the CW are flatly wrong in historical fact and accuracy.



So there were no slave states in the Union? 



> All racists eventually are hoisted on their own petard,



'racial guilt'...


----------



## JBeukema

JBeukema said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> The racists always out themselves.
> 
> Always.
> 
> Eventually.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Jake has.
Click to expand...




			
				paperview said:
			
		

> Hi, you have received -29 reputation points from  paperview.
> Reputation was given for *this* post.
> 
> Comment:
> Fuck you mr. failure.
> 
> Regards,
> paperview
> 
> Note: This is an automated message.






You people can't stand being called out, can you?

'Racial guilt'


----------



## JakeStarkey

JBeukema said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Goebbels and Streicher.
> 
> 
> 
> First you claim an entire race is guilty and should be ashamed of their skin colour ('racial guilt', in you own words), then you pull a Beck?      And you expect to be taken seriously?
Click to expand...


Of course I am taken seriously; you are not.


----------



## JakeStarkey

JBeukema said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> The racists always out themselves.
> 
> Always.
> 
> Eventually.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Jake has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi, you have received -29 reputation points from  paperview.
> Reputation was given for *this* post.
> 
> Comment:
> Fuck you mr. failure.
> 
> Regards,
> paperview
> 
> Note: This is an automated message.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You people can't stand being called out, can you?
> 
> 'Racial guilt'
Click to expand...


Yes, you have benefited because of your race in America.  To believe anything else makes reason stare.  Your racism is an awful thing, JB, and it will continue to poison your soul.


----------



## JBeukema

JakeStarkey said:


> Of course I am taken seriously




By Jesse Jackson, maybe


----------



## JakeStarkey

JBeukema said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I am taken seriously
> 
> 
> 
> By Jesse Jackson, maybe
Click to expand...

   Now that had some dark humor, I agree.  You are still a racist troll.


----------



## paperview

JBeukema said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> The racists always out themselves.
> 
> Always.
> 
> Eventually.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Jake has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi, you have received -29 reputation points from  paperview.
> Reputation was given for *this* post.
> 
> Comment:
> Fuck you mr. failure.
> 
> Regards,
> paperview
> 
> Note: This is an automated message.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You people can't stand being called out, can you?
> 
> 'Racial guilt'
Click to expand...

I give back what I get/

Don;t like being neg repped, don;t neg rep.

Especially after it was YOU that denied you didn't use the racial slur.

Then when I proved you did - Bam.

Consider yourself honored.


----------



## JakeStarkey

paperview said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Jake has.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi, you have received -29 reputation points from  paperview.
> Reputation was given for *this* post.
> 
> Comment:
> Fuck you mr. failure.
> 
> Regards,
> paperview
> 
> Note: This is an automated message.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You people can't stand being called out, can you?
> 
> 'Racial guilt'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I give back what I get/
> 
> Don;t like being neg repped, don;t neg rep.
> 
> Especially after it was YOU that denied you didn't use the racial slur.
> 
> Then when I proved you did - Bam.
> 
> Consider yourself honored.
Click to expand...


Well played, paper view!


----------



## JBeukema

JakeStarkey said:


> Yes, you have benefited because of your race in America.



Really? You mean like when I was denied admission to a nearby school because they had too many White people and needed more blacks, even though the 'mix' was proportionate to the general population?

Or when I've been discriminated against for my brown skin town and Hispanic/Mexican features? Or when Border Patrol pulled us over on our way home one day and ran up on us with their hands on their pistols because we were two hispanics driving northbound in Southern Arizona?



> To believe anything else makes reason stare.  Your racism is an awful thing, JB, and it will continue to poison your soul.






Tell us again how all the White people should be ashamed of their skin tone because they're guilty of some offense committed by another man's great grandfather.


----------



## JBeukema

paperview said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Jake has.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi, you have received -29 reputation points from  paperview.
> Reputation was given for *this* post.
> 
> Comment:
> Fuck you mr. failure.
> 
> Regards,
> paperview
> 
> Note: This is an automated message.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You people can't stand being called out, can you?
> 
> 'Racial guilt'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I give back what I get/
> 
> Don;t like being neg repped, don;t neg rep.
> 
> Especially after it was YOU that denied you didn't use the racial slur.
> 
> Then when I proved you did - Bam.
> 
> Consider yourself honored.
Click to expand...





you people are pathetic


----------



## JBeukema

JakeStarkey said:


> You are still a racist troll.



Tell us some more about 'racial guilt' and why the White people should be ashamed of their skin colour because the colour of their skin makes them guilty of some offense another man's ancestors committed one-hundred years before they were born.


----------



## paperview

JBeukema said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you have benefited because of your race in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? You mean like when I was denied admission to a nearby school because they had too many White people and needed more blacks, even though the 'mix' was proportionate to the general population?
> 
> Or when I've been discriminated against for my brown skin town and Hispanic/Mexican features? Or when Border Patrol pulled us over on our way home one day and ran up on us with their hands on their pistols because we were two hispanics driving northbound in Southern Arizona?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To believe anything else makes reason stare.  Your racism is an awful thing, JB, and it will continue to poison your soul.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us again how all the White people should be ashamed of their skin tone because they're guilty of some offense committed by another man's great grandfather.
Click to expand...

Now we're getting to the crux of the matter...


----------



## paperview

I'm on my way to look at an archive of original Civil War letters.

Toodles everyone!


----------



## JBeukema

paperview said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you have benefited because of your race in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? You mean like when I was denied admission to a nearby school because they had too many White people and needed more blacks, even though the 'mix' was proportionate to the general population?
> 
> Or when I've been discriminated against for my brown skin town and Hispanic/Mexican features? Or when Border Patrol pulled us over on our way home one day and ran up on us with their hands on their pistols because we were two hispanics driving northbound in Southern Arizona?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To believe anything else makes reason stare.  Your racism is an awful thing, JB, and it will continue to poison your soul.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us again how all the White people should be ashamed of their skin tone because they're guilty of some offense committed by another man's great grandfather.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now we're getting to the crux of the matter...
Click to expand...



The crux being that you're a fucking moron and that you and your buddy Jake make total fools of yourself with your Anti-White rhetoric?


----------



## JBeukema

paperview said:


> I'm on my way to look at an archive of original Civil War letters.
> 
> Toodles everyone!


That's right, run away before you're exposed any further


----------



## JakeStarkey

JBeukema said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you have benefited because of your race in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? You mean like when I was denied admission to a nearby school because they had too many White people and needed more blacks, even though the 'mix' was proportionate to the general population?
> 
> Or when I've been discriminated against for my brown skin town and Hispanic/Mexican features? Or when Border Patrol pulled us over on our way home one day and ran up on us with their hands on their pistols because we were two hispanics driving northbound in Southern Arizona?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To believe anything else makes reason stare.  Your racism is an awful thing, JB, and it will continue to poison your soul.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us again how all the White people should be ashamed of their skin tone because they're guilty of some offense committed by another man's great grandfather.
Click to expand...


I see you are sick with being 'brown'.  Having grown up in a mexican-american town, I knew a few saps like that.  Get over it, is the best advice, and move on, chuco.  Life moves on.


----------



## JakeStarkey

JBeukema said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? You mean like when I was denied admission to a nearby school because they had too many White people and needed more blacks, even though the 'mix' was proportionate to the general population?
> 
> Or when I've been discriminated against for my brown skin town and Hispanic/Mexican features? Or when Border Patrol pulled us over on our way home one day and ran up on us with their hands on their pistols because we were two hispanics driving northbound in Southern Arizona?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us again how all the White people should be ashamed of their skin tone because they're guilty of some offense committed by another man's great grandfather.
> 
> 
> 
> Now we're getting to the crux of the matter...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The crux being that you're a fucking moron and that you and your buddy Jake make total fools of yourself with your Anti-White rhetoric?
Click to expand...


racial and color illness about oneself, like you, is a serious matter.  do get help.


----------



## JBeukema

> I see you are sick with being 'brown'





You fail again, Dr Phil.


Now tell me again how all the White people are guilty of the crimes of a man who lived 100 years ago and should be ashamed of their skin tone- then call _me_ a racist again




> move on, chuco.





Do you even know what a Chuco is?

For the record, while I like the suits and have worn similar (think: corporate gothic), my Nana didn't come here to be a Mexican, she came here to be an American. Motherfuckers need to speak English.


----------



## JakeStarkey

OK, then speak English and be respectful to others.  What is your problem, son?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JakeStarkey said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually you justify slavery and condemn what you call "murder".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I don't justify slavery by saying "tough luck."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Deflection.  But, yes, you seem to justify slavery and condemn war as "murder".  You really need to do better than that.
Click to expand...


Deflecting is changing the subject to avoid a discussion, which is obviously not what I did with that post.  Over the many threads we've discussed the Civil War I've always referred to slavery as an evil institution, and never once attempted to justify it.  When have you ever condemned the actions of Sherman or Sheridan?  Not one time.  It's always "The south got what they deserved," or in this thread "Tough luck."  Deliberately targeting innocent civilians, and innocent slaves as well, is murder and certainly a war crime.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I have always condemned unlawful actions by the individuals and units of both armies, KevinKennedy.  One does not excuse the other.  Yes, the South received exactly what it deserved: a crushing defeat.  However, the union armies did not massacre prisoners to the scale, for instance, that the CSA forces did black union soldiers at Fort Pillow in 1864.

None of this would have occurred had the South but upheld the Constitution and accepted electoral and constitutional process in 1860 and 1861.  It did not.  It attempted to break the bonds of the Union at Fort Sumter, enraging northern Democrats and Republicans alike, resulting in a blood bath that crushed the South politically, socially, and economically; and transformed our great union into an even greater nation.


----------



## JBeukema

JakeStarkey said:


> I have always condemned unlawful actions by the individuals and units of both armies, KevinKennedy.  One does not excuse the other.







JakeStarkey said:


> Sherman's army waged "total war" because the  Southrens were bushwacking his soldiers.  Thus the citizens caught it.   As Sherman told Grant, "Tough luck."






> the union armies did not massacre prisoners to the scale, for instance, that the CSA forces did black union soldiers at Fort Pillow in 1864.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

paperview said:


> Were those Southern civilians ACTIVELY aiding and abetting the Confederate cause?



Including the women and children?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

JakeStarkey said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes. they were morally wrong. there is no justification for owning another person... not ever.
> 
> was sherman right?
> 
> yes.... and he didn't commit war crimes. I really don't think it appropriate to measure warfare then against warfare now... and even then, I'm not certain that given the same limitations as to firepower, that the same type of warmaking wouldn't be appropriate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He ordered his men to commit acts that he had hung them for just the year before. As a graduate of West Point he knew about the laws and customs of war, and had probably heard about Peter von Hagenbach, who was convicted of war crimes in 1474. Why are you assuming that war crimes is a modern convention? The Hague Convention was based on treaties and conventions that date back to the 7th century.
> 
> I am not holding him to modern standards, i am trying to hold him to his.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Windbag, stop the huffing and puffing.  Give some evidence of Sherman's war crimes.
Click to expand...


What about his orders to his troops?



> I repeat my orders that you arrest all people, male and female, connected with those factories, no matter what the clamor, and let them foot it, under guard, to Marietta, where I will send them by cars to the North. Should you, under the impulse of anger, natural at contemplating such perfidy, hang the wretch, I approve the act beforehand!



He preapproved the hanging of civilians without a trial. Is this, or is it not, murder?

He ordered the civilian population to be loaded into carts and shipped from their homes. When there were not enough carts for all the civilians the soldiers were ordered to take civilian riders upon their horses with them. Guess who they chose to take with them.



> My delirium took the form of making love to the women.



Confederate Congress | General Sherman's Atrocities and War Crimes


----------



## Quantum Windbag

paperview said:


> Champ Ferguson
> might tell you a thing or two about murdering civilians.
> "...At the start of the war, Ferguson organized a unit and started  attacking civilians believed to support the Union. Occasionally, his  guerrilla band cooperated with Confederate military units led by Brig.  Gen. John Hunt Morgan and Maj. Gen. Joseph Wheeler. Some evidence indicates Ferguson was  actually made a captain of partisan rangers by Morgan. However,  Ferguson's men were seldom subject to military discipline and frequently  violated the normal rules of warfare.
> There are legends of Ferguson's alleged sadism, including stories  that he decapitated prisoners and rolled their heads down hillsides and  was willing to kill elderly and bedridden men."​How about Jefferson Davis' Partisan Ranger Act
> 
> How about the other guerrilla forces the Confederates used?
> 
> When you acknowledge those, you have to then acknowledge the Confederate Government and the civilian South shared some of the  blame for the Union's hard war policy.



No I do not.

I have not, and never will, say that the south was right about their reasons for leaving the union. Nor will I say that they were perfect in the war they fought, and that they did not commit war crimes. Whatever the south did during, or even before the war, does not justify the commission of war crimes. If you are going to try to take that argument you will have to accept the argument that terrorists can be tortured, and that we can commit war crimes because the other side does.

I brought up the subject of Sherman's march because some people erroneously claimed that the north was morally correct to invade the south and force them back into the Union. My argument was, and still is, that a moral agent acting in a moral cause does not commit immoral acts. Sherman's march negates any claim that the north might make to being morally correct .


----------



## Quantum Windbag

JakeStarkey said:


> I agree that we all need to move past the Civil War, including black Americans, but I don't want us to forget it, or the fact that some are trying to revise it, such as QW and JB and KK, into something it certainly was not.
> 
> The use of the n-word is vile in any context, unless that context is the direct quoted material of the contemporaries of that age.
> 
> None of us have the right to use such words casually whatsoever, certainly not on this board.



Can you point to anything I have said here that is false? If not, I would suggest that the person who is having the problem with history is you.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

syrenn said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bucky here refers to blacks, African Americans...whatever you want to call them - and has in this thread as - the n word.
> Yes.  It's a vile, racist slur.
> You may not see it that way.  I do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the thing. ******* call each other ******. So long as they call each other ****** it should not be considered offensive to anyone.
> 
> And please note that I have not called anyone that, or refereed to anyone here as that.
Click to expand...


Amen


----------



## Quantum Windbag

paperview said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bucky here refers to blacks, African Americans...whatever you want to call them - and has in this thread as - the n word.
> Yes.  It's a vile, racist slur.
> You may not see it that way.  I do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the thing. ******* call each other ******. So long as they call each other ****** it should not be considered offensive to anyone.
> 
> And please note that I have not called anyone that, or refereed to anyone here as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you really serious?
> 
> So long as some black people call themselves that, it's OK for you or any one else to refer to them that way?
> 
> Wow.
Click to expand...


She is entirely correct. Either the language is off limits to everyone, or it is available to everyone. Anything less than that is hypocrisy.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Quantum, you are flatly wrong.  Think not.  Try it in polite or professional society.  Try it at work, in your church, where your kids go to school.  Do it, then report back to us on what the fall out was.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

JBeukema said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> And they're the ones who still won't acknowledge that the civil war was about states' rights only to the extent that the 'states' in question wanted slavery to remain legal and didn't like those mean old northerners (substititute northern elites or whatever else you want to call it) making them stop owning people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the Union were fighting to end slavery, the Union would have no slaves
> 
> 
> If Lincoln was fighting to free the slaves, he'd have freed the slaves in the Union
> 
> 
> The Union had slaves and Lincoln freed them not.
> 
> 
> The North fought no war over slavery.
Click to expand...


I have asked about these points a couple of times, and so far not one person has even tried to answer me. The discussion keeps going to side issues that apparently make me racist, despite the fact that not one person in this thread even knows my race. And they claim I lack critical thinking and debating skills.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The North fought to preserve the Union, guys, which we have all said, but you want us to agree that we said it was to end slavery.  No one has said that except you nutsos.  So . . . let's get you straight.

The cause of the war was slavery, because every other cause of it was subsumed into the problem of race and slavery.  When Lincoln realized a limited war was not working to preserve the Union, he co-opted the emancipation issue to kill the South.  He succeeded.

Now, when you have dirty racists like JB, or libertarians like KK (forgive me for lumping you with the likes of JB), or whatever, the lines of discussion become skewered with info that does not add much merit to it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

JakeStarkey said:


> Quantum, you are flatly wrong.  Think not.  Try it in polite or professional society.  Try it at work, in your church, where your kids go to school.  Do it, then report back to us on what the fall out was.



What exactly am I wrong about? The part about it being hypocrisy? Are you saying it isn't hypocrisy?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

JakeStarkey said:


> The North fought to preserve the Union, guys, which we have all said, but you want us to agree that we said it was to end slavery.  No one has said that except you nutsos.  So . . . let's get you straight.
> 
> The cause of the war was slavery, because every other cause of it was subsumed into the problem of race and slavery.  When Lincoln realized a limited war was not working to preserve the Union, he co-opted the emancipation issue to kill the South.  He succeeded.
> 
> Now, when you have dirty racists like JB, or libertarians like KK (forgive me for lumping you with the likes of JB), or whatever, the lines of discussion become skewered with info that does not add much merit to it.



Are you now going to say that no one in this thread has said that the north fought to free the slaves? Or are you just feeling guilty for lumping everyone who disagrees with you into one category?


----------



## syrenn

Quantum Windbag said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> And they're the ones who still won't acknowledge that the civil war was about states' rights only to the extent that the 'states' in question wanted slavery to remain legal and didn't like those mean old northerners (substititute northern elites or whatever else you want to call it) making them stop owning people.
> 
> 
> 
> If the Union were fighting to end slavery, the Union would have no slaves
> If Lincoln was fighting to free the slaves, he'd have freed the slaves in the Union
> The Union had slaves and Lincoln freed them not.
> The North fought no war over slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have asked about these points a couple of times, and so far not one person has even tried to answer me. The discussion keeps going to side issues that apparently make me racist, despite the fact that not one person in this thread even knows my race. And they claim I lack critical thinking and debating skills.
Click to expand...

_
If the Union were fighting to end slavery, the Union would have no slaves_
The war was fought for economic reasons.
_
If Lincoln was fighting to free the slaves, he'd have freed the slaves in the Union_
 Lincoln was very clear in the beginning, he did not care about the slaves. Slavery was secondary to his issue of preserving the Union of the states. 
_
The Union had slaves and Lincoln freed them not._
He did in the end with the emancipation proclamation.
_
The North fought no war over slavery._
The north fought a war that BECAME about slavery. 

Better?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Quantum Windbag said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The North fought to preserve the Union, guys, which we have all said, but you want us to agree that we said it was to end slavery.  No one has said that except you nutsos.  So . . . let's get you straight.
> 
> The cause of the war was slavery, because every other cause of it was subsumed into the problem of race and slavery.  When Lincoln realized a limited war was not working to preserve the Union, he co-opted the emancipation issue to kill the South.  He succeeded.
> 
> Now, when you have dirty racists like JB, or libertarians like KK (forgive me for lumping you with the likes of JB), or whatever, the lines of discussion become skewered with info that does not add much merit to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you now going to say that no one in this thread has said that the north fought to free the slaves? Or are you just feeling guilty for lumping everyone who disagrees with you into one category?
Click to expand...


Quantum, will you please post a # where anyone, other than you guys, have posted that the war was fought to free slavery.


----------



## JakeStarkey

syrenn said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Union were fighting to end slavery, the Union would have no slaves
> If Lincoln was fighting to free the slaves, he'd have freed the slaves in the Union
> The Union had slaves and Lincoln freed them not.
> The North fought no war over slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have asked about these points a couple of times, and so far not one person has even tried to answer me. The discussion keeps going to side issues that apparently make me racist, despite the fact that not one person in this thread even knows my race. And they claim I lack critical thinking and debating skills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> If the Union were fighting to end slavery, the Union would have no slaves_
> The war was fought for economic reasons.
> _
> If Lincoln was fighting to free the slaves, he'd have freed the slaves in the Union_
> Lincoln was very clear in the beginning, he did not care about the slaves. Slavery was secondary to his issue of preserving the Union of the states.
> _
> The Union had slaves and Lincoln freed them not._
> He did in the end with the emancipation proclamation.
> _
> The North fought no war over slavery._
> The north fought a war that BECAME about slavery.
> 
> Better?
Click to expand...


One change.  If the Union were fighting to end slavery, the Union would have no slaves[/I]
The war was not fought for economic reasons but primarily to preserve the Union.  Economic issues were one of the subcauses of the war.

I like this better.


----------



## syrenn

JakeStarkey said:


> One change.  If the Union were fighting to end slavery, the Union would have no slaves[/I]
> The war was not fought for economic reasons but primarily to preserve the Union.  Economic issues were one of the subcauses of the war.
> 
> I like this better.



Yes that may be_ better_, but it is still not_ accurate_.


----------



## JakeStarkey

syrenn said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> One change.  If the Union were fighting to end slavery, the Union would have no slaves[/I]
> The war was not fought for economic reasons but primarily to preserve the Union.  Economic issues were one of the subcauses of the war.
> 
> I like this better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes that may be_ better_, but it is still not_ accurate_.
Click to expand...


Of course it is.  That is the accurate reason the Union was fighting, to preserve itself.

The primary cause, however, was slavery.


----------



## Kalam

JakeStarkey said:


> You are worse than a non-believer before Allah.


By all means, keep going. Earn yourself a nice place in hell by slandering a believer and attempting to speak for the Beneficent (SWT). 



JakeStarkey said:


> The jihadists are cowards, pure and simple, and terrorist propaganda is just that, jihadist propaganda.  Your 'martyrs' are merely dead cowards.


And you are a pitiful troll. Did I make you mad? Did you think you'd get a rise out of me by calling me a "disbeliever"? Your support for and glorification of the slaughter of innocents does you no credit. Don't get mad at me simply for pointing this out.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Kalam said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are worse than a non-believer before Allah.
> 
> 
> 
> By all means, keep going. Earn yourself a nice place in hell by slandering a believer and attempting to speak for the Beneficent (SWT).
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The jihadists are cowards, pure and simple, and terrorist propaganda is just that, jihadist propaganda.  Your 'martyrs' are merely dead cowards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you are a pitiful troll. Did I make you mad? Did you think you'd get a rise out of me by calling me a "disbeliever"? Your support for and glorification of the slaughter of innocents does you no credit. Don't get mad at me simply for pointing this out.
Click to expand...


Not mad at all, Kalam.  Your 'hell' holds no horrors for me.  Your 'martyrs' are in hell for killing innocents.  You are clearly a disbeliever in your own religion of peace.


----------



## syrenn

JakeStarkey said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> One change.  If the Union were fighting to end slavery, the Union would have no slaves[/I]
> The war was not fought for economic reasons but primarily to preserve the Union.  Economic issues were one of the subcauses of the war.
> 
> I like this better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes that may be_ better_, but it is still not_ accurate_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it is.  That is the accurate reason the Union was fighting, to preserve itself.
> The primary cause, however, was slavery.
Click to expand...


Well shit, I though you and I had gone over this already and you agreed with me.  shall I go and look?


----------



## ABikerSailor

Quantum Windbag said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the thing. ******* call each other ******. So long as they call each other ****** it should not be considered offensive to anyone.
> 
> And please note that I have not called anyone that, or refereed to anyone here as that.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really serious?
> 
> So long as some black people call themselves that, it's OK for you or any one else to refer to them that way?
> 
> Wow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She is entirely correct. Either the language is off limits to everyone, or it is available to everyone. Anything less than that is hypocrisy.
Click to expand...


The windbag is right.

Only trouble is, during the time of the blacks "taking" the word ****** back, they used it as a badge for themselves only.

****** didn't become available, it simply just changed hands in a sale.

Personally?  I don't like the word.  But, it's part of the lexicon.

Too bad people didn't know the origin of the word was "niggardly" which meant black, and was used as a quick reference point, much like black is today.

It's the racial hatred and the hatred of the racial hatred that has turned that word into such a horrific slur.


----------



## Kalam

JakeStarkey said:


> Not mad at all, Kalam.  Your 'hell' holds no horrors for me.


Of course not. Enjoy life while it lasts. 
_The life of this world is made to seem fair to those who disbelieve, and they mock those who believe. And those who keep their duty will be above them on the day of Resurrection. And Allah gives to whom He pleases without measure._ - 2:212​ 


JakeStarkey said:


> Your 'martyrs' are in hell for killing innocents.  You are clearly a disbeliever in your own religion of peace.


Martyrs don't kill innocents; Zionazis do. I'm a believer in Islam. Your salvation, not mine, is threatened by your ignorance of the religion and your trollish attempts to slander its adherents.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

ABikerSailor said:


> ****** didn't become available, it simply just changed hands in a sale..



I like that analogy.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Kalam said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not mad at all, Kalam.  Your 'hell' holds no horrors for me.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not. Enjoy life while it lasts.
> _The life of this world is made to seem fair to those who disbelieve, and they mock those who believe. And those who keep their duty will be above them on the day of Resurrection. And Allah gives to whom He pleases without measure._ - 2:212​
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your 'martyrs' are in hell for killing innocents.  You are clearly a disbeliever in your own religion of peace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Martyrs don't kill innocents; Zionazis do. I'm a believer in Islam. Your salvation, not mine, is threatened by your ignorance of the religion and your trollish attempts to slander its adherents.
Click to expand...


To "slander" mass murderers of children and women?  I don't really think you understand America or Americans.  But if you are stupid enough to go far enough, you will certainly be "schooled" as to who we are and of what we are capable.

One way to bring reactionary members of your faith into modern times is to make the 21st century the century of global liberation of women, particularly in the Islamic nations.

And, by the by, the Muslim woman who won the beauty pageant is truly beautiful.  Why you guys are so afraid of women is amazing.


----------



## Kalam

JakeStarkey said:


> To "slander" mass murderers of children and women?


No, you've been quite supportive of mass murderers. I'm referring to slandering believers, namely myself. 



JakeStarkey said:


> I don't really think you understand America or Americans.




I was born here to parents who were born here to parents who were also born here. Ask me what you'd like about the country's history, government, constitution, or whatever and I doubt you'll find my knowledge to be lacking. I don't really think you understand the fundamentals of debate; if you're going to make a claim with no basis in reality, it's better not to make it at all. 



JakeStarkey said:


> But if you are stupid enough to go far enough, you will certainly be "schooled" as to who we are and of what we are capable.


Great. 



JakeStarkey said:


> One way to bring reactionary members of your faith into modern times is to make the 21st century the century of global liberation of women, particularly in the Islamic nations.
> 
> And, by the by, the Muslim woman who won the beauty pageant is truly beautiful.  Why you guys are so afraid of women is amazing.


Oh... it's a strawman argument. How quaint. 

If you're a supporter of oppression, you should be very afraid of women.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Your comments reveal that you do not comprehend Americans, their values, and how they value Israel.  You underestimate that, Kalam.  So there will be no right of return, no East Jerusalem for Arabs, and no end to the wall.  That is simple.  The point is this: Israel forever.  Kalam, may you and yours be safe.


----------



## Kalam

JakeStarkey said:


> Your comments reveal that you do not comprehend Americans, their values, and how they value Israel.  You underestimate that, Kalam.  So there will be no right of return, no East Jerusalem for Arabs, and no end to the wall.  That is simple.  I had particular duties and talents when I served, and some of that had to do with identifying, acquiring, then eliminating 'martyr murderers'.  The moral problem we faced was that, at times, uncommon but not rare, their wives and children were at risk.  That was shame.  The point is this: Israel forever.



The Hasbara committee is very proud - you have been thoroughly indoctrinated. 

Israel's time is ticking away. Revel in their slaughter of innocent Muslims while it still exists.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMs6eXY69FY]YouTube - Palestine song - Idrib saroukh al Qassami[/ame]


----------



## JakeStarkey

No one revels in the slaughter of innocents.


----------



## JBeukema

Jake lost all creditability when he blamed an entire race for the crimes of long dead persons and said people should be ashamed of their skin colour- then called someone else a racist.


----------



## JBeukema

JakeStarkey said:


> The primary cause, however, was slavery.


Actually, it was abuse of federal power.

The same thing that still makes some among the the Right speak of secession today.


----------



## JBeukema

ABikerSailor said:


> Too bad people didn't know the origin of the word was "niggardly" which meant black, and was used as a quick reference point, much like black is today.



etymology fail

*nig·gard·ly*

&#8194; 

&#8194;/&#712;n&#618;g
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





&#601;rd
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




li/ 

 Show Spelled[nig-erd-lee] 

 Show IPA  
  adjective1.reluctant  to give or spend; stingy; miserly. 

 2.meanly or ungenerously  small or scanty: a niggardly tip to a waiter. 


 adverb3.in  the manner of a niggard. 




*Origin: *
152030;  niggard  + -ly

Related formsnig·gard·li·ness, noun

Synonyms 
1.   penurious, miserly, mean, tight, avaricious, mercenary,  illiberal, close. 2.  poor.


 Antonyms 
1. generous.

Niggardly | Define Niggardly at Dictionary.com
*nig·gard*

&#8194;  

&#8194;/&#712;n&#618;g
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




&#601;rd/ 

 Show Spelled[nig-erd] 

 Show IPA  
  noun  1.  an  excessively  parsimonious,  miserly,  or  stingy  person.  


 adjective  2.  niggardly;  miserly;  stingy.  



Use *niggard* in a Sentence

See images  of *niggard*

Search *niggard* on the Web

*Origin:  *
132575;   ME  nyggard,   equiv.  to  nig   niggard  (< Scand;  cf.  dial.  Sw  nygg;   akin  to  OE  hn&#275;aw   stingy)  + -ard

Related  forms  un·nig·gard,  adjective  
 un·nig·gard·ly,  adverb  





 Dictionary.com  Unabridged  
Based  on  the  Random  House  Dictionary,  © Random  House,  Inc.  2010.  
Cite  This Source | 
 Link  To *niggard* 
   ._vtad { border-top: 1px solid #B6D0DD; padding: 15px 0 0 0; margin: 1em 0 0 0; background-image: url(http://syndication.visualthesaurus.com/ddc/gradient.png);background-repeat: repeat-x; background-position: 0 0; } ._vtad A { text-decoration: none; }  ._vtad A:hover { text-decoration: underline; } ._vtad_flt { float: right;  margin: 0 0 10px 7px; } ._vtad_flt IMG { vertical-align: top; margin-bottom: 5px; border: 1px solid #CCCCCC;}  A._vtad_explore { letter-spacing: -.4px; font-family: verdana;display:block; line-height: 10px;  font-size: 11px;color: #0050BB; }  ._vtad_related { font-family: verdana; font-size: 12px; margin: 6px 0 6px; } ._vtad_related A { color: black; } ._vtad_header { font-family: georgia; line-height: 10px; font-size: 14px; color: #575757; } ._vtad_header IMG { vertical-align: top; margin-right: 7px; } ._vtad_header A { font-family: Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold; color: black; } A._vtad_other { font-family: verdana; font-size: 1em; color: #0050BB; }

Explore the Visual Thesaurus »





Related  Words  for  : niggard
churl, scrooge, skinflint
View  more related words »




         Word  Origin  & History  

niggard  
mid-14c.,  nygart  , of  uncertain  origin.  The  suffix  suggests  French  origin  (cf.  -ard), but  the  root  word  is  probably  related  to  O.N.  hnøggr   "stingy,"  from  P.Gmc.  *khnauwjaz   (cf.  Swed.  njugg   "close,  careful,"  Ger.  genau   "precise,  exact"),  and  to  O.E.  hneaw   "stingy,  niggardly,"  which  did  not  survive  in  M.E.


Niggard | Define Niggard at Dictionary.com



> Main article: Negro
> The variants _neger_ and _negar_, derive from the Spanish  and Portuguese word _negro_  (black), and from the pejorative French _nègre_ (******).  Etymologically, _negro_, _noir_, _nègre_, and _******_  ultimately derive from _nigrum_, the stem of the Latin _niger_ (black) (pronounced [&#712;ni&#609;er] which in every other grammatical case, grammatical gender, and grammatical number besides nominative masculine singular is _nigr-_; the _r_ is  trilled).






****** - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


There is no etymological link between niggardly and ******



You love to  act like you know what you're talking about, but you never have a clue.


----------



## jillian

syrenn said:


> ok I will try again. Analogy. Genocide.  "group of people"= the American people.



You can try as many times as you'd like. You'd still be wrong. 

Now let's try the real definition instead of your self-serving one:

*systematic killing of a racial or cultural group *

WordNet Search - 3.0

You can follow the distinction, yes?



> ]It makes no different upon which state right was in question. The south technically did have the right. The war was fought to keep the union together.



And that's where you're wrong again... the South HAD no right.



> The articles of confederation was the constitution on which the southern states wished to abide. As far as I know the south lost. [/COLOR]



No. The Articles of Confederation was the forerunner to the Constitution and was in effect from 1781 through 1788 when the Constitution went into effect. The South had no right to 'choose' to go back to a law that was no longer in existence.

Articles of Confederation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Articles of Confederation - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Sometimes it's really important not to make it up as you go along... that goes for both laws and definitions of words.


----------



## JBeukema

> No. The Articles of Confederation was the forerunner to the Constitution  and was in effect from 1781 through 1788 when the Constitution went  into effect. The South had no right to 'choose' to go back to a law that  was no longer in existence.



Nor did the Union. Yet it was on the ideas expressed in the AoC that SCOTUS justified their decision that all Americans are slaves and subjects without the right to self determination upon which this nation was founded.


----------



## Liability

Kalam said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not mad at all, Kalam.  Your 'hell' holds no horrors for me.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not. Enjoy life while it lasts.
> _The life of this world is made to seem fair to those who disbelieve, and they mock those who believe. And those who keep their duty will be above them on the day of Resurrection. And Allah gives to whom He pleases without measure._ - 2:212​
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your 'martyrs' are in hell for killing innocents.  You are clearly a disbeliever in your own religion of peace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Martyrs don't kill innocents; Zionazis do. I'm a believer in Islam. Your salvation, not mine, is threatened by your ignorance of the religion and your trollish attempts to slander its adherents.
Click to expand...


Actually, Islamofilth jihadist pussies kill innocents.  Those filthy fuckwads consider themselves "martyrs."

Islam is a diseased fucked-up fraudulently based religion from the mouth of a violent psychotic pedophile.


----------



## JakeStarkey

JBeukema said:


> Jake lost all creditability when he blamed an entire race for the crimes of long dead persons and said people should be ashamed of their skin colour- then called someone else a racist.



JB, I said that whites had an inherent advantage compared to peoples of color, and many like you refuse to admit it.  Those who do not recognize it and fail to make sure the playing field is level are guilty of racism, whether intentionally or not.


----------



## JakeStarkey

JBeukema said:


> No. The Articles of Confederation was the forerunner to the Constitution  and was in effect from 1781 through 1788 when the Constitution went  into effect. The South had no right to 'choose' to go back to a law that  was no longer in existence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nor did the Union. Yet it was on the ideas expressed in the AoC that SCOTUS justified their decision that all Americans are slaves and subjects without the right to self determination upon which this nation was founded.
Click to expand...


I think you wrote the above with a straight face.


----------



## jillian

JBeukema said:


> No. The Articles of Confederation was the forerunner to the Constitution  and was in effect from 1781 through 1788 when the Constitution went  into effect. The South had no right to 'choose' to go back to a law that  was no longer in existence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nor did the Union. Yet it was on the ideas expressed in the AoC that SCOTUS justified their decision that all Americans are slaves and subjects without the right to self determination upon which this nation was founded.
Click to expand...


Because that's sooooo what the Court said.

Sorry... I'm happy to discuss this but there has to be some articulation of basic facts.


----------



## JBeukema

> JB, I said that whites had an inherent advantage compared to peoples of  color,



You said that all Whites today are guilty of the crimes of another man's ancestors. 

'Racial guilt' you called it- in your own words.



> Those who do not recognize it and fail to make sure the playing field  is level are guilty of racism




Its racist to expect Blacks to better themselves and their communities and for people like Sharpton to stop teaching young Black children that they can't succeed because of their skin colour and they need handouts and special treatment because they're inferior?


----------



## JBeukema

JakeStarkey said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. The Articles of Confederation was the forerunner to the Constitution  and was in effect from 1781 through 1788 when the Constitution went  into effect. The South had no right to 'choose' to go back to a law that  was no longer in existence.
> 
> 
> 
> Nor did the Union. Yet it was on the ideas expressed in the AoC that SCOTUS justified their decision that all Americans are slaves and subjects without the right to self determination upon which this nation was founded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you wrote the above with a straight face.
Click to expand...

SCOTUS didn't say the right to self-determination no longer exists?


Show me where they ruled the secession was legitimate, since you've suddenly turned a 180.


----------



## JakeStarkey

"all Americans are slaves"?  The right of self-determination was exerted in 1775; it worked.  The South tried it in 1861, it failed.  And it did not have the right to secede.


----------



## JBeukema

JakeStarkey said:


> "all Americans are slaves"?  The right of self-determination was exerted in 1775; it worked.  The South tried it in 1861, it failed.  And it did not have the right to secede.



So the right to self determination is not an inalienable right, but a right one somehow magically possess in retrospect is one wins?

Or the FF had the right to self-determination, but other people don't because some people are less equal than others?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Remind me where the inalienable right secede stems.


----------



## JBeukema

JakeStarkey said:


> Remind me where the inalienable right secede stems.


First form a coherent sentence then tell me how that's relevant.


Do people have a right to self-determination? Yes or no?


----------



## Kalam

JakeStarkey said:


> No one revels in the slaughter of innocents.



You support an ideology that does. Your kind can attempt rationalize it by making ignorant generalizations and attempting to transfer the burden of guilt to the victims themselves, but slaughter is slaughter no matter what.


----------



## JakeStarkey

JBeukema said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remind me where the inalienable right secede stems.
> 
> 
> 
> First form a coherent sentence then tell me how that's relevant.
> 
> Do people have a right to self-determination? Yes or no?
Click to expand...


This is not a Socratic dialogue.  Answer my point, and let's see if you can form a coherent argument.


----------



## JBeukema

Answer the question: Do people have a right to self-determination? Yes or no?


Why do you refuse to answer this simple question?


----------



## Avatar4321

Liberty said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He just freed the slaves (which was America's worst injustice in its short history), kept the nation together and got the 13th and 14th amendments passed. Yea he is a real bad guy.
> 
> Where do you people come from? Mars?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there was NO OTHER WAY to do this than allow over 600,000 people to be killed in a pointless war? On top of that, Lincoln himself even said he didnt give a shit about freeing slaves, his goal was to reunite the union, THAT WAS IT.
Click to expand...


Actually, another way was suggested. It was suggested that the Federal Government use the proceeds of lands in new territories to purchase all the slaves through eminent domain and free them that way. Such a method would have been cheaper in costs of money and blood. But sensible solutions are never really appreciated until the unsensible ones occur.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Kalam said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one revels in the slaughter of innocents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You support an ideology that does. Your kind can attempt rationalize it by making ignorant generalizations and attempting to transfer the burden of guilt to the victims themselves, but slaughter is slaughter no matter what.
Click to expand...


Let's get you straight, Kalam.  I have always honored Islam and those who followed its quiet path of peace.  Those extremists, and their supporters, who defend the murdering of innocents, by your fighters and bombers, spit the name of God and trod with unclean feet on the scriptures.  I possess only the deepest revilement for those type of people.


----------



## JakeStarkey

JBeukema said:


> Answer the question: Do people have a right to self-determination? Yes or no?
> 
> 
> Why do you refuse to answer this simple question?



Because you made the *first assertion, so the burden of proof is on you*.  I won't budge from this, for you are no different that the conloons who take the same stance.  When you make an assertion without evidence, then demand that I refute it, you are no different than yurt or PI or windbag or little fitz.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Avatar4321 said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He just freed the slaves (which was America's worst injustice in its short history), kept the nation together and got the 13th and 14th amendments passed. Yea he is a real bad guy.
> 
> Where do you people come from? Mars?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there was NO OTHER WAY to do this than allow over 600,000 people to be killed in a pointless war? On top of that, Lincoln himself even said he didnt give a shit about freeing slaves, his goal was to reunite the union, THAT WAS IT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, another way was suggested. It was suggested that the Federal Government use the proceeds of lands in new territories to purchase all the slaves through eminent domain and free them that way. Such a method would have been cheaper in costs of money and blood. But sensible solutions are never really appreciated until the unsensible ones occur.
Click to expand...


The Southern planters overwhelmingly favored continuation of the system, and they had no idea of supporting gradual emancipation.

So many Americans died (you are not counting the civilian, by the way) because the South could not follow basic human decency, either morally or politically.


----------



## Liability

Rights preceded the formation of our Constitution.

All rights not expressly delegated to the Federal government in the Constitution are reserved to the States and/or to the People -- and that is true whether or not those rights are spelled out in the Constitution.

I have yet to see an answer, in light of the foregoing, to the proposition that since the States CREATED the Union upon certain very specific terms and conditions, they MUST have reserved the right to withdraw from the agreement and from the Union when the terms are not honored by the Federal government.

Certainly, it is true that President Lincoln disagreed with that proposition.  And later the SCOTUS has insinuated itself into the discussion without valid basis to do so.  But I have yet to see a coherent argument which refutes the rather straightforward proposition I laid out.

By way of a small analogy.  Let's stipulate that I  have certain rights in a company, as an employee.  But a proposed worker's UNION asks me to join so that we can have a larger group voice backed by a legitimate threat of  collective action.   Part of the deal in joining the Union is my agreement to cede TO the Union (majority vote) the authority to call strikes etc.  What used to be my individual right has been given by me to the Union upon certain terms and conditions.

Now the Union starts acting in violation of my agreement to JOIN the Union.  I say, "Whoa!  Knock that shit off!"  But the Union tells me to STFU insisting that they can do whatever they wish in my name and in the name of all other union members.  I say, "Not so fast, bucko.  You are violating my agreement with you.  And that which I can voluntarily enter I can also voluntarily leave."

If the Union doesn't take the damn hint, I can quit the Union.  In short, the rights I ceded to them were given CONDITIONALLY.  If they don't honor those conditions, terms and agreements, then I reserve the right to terminate my Union membership.  Violate the condition, violate the contract, suffer the repercussions.

On what possible authority can anybody logically claim that a State, which entered the UNION upon very clear terms and conditions, is somehow not free to withdraw from that Union when the Federal Government breaches the agreement?


----------



## HUGGY

OH shit!!!!!

Liability is gonna tug on that thread and unravell the whole thing!

I bet he doesn't have one good pair of socks!

Personally I like his "Lincoln" thread better..less long wind ...simple...

Do ya think if Lincoln hadn't been shot he would have introduced "The Goose Step"?


----------



## JakeStarkey

"Heil, Abraham."


----------



## JBeukema

JakeStarkey said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Answer the question: Do people have a right to self-determination? Yes or no?
> 
> 
> Why do you refuse to answer this simple question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [bullshit]
Click to expand...


Stop dodging.

Did the CSA have the right to secede or did the FF have no right to their war for independence?

 Do people have a right to self-determination? Yes or no?


----------



## Liability

HUGGY said:


> OH shit!!!!!
> 
> Liability is gonna tug on that thread and unravell the whole thing!
> 
> I bet he doesn't have one good pair of socks!
> 
> Personally I like his "Lincoln" thread better..less long wind ...simple...
> 
> Do ya think if Lincoln hadn't been shot he would have introduced "The Goose Step"?



Hell.  Even YOU could learn if you'd just listen to me once in a while instead of metaphorically flapping your gums.

Did old Abe kinda sorta ignore the Constitution in order to preserve the Union?

Yeah.  Probably.  Does that make him a villain on the order of magnitude of a Hitler?

Obviously not.  That's such a retarded proposition, in fact, that even you should be able to avoid making such idiotic assertions.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You made an assertion without evidence.  Support it or fail.


----------



## Liability

JakeStarkey said:


> You made an assertion without evidence.  Support it or fail.



Helpful hint time:

It often proves useful to give the readers SOME idea of the person to whom you are addressing your questions and, maybe, even a hint as to which assertion you are referencing.

No need to thank me for this small gesture of good will.  It comes naturally to me as a conservative.


----------



## syrenn

jillian said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> ok I will try again. Analogy. Genocide.  "group of people"= the American people.
> 
> 
> 
> You can try as many times as you'd like. You'd still be wrong.
> Now let's try the real definition instead of your self-serving one:
> *systematic killing of a racial or cultural group *
> WordNet Search - 3.0
> You can follow the distinction, yes?
Click to expand...


Yes you are right. Lets try real definitions instead of your self serving ones. Try using and understanding the whole definitions of a word and not picking and choosing your pet ones. 

*analogy*
 - 6 dictionary results
a·nal·o·gy
&#8194; &#8194;/&#601;&#712;næl&#601;d&#658;i/ Show Spelled[uh-nal-uh-jee] Show IPA
noun,plural-gies.
1.
a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump.
2.
similarity or comparability: I see no analogy between your problem and mine.
3.
Biology. an analogous relationship.
4.
Linguistics.
a.
the process by which words or phrases are created or re-formed according to existing patterns in the language, as when shoon was re-formed as shoes, when -ize is added to nouns like winter to form verbs, or when a child says foots for feet.
b.
a form resulting from such a process.
5.
Logic. a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects.

*genocide*
gen·o·cide
&#8194; &#8194;/&#712;d&#658;&#603;n&#601;&#716;sa&#618;d/ Show Spelled[jen-uh-sahyd] Show IPA
noun
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.


I will assume you understand "analogy" 

What part of the genocide "analogy" are you confused with?

The south proclaimed themselves as a* nation *unto themselves and no longer part of the union. 
The south proclaimed themselves a nation based on their* political* views.
To this day there are *cultural* differences between the south and the rest of the country.
And using one word from your definition. The south leaving the union was a *radical* idea in and of itself. 


The north set out to destroy  the "nation" of the confederacy, its radical, political views. The north ADDED the moral grounds of destroying the south for its culture of slavery






> ]It makes no different upon which state right was in question. The south technically did have the right. The war was fought to keep the union together.





jillian said:


> And that's where you're wrong again... the South HAD no right.



 The south had every right. I suggest you actually read the Constitution. The Constitution of the united States neither explicitly or implicitly disallows secession. The south optioned out to leave.   



jillian said:


> Sometimes it's really important not to make it up as you go along... that goes for both laws and definitions of words.





Agreed.  And that goes both ways.


----------



## Kalam

JakeStarkey said:


> Let's get you straight, Kalam.  I have always honored Islam and those who followed its quiet path of peace.  Those extremists, and their supporters, who defend the murdering of innocents, by your fighters and bombers, spit the name of God and trod with unclean feet on the scriptures.  I possess only the deepest revilement for those type of people.


Perhaps you honored what you understood to be Islam. Islam isn't the quaint little "turn the other cheek" religion that many seem to wish it was; Islam is a complete way of life. Destroying the agents of aggression and persecution is a duty incumbent on all Muslims per scripture and prophetic tradition. Targeting civilians is not something I've advocated because it's forbidden and because it's a tactic employed by the Zionists and the Crusaders. 

_Indeed, Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and their wealth, because for them is Jannah. They fight in the way of Allah; they slay and they are slain. It is a promise upon Him true in the Torah, and the Gospels, and the Qur'an - and who is more faithful to his promise than Allah? So rejoice in your transaction which you have contracted. And that is the greatest triumph._ - 9:111​


----------



## syrenn

Kalam said:


> Perhaps you honored what you understood to be Islam. Islam isn't the quaint little "turn the other cheek" religion that many seem to wish it was; *Islam is a complete way of life. Destroying the agents of aggression and persecution is a duty incumbent on all Muslims per scripture and prophetic tradition. *Targeting civilians is not something I've advocated because it's forbidden and because it's a tactic employed by the Zionists and the Crusaders.



And that is the excuse all muslim terrorists use as their rallying cry. It is why muslim terrorists* do* target civilians. anything, ANYTHING NON islam is considered an attack and persecution.


----------



## rikules

Liberty said:


> They both committed ridiculous and pointless genocide...maybe no where near in similar methods or to the same ends, but they both killed a large enough amount of people that should taint their legacy as villainous in my opinion.





conservatives routinely prove, with their contradictory beliefs, just how insane and deranged they truly are...


there are SOOOOOOO many examples!

and here is another one...


today....lincoln is hitler...

yet, on other days, I've read a thousand posts with cons trying to take credit for freeing the slaves by saying "it was lincoln (a REPUBLICAN) who freed the slaves...."

so
according to deranged cons......"lincoln was hitler who freed the slaves"


----------



## Kalam

syrenn said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you honored what you understood to be Islam. Islam isn't the quaint little "turn the other cheek" religion that many seem to wish it was; *Islam is a complete way of life. Destroying the agents of aggression and persecution is a duty incumbent on all Muslims per scripture and prophetic tradition. *Targeting civilians is not something I've advocated because it's forbidden and because it's a tactic employed by the Zionists and the Crusaders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that is the excuse all muslim terrorists use as their rallying cry. It is why muslim terrorists* do* target civilians. anything, ANYTHING NON islam is considered an attack and persecution.
Click to expand...

That philosophy is inconsistent with the teachings of the religion.

_Narrated Anas ibn Malik: The Prophet said, "Go in Allah's name, trusting in Allah and adhering to the religion of Allah's Apostle. Do not kill a decrepit old man, or a young infant, or a child, or a woman; do not be dishonest about spoils, but collect your gains, do right and act well, for Allah loves those who do good."_ - Sunan Abu Dawud​


----------



## paperview

rikules said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> They both committed ridiculous and pointless genocide...maybe no where near in similar methods or to the same ends, but they both killed a large enough amount of people that should taint their legacy as villainous in my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> conservatives routinely prove, with their contradictory beliefs, just how insane and deranged they truly are...
> 
> 
> there are SOOOOOOO many examples!
> 
> and here is another one...
> 
> 
> today....lincoln is hitler...
> 
> yet, on other days, I've read a thousand posts with cons trying to take credit for freeing the slaves by saying "it was lincoln (a REPUBLICAN) who freed the slaves...."
> 
> so
> according to deranged cons......"lincoln was hitler who freed the slaves"
Click to expand...

That one rides alongside _MLK Jr. was a low life adulterous communist_ - and didja know Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican!


----------



## syrenn

Kalam said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you honored what you understood to be Islam. Islam isn't the quaint little "turn the other cheek" religion that many seem to wish it was; *Islam is a complete way of life. Destroying the agents of aggression and persecution is a duty incumbent on all Muslims per scripture and prophetic tradition. *Targeting civilians is not something I've advocated because it's forbidden and because it's a tactic employed by the Zionists and the Crusaders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that is the excuse all muslim terrorists use as their rallying cry. It is why muslim terrorists* do* target civilians. anything, ANYTHING NON islam is considered an attack and persecution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That philosophy is inconsistent with the teachings of the religion.
> 
> _Narrated Anas ibn Malik: The Prophet said, "Go in Allah's name, trusting in Allah and adhering to the religion of Allah's Apostle. Do not kill a decrepit old man, or a young infant, or a child, or a woman; do not be dishonest about spoils, but collect your gains, do right and act well, for Allah loves those who do good."_ - Sunan Abu Dawud​
Click to expand...



I understand that, which is why not all muslims are islamic terrorists. terrorists use that quote of islam and take it as far as they can as both reason and truth.


----------



## syrenn

paperview said:


> rikules said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> They both committed ridiculous and pointless genocide...maybe no where near in similar methods or to the same ends, but they both killed a large enough amount of people that should taint their legacy as villainous in my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> conservatives routinely prove, with their contradictory beliefs, just how insane and deranged they truly are...
> there are SOOOOOOO many examples!
> and here is another one...
> today....lincoln is hitler...
> yet, on other days, I've read a thousand posts with cons trying to take credit for freeing the slaves by saying "it was lincoln (a REPUBLICAN) who freed the slaves...."so
> according to deranged cons......"lincoln was hitler who freed the slaves"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That one rides alongside _MLK Jr. was a low life adulterous communist_ - and didja know Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican!
Click to expand...


Just a side note and nothing to do with this thread. 

Is it just me or is obam trying very hard to make himself into, and many people likening him to,  Lincoln?


----------



## JakeStarkey

syrenn said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rikules said:
> 
> 
> 
> conservatives routinely prove, with their contradictory beliefs, just how insane and deranged they truly are...
> there are SOOOOOOO many examples!
> and here is another one...
> today....lincoln is hitler...
> yet, on other days, I've read a thousand posts with cons trying to take credit for freeing the slaves by saying "it was lincoln (a REPUBLICAN) who freed the slaves...."so
> according to deranged cons......"lincoln was hitler who freed the slaves"
> 
> 
> 
> That one rides alongside _MLK Jr. was a low life adulterous communist_ - and didja know Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just a side note and nothing to do with this thread.
> 
> Is it just me or is obam trying very hard to make himself into, and many people likening him to,  Lincoln?
Click to expand...


Due respect but _vestri perception est erroris_.


----------



## Old Rocks

Just you, Siren. 

The problems that President Obama faces are far more like those of President Roosevelt than those of President Lincoln. 

Failed policy that resulted in a major economic disaster.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Old Rocks said:


> Just you, Siren.
> 
> The problems that President Obama faces are far more like those of President Roosevelt than those of President Lincoln.
> 
> Failed policy that resulted in a major economic disaster.



And, like Roosevelt, he continues those same failed policies he ran against.


----------



## jillian

syrenn said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> ok I will try again. Analogy. Genocide.  "group of people"= the American people.
> 
> 
> 
> You can try as many times as you'd like. You'd still be wrong.
> Now let's try the real definition instead of your self-serving one:
> *systematic killing of a racial or cultural group *
> WordNet Search - 3.0
> You can follow the distinction, yes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes you are right. Lets try real definitions instead of your self serving ones. Try using and understanding the whole definitions of a word and not picking and choosing your pet ones.
> 
> *analogy*
> - 6 dictionary results
> a·nal·o·gy
> &#8194; &#8194;/&#601;&#712;næl&#601;d&#658;i/ Show Spelled[uh-nal-uh-jee] Show IPA
> &#8211;noun,plural-gies.
> 1.
> a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump.
> 2.
> similarity or comparability: I see no analogy between your problem and mine.
> 3.
> Biology. an analogous relationship.
> 4.
> Linguistics.
> a.
> the process by which words or phrases are created or re-formed according to existing patterns in the language, as when shoon was re-formed as shoes, when -ize is added to nouns like winter to form verbs, or when a child says foots for feet.
> b.
> a form resulting from such a process.
> 5.
> Logic. a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects.
> 
> *genocide*
> gen·o·cide
> &#8194; &#8194;/&#712;d&#658;&#603;n&#601;&#716;sa&#618;d/ Show Spelled[jen-uh-sahyd] Show IPA
> &#8211;noun
> the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.
> 
> 
> I will assume you understand "analogy"
> 
> What part of the genocide "analogy" are you confused with?
> 
> The south proclaimed themselves as a* nation *unto themselves and no longer part of the union.
> The south proclaimed themselves a nation based on their* political* views.
> To this day there are *cultural* differences between the south and the rest of the country.
> And using one word from your definition. The south leaving the union was a *radical* idea in and of itself.
> 
> 
> The north set out to destroy  the "nation" of the confederacy, its radical, political views. The north ADDED the moral grounds of destroying the south for its culture of slavery
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that's where you're wrong again... the South HAD no right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The south had every right. I suggest you actually read the Constitution. The Constitution of the united States neither explicitly or implicitly disallows secession. The south optioned out to leave.
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes it's really important not to make it up as you go along... that goes for both laws and definitions of words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.  And that goes both ways.
Click to expand...


and as soon as you use terms correctly, i'll be happy to discuss this issue further.

but good that you looked up the words. perhaps you'll understand them now.


----------



## syrenn

jillian said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.  And that goes both ways.
> 
> 
> 
> and as soon as you use terms correctly, i'll be happy to discuss this issue further.
> but good that you looked up the words. perhaps you'll understand them now.
Click to expand...


Happy to post information for you that helps you understand definitions a bit better.


----------



## Dr Grump

ABikerSailor said:


> Too bad people didn't know the origin of the word was "niggardly" which meant black, and was used as a quick reference point, much like black is today.
> 
> r.



Huh? The origin of the word is Negro. Niggardly has a completely different meaning....


----------



## Dr Grump

syrenn said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> ok I will try again. Analogy. Genocide.  "group of people"= the American people.
> 
> 
> 
> You can try as many times as you'd like. You'd still be wrong.
> Now let's try the real definition instead of your self-serving one:
> *systematic killing of a racial or cultural group *
> WordNet Search - 3.0
> You can follow the distinction, yes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes you are right. Lets try real definitions instead of your self serving ones. Try using and understanding the whole definitions of a word and not picking and choosing your pet ones.
> 
> *analogy*
> - 6 dictionary results
> a·nal·o·gy
> &#8194; &#8194;/&#601;&#712;næl&#601;d&#658;i/ Show Spelled[uh-nal-uh-jee] Show IPA
> &#8211;noun,plural-gies.
> 1.
> a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump.
> 2.
> similarity or comparability: I see no analogy between your problem and mine.
> 3.
> Biology. an analogous relationship.
> 4.
> Linguistics.
> a.
> the process by which words or phrases are created or re-formed according to existing patterns in the language, as when shoon was re-formed as shoes, when -ize is added to nouns like winter to form verbs, or when a child says foots for feet.
> b.
> a form resulting from such a process.
> 5.
> Logic. a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects.
> 
> *genocide*
> gen·o·cide
> &#8194; &#8194;/&#712;d&#658;&#603;n&#601;&#716;sa&#618;d/ Show Spelled[jen-uh-sahyd] Show IPA
> &#8211;noun
> the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.
> 
> 
> I will assume you understand "analogy"
> 
> What part of the genocide "analogy" are you confused with?
> 
> The south proclaimed themselves as a* nation *unto themselves and no longer part of the union.
> The south proclaimed themselves a nation based on their* political* views.
> To this day there are *cultural* differences between the south and the rest of the country.
> And using one word from your definition. The south leaving the union was a *radical* idea in and of itself.
> 
> 
> The north set out to destroy  the "nation" of the confederacy, its radical, political views. The north ADDED the moral grounds of destroying the south for its culture of slavery
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that's where you're wrong again... the South HAD no right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The south had every right. I suggest you actually read the Constitution. The Constitution of the united States neither explicitly or implicitly disallows secession. The south optioned out to leave.
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes it's really important not to make it up as you go along... that goes for both laws and definitions of words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.  And that goes both ways.
Click to expand...


You can wrap your definition of analogy up in brown paper with a pink bow and you'd still be wrong. Genocide is genocide. There was no genocide in the Civil War...


----------



## jillian

Dr Grump said:


> You can wrap your definition of analogy up in brown paper with a pink bow and you'd still be wrong. Genocide is genocide. There was no genocide in the Civil War...



apparently, she's one of those people who thinks they can misuse terms any way they choose.

ah well..


----------



## syrenn

jillian said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can wrap your definition of analogy up in brown paper with a pink bow and you'd still be wrong. Genocide is genocide. There was no genocide in the Civil War...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> apparently, she's one of those people who thinks they can misuse terms any way they choose.
> 
> ah well..
Click to expand...


Apparently so. The definitions are for her to read as well.


----------



## paperview

syrenn said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can wrap your definition of analogy up in brown paper with a pink bow and you'd still be wrong. Genocide is genocide. There was no genocide in the Civil War...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> apparently, she's one of those people who thinks they can misuse terms any way they choose.
> 
> ah well..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently so. The definitions are for her to read as well.
Click to expand...

You know there are only like 12 people in the whole country who consider the Civil War Genocide.

Maybe you should think about that.


----------



## elvis

paperview said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> apparently, she's one of those people who thinks they can misuse terms any way they choose.
> 
> ah well..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently so. The definitions are for her to read as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know there are only like 12 people in the whole country who consider the Civil War Genocide.
> 
> Maybe you should think about that.
Click to expand...


Kevin Kennedy is one of those 12.


----------



## syrenn

elvis said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently so. The definitions are for her to read as well.
> 
> 
> 
> You know there are only like 12 people in the whole country who consider the Civil War Genocide.
> 
> Maybe you should think about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kevin Kennedy is one of those 12.
Click to expand...


You all need to understand the word analogy better.  sheesh.


----------



## elvis

syrenn said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know there are only like 12 people in the whole country who consider the Civil War Genocide.
> 
> Maybe you should think about that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin Kennedy is one of those 12.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You all need to understand the word analogy better.  sheesh.
Click to expand...


i was responding to one post, not the entire thread.


----------



## ABikerSailor

The Civil War couldn't have been genocide.

Genocide implies the total eradication of an entire race.  In the Civil War, brother fought against brother.

If you're related, you're from the same race.


----------



## syrenn

ABikerSailor said:


> The Civil War couldn't have been genocide.
> 
> Genocide implies the total eradication of an entire race.  In the Civil War, brother fought against brother.
> 
> If you're related, you're from the same race.



The civil war caused more American deaths then any of the wars combined.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

elvis said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently so. The definitions are for her to read as well.
> 
> 
> 
> You know there are only like 12 people in the whole country who consider the Civil War Genocide.
> 
> Maybe you should think about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kevin Kennedy is one of those 12.
Click to expand...


Since I haven't called the Civil War genocide anywhere on this board, or even in this thread, I'd have to say that's an incorrect statement.  In fact, here's my exact quote:



Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Certainly not in the same league as Hitler, but he had no problem wiping out the southern population.


----------



## syrenn

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know there are only like 12 people in the whole country who consider the Civil War Genocide.
> 
> Maybe you should think about that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin Kennedy is one of those 12.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since I haven't called the Civil War genocide anywhere on this board, or even in this thread, I'd have to say that's an incorrect statement.  In fact, here's my exact quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly not in the same league as Hitler, but he had no problem wiping out the southern population.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Which is why i use the word   ANALOGY 

KK read the post i made with the definitions, i am sure you will understand what i am saying.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

syrenn said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin Kennedy is one of those 12.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since I haven't called the Civil War genocide anywhere on this board, or even in this thread, I'd have to say that's an incorrect statement.  In fact, here's my exact quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly not in the same league as Hitler, but he had no problem wiping out the southern population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is why i use the word   ANALOGY
> 
> KK read the post i made with the definitions, i am sure you will understand what i am saying.
Click to expand...


I understand your point, but since Lincoln never gave any order to have southern civilians rounded up and murdered you will be hard pressed to convince anyone that what happened during the Civil War was genocide.  I think the matter is beside the point, however.  The fact is that southern civilians were targeted and murdered by Union troops, and Lincoln had absolutely no problem with this.  If he had to absolutely destroy the south in every way shape or form to force them back into the Union he was more than willing that it should happen.


----------



## Dr Grump

syrenn said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can wrap your definition of analogy up in brown paper with a pink bow and you'd still be wrong. Genocide is genocide. There was no genocide in the Civil War...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> apparently, she's one of those people who thinks they can misuse terms any way they choose.
> 
> ah well..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently so. The definitions are for her to read as well.
Click to expand...


Then you know you were wrong with your analogy? Cool....


----------



## Dr Grump

syrenn said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil War couldn't have been genocide.
> 
> Genocide implies the total eradication of an entire race.  In the Civil War, brother fought against brother.
> 
> If you're related, you're from the same race.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The civil war caused more American deaths then any of the wars combined.
Click to expand...


And it still doesn't mean it was genocide....or even attempted genocide......


----------



## Dr Grump

syrenn said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin Kennedy is one of those 12.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since I haven't called the Civil War genocide anywhere on this board, or even in this thread, I'd have to say that's an incorrect statement.  In fact, here's my exact quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly not in the same league as Hitler, but he had no problem wiping out the southern population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is why i use the word   ANALOGY
> 
> KK read the post i made with the definitions, i am sure you will understand what i am saying.
Click to expand...


And you would still be wrong with your analogy...go figure....


----------



## Father Time

Liberty said:


> They both committed ridiculous and pointless genocide...maybe no where near in similar methods or to the same ends, but they both killed a large enough amount of people that should taint their legacy as villainous in my opinion.



There's a massive difference between war and genocide, I suggest you learn what that is before you make yourself seem even more foolish.


----------



## JakeStarkey

A KevinKennedy assertion: The fact is that southern civilians were targeted and murdered by Union troops, and Lincoln had absolutely no problem with this.

KK, have you studied the courts-martial records for the Union Army and concluded that no courts were held for such crimes, that Lincoln pardoned soldiers convicted of such crimes and had been sentenced to death?

You have not given any evidence, thus any reader can safely ignore your statement as simply biased.


----------



## jillian

syrenn said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin Kennedy is one of those 12.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since I haven't called the Civil War genocide anywhere on this board, or even in this thread, I'd have to say that's an incorrect statement.  In fact, here's my exact quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly not in the same league as Hitler, but he had no problem wiping out the southern population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is why i use the word   ANALOGY
> 
> KK read the post i made with the definitions, i am sure you will understand what i am saying.
Click to expand...


it's still an absurd analogy, which is what I said in my earlier comment.

again, go look again at the definition of genocide and see if you can't figure it out instead of being disingenuous.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JakeStarkey said:


> A KevinKennedy assertion: The fact is that southern civilians were targeted and murdered by Union troops, and Lincoln had absolutely no problem with this.
> 
> KK, have you studied the courts-martial records for the Union Army and concluded that no courts were held for such crimes, that Lincoln pardoned soldiers convicted of such crimes and had been sentenced to death?
> 
> You have not given any evidence, thus any reader can safely ignore your statement as simply biased.



Lincoln gave the "thanks of the nation" to Sherman for his actions, and his actions included destroying the south.  Sherman and Sheridan then went on from their successful destruction of the south to destroy the plains indians.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Genocide would be closer to what the European Americans did to the Native Americans when they came here.

Not what happened during the Civil War.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

ABikerSailor said:


> Genocide would be closer to what the European Americans did to the Native Americans when they came here.
> 
> Not what happened during the Civil War.



Or what Sherman and Sheridan did to the plains indians _after_ the Civil War.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> A KevinKennedy assertion: The fact is that southern civilians were targeted and murdered by Union troops, and Lincoln had absolutely no problem with this.
> 
> KK, have you studied the courts-martial records for the Union Army and concluded that no courts were held for such crimes, that Lincoln pardoned soldiers convicted of such crimes and had been sentenced to death?
> 
> You have not given any evidence, thus any reader can safely ignore your statement as simply biased.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln gave the "thanks of the nation" to Sherman for his actions, and his actions included destroying the south.  Sherman and Sheridan then went on from their successful destruction of the south to destroy the plains indians.
Click to expand...


In other words, no, I haven't jake so I will give you a load of crap.  KK, don't be like that moron Curve Light.


----------



## BolshevikHunter

Even though I don't agree with The War of The States in regards to how The Federal Government slaughtered fellow Americans because they stood up for their Constitutional Rights, I think it's fucking crazy to compare Lincoln to Hitler. Alot of people suffered in that War, and there is enough blame to go around on both sides, which is historically usually the case. ~BH


----------



## Rogue 9

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not caring and deliberately attempting to destroy are two very different things, though I doubt he was truly guilty of either. I'd say that you more aptly described Sherman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sherman and Sheridan certainly wanted to wipe out the southern population, but Lincoln gave Sherman the "thanks of the nation" for his work in the south.  Hard to say he didn't want to wipe out the south when he thanked Sherman for doing exactly that.
Click to expand...

What a crock, the both of you.  Sherman's armies did not go about randomly shooting everyone they saw _and you know it._  Hell, they didn't even wantonly destroy all the property in sight either; you can today go to Georgia, proceed to somewhere that was in the path of Sherman's march, and hear the residents bewailing how the evil Sherman burned everything to the ground and five minutes later proudly point out examples of still standing antebellum architecture.  

Besides, they shouldn't have brought it on themselves.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Rogue 9 said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not caring and deliberately attempting to destroy are two very different things, though I doubt he was truly guilty of either. I'd say that you more aptly described Sherman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sherman and Sheridan certainly wanted to wipe out the southern population, but Lincoln gave Sherman the "thanks of the nation" for his work in the south.  Hard to say he didn't want to wipe out the south when he thanked Sherman for doing exactly that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a crock, the both of you.  Sherman's armies did not go about randomly shooting everyone they saw _and you know it._  Hell, they didn't even wantonly destroy all the property in sight either; you can today go to Georgia, proceed to somewhere that was in the path of Sherman's march, and hear the residents bewailing how the evil Sherman burned everything to the ground and five minutes later proudly point out examples of still standing antebellum architecture.
> 
> Besides, they shouldn't have brought it on themselves.
Click to expand...


You know what's really interesting Rogue?  

A fanatical Christian and a Muslim are arguing about who slaughtered who.

Kinda ironic when you consider the violence of both religions.........


----------



## JBeukema

Rogue 9 said:


> By
> Besides, they shouldn't have brought it on themselves.


By exercising their constitutional right to leave the union?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Rogue 9 said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not caring and deliberately attempting to destroy are two very different things, though I doubt he was truly guilty of either. I'd say that you more aptly described Sherman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sherman and Sheridan certainly wanted to wipe out the southern population, but Lincoln gave Sherman the "thanks of the nation" for his work in the south.  Hard to say he didn't want to wipe out the south when he thanked Sherman for doing exactly that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a crock, the both of you.  Sherman's armies did not go about randomly shooting everyone they saw _and you know it._  Hell, they didn't even wantonly destroy all the property in sight either; you can today go to Georgia, proceed to somewhere that was in the path of Sherman's march, and hear the residents bewailing how the evil Sherman burned everything to the ground and five minutes later proudly point out examples of still standing antebellum architecture.
> 
> Besides, they shouldn't have brought it on themselves.
Click to expand...


Who said they shot everyone they saw?  They did, however, burn down southern cities and raped, robbed, and murdered southern civilians and slaves.


----------



## Rogue 9

JBeukema said:


> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> By
> Besides, they shouldn't have brought it on themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> By exercising their constitutional right to leave the union?
Click to expand...

There is no constitutional right to leave the union.  Also, read the link; they did far more and worse than simply secede.


----------



## paperview

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sherman and Sheridan certainly wanted to wipe out the southern population, but Lincoln gave Sherman the "thanks of the nation" for his work in the south.  Hard to say he didn't want to wipe out the south when he thanked Sherman for doing exactly that.
> 
> 
> 
> What a crock, the both of you.  Sherman's armies did not go about randomly shooting everyone they saw _and you know it._  Hell, they didn't even wantonly destroy all the property in sight either; you can today go to Georgia, proceed to somewhere that was in the path of Sherman's march, and hear the residents bewailing how the evil Sherman burned everything to the ground and five minutes later proudly point out examples of still standing antebellum architecture.
> 
> Besides, they shouldn't have brought it on themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said they shot everyone they saw?  They did, however, burn down southern cities and raped, robbed, and murdered southern civilians and slaves.
Click to expand...

And so did Confederates.

To repeat my earlier post:

Champ  Ferguson
might tell you a thing or two about murdering civilians.
"...At the start of the war, Ferguson organized a unit and started   attacking civilians believed to support the Union. Occasionally, his   guerrilla band cooperated with Confederate military units led by Brig.   Gen. John Hunt Morgan and Maj. Gen. Joseph  Wheeler. Some evidence indicates Ferguson was  actually made a  captain of partisan rangers by Morgan. However,  Ferguson's men  were seldom subject to military discipline and frequently  violated the  normal rules of warfare.
 There are legends of Ferguson's alleged sadism, including stories  that  he decapitated prisoners and rolled their heads down hillsides and  was  willing to kill elderly and bedridden men."​How about  Jefferson Davis' Partisan  Ranger Act?

How about the other guerrilla forces the Confederates used?

When you acknowledge those, you have to then acknowledge the Confederate  Government and the civilian South shared some of the  blame for the  Union's hard war policy.


----------



## JBeukema

Rogue 9 said:


> There is no constitutional right to leave the union.


10th amendment

show me where the Constitution says they can't leave.


----------



## paperview

Don't you guys ever get tired of going around and round and around with a question the Civil War answered?


----------



## theHawk

Liberty said:


> They both committed ridiculous and pointless genocide...maybe no where near in similar methods or to the same ends, but they both killed a large enough amount of people that should taint their legacy as villainous in my opinion.



Both sides of this debate bring up good points, aside from the rediculous comparison of Lincoln to Hitler.

Legally, I think the south had the right to secede from the Union, as if was not prohibited in the Constitution at the time.
I think its important to understand the times of when the Constitution was written, it was drafted in a manner to get all the states on board, which is of course why the issue of slavery was put on the backburner at the time.  They probably left out session for the same exact reason.
Unfortunately for Lincoln, this left him with no legal backing to go to war.  But, he did what he thought was best for "the Union".  The war may have not been legally justified but it was perhaps morally justified as the end result was the abolition of slavery.


----------



## JBeukema

> The war may have not been legally justified but it was perhaps morally  justified as the end result was the abolition of slavery.



Such was never the intent. The union never said they would go to war over slavery and Lincoln did nothing for the slaves in the Union.

The Union has no moral highground whatsoever.


----------



## JBeukema

paperview said:


> Don't you guys ever get tired of going around and round and around with a question the Civil War answered?



Bullets magically make the ink on the Constitution rewrite itself?


----------



## paperview

JBeukema said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you guys ever get tired of going around and round and around with a question the Civil War answered?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullets magically make the ink on the Constitution rewrite itself?
Click to expand...

No.  They simply highlight the words *United States*.


----------



## JBeukema

subjection = unity in paper's eyes


----------



## paperview

Let us all rise for the Pledge of Allegiance:

*"I pledge allegiance to the flag 
of the United States of America
 and to  the republic for which it stands,
 one nation under God, indivisible,  
with liberty and justice for all."*


----------



## hortysir

paperview said:


> Let us all rise for the Pledge of Allegiance:
> 
> *"I pledge allegiance to the flag
> of the United States of America
> and to  the republic for which it stands,
> one nation under God, indivisible,
> with liberty and justice for all."*



Now you're just poking fun 

I never got a chance to elaborate on the Pledge from my earlier post:

I'm just paraphrasing because I'm, honestly, too lazy to go look it up right now. And, besides, I'm at work 
But, anyways......I'd read that the Pledge originated with Union soldiers forcing the southern population (primarily children) to pledge their allegiance to the Union.

Have you read or come across this in your studies?


----------



## JBeukema

paperview said:


> Let us all rise for the Pledge of Allegiance:
> 
> *"I pledge allegiance to the flag
> of the United States of America
> and to  the republic for which it stands,
> one nation under God, indivisible,
> with liberty and justice for all."*




You mean the pledge written by a religious socialist who didn't include the word 'God', which was added by anticonstitutionalist rightwingers when Glenn Beck Sr was still around to keep us afraid of the Russians?


----------



## Liability

paperview said:


> Let us all rise for the Pledge of Allegiance:
> 
> *"I pledge allegiance to the flag
> of the United States of America
> and to  the republic for which it stands,
> one nation under God, indivisible,
> with liberty and justice for all."*



I have long had a quibble with the Pledge.

I have maintained that I DON'T pledge allegiance to the symbol (the flag), but I instead happily pledge allegiance to the Republic for which the flag stands as a symbol.

I can come up with no useful or poetic way of saying that, however, that could substitute for the Pledge.

Other than that, I actually kind of like the Pledge of Allegiance.

I note, sadly, that my kids seem vaguely embarrassed when I place my hand over my heart to recite the pledge at their school events, however.  Most of the adults in my community seem to look down on such behavior, too.  Not all.  But enough so that it's noticeable.

Pretty sad.


----------



## paperview

JBeukema said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let us all rise for the Pledge of Allegiance:
> 
> *"I pledge allegiance to the flag
> of the United States of America
> and to  the republic for which it stands,
> one nation under God, indivisible,
> with liberty and justice for all."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the pledge written by a religious socialist who didn't include the word 'God', which was added by anticonstitutionalist rightwingers when Glenn Beck Sr was still around to keep us afraid of the Russians?
Click to expand...

That would be the one.


----------



## paperview

Liability said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let us all rise for the Pledge of Allegiance:
> 
> *"I pledge allegiance to the flag
> of the United States of America
> and to  the republic for which it stands,
> one nation under God, indivisible,
> with liberty and justice for all."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have long had a quibble with the Pledge.
> 
> I have maintained that I DON'T pledge allegiance to the symbol (the flag), but I instead happily pledge allegiance to the Republic for which the flag stands as a symbol.
> 
> I can come up with no useful or poetic way of saying that, however, that could substitute for the Pledge.
> 
> Other than that, I actually kind of like the Pledge of Allegiance.
> 
> I note, sadly, that my kids seem vaguely embarrassed when I place my hand over my heart to recite the pledge at their school events, however.  Most of the adults in my community seem to look down on such behavior, too.  Not all.  But enough so that it's noticeable.
> 
> Pretty sad.
Click to expand...

I still get tingles when I recite the Pledge.

I'm sappy that way.


----------



## paperview

hortysir said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let us all rise for the Pledge of Allegiance:
> 
> *"I pledge allegiance to the flag
> of the United States of America
> and to  the republic for which it stands,
> one nation under God, indivisible,
> with liberty and justice for all."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're just poking fun
> 
> I never got a chance to elaborate on the Pledge from my earlier post:
> 
> I'm just paraphrasing because I'm, honestly, too lazy to go look it up right now. And, besides, I'm at work
> But, anyways......I'd read that the Pledge originated with Union soldiers forcing the southern population (primarily children) to pledge their allegiance to the Union.
> 
> Have you read or come across this in your studies?
Click to expand...

Backatcha.  

Wrong.

\Nothing to do with Union Soldiers. 

Written by a socialist.  1894.

;/


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

paperview said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a crock, the both of you.  Sherman's armies did not go about randomly shooting everyone they saw _and you know it._  Hell, they didn't even wantonly destroy all the property in sight either; you can today go to Georgia, proceed to somewhere that was in the path of Sherman's march, and hear the residents bewailing how the evil Sherman burned everything to the ground and five minutes later proudly point out examples of still standing antebellum architecture.
> 
> Besides, they shouldn't have brought it on themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said they shot everyone they saw?  They did, however, burn down southern cities and raped, robbed, and murdered southern civilians and slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And so did Confederates.
> 
> To repeat my earlier post:
> 
> Champ  Ferguson
> might tell you a thing or two about murdering civilians.
> "...At the start of the war, Ferguson organized a unit and started   attacking civilians believed to support the Union. Occasionally, his   guerrilla band cooperated with Confederate military units led by Brig.   Gen. John Hunt Morgan and Maj. Gen. Joseph  Wheeler. Some evidence indicates Ferguson was  actually made a  captain of partisan rangers by Morgan. However,  Ferguson's men  were seldom subject to military discipline and frequently  violated the  normal rules of warfare.
> There are legends of Ferguson's alleged sadism, including stories  that  he decapitated prisoners and rolled their heads down hillsides and  was  willing to kill elderly and bedridden men."​How about  Jefferson Davis' Partisan  Ranger Act?
> 
> How about the other guerrilla forces the Confederates used?
> 
> When you acknowledge those, you have to then acknowledge the Confederate  Government and the civilian South shared some of the  blame for the  Union's hard war policy.
Click to expand...


I've acknowledged many of the faults of the Confederacy, but two wrongs don't make a right.


----------



## paperview

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said they shot everyone they saw?  They did, however, burn down southern cities and raped, robbed, and murdered southern civilians and slaves.
> 
> 
> 
> And so did Confederates.
> 
> To repeat my earlier post:
> 
> Champ  Ferguson
> might tell you a thing or two about murdering civilians.
> "...At the start of the war, Ferguson organized a unit and started   attacking civilians believed to support the Union. Occasionally, his   guerrilla band cooperated with Confederate military units led by Brig.   Gen. John Hunt Morgan and Maj. Gen. Joseph  Wheeler. Some evidence indicates Ferguson was  actually made a  captain of partisan rangers by Morgan. However,  Ferguson's men  were seldom subject to military discipline and frequently  violated the  normal rules of warfare.
> There are legends of Ferguson's alleged sadism, including stories  that  he decapitated prisoners and rolled their heads down hillsides and  was  willing to kill elderly and bedridden men."​How about  Jefferson Davis' Partisan  Ranger Act?
> 
> How about the other guerrilla forces the Confederates used?
> 
> When you acknowledge those, you have to then acknowledge the Confederate  Government and the civilian South shared some of the  blame for the  Union's hard war policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've acknowledged many of the faults of the Confederacy, but two wrongs don't make a right.
Click to expand...

True. 

Two slaves however, can pull a horse cart.


----------



## ABikerSailor

paperview said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let us all rise for the Pledge of Allegiance:
> 
> *"I pledge allegiance to the flag
> of the United States of America
> and to  the republic for which it stands,
> one nation under God, indivisible,
> with liberty and justice for all."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have long had a quibble with the Pledge.
> 
> I have maintained that I DON'T pledge allegiance to the symbol (the flag), but I instead happily pledge allegiance to the Republic for which the flag stands as a symbol.
> 
> I can come up with no useful or poetic way of saying that, however, that could substitute for the Pledge.
> 
> Other than that, I actually kind of like the Pledge of Allegiance.
> 
> I note, sadly, that my kids seem vaguely embarrassed when I place my hand over my heart to recite the pledge at their school events, however.  Most of the adults in my community seem to look down on such behavior, too.  Not all.  But enough so that it's noticeable.
> 
> Pretty sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I still get tingles when I recite the Pledge.
> 
> I'm sappy that way.
Click to expand...


Really?  Wanna go to a patriotic rally held by Veterans?

I like it when women get tingly.  I'll even wear my American Flag shorts!  You can salute when you see it run up the pole!


----------



## paperview

ABikerSailor said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have long had a quibble with the Pledge.
> 
> I have maintained that I DON'T pledge allegiance to the symbol (the flag), but I instead happily pledge allegiance to the Republic for which the flag stands as a symbol.
> 
> I can come up with no useful or poetic way of saying that, however, that could substitute for the Pledge.
> 
> Other than that, I actually kind of like the Pledge of Allegiance.
> 
> I note, sadly, that my kids seem vaguely embarrassed when I place my hand over my heart to recite the pledge at their school events, however.  Most of the adults in my community seem to look down on such behavior, too.  Not all.  But enough so that it's noticeable.
> 
> Pretty sad.
> 
> 
> 
> I still get tingles when I recite the Pledge.
> 
> I'm sappy that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Wanna go to a patriotic rally held by Veterans?
> 
> I like it when women get tingly.  I'll even wear my American Flag shorts!  You can salute when you see it run up the pole!
Click to expand...

Um..


----------



## hortysir

paperview said:


> I still get tingles when I recite the Pledge.
> 
> I'm sappy that way.



FWIW, me too....


----------



## JBeukema

Liability said:


> I have maintained that I DON'T pledge allegiance to the symbol (the flag), but I instead happily pledge allegiance to the Republic for which the flag stands as a symbol.



How 'bout instead pledging allegiance to your principles? Borders mean nothing, flags are worthless, and names hold no value unless they uphold strong principles. I stand by my principles and I stand by any nation whenever and only when said nation upholds those principles.


----------



## Rogue 9

JBeukema said:


> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no constitutional right to leave the union.
> 
> 
> 
> 10th amendment
> 
> show me where the Constitution says they can't leave.
Click to expand...


Sure.  





			
				United States Constitution said:
			
		

> To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, *suppress Insurrections* and repel Invasions


Insurrection and rebellion are obviously illegal; otherwise there would be no provision for suppressing it.  





			
				United States Constitution said:
			
		

> The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.


Again, if rebellion is legal, why the injunction against it? 





			
				United States Constitution said:
			
		

> No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, *keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War*, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.


Again, if you need the consent of Congress to raise an army, then it would seem that just leaving would be out; after all, if you can just leave, why bother having such a restriction?  





			
				United States Constitution said:
			
		

> Treason against the United States, shall consist only in *levying War against them*, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.


Speaks for itself, I think.  





			
				United States Constitution said:
			
		

> The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and *nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States*, or of any particular State.


This one's the kicker.  When taken in the context of the Supremacy Clause, we see that the states cannot violate the territorial sovereignty of the United States.  Secession is such a violation.  Here is that Clause:  





			
				United States Constitution said:
			
		

> This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, *shall be the supreme Law of the Land*; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, *any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding*.


So where is the right to secede?  I'm certainly not seeing it.  Incidentally, if that was such a big deal to the Confederate States, you would think they would have seen fit to include it in their own constitution.  They did not.  In fact, the only change they made which affects the ability of states to leave their union is this:  





			
				Confederate Constitution said:
			
		

> We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a *permanent federal government*, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity...


So much for the right of secession.   You lose.  Good day, sir.


----------



## paperview

Rogue 9 said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no constitutional right to leave the union.
> 
> 
> 
> 10th amendment
> 
> show me where the Constitution says they can't leave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure.
> Insurrection and rebellion are obviously illegal; otherwise there would be no provision for suppressing it.
> Again, if rebellion is legal, why the injunction against it?
> Again, if you need the consent of Congress to raise an army, then it would seem that just leaving would be out; after all, if you can just leave, why bother having such a restriction?
> Speaks for itself, I think.
> This one's the kicker.  When taken in the context of the Supremacy Clause, we see that the states cannot violate the territorial sovereignty of the United States.  Secession is such a violation.  Here is that Clause:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United States Constitution said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, *shall be the supreme Law of the Land*; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, *any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So where is the right to secede?  I'm certainly not seeing it.  Incidentally, if that was such a big deal to the Confederate States, you would think they would have seen fit to include it in their own constitution.  They did not.  In fact, the only change they made which affects the ability of states to leave their union is this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Confederate Constitution said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a *permanent federal government*, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So much for the right of secession.   You lose.  Good day, sir.
Click to expand...

*youch*  That'll leave a mark.


----------



## JBeukema

Rogue 9 said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no constitutional right to leave the union.
> 
> 
> 
> 10th amendment
> 
> show me where the Constitution says they can't leave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure.
> 
> 
> 
> To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the  Union, *suppress Insurrections* and repel Invasions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Insurrection and rebellion are obviously illegal; otherwise there would be no provision for suppressing it.
> Again, if rebellion is legal, why the injunction against it?
Click to expand...


Secession is not insurrection.

Insurrection implies a violent attempt to overthrow the governance, especially by a small separatist or rebellious group. The Hutaree are an example of would-be insurrectionists.  Secession is the disolution of an agreement by a member State in accordance with the Constitution and most closely resembles the US leaving the U.N. or any given nation announcing that they will no longer participate in N.A.T.O. When Tyrants refuse to allow the People to peacably exercise those rights, which they hold both morally and Constitutionally, then should they resort to force, you are dealing with a War for Independence, not an insurrection intended to destroy the common government of the Union.

The legal right to secession is clear, and even if it were revoked, such a law would hold no meaning in light of the right to self-determination, being a law that only a Tyrant like the King himself would attempt to enact and enforce.


> No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of  Tonnage, *keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into  any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or  engage in War*, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger  as will not admit of delay.



Once a State leaves thew Union, they are no longer member States or parties to the Constitution. They are no more bound to any Constitutional law anymore than the USA is currently bound to the UN Charter.


> Treason against the United States, shall consist only in *levying War  against them*, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and  Comfort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaks for itself, I think.
Click to expand...


Yes, Lincoln committed treason.


----------



## Rogue 9

JBeukema said:


> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 10th amendment
> 
> show me where the Constitution says they can't leave.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.
> 
> Insurrection and rebellion are obviously illegal; otherwise there would be no provision for suppressing it.
> Again, if rebellion is legal, why the injunction against it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Secession is not insurrection.
Click to expand...

The hell it isn't.  Even if it wasn't, the insurgents opened fire on and seized U.S. military installations not under the control or ownership of the states, which is an act of war.  



JBeukema said:


> Insurrection implies a violent attempt to overthrow the governance, especially by a small separatist or rebellious group. The Hutaree are an example of would-be insurrectionists.  Secession is the disolution of an agreement by a member State in accordance with the Constitution and most closely resembles the US leaving the U.N. or any given nation announcing that they will no longer participate in N.A.T.O. When Tyrants refuse to allow the People to peacably exercise those rights, which they hold both morally and Constitutionally, then should they resort to force, you are dealing with a War for Independence, not an insurrection intended to destroy the common government of the Union.
> 
> The legal right to secession is clear, and even if it were revoked, such a law would hold no meaning in light of the right to self-determination, being a law that only a Tyrant like the King himself would attempt to enact and enforce.


No, it isn't clear because it's not there.  You deliberately ignored the territorial integrity and supremacy clauses in your reply, I can't help but notice.  Disposing of the property of the United States is a power reserved to the Congress, and the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, anything to the contrary enacted by the states notwithstanding.  



JBeukema said:


> Once a State leaves thew Union, they are no longer member States or parties to the Constitution. They are no more bound to any Constitutional law anymore than the USA is currently bound to the UN Charter.


States are not independent nations and the Constitution is not a treaty organization; the comparison is invalid from the start.  


JBeukema said:


> Treason against the United States, shall consist only in *levying War  against them*, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and  Comfort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaks for itself, I think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, Lincoln committed treason.
Click to expand...

No, the vast majority of the free southern population did.  It should be counted an immense stroke of good fortune that the road from Richmond to Washington was not lined with the hanged bodies of the insurgent governments at the end of April, 1865.  

You blatantly ignored the remainder of my post, because you know it disproves your argument.  Concession accepted.  But because I like to go the extra mile, you may have heard of the Nullification Crisis.  Well it may interest you to know that some of the men who wrote the Constitution were still alive and discussing events at the time, and that secession was threatened and commented upon.  At random, let's go to James Madison.  From a letter he wrote to William Rives concerning South Carolina's behavior in 1832-33:  





> The milliners it appears, endeavor to shelter themselves under a distinction between a delegation and a surrender of powers. *But if the powers be attributes of sovereignty & nationality & the grant of them be perpetual, as is necessarily implied, where not otherwise expressed, sovereignty & nationality according to the extent of the grant are effectually transferred by it, and a dispute about the name, is but a battle of words.* The practical result is not indeed left to argument or inference. *The words of the Constitution are explicit that the Constitution & laws of the U. S. shall be supreme over the Constitution & laws of the several States, supreme in their exposition and execution as well as in their authority.* Without a supremacy in those respects it would be like a scabbard in the hand of a soldier without a sword in it. The imagination itself is startled at the idea of twenty four independent expounders of a rule that cannot exist, but in a meaning and operation, the same for all.
> 
> *The conduct of S. Carolina has called forth not only the question of nullification, but the more formidable one of secession. It is asked whether a State by resuming the sovereign form in which it entered the Union, may not of right withdraw from it at will. As this is a simple question whether a State, more than an individual, has a right to violate its engagements, it would seem that it might be safely left to answer itself.* But the countenance given to the claim shows that it cannot be so lightly dismissed. The natural feelings which laudably attach the people composing a State, to its authority and importance, are at present too much excited by the unnatural feelings, with which they have been inspired agst their brethren of other States, not to expose them, to the danger of being misled into erroneous views of the nature of the Union and the interest they have in it. One thing at least seems to be too clear to be questioned, that whilst a State remains within the Union it cannot withdraw its citizens from the operation of the Constitution & laws of the Union. *In the event of an actual secession without the Consent of the Co States, the course to be pursued by these involves questions painful in the discussion of them.*


Madison actually considered the idea of secession so preposterous that until it actually came up when South Carolina first threatened it he felt there was no need to even mention it, and was astonished that he should have to.  He also references the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution as proof positive that the states had no such ability, something that modern neo-Confederates tend to deny.  Given that he wrote the thing, I should think I trust Madison's interpretation of it.  

George Washington was of course dead before this came up, but he had a few words on the subject anyway.  This is from his Circular to the States.


> There are four things, which I humbly conceive, are essential to the well being, I may even venture to say, to the existence of the United States as an Independent Power:
> 
> 1st. An *indissoluble Union of the States under one Federal Head.*
> 
> 2dly. A Sacred regard to Public Justice.
> 
> 3dly. The adoption of a proper Peace Establishment, and
> 
> 4thly. The prevalence of that pacific and friendly Disposition, among the People of the United States, which will induce them to forget their local prejudices and policies, to make those mutual concessions which are requisite to the general prosperity, and in some instances, to sacrifice their individual advantages to the interest of the Community.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Under the first head, altho' it may not be necessary or proper for me in this place to enter into a particular disquisition of the principles of the Union, and to take up the great question which has been frequently agitated, whether it be expedient and requisite for the States to delegate a larger proportion of Power to Congress, or not, Yet it will be a part of my duty, and that of every true Patriot, to assert without reserve, and to insist upon the following positions, *That unless the States will suffer Congress to exercise those prerogatives, they are undoubtedly invested with by the Constitution, every thing must very rapidly tend to Anarchy and confusion, That it is indispensable to the happiness of the individual States, that there should be lodged somewhere, a Supreme Power to regulate and govern the general concerns of the Confederated Republic, without which the Union cannot be of long duration.* That there must be a faithful and pointed compliance on the part of every State, with the late proposals and demands of Congress, or the most fatal consequences will ensue, *That whatever measures have a tendency to dissolve the Union, or contribute to violate or lessen the Sovereign Authority, ought to be considered as hostile to the Liberty and Independency of America, and the Authors of them treated accordingly*, and lastly, that unless we can be enabled by the concurrence of the States, to participate of the fruits of the Revolution, and enjoy the essential benefits of Civil Society, under a form of Government so free and uncorrupted, so happily guarded against the danger of oppression, as has been devised and adopted by the Articles of Confederation, it will be a subject of regret, that so much blood and treasure have been lavished for no purpose, that so many sufferings have been encountered without a compensation, and that so many sacrifices have been made in vain.


And Jefferson...  





			
				Thomas Jefferson to George Washington said:
			
		

> I can scarcely contemplate a more incalculable evil than the breaking of the union into two or more parts.


And in another letter, this one addressed to a third party and talking about a discussion Jefferson had had with Washington that day:  





> That with respect to the existing causes of uneasiness, he thought there were suspicions against a particular party, which had been carried a great deal too far; there might be desires, but he did not believe there were designs to change the form of government into a monarchy; that there might be a few who wished it in the higher walks of life, particularly in the great cities, but that the main body of the people in the eastern States were as steadily for republicanism as in the southern. That the pieces lately published, and particularly in Freneau's paper, seemed to have in view the exciting opposition to the government. That this had taken place in Pennsylvania as to the Excise law, according to information he had received from General Hand. *That they tended to produce a separation of the Union, the most dreadful of all calamities, and that whatever tended to produce anarchy, tended, of course, to produce a resort to monarchical government.*


I can go on at length, but I trust the point is clear by now.  You still lose.  Good day, sir.


----------



## JBeukema

Elvis just can't stand the thought that the Founding fathers had any right to tell the King to to f- himself


----------



## Kalam

Rogue 9 said:


> What a crock, the both of you.  Sherman's armies did not go about randomly shooting everyone they saw _and you know it._


Nice strawman argument you have there. Typical yankee tactic in these kinds of discussions. 



Rogue 9 said:


> Hell, they didn't even wantonly destroy all the property in sight either; you can today go to Georgia, proceed to somewhere that was in the path of Sherman's march, and hear the residents bewailing how the evil Sherman burned everything to the ground and five minutes later proudly point out examples of still standing antebellum architecture.


No, Sherman's orders were to wantonly destroy civilian property in areas that did not bend over for his invaders. If he felt that his troops were being harassed, destroying houses, cotton gins, mills, and other sources of livelihood became instantly permissible whether the owners of the destroyed property actually participated in any sort of insurrection or not. This is the sort of barbaric tactic that is used by the Chinese against the Tibetans, the Zionists against the Palestinians, and the thuggish Russian military against the people of Chechnya. Sherman was an unscrupulous brute of a man. 

_We are not only fighting armies, but a hostile people, and must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war, as well as their organized armies._ - Sherman, 1864​


Rogue 9 said:


> Besides, they shouldn't have brought it on themselves.


Do you believe that collective punishment is a legitimate method of suppressing resistance?


----------



## JBeukema

> opened fire on and seized U.S. military installations not under the  control or ownership of the states, which is an act of war.



Whether the CSA committed an act of war against the USA or vise versa is an issue distinct from the matter of secession.

Interesting that you use such a term, since it implies that the CSA was recognized as a sovereign nation already, as opposed to the act merely being a criminal act committed by a number of citizens


> Disposing of the property of the United States is a power reserved to  the Congress



And of the land of the member States is a power of those States. That's why the Fed now tries to prevent the States from owning themselves, since they know that your argument has been tried and doesn't hold water. Hence this trend:






They knew it was the States' land and not the Feds- hence the attempt by the Fed to own all the land in the new States


> States are not independent nations



They are semiautomatics sovereign entities, just as Germany or Spain within the EU. That's why the Constitution so clearly speaks of the united States in the plural rather than the singular in a great many instances.


> At random, let's go to James Madison.



Let's go to Thomas Jefferson. Are you familiar with the need for revolution and the tree of liberty? Self-determination is a moral right as well as a legal one, and any tyranny that infringes it warrants its own destruction. It was a sign of discretion that they opted to allow those content with the growth of federal power to be slaves to the Fed and to merely leave peaceably as they attempted before Lincoln made it clear he would not allow it. Their actions mirror those of the FF themselves.


> Quote: Originally Posted by *Thomas Jefferson to George  Washington, 1794*
> _I can scarcely contemplate a more incalculable evil  than the breaking of the union into two or more parts._



I see, you're one of those nutters who think the FF were Jesus in many bodies and worship their corpses. You want to throw Jefferson quotes around?

*"No one, I hope, can doubt my wish to see... all mankind exercising  self-government, and capable of exercising it." --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette,  1817. ME 15:116  *


*"A single good government becomes... a blessing to the whole earth,  its welcome to the oppressed restraining within certain limits the  measure of their oppressions.  But should even this be counteracted by  violence on the right of expatriation, the other branch of our example  then presents itself for imitation: to rise on their rulers and do as we  have done." --Thomas Jefferson to George Flower, 1817.  ME 15:141 *



 "We surely cannot deny to any nation that right whereon our own  government is founded, that every one may govern itself according to  whatever form it pleases and change these forms at its own will...  The  will of the nation is the only thing essential to be regarded." --Thomas  Jefferson to Gouverneur Morris, 1792.  ME 9:36 




*"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established,  should not be changed for light and transient causes; and, accordingly,  all experience [has] shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer  while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the  forms to which they are accustomed.  But, when a long train of abuses  and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design  to reduce [the people] under absolute despotism, it is their right, it  is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards  for their future security." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of  Independence, 1776.  ME 1:29, Papers 1:429  *


*"When patience has begotten false estimates of its motives, when  wrongs are pressed because it is believed they will be borne, resistance  becomes morality." --Thomas Jefferson to M. deStael, 1807.  ME 11:282   *


*"If ever there was a holy war, it was that which saved our liberties  and gave us independence." --Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes,  1813.  ME 13:430   *


*"The oppressed should rebel, and they will continue to rebel and  raise disturbance until their civil rights are fully restored to them  and all partial distinctions, exclusions and incapacitations are  removed." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776. Papers 1:548 *


*"As revolutionary instruments (when nothing but revolution will cure  the evils of the State) [secret societies] are necessary and  indispensable, and the right to use them is inalienable by the people."  --Thomas Jefferson to William Duane, 1803. FE 8:256 *


_[FONT=Times New  Roman,Times,serif]The tree of liberty must be refreshed                                     from time to time with the blood of  patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.[/FONT]_​ [FONT=Times New Roman,Times,serif]Thomas Jefferson

[/FONT]"If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation ...  to a continuance in the union .... I have no hesitation in saying, 'Let  us separate.'" 

Did you mention Virginia?

"The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People  of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall  be perverted to their injury or oppression." 



> In Federalist Paper 39, James Madison, the father of the Constitution,  cleared up what "the people" meant, saying the proposed Constitution  would be subject to ratification by the people, "not as individuals  composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and  independent States to which they respectively belong." In a word, states  were sovereign; the federal government was a creation, an agent, a  servant of the states.


Capitalism Magazine - Do States Have a Right of Secession?


Anyway, back to Madison

Federalist 39:

Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign  body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own  voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if  established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.

and again the whole Virginia thing:

Who are parties to it [the Constitution]? The peoplebut not the people  as composing one great body; but the people as composing thirteen  sovereignties.
-Patrick Henry

And back to the Federalist, this time Hamilton:
But as the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or  consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights  of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act,  EXCLUSIVELY delegated to the United States.

The Paris Peace Treaty

His  Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New  Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations,  Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia,  North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and  independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself,  his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government,  propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.


New Hampshire Constitution:
The people inhabiting the territory formerly called the province of New  Hampshire, do hereby solemnly and mutually agree with each other, to  form themselves into a free, sovereign and independent body-politic, or  state, by the name of the State of New Hampshire.

Mass. Constitution:
The people, inhabiting the territory formerly called the Province of  Massachusetts Bay, do hereby solemnly and mutually agree with each  other, to form themselves into a free, sovereign, and independent body  politic, or state by the name of THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

Connecticut legislature protesting the War of 1812:
But it must not be forgotten, that the state of Connecticut is a FREE  SOVEREIGN and INDEPENDENT state; that the United States are a  confederacy of states; that we are a confederated and not a consolidated  republic.

Mass again:
While this State maintains its sovereignty and independence, all the  citizens can find protection against outrage and injustice in the strong  arm of State government.

and Jefferson again:
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]	 Whether                  we remain in one confederacy, or form into Atlantic and  Mississippi                  confederacies, I believe not very important to the  happiness of                  either part. Those of the western confederacy will be as  much                  our children & descendants as those of the eastern,  and I feel                  myself as much identified with that country, in future  time, as                  with this; and did I now foresee a separation [i.e.,  secession]                  at some future day, yet I should feel the duty & the  desire to                  promote the western interests as zealously as the  eastern, doing                  all the good for both portions of our future family  which should                  fall within my power.[/FONT]

​and again:

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"God                bless them both, & keep them in the union if it be for  their                good, but separate them, if it be better." 

[/FONT]

​


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

JBeukema said:


> opened fire on and seized U.S. military installations not under the  control or ownership of the states, which is an act of war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whether the CSA committed an act of war against the USA or vise versa is an issue distinct from the matter of secession.
> 
> Interesting that you use such a term, since it implies that the CSA was recognized as a sovereign nation already, as opposed to the act merely being a criminal act committed by a number of citizens
> 
> 
> 
> Disposing of the property of the United States is a power reserved to  the Congress
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And of the land of the member States is a power of those States. That's why the Fed now tries to prevent the States from owning themselves, since they know that your argument has been tried and doesn't hold water. Hence this trend:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They knew it was the States' land and not the Feds- hence the attempt by the Fed to own all the land in the new States
> 
> 
> They are semiautomatics sovereign entities, just as Germany or Spain within the EU. That's why the Constitution so clearly speaks of the united States in the plural rather than the singular in a great many instances.
> 
> 
> Let's go to Thomas Jefferson. Are you familiar with the need for revolution and the tree of liberty? Self-determination is a moral right as well as a legal one, and any tyranny that infringes it warrants its own destruction. It was a sign of discretion that they opted to allow those content with the growth of federal power to be slaves to the Fed and to merely leave peaceably as they attempted before Lincoln made it clear he would not allow it. Their actions mirror those of the FF themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> Quote: Originally Posted by *Thomas Jefferson to George  Washington, 1794*
> _I can scarcely contemplate a more incalculable evil  than the breaking of the union into two or more parts._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see, you're one of those nutters who think the FF were Jesus in many bodies and worship their corpses. You want to throw Jefferson quotes around?
> 
> *"No one, I hope, can doubt my wish to see... all mankind exercising  self-government, and capable of exercising it." --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette,  1817. ME 15:116  *
> 
> 
> *"A single good government becomes... a blessing to the whole earth,  its welcome to the oppressed restraining within certain limits the  measure of their oppressions.  But should even this be counteracted by  violence on the right of expatriation, the other branch of our example  then presents itself for imitation: to rise on their rulers and do as we  have done." --Thomas Jefferson to George Flower, 1817.  ME 15:141 *
> 
> 
> 
> "We surely cannot deny to any nation that right whereon our own  government is founded, that every one may govern itself according to  whatever form it pleases and change these forms at its own will...  The  will of the nation is the only thing essential to be regarded." --Thomas  Jefferson to Gouverneur Morris, 1792.  ME 9:36
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established,  should not be changed for light and transient causes; and, accordingly,  all experience [has] shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer  while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the  forms to which they are accustomed.  But, when a long train of abuses  and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design  to reduce [the people] under absolute despotism, it is their right, it  is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards  for their future security." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of  Independence, 1776.  ME 1:29, Papers 1:429  *
> 
> 
> *"When patience has begotten false estimates of its motives, when  wrongs are pressed because it is believed they will be borne, resistance  becomes morality." --Thomas Jefferson to M. deStael, 1807.  ME 11:282   *
> 
> 
> *"If ever there was a holy war, it was that which saved our liberties  and gave us independence." --Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes,  1813.  ME 13:430   *
> 
> 
> *"The oppressed should rebel, and they will continue to rebel and  raise disturbance until their civil rights are fully restored to them  and all partial distinctions, exclusions and incapacitations are  removed." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776. Papers 1:548 *
> 
> 
> *"As revolutionary instruments (when nothing but revolution will cure  the evils of the State) [secret societies] are necessary and  indispensable, and the right to use them is inalienable by the people."  --Thomas Jefferson to William Duane, 1803. FE 8:256 *
> 
> 
> _[FONT=Times New  Roman,Times,serif]The tree of liberty must be refreshed                                     from time to time with the blood of  patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.[/FONT]_​ [FONT=Times New Roman,Times,serif]Thomas Jefferson
> 
> [/FONT]"If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation ...  to a continuance in the union .... I have no hesitation in saying, 'Let  us separate.'"
> 
> Did you mention Virginia?
> 
> "The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People  of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall  be perverted to their injury or oppression."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In Federalist Paper 39, James Madison, the father of the Constitution,  cleared up what "the people" meant, saying the proposed Constitution  would be subject to ratification by the people, "not as individuals  composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and  independent States to which they respectively belong." In a word, states  were sovereign; the federal government was a creation, an agent, a  servant of the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism Magazine - Do States Have a Right of Secession?
> 
> 
> Anyway, back to Madison
> 
> Federalist 39:
> 
> Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign  body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own  voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if  established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.
> 
> and again the whole Virginia thing:
> 
> Who are parties to it [the Constitution]? The peoplebut not the people  as composing one great body; but the people as composing thirteen  sovereignties.
> -Patrick Henry
> 
> And back to the Federalist, this time Hamilton:
> But as the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or  consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights  of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act,  EXCLUSIVELY delegated to the United States.
> 
> The Paris Peace Treaty
> 
> His  Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New  Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations,  Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia,  North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and  independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself,  his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government,  propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.
> 
> 
> New Hampshire Constitution:
> The people inhabiting the territory formerly called the province of New  Hampshire, do hereby solemnly and mutually agree with each other, to  form themselves into a free, sovereign and independent body-politic, or  state, by the name of the State of New Hampshire.
> 
> Mass. Constitution:
> The people, inhabiting the territory formerly called the Province of  Massachusetts Bay, do hereby solemnly and mutually agree with each  other, to form themselves into a free, sovereign, and independent body  politic, or state by the name of THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
> 
> Connecticut legislature protesting the War of 1812:
> But it must not be forgotten, that the state of Connecticut is a FREE  SOVEREIGN and INDEPENDENT state; that the United States are a  confederacy of states; that we are a confederated and not a consolidated  republic.
> 
> Mass again:
> While this State maintains its sovereignty and independence, all the  citizens can find protection against outrage and injustice in the strong  arm of State government.
> 
> and Jefferson again:
> [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]	 Whether                  we remain in one confederacy, or form into Atlantic and  Mississippi                  confederacies, I believe not very important to the  happiness of                  either part. Those of the western confederacy will be as  much                  our children & descendants as those of the eastern,  and I feel                  myself as much identified with that country, in future  time, as                  with this; and did I now foresee a separation [i.e.,  secession]                  at some future day, yet I should feel the duty & the  desire to                  promote the western interests as zealously as the  eastern, doing                  all the good for both portions of our future family  which should                  fall within my power.[/FONT]
> 
> ​and again:
> 
> [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"God                bless them both, & keep them in the union if it be for  their                good, but separate them, if it be better."
> 
> [/FONT]
> 
> ​
Click to expand...


I can't rep you for this, but I'd like to point out that this is an extremely solid post.


----------



## Rogue 9

JBeukema said:


> Elvis just can't stand the thought that the Founding fathers had any right to tell the King to to f- himself


Don't know what Elvis has to do with anything, but they did have every moral right to do that.  You have said nothing about moral rights until your last pair of posts, however; instead you have tried unsuccessfully to justify secession on constitutional grounds.  If you want to get into moral rights, however, you still lose because the states of the Slave Power acted in an immoral manner absolutely contrary to liberty in engaging in rebellion to protect slavery rather than to secure anyone's liberty.  


Kalam said:


> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a crock, the both of you.  Sherman's armies did not go about randomly shooting everyone they saw _and you know it._
> 
> 
> 
> Nice strawman argument you have there. Typical yankee tactic in these kinds of discussions.
Click to expand...

_You_ charged Sherman with genocide; pointing out that you're wrong is in no way irrelevant to the point.  


Kalam said:


> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hell, they didn't even wantonly destroy all the property in sight either; you can today go to Georgia, proceed to somewhere that was in the path of Sherman's march, and hear the residents bewailing how the evil Sherman burned everything to the ground and five minutes later proudly point out examples of still standing antebellum architecture.
> 
> 
> 
> No, Sherman's orders were to wantonly destroy civilian property in areas that did not bend over for his invaders. If he felt that his troops were being harassed, destroying houses, cotton gins, mills, and other sources of livelihood became instantly permissible whether the owners of the destroyed property actually participated in any sort of insurrection or not. This is the sort of barbaric tactic that is used by the Chinese against the Tibetans, the Zionists against the Palestinians, and the thuggish Russian military against the people of Chechnya. Sherman was an unscrupulous brute of a man.
> 
> _We are not only fighting armies, but a hostile people, and must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war, as well as their organized armies._ - Sherman, 1864​
Click to expand...

Sherman was a military commander behind enemy lines deep in enemy territory with the objective of neutralizing the enemy's capacity to make war.  He did this admirably, and in practice with remarkable restraint, having the second lowest rate of casualties in his command of any general officer of the war despite commanding the most exposed army group for nearly a year (the Army of Northern Virginia had the highest casualty rate, by the way) and similarly inflicting as few casualties as practical upon his enemies.  He liberally destroyed and confiscated property useful for sustaining the Slave Power's war effort, and his orders specifically commanded his troops to leave behind sufficient goods to sustain the families foraged from.  I will here quote Sherman twice; the first is his Special Field Orders, No. 120, which governed the march to the sea.  The second his his response to John Bell Hood when the traitor general disingenuously asked him in the name of God to spare Atlanta (and it's munitions plants, and factories, and military supply depots...)  for the sake of the women and children.  





> Headquarters Military Division of the Mississippi, In the Field, Kingston, Georgia, November 9, 1864
> 
> I. For the purpose of military operations, this army is divided into two wings viz.: The right wing, Major-General O. O. Howard commanding, composed of the Fifteenth and Seventeenth Corps; the left wing, Major-General H. W. Slocum commanding, composed of the Fourteenth and Twentieth Corps.
> 
> II. The habitual order of march will be, wherever practicable, by four roads, as nearly parallel as possible, and converging at points hereafter to be indicated in orders. The cavalry, Brigadier - General Kilpatrick commanding, will receive special orders from the commander-in-chief.
> 
> III. There will be no general train of supplies, but each corps will have its ammunition-train and provision-train, distributed habitually as follows: Behind each regiment should follow one wagon and one ambulance; behind each brigade should follow a due proportion of ammunition - wagons, provision-wagons, and ambulances. In case of danger, each corps commander should change this order of march, by having his advance and rear brigades unencumbered by wheels. The separate columns will start habitually at 7 a.m., and make about fifteen miles per day, unless otherwise fixed in orders.
> 
> IV. The army will forage liberally on the country during the march. To this end, each brigade commander will organize a good and sufficient foraging party, under the command of one or more discreet officers, who will gather, near the route traveled, corn or forage of any kind, meat of any kind, vegetables, corn-meal, or whatever is needed by the command, aiming at all times to keep in the wagons at least ten day's provisions for the command and three days' forage. *Soldiers must not enter the dwellings of the inhabitants, or commit any trespass*, but during a halt or a camp they may be permitted to gather turnips, potatoes, and other vegetables, and to drive in stock of their camp. To regular foraging parties must be instructed the gathering of provisions and forage at any distance from the road traveled.
> 
> V. To army corps commanders alone is intrusted the power to destroy mills, houses, cotton-gins, &c., and for them this general principle is laid down: In districts and neighborhoods where the army is unmolested no destruction of such property should be permitted; but should guerrillas or bushwhackers molest our march, or should the inhabitants burn bridges, obstruct roads, or otherwise manifest local hostility, then army commanders should order and enforce a devastation more or less relentless according to the measure of such hostility.
> 
> VI. As for horses, mules, wagons, &c., belonging to the inhabitants, the cavalry and artillery may appropriate freely and without limit, discriminating, however, between the rich, who are usually hostile, and the poor or industrious, usually neutral or friendly. Foraging parties may also take mules or horses to replace the jaded animals of their trains, or to serve as pack-mules for the regiments or bridges. In all foraging, of whatever kind, the parties engaged will refrain from abusive or threatening language, and may, where the officer in command thinks proper, give written certificates of the facts, but no receipts, and *they will endeavor to leave with each family a reasonable portion for their maintenance.*
> 
> VII. Negroes who are able-bodied and can be of service to the several columns may be taken along, but each army commander will bear in mind that the question of supplies is a very important one and that his first duty is to see to them who bear arms.
> 
> &#8211; William T. Sherman, Military Division of the Mississippi Special Field Order 120, November 9, 1864


Contrast to the field orders of most 20th century wars, particularly the World Wars, which mainly consisted of "burn it to the ground."  





> I say that it is kindness to these families of Atlanta to remove them now, at once, from scenes that women and children should not be exposed to, and the "brave people" should scorn to commit their wives and children to the rude barbarians who thus, as you say, violate the laws of war, as illustrated in the pages of its dark history.
> 
> In the name of common-sense, I ask you not to appeal to a just God in such a sacrilegious manner. You who, in the midst of peace and prosperity, have plunged a nation into war&#8212; dark and cruel war&#8212;who dared and badgered us to battle, insulted our flag, seized our arsenals and forts that were left in the honorable custody of peaceful ordnance-sergeants, seized and made "prisoners of war" the very garrisons sent to protect your people against negroes and Indians, long before any overt act was committed by the (to you) hated Lincoln Government; tried to force Kentucky and Missouri into rebellion, [in] spite of themselves; falsified the vote of Louisiana; turned loose your privateers to plunder unarmed ships; expelled Union families by the thousands, burned their houses, and declared, by an act of your Congress, the confiscation of all debts due Northern men for goods had and received! Talk thus to the marines, but not to me, who have seen these things, and who will this day make as much sacrifice for the peace and honor of the South as the best-born Southerner among you! If we must be enemies, let us be men, and fight it out as we propose to do, and not deal in such hypocritical appeals to God and humanity. God will judge us in due time, and he will pronounce whether it be more humane to fight with a town full of women and the families of a brave people at our back or to remove them in time to places of safety among their own friends and people.
> --from a letter, dated 10 Sep 1864, from W.T. Sherman to J.B. Hood


Short version:  Hood was being the treacherous snake we already knew him to be, and hiding behind civilians in an attempt to blackmail Sherman out of attacking.  Sherman told him that if he were so concerned, to get them out of his way because Southern armies had already done more and worse than he was about to.  And so they had.  


Kalam said:


> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Besides, they shouldn't have brought it on themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe that collective punishment is a legitimate method of suppressing resistance?
Click to expand...

I don't know.  Ask the residents of eastern Tennessee around Knoxville.  The Slave Power's military conquered the region and systematically killed and imprisoned most of the adult male population because they voted against secession.  The point is that the South committed blatant , unconscionable, and unprovoked aggressions against the free states in the name of preserving and expanding the abomination of chattel slavery.  And you defend them for it.  If you have any answer to my essay that the link leads to, I invite you to share it in that thread.  



JBeukema said:


> opened fire on and seized U.S. military installations not under the  control or ownership of the states, which is an act of war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whether the CSA committed an act of war against the USA or vise versa is an issue distinct from the matter of secession.
> 
> Interesting that you use such a term, since it implies that the CSA was recognized as a sovereign nation already, as opposed to the act merely being a criminal act committed by a number of citizens
Click to expand...

Are you daft?  The treason clause says "levying war against them" (the states) in reference to individual citizens, not foreign powers.  It is possible to commit an act of war without being a legitimate government; it is done all the damned time in the present day, in fact.  


JBeukema said:


> Disposing of the property of the United States is a power reserved to  the Congress
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And of the land of the member States is a power of those States. That's why the Fed now tries to prevent the States from owning themselves, since they know that your argument has been tried and doesn't hold water. Hence this trend:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They knew it was the States' land and not the Feds- hence the attempt by the Fed to own all the land in the new States
Click to expand...

...

The United States has sovereignty over its borders.  No individual state can prejudice that.  This is about as black and white as it gets; your red herring about national parks aside, there's simply no way to reasonably read it the way you're trying to.  



JBeukema said:


> They are semiautomatics sovereign entities, just as Germany or Spain within the EU. That's why the Constitution so clearly speaks of the united States in the plural rather than the singular in a great many instances.


No, they're not.  The European Union is a treaty organization, not a nation; the member nations of the EU still maintain their sovereign borders, their own militaries, their own legal structures, and are not under a supreme federal head.  



JBeukema said:


> Let's go to Thomas Jefferson. Are you familiar with the need for revolution and the tree of liberty? Self-determination is a moral right as well as a legal one, and any tyranny that infringes it warrants its own destruction.


Ah, so you agree that the Slave Power, which was founded specifically to preserve and defend the institution of chattel bondage of the black race, thus denying them self-determination, deserved utter annihilation.  Concession once again accepted.    The War of Southern Aggression was indeed a revolution; by its end, the entire aristocratic social order of the old South was overthrown, slavery abolished, and liberty granted to the enslaved for the first time in American history; these developments were nothing short of revolutionary.  That Andrew Johnson did not prosecute Reconstruction vigorously enough and allowed the South to backslide (in the period between the end of the war and the end of Reconstruction there was a higher proportion of black men in office than there is even today, something that the former slaveholders put an abrupt and often violent end to as soon as the federal government let them) is unfortunate, but there it is.  



JBeukema said:


> I see, you're one of those nutters who think the FF were Jesus in many bodies and worship their corpses.


No, I am not.  But since we were discussing the Constitution, I thought the insights of the men who wrote it would be valuable.


----------



## JBeukema

Rogue 9 said:


> you still lose because the states of the Slave Power acted in an  immoral manner absolutely contrary to liberty in engaging in rebellion  to protect slavery rather than to secure anyone's libert.




Ah, so you're joining in the whole 'they had slaves' argument. Again, it's good to know that we all belong to the King, seeing as the FF had their own slaves and they, too, fought largely for economic reasons.



> Sherman was a military commander behind enemy lines deep in enemy  territory with the objective of neutralizing the enemy's capacity to  make war.  He did this admirably



Giving your men the okay to hang people on a whim is admirable? Clearly we admire very different traits in people. I winder what his thoughts were regarding Butler's Order 28- I find it hard he had any real objections.


> He liberally destroyed and confiscated property useful for sustaining  the Slave Power's war effort



Really? He took property from states loyal to the Union?

You can't have slaves when fighting a war then claim you fought the war to get rid of slavery.


> The United States has sovereignty over its borders.



And the member States in their own borders, save for the very few areas in which supremacy is given to the common government of the Union in accordance with the Constitution. 

Because the EU has authority within its borders does not mean Luxembourg does not retain authority within its own borders.


> No, they're not.  The European Union is a treaty organization, not a  nation; th



Both are unions. The EU is a confederation, like the U.N. The USA is a federation of sovereign States. If it were not, then the states could not call themselves such in their own Constitutions. It's all right there in ink. Face it: your little Statist pipedream of an empire where nobody is allowed to leave it totally at odds with all liberty-based ideologies and the Constitution of the Union as well as those of member States.


> Ah, so you agree that the Slave Power,



The colonies? The Union? The Railroads? The 7 loyalist slave States?

Yes, the CSA warranted inhalation, as did the USA. Both nations permitted slavery and had slaves during the war. Neither nation allowed blacks, hispanics, women, or the poor equal standing and representation. Both were opposed to the principles that mark a just society. Both deserved destruction. Neither was in the right and until you mature enough to be able to see the world as it really is instead of your sad binary lens of reformist history and partisanship, there's no point wasting any further time with you.


----------



## editec

The moment shots were fired upon Fort Sumter, those states which supporting the rebellion gave Lincoln tyrannic powers in every state that declared for succession.

The constitution, as you can plainly read for yourselves, gives the POTUS that right.


----------



## Rogue 9

JBeukema said:


> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you still lose because the states of the Slave Power acted in an  immoral manner absolutely contrary to liberty in engaging in rebellion  to protect slavery rather than to secure anyone's libert.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, so you're joining in the whole 'they had slaves' argument. Again, it's good to know that we all belong to the King, seeing as the FF had their own slaves and they, too, fought largely for economic reasons.
Click to expand...

That the Revolutionary generation held slaves was not the cause of the Revolution.  Slavery was the entire cause of the Southern secession, by the admission, nay by the proud proclamation, of the secessionists themselves.  That is the crucial distinction.  


JBeukema said:


> Sherman was a military commander behind enemy lines deep in enemy  territory with the objective of neutralizing the enemy's capacity to  make war.  He did this admirably
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Giving your men the okay to hang people on a whim is admirable? Clearly we admire very different traits in people. I winder what his thoughts were regarding Butler's Order 28- I find it hard he had any real objections.
Click to expand...

No, because he didn't give his men the okay to hang people on a whim.  I have already posted his field orders, and they don't say anything of the sort.  You're lying, and it's out there for everyone to see.  



JBeukema said:


> Really? He took property from states loyal to the Union?
> 
> You can't have slaves when fighting a war then claim you fought the war to get rid of slavery.


Kindly point out where I said the Union fought a war to end slavery.  The South fought one to protect slavery, which does not automatically mean the opposite of Union forces.  Though I must point out that Lincoln ran for reelection on a platform advocating the Thirteenth Amendment and that emancipation was a Union war aim by 1863, a fact of which Lincoln warned the border states and offered compensated emancipation before they simply lost their slaves anyway, a warning they refused to heed.  



JBeukema said:


> And the member States in their own borders, save for the very few areas in which supremacy is given to the common government of the Union in accordance with the Constitution.


Under the absolute supremacy of the national government.  I fail to see how the Supremacy Clause is difficult to read; "supreme law of the land" is rather unambiguous.  


JBeukema said:


> Both are unions. The EU is a confederation, like the U.N. The USA is a federation of sovereign States. If it were not, then the states could not call themselves such in their own Constitutions. It's all right there in ink. Face it: your little Statist pipedream of an empire where nobody is allowed to leave it totally at odds with all liberty-based ideologies and the Constitution of the Union as well as those of member States.


No.  The disintegration of the Union in 1861 would have brought about the Balkanization of North America and the end of republican government in the world; it would have been taken as unmistakable evidence that a free people cannot govern themselves.  In fact, the European elite, particularly Napoleon III, fervently hoped for Confederate success for just this reason; they knew a disunited states falling into squabbling, warring autocracies would both give them an example to point to for why they must stay in power, and would remove the United States as an obstacle to renewed American colonization.  The failure of the Slave Power was and is the best hope for liberty in the history of the world.  


JBeukema said:


> Ah, so you agree that the Slave Power,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The colonies? The Union? The Railroads? The 7 loyalist slave States?
Click to expand...

No, the Slave Power.  It was the name of the political power of the slave states in the antebellum Union and the Confederacy; they used it for themselves.  I suggest more thoroughly grounding yourself in the history of the period if you wish to continue debating this, lest you continue to make yourself look the fool.  


JBeukema said:


> Yes, the CSA warranted inhalation, as did the USA. Both nations permitted slavery and had slaves during the war. Neither nation allowed blacks, hispanics, women, or the poor equal standing and representation. Both were opposed to the principles that mark a just society. Both deserved destruction. Neither was in the right and until you mature enough to be able to see the world as it really is instead of your sad binary lens of reformist history and partisanship, there's no point wasting any further time with you.


"Inhalation?"    What, are they asthmatic now?  At any rate, the Union was not as pure as the driven snow, but it was a damned sight better than the rebel states, who refused to treat black Union soldiers as prisoners of war when captured, but rather placed them in bondage or shot them and their officers out of hand for the supposed crime of slave revolt.  As for the loyalist slave states (of which there were four, not seven; I'm not sure where you got that), Lincoln did what was politically necessary to avoid driving them into the Confederacy.  He moved against slavery as soon as it was politically feasible without blowing the entire war effort.  To immediately declare abolition upon taking office would have been to lose the war and the nation with it.


----------



## JBeukema

Rogue 9 said:


> That the Revolutionary generation held slaves was not the cause of the  Revolution



revolutionary generation? This nation's never experienced a revolution.


> Slavery was the entire cause of the Southern secession



Actually, it was the growth of federal power and the attempt by the north to wage economic warfare against the South

again, you can't have slaves ourselves and claim you fought a war to end slavery. The South left because they didn't want to be a part of the Union anymore. That's all there is to it.


> Under the absolute supremacy of the national government.



The fed has no such absolute supremacy. They have supremacy in a few specific matters only. Read the Constitution.


> The disintegration of the Union in 1861 would have brought about the  Balkanization of North America and the end of republican government in  the world



Really now? You're resorting to argument via counterfactual history? So now I can abridge anyone's right to self-determination so long as its for some mythical future greater good? You know who else said that? Pol Pot.


> it was a damned sight better than the rebel states



Not really, with the Right to Rape and Sherman's okaying the hanging of anyone without cause. The Union can claim to moral highground. Both nations deserved to be destroyed.


> there were four, not seven; I'm not sure where you got that




 Five states (Delaware, Kentucky,  Maryland, Missouri, West Virginia,) and two territories (Arizona and New Mexico) permitted slavery at the time.


----------



## paperview

Rogue 9 said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you still lose because the states of the Slave Power acted in an  immoral manner absolutely contrary to liberty in engaging in rebellion  to protect slavery rather than to secure anyone's libert.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, so you're joining in the whole 'they had slaves' argument. Again, it's good to know that we all belong to the King, seeing as the FF had their own slaves and they, too, fought largely for economic reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That the Revolutionary generation held slaves was not the cause of the Revolution.  Slavery was the entire cause of the Southern secession, by the admission, nay by the proud proclamation, of the secessionists themselves.  That is the crucial distinction.
> 
> No, because he didn't give his men the okay to hang people on a whim.  I have already posted his field orders, and they don't say anything of the sort.  You're lying, and it's out there for everyone to see.
> 
> 
> Kindly point out where I said the Union fought a war to end slavery.  The South fought one to protect slavery, which does not automatically mean the opposite of Union forces.  Though I must point out that Lincoln ran for reelection on a platform advocating the Thirteenth Amendment and that emancipation was a Union war aim by 1863, a fact of which Lincoln warned the border states and offered compensated emancipation before they simply lost their slaves anyway, a warning they refused to heed.
> 
> 
> Under the absolute supremacy of the national government.  I fail to see how the Supremacy Clause is difficult to read; "supreme law of the land" is rather unambiguous.
> 
> No.  The disintegration of the Union in 1861 would have brought about the Balkanization of North America and the end of republican government in the world; it would have been taken as unmistakable evidence that a free people cannot govern themselves.  In fact, the European elite, particularly Napoleon III, fervently hoped for Confederate success for just this reason; they knew a disunited states falling into squabbling, warring autocracies would both give them an example to point to for why they must stay in power, and would remove the United States as an obstacle to renewed American colonization.  The failure of the Slave Power was and is the best hope for liberty in the history of the world.
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> The colonies? The Union? The Railroads? The 7 loyalist slave States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the Slave Power.  It was the name of the political power of the slave states in the antebellum Union and the Confederacy; they used it for themselves.  I suggest more thoroughly grounding yourself in the history of the period if you wish to continue debating this, lest you continue to make yourself look the fool.
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the CSA warranted inhalation, as did the USA. Both nations permitted slavery and had slaves during the war. Neither nation allowed blacks, hispanics, women, or the poor equal standing and representation. Both were opposed to the principles that mark a just society. Both deserved destruction. Neither was in the right and until you mature enough to be able to see the world as it really is instead of your sad binary lens of reformist history and partisanship, there's no point wasting any further time with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Inhalation?"    What, are they asthmatic now?  At any rate, the Union was not as pure as the driven snow, but it was a damned sight better than the rebel states, who refused to treat black Union soldiers as prisoners of war when captured, but rather placed them in bondage or shot them and their officers out of hand for the supposed crime of slave revolt.  As for the loyalist slave states (of which there were four, not seven; I'm not sure where you got that), Lincoln did what was politically necessary to avoid driving them into the Confederacy.  He moved against slavery as soon as it was politically feasible without blowing the entire war effort.  To immediately declare abolition upon taking office would have been to lose the war and the nation with it.
Click to expand...


----------



## Rogue 9

JBeukema said:


> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That the Revolutionary generation held slaves was not the cause of the  Revolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> revolutionary generation? This nation's never experienced a revolution.
Click to expand...

What?  Now you're just talking nonsense.  The United States has experienced multiple revolutions; hell, by the strict definition there's one every four or eight years.    The fact that we have routine and nonviolent changes of government aside, there is no conceivable way you can disqualify the American Revolution as a revolution; it overthrew the existing governmental structure and replaced it with a totally new one.  The Industrial Revolution is obvious, as is the resulting revolution in transportation bringing about fundamental changes of society revolving around specialization of production.  The Civil War (and the election of 1860 for that matter) was itself revolutionary; it destroyed the entire antebellum social structure of the slave states, uprooted the plantation aristocracy, established federal supremacy once and for all in fact as well as law, released four million men, women, and children from bondage, and ended what had up until that point been near-total domination of the federal government by the South despite that section's far lesser proportion of the voting population.  (It is eminently fair to say that this last was one of the fundamental causes of the war; faced with losing their ability to bully the free states using the bludgeon of federal power, the Slave Power embarked on a policy of rule or ruin, a fact pointed out by many at the time including some who ended up in high positions in the Confederate government.)  


JBeukema said:


> Slavery was the entire cause of the Southern secession
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it was the growth of federal power and the attempt by the north to wage economic warfare against the South
> 
> again, you can't have slaves ourselves and claim you fought a war to end slavery. The South left because they didn't want to be a part of the Union anymore. That's all there is to it.
Click to expand...

Growth of federal power?  I defy you to point out exactly what growth of federal power happened that triggered the secessions, as opposed to ones that happened after as a direct result of the war.  The biggest growth of federal power up until that point in American history was in fact the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, a measure implemented by the South for its own benefit.  

I did not claim the Union fought a war to end slavery, because it didn't - not at first, at any rate - and I, apparently unlike you, do not make a habit of making false claims.  The only thing the North did that could be construed as an attempt at economic warfare against the slave states was the widespread disobedience of the Fugitive Slave Act, which if you accept the right of property in slaves is an exceedingly credible argument, since slaves and the fields they tended under their overseers' lashes were the South's most valuable economic resource.  Of course, you have to accept the right of property in slaves to make that argument; if you're seriously advancing it, that says some disturbing things about your character.  The South attempted to leave the Union not because they just didn't feel like being in it anymore, but because they felt that slavery was threatened.  I can readily prove this if you doubt me.  


JBeukema said:


> The fed has no such absolute supremacy. They have supremacy in a few specific matters only. Read the Constitution.


I have read it, several times.  What part of this is hard to understand?  





> This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, *shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.*


The states are absolutely unable to countermand federal law.  Period.  The end.  


JBeukema said:


> Really now? You're resorting to argument via counterfactual history? So now I can abridge anyone's right to self-determination so long as its for some mythical future greater good? You know who else said that? Pol Pot.


That's not what I said and you know it.  I can cite numerous primary sources stating this; Napoleon III fervently hoped for and predicted this result for the express reason I named, and so did several members of the British nobility.  Further, successful secession would cite the precedent of breaking up the government without any sort of due consideration any time a state doesn't get its way (the Continental Congress deliberated for fourteen months before deciding to declare independence from Britain, despite ongoing outrages and even armed conflict; South Carolina seceded from the Union before two months had passed from the election of 1860, before the Lincoln administration even took office, much less actually did anything), which _absolutely would_ institute the Balkanization of North America.  


JBeukema said:


> it was a damned sight better than the rebel states
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really, with the Right to Rape and Sherman's okaying the hanging of anyone without cause. The Union can claim to moral highground. Both nations deserved to be destroyed.
Click to expand...

I told you in the post you were quoting and now I'm going to tell you again.  I have posted General William Tecumseh Sherman's field orders for the Georgia campaign in this thread already.  They do not authorize hanging people without cause, and they ABSOLUTELY do not give soldiers carte blanche to commit rape.  You are blatantly lying and everyone can see it.  


JBeukema said:


> there were four, not seven; I'm not sure where you got that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Five states (Delaware, Kentucky,  Maryland, Missouri, West Virginia,) and two territories (Arizona and New Mexico) permitted slavery at the time.
Click to expand...

West Virginia was organized as a free state.  Arizona Territory was organized in 1863 under the Union Congress and did not have a slave code as a result; the organizational documents abolished slavery even though it never existed there in the first place.  New Mexico had a slave code, but the census reported no actual slaves due to its unsuitability for the uses slaves were put to.  In either case, Arizona and New Mexico weren't states.  So your claim is still wrong in every particular.


----------



## Father Time

JBeukema said:


> wow... you're really grasping for those straws...



This coming from someone who wants to nitpick the definitions of revolution and civil war.


----------



## paperview

What the fuck JBeukema??

\


----------



## paperview

There aren't many rules in this place, but I'm pretty sure placing XXX rated images in posts is one of them.

For gawds sake JBeukema - Delete that.


----------



## editec

JBeukema posits:



> Actually, it was the growth of federal power and the attempt by the north to wage economic warfare against the South
> 
> again, you can't have slaves ourselves and claim you fought a war to end slavery. The South left because they didn't want to be a part of the Union anymore. That's all there is to it.


 
Mostly the above is revisionist nonsense. 

1. The southern rebels started the war in defense of slavery. 

Given how often the leaders of the CSA openly admitted this fact -- the hsitorical evidence is overhwhelming -- denying this fact is simply pointless. 

Saying_ it ain't so_ is akin to claiming that the holocaust never happened. 

2. The North never claimed it fighting to end slavery as you claim they did. The North very clearly stated they were fighting to preserve the union, and it had made no efforts, before the war, to end slavery in the South.

It fought to preserve the Union. 

Again, the historical evidence for that is overwhelming.

Trying to rewrite the history is still another example of the BIG LIE that apologists for the Southern Rebellion keep trying to foist off on their fellow citizens.

If you teach your children these lies you do them an enormous injustice

*Now Southern apolgists can make a convincing case that they had the right to succeed, and that is a debatable issue.*

But pretending that the Southerm didn't start the war is_ nothing_ but a boldfaced lie

Pretending that the Southern states started the war over tariffs is also a lie, but this one is mostly a lie by misdirection

And pretending that the North was fighting the war to end slavery is also a lie by misdirection.

It's contemptable to lie and lie and lie when the evidence that refutes those lies is so overwhelming. 

And if one is repeating these lies sincerely because one hasn't read enough history to know any better, that is even_ MORE_ contemptable in my opinion.


----------



## Ravi

From Wikipedia:



> In the presidential election  of 1860, the Republican Party, led by Abraham Lincoln, had campaigned against the expansion of slavery  beyond the states in which it already existed. The Republican victory  in that election resulted in seven Southern states declaring their secession from the Union even  before Lincoln took office on March 4, 1861. Both the outgoing  administration of President James Buchanan and Lincoln's incoming administration  rejected the legality of secession, considering it rebellion.
> Hostilities began on April 12, 1861, when Confederate forces attacked a US military installation  at Fort Sumter in South Carolina. Lincoln responded by calling for a  volunteer army from each state, leading to declarations of secession by  four more Southern slave states. Both sides raised armies as the Union  assumed control of the border states early in the war and established a naval blockade. In September 1862, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation made  ending slavery in the South a war goal,[1]  and dissuaded the British from intervening.[2]



Fact: The South saw their way of life (profiting on the labor of slaves) going bye-bye.

Fact: The South lost.

Get over it.


----------



## paperview

editec said:


> JBeukema posits:
> 
> ...



Just to let you know ed...Beuky has been banned.


----------



## editec

paperview said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema posits:
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just to let you know ed...Beuky has been banned.
Click to expand...

 
Not, I hope, for expressing his opinions. Not even, I hope, for his spewing what I think is nothing but historic revisionism, either.

However repulsive his opinions might be to me, we're all better off having a dialogue/debate about those opinions.

The path to truth is often found by heated intellectual debate.

Thanks to having to read the thoughts of others, others whose ideas I have found repugnant, I have often discovered flaws in my own arguments, and occassionally these annoying cranks have forced me to rethink my own opinions.

Honest intelluctualism requires freedom of speech. 

Without it, we are lost, the American dream is over and we are on the path to tyranny of thought.


----------



## paperview

editec said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema posits:
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just to let you know ed...Beuky has been banned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not, I hope, for expressing his opinions. Not even, I hope, for his spewing what I think is nothing but historic revisionism, either.
> 
> However repulsive his opinions might be to me, we're all better off having a dialogue/debate about those opinions.
> 
> The path to truth is often found by heated intellectual debate.
> 
> Thanks to having to read the thoughts of others, others whose ideas I have found repugnant, I have often discovered flaws in my own arguments, and occassionally these annoying cranks have forced me to rethink my own opinions.
> 
> Honest intelluctualism requires freedom of speech.
> 
> Without it, we are lost, the American dream is over and we are on the path to tyranny of thought.
Click to expand...

No, he was banned because at 4:00 this morning he decided to show a picture of his gross erect hairy penis.

It takes a lot to get banned here.  That, I do believe, qualifies.


----------



## HUGGY

paperview said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just to let you know ed...Beuky has been banned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not, I hope, for expressing his opinions. Not even, I hope, for his spewing what I think is nothing but historic revisionism, either.
> 
> However repulsive his opinions might be to me, we're all better off having a dialogue/debate about those opinions.
> 
> The path to truth is often found by heated intellectual debate.
> 
> Thanks to having to read the thoughts of others, others whose ideas I have found repugnant, I have often discovered flaws in my own arguments, and occassionally these annoying cranks have forced me to rethink my own opinions.
> 
> Honest intelluctualism requires freedom of speech.
> 
> Without it, we are lost, the American dream is over and we are on the path to tyranny of thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, he was banned because at 4:00 this morning he decided to show a picture of his gross erect hairy penis.
> 
> It takes a lot to get banned here.  That, I do believe, qualifies.
Click to expand...


JaBukeYoMama has a penis?  No Way!!!  Well now he has time to play with it!

I wonder why someone would post something like that.  Is it a cry for help?


----------



## Father Time

Rogue 9 said:


> The South attempted to leave the Union not because they just didn't feel like being in it anymore, but because they felt that slavery was threatened.  I can readily prove this if you doubt me.



Could you do that, not that I don't believe you but there's a lot of people on these boards that would like to rewrite history.


----------



## Ravi

paperview said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just to let you know ed...Beuky has been banned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not, I hope, for expressing his opinions. Not even, I hope, for his spewing what I think is nothing but historic revisionism, either.
> 
> However repulsive his opinions might be to me, we're all better off having a dialogue/debate about those opinions.
> 
> The path to truth is often found by heated intellectual debate.
> 
> Thanks to having to read the thoughts of others, others whose ideas I have found repugnant, I have often discovered flaws in my own arguments, and occassionally these annoying cranks have forced me to rethink my own opinions.
> 
> Honest intelluctualism requires freedom of speech.
> 
> Without it, we are lost, the American dream is over and we are on the path to tyranny of thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, he was banned because at 4:00 this morning he decided to show a picture of his gross erect hairy penis.
> 
> It takes a lot to get banned here.  That, I do believe, qualifies.
Click to expand...

That is beyond sad.


----------



## paperview

Ravi said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not, I hope, for expressing his opinions. Not even, I hope, for his spewing what I think is nothing but historic revisionism, either.
> 
> However repulsive his opinions might be to me, we're all better off having a dialogue/debate about those opinions.
> 
> The path to truth is often found by heated intellectual debate.
> 
> Thanks to having to read the thoughts of others, others whose ideas I have found repugnant, I have often discovered flaws in my own arguments, and occassionally these annoying cranks have forced me to rethink my own opinions.
> 
> Honest intelluctualism requires freedom of speech.
> 
> Without it, we are lost, the American dream is over and we are on the path to tyranny of thought.
> 
> 
> 
> No, he was banned because at 4:00 this morning he decided to show a picture of his gross erect hairy penis.
> 
> It takes a lot to get banned here.  That, I do believe, qualifies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is beyond sad.
Click to expand...

It was gross.

It was shocking.

It was clearly a mentally disturbed man who posted that.  <<<shudders>>>>

Au Revoir Bucky.


----------



## Rogue 9

Father Time said:


> Rogue 9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South attempted to leave the Union not because they just didn't feel like being in it anymore, but because they felt that slavery was threatened.  I can readily prove this if you doubt me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you do that, not that I don't believe you but there's a lot of people on these boards that would like to rewrite history.
Click to expand...

Sure.  Glad to.  I have already posted an extensive essay I've written about the subject in another thread; the exact post may be found at this link.  That should be sufficient evidence to go on; more can be dredged up (the section which produced the idea that slavery was a positive good and cotton was king was not exactly silent on the matter), but much more would simply belabor the point; the affirmed reasons given by four state secession conventions and the Vice President of the Confederate States is plenty of evidence.


----------



## BasicGreatGuy

Liberty said:


> They both committed ridiculous and pointless genocide...maybe no where near in similar methods or to the same ends, but they both killed a large enough amount of people that should taint their legacy as villainous in my opinion.



Hitler was a megalomaniac who practiced ethnic genocide.  Lincoln was attempting to honor the oath of President, as he understood the Constitution and the adjudication thereof. As far as I know, he was not a megalomaniac who practiced ethnic genocide. 

I believe both men were wrong in what they did. However, to equate Lincoln to Hitler is absurd.  You wrapped your argument in logical fallacy.


----------



## Rogue 9

paperview said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just to let you know ed...Beuky has been banned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not, I hope, for expressing his opinions. Not even, I hope, for his spewing what I think is nothing but historic revisionism, either.
> 
> However repulsive his opinions might be to me, we're all better off having a dialogue/debate about those opinions.
> 
> The path to truth is often found by heated intellectual debate.
> 
> Thanks to having to read the thoughts of others, others whose ideas I have found repugnant, I have often discovered flaws in my own arguments, and occassionally these annoying cranks have forced me to rethink my own opinions.
> 
> Honest intelluctualism requires freedom of speech.
> 
> Without it, we are lost, the American dream is over and we are on the path to tyranny of thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, he was banned because at 4:00 this morning he decided to show a picture of his gross erect hairy penis.
> 
> It takes a lot to get banned here.  That, I do believe, qualifies.
Click to expand...

  God, I'm glad I missed that.  I presume it was in response to me; he didn't have anything else of substance to say, did he?


----------



## Father Time

Rogue 9 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not, I hope, for expressing his opinions. Not even, I hope, for his spewing what I think is nothing but historic revisionism, either.
> 
> However repulsive his opinions might be to me, we're all better off having a dialogue/debate about those opinions.
> 
> The path to truth is often found by heated intellectual debate.
> 
> Thanks to having to read the thoughts of others, others whose ideas I have found repugnant, I have often discovered flaws in my own arguments, and occassionally these annoying cranks have forced me to rethink my own opinions.
> 
> Honest intelluctualism requires freedom of speech.
> 
> Without it, we are lost, the American dream is over and we are on the path to tyranny of thought.
> 
> 
> 
> No, he was banned because at 4:00 this morning he decided to show a picture of his gross erect hairy penis.
> 
> It takes a lot to get banned here.  That, I do believe, qualifies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God, I'm glad I missed that.  I presume it was in response to me; he didn't have anything else of substance to say, did he?
Click to expand...


It seemed so random. I think he was making an erection joke but he honestly couldn't find a way to make one without a picture of one?


----------



## editec

paperview said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just to let you know ed...Beuky has been banned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not, I hope, for expressing his opinions. Not even, I hope, for his spewing what I think is nothing but historic revisionism, either.
> 
> However repulsive his opinions might be to me, we're all better off having a dialogue/debate about those opinions.
> 
> The path to truth is often found by heated intellectual debate.
> 
> Thanks to having to read the thoughts of others, others whose ideas I have found repugnant, I have often discovered flaws in my own arguments, and occassionally these annoying cranks have forced me to rethink my own opinions.
> 
> Honest intelluctualism requires freedom of speech.
> 
> Without it, we are lost, the American dream is over and we are on the path to tyranny of thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, he was banned because at 4:00 this morning he decided to show a picture of his gross erect hairy penis.
> 
> It takes a lot to get banned here. That, I do believe, qualifies.
Click to expand...

 
Perhaps it was his misguided attempt to make an editorial comment with an image?

Then too,  maybe he's just a creepy little racist pervert.


----------

