# Civil War Facts



## Tradewinds81186

1. The Northeast didn't win the war on liberalism, they won on industry, which they no longer have.

2. The Northeast didn't win the Civil war on poverty, The Northeast won the Civil War, on money and economics, TEXAS is now as big as wall street, and will surpass it very shortly.

3. The Northeast didn't win the Civil war on political bullshit, the northeast won the civil war on Action, through repeated defeats and comebacks and sheer guts.

4. The Northeast didn't win the civil war by banning guns, they won the civil war by having more guns and larger flank.

5. The Northeast didn't win the civil war with Cowardism or Unfitness, they won the Civil by having more men in the military.

6. The Northeast didn't win the Civil War by having a 60 % high school drop out rate, and 40 % illiteracy rate,  they won the civil war, by having more educated people, educated by the standards of the time, which they certainly do not have today.

7. The Northeast didn't win the civil war with laziness, but by having a low unemployment rate, or what would have been a low unemployment rate if such things were measured back then.

Today the south would win the civil war because today the south is where the industry and the economy is, and the weapons, and the military personnel, and the literacy is at.

Thank you.


----------



## WinterBorn

Tradewinds81186 said:


> 1. The Northeast didn't win the war on liberalism, they won on industry, which they no longer have.
> 
> 2. The Northeast didn't win the Civil war on poverty, The Northeast won the Civil War, on money and economics, TEXAS now as big as wall street, and will surpass it very shortly.
> 
> 3. The Northeast didn't win the Civil war on political bullshit, the northeast won the civil war on Action, through repeated defeats and comebacks and sheer guts.
> 
> 4. The Northeast didn't win the civil war by banning guns, they won the civil war by having more guns and larger flank.
> 
> 5. The Northeast didn't win the civil war with Cowardism or Unfitness, they won the Civil by having more men in the military.
> 
> 6. The Northeast didn't win the Civil War by having a 60 % high school drop out rate, and 40 % illiteracy rate,  they won the civil war, by having more educated people, educated by the standards of the time, which they certainly do not have today.
> 
> 7. The Northeast didn't win the civil war by laziness, but by having a low unemployment rate, or what would have been a low unemployment rate if such things were measured back then.
> 
> Today the south would win the civil war because today the south is where the industry and the economy is, and the weapons, and the military personnel, and the literacy is at.
> 
> Thank you.



While much of what you posted is true, you ignore the large population of semi-literate irish immigrants that had flooded the Northeast and were used as cannon fodder.

Also, to claim the south would win today is to assume that the war would be fought today.  There is no slavery and no single issue to push for a seccession.  

As a lifelong southerner, let me say I am proud to be an American and will do whatever it takes to remain one.


----------



## R.D.

The Northeast?


----------



## racewright

WinterBorn said:


> Tradewinds81186 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The Northeast didn't win the war on liberalism, they won on industry, which they no longer have.
> 
> 2. The Northeast didn't win the Civil war on poverty, The Northeast won the Civil War, on money and economics, TEXAS now as big as wall street, and will surpass it very shortly.
> 
> 3. The Northeast didn't win the Civil war on political bullshit, the northeast won the civil war on Action, through repeated defeats and comebacks and sheer guts.
> 
> 4. The Northeast didn't win the civil war by banning guns, they won the civil war by having more guns and larger flank.
> 
> 5. The Northeast didn't win the civil war with Cowardism or Unfitness, they won the Civil by having more men in the military.
> 
> 6. The Northeast didn't win the Civil War by having a 60 % high school drop out rate, and 40 % illiteracy rate,  they won the civil war, by having more educated people, educated by the standards of the time, which they certainly do not have today.
> 
> 7. The Northeast didn't win the civil war by laziness, but by having a low unemployment rate, or what would have been a low unemployment rate if such things were measured back then.
> 
> Today the south would win the civil war because today the south is where the industry and the economy is, and the weapons, and the military personnel, and the literacy is at.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While much of what you posted is true, you ignore the large population of semi-literate irish immigrants that had flooded the Northeast and were used as cannon fodder.
> 
> Also, to claim the south would win today is to assume that the war would be fought today.  There is no slavery and no single issue to push for a seccession.
> 
> As a lifelong southerner, let me say I am proud to be an American and will do whatever it takes to remain one.
Click to expand...


The Americans of today do not have a clue as to what freedom means and the Politician's know this, why else would you not be allowed to drink a 32 oz coke in the largest populated area in the USA.
Freedom is the only thing that matters as the Civil War proved and we are giving them up under the foolish Idea that we the government know better.
This evilness is not recognized buy The northerners and this will be there undoing.
Why do you think even Florida (mostly full of northerner's) is going to be the 2Nd largest populated state soon. They want to get away from over bearing government rule.
We left England to get away from Tyranny, people went west to avoid tyranny, also moved south for the same reason well guess what the super rich move to  more appealing environment's every day.
So when the government and stupid brainwashed people push to far there is nowhere left to go and then as in all countries that get out of control there will be civil war again in the USA.


----------



## Moonglow

and really has nothing to do with the Civil War fought over states rights and slavery.


----------



## Tradewinds81186

Moonglow said:


> and really has nothing to do with the Civil War fought over states rights and slavery.



what the war was about has zip do with how or why it won.

which has no bearing on how American life is today.


----------



## Wyatt earp

R.D. said:


> The Northeast?



Guess the op didn't think the Midwest was part of the union yet


----------



## Tradewinds81186

bear513 said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Northeast?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guess the op didn't think the Midwest was part of the union yet
Click to expand...


The Midwest is conservative as well


and not all of it is north of the mason Dixie line.

it runs east to west, not north to south.

And the blue states that exist in the Midwest are in no better condition than the ghetto northeast today.


----------



## racewright

bear513 said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Northeast?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guess the op didn't think the Midwest was part of the union yet
Click to expand...


Don't be silly.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Tradewinds81186 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Northeast?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guess the op didn't think the Midwest was part of the union yet
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Midwest is conservative as well
> 
> 
> and not all of it is north of the mason Dixie line.
> 
> it runs east to west, not north to south.
> 
> And the blue states that exist in the Midwest are in no better condition than the ghetto northeast today.
Click to expand...

oh please no one consider's anything south of the mason Dixie line Midwest
'


----------



## Tradewinds81186

bear513 said:


> Tradewinds81186 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guess the op didn't think the Midwest was part of the union yet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Midwest is conservative as well
> 
> 
> and not all of it is north of the mason Dixie line.
> 
> it runs east to west, not north to south.
> 
> And the blue states that exist in the Midwest are in no better condition than the ghetto northeast today.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> oh please no one consider's anything south of the mason Dixie line Midwest
> '
Click to expand...



and the entire Midwest is red, with the exception of a few states that are no better off than the northeast


----------



## Theowl32

Here is a question that will also piss off the hypocrites on the left. 

How many free blacks owned slaves in the south? Well, were there any black slave owners?

No? Really? 

Oh, those facts that go ignored and would  bash those that make money off of keeping the grievances of the black man front and center and perpetually making them feel like victims on behalf of whitey righty. 

Back to the question:

Were there black slave owners?


----------



## Tradewinds81186

and as I said...  TEXAS is surpassing Wall street


----------



## Tradewinds81186

Heres some facts about the North in general.

Adolf Hitler's friend, named HENRY FORD, born in Michigan..  he was a bigot, and was awarded Nazi German war medals.

The American capitol of Nazism is Indiana, it is north of the Mason Dixie Line

Maggie Gallagher, the spearhead of the Anti Gay movement is from Oregon, who does her business out of Princeton New Jersey.


----------



## Mr Natural

What is it with the goobers and their constant rehashing of the Civil War.

You lost, get over it already.


----------



## Tradewinds81186

Mr Clean said:


> What is it with the goobers and their constant rehashing of the Civil War.
> 
> You lost, get over it already.



and the south wouldn't lose today, so go fuck yourself, ghetto trash retard


----------



## Tradewinds81186

Heres some facts about the North in general.

Adolf Hitler's friend, named HENRY FORD, born in Michigan.. he was a bigot, and was awarded Nazi German war medals.

The American capitol of Nazism is Indiana, it is north of the Mason Dixie Line

Maggie Gallagher, the spearhead of the Anti Gay movement is from Oregon, who does her business out of Princeton New Jersey.


----------



## Mr Natural

Here's a fact for you:

The South started a war to prove they were better than the slaves and lost.


----------



## Tradewinds81186

Mr Clean said:


> Here's a fact for you:
> 
> The South started a war to prove they were better than the slaves and lost.



and here's a fact for you.

The south would beat the fuck out of ya today, because the south is in so much better condition.

More Industry, More Schools. Better Schools, More People, a Growing Economy, and better infrastructure, and the Most Americans in the Military.

so how about you fuck off.


----------



## natstew

Tradewinds81186 said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> and really has nothing to do with the Civil War fought over states rights and slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what the war was about has zip do with how or why it won.
> 
> which has no bearing on how American life is today.
Click to expand...


There were other factors, but the one the South used as justification for seceding was "taxation without representation". I'll give a short explanation of that statement and if that's not enough I'll give a longer one.

 The textile mills in the North were owned by filth rich industry moguls who worked girls and boys as young as six years ole to death in their mills. These moguls lived like Mid-evil Lords in their mansions on the Hudson and on the Massachusetts seacoast. They depended on cheap cotton from the South to maintain their 'serfdoms'. They bought and sold Senators and Congressmen like livestock. They made sure the power in Congress was centered in the northeastern States by controlling how new States were allowed to enter the Union, keeping the cotton producing States in the minority. By controlling Congress they got import/export Laws passed that guaranteed a continuous uninterrupted flow of cheap cotton from the South. How did this work? Okay another short explanation; They put a tax on exported cotton that gave the Northern textile moguls an unfair advantage. They also put an import tax on cloth and  clothes from England that gave the textile moguls even further advantage.
 The Southern States tried through all the legal means to gain fair and equal representation in Congress to no avail. They had no other recourse than seceding. They saw in the United States Declaration Of Independence the right, no, not the right, the Duty to secede and set up their own Government.

 Now, I don't condone slavery, but I do agree with the right of States to secede from a Tyrannical United States Government. Abraham Lincoln violated the united States Constitution when he invaded Virginia.

 Oh, Fort Sumter?  It belonged to the State of South Carolina by Sovereignty. The U.S. was unconstitutionally occupying it.

 It's ironic how import/export taxes were seen as okay to support child labor to the point of death in the mills in the past, but not okay to support manufacturing jobs in the U.S. now.
90% of politicians have a price and the business moguls are always there to buy them.

 Don't blame the Corporations without including the politicians, and Democrat politicians are the biggest recipients of Corporate funds.

 I hate both Parties but the "Scumbag Factor" tips the scale with me, with the Democrats owning the "Scumbag Factor".


----------



## natstew

Tradewinds81186 said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> and really has nothing to do with the Civil War fought over states rights and slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what the war was about has zip do with how or why it won.
> 
> which has no bearing on how American life is today.
Click to expand...


Oh, but it most certainly does have something to do with how American life is today!

There were other factors, but the one the South used as justification for seceding was "taxation without representation". I'll give a short explanation of that statement and if that's not enough I'll give a longer one.

 The textile mills in the North were owned by filthy rich industry moguls who worked girls and boys as young as six years old to death in their mills. These moguls lived like Mid-evil Lords in their mansions on the Hudson and on the Massachusetts seacoast. They depended on cheap cotton from the South to maintain their 'serfdoms'. They bought and sold Senators and Congressmen like livestock. They made sure the power in Congress was centered in the northeastern States by controlling how new States were allowed to enter the Union, keeping the cotton producing States in the minority. By controlling Congress they got import/export Laws passed that guaranteed a continuous uninterrupted flow of cheap cotton from the South. How did this work? Okay another short explanation; They put a tax on exported cotton that gave the Northern textile moguls an unfair advantage. They also put an import tax on cloth and  clothes from England that gave the textile moguls even further advantage.
 The Southern States tried through all the legal means to gain fair and equal representation in Congress to no avail. They had no other recourse than seceding. They saw in the United States Declaration Of Independence the right, no, not the right, the Duty to secede and set up their own Government.

 Now, I don't condone slavery, but I do agree with the right of States to secede from a Tyrannical United States Government. Abraham Lincoln violated the united States Constitution when he invaded Virginia.

 Oh, Fort Sumter?  It belonged to the State of South Carolina by Sovereignty. The U.S. was unconstitutionally occupying it.

 It's ironic how import/export taxes were seen as okay to support child labor to the point of death in the mills in the past, but not okay to support manufacturing jobs in the U.S. today. AND THAT IS WHAT IT HAS TO DO WITH LIFE IN THE UNITED STATES TODAY!!

90% of politicians have a price and the business moguls are always there to buy them.

 Don't blame the Corporations without including the politicians, and Democrat politicians are the biggest recipients of Corporate funds.

 I hate both Parties but the "Scumbag Factor" tips the scale with me, with the Democrats owning the "Scumbag Factor".


----------



## racewright

FYIAmerica's first slave owner was a black man.



Actual drawing of Anthony Johnson, the first slave owner in the colonies.

According to colonial records, the first slave owner in the United States was a black man.

Prior to 1655 there were no legal slaves in the colonies, only indentured servants. All masters were required to free their servants after their time was up. Seven years was the limit that an indentured servant could be held. Upon their release they were granted 50 acres of land. This included any Negro purchased from slave traders. Negros were also granted 50 acres upon their release.

Anthony Johnson was a Negro from modern-day Angola. He was brought to the US to work on a tobacco farm in 1619. In 1622 he was almost killed when Powhatan Indians attacked the farm. 52 out of 57 people on the farm perished in the attack. He married a female black servant while working on the farm.

When Anthony was released he was legally recognized as a free Negro and ran a successful farm. In 1651 he held 250 acres and five black indentured servants. In 1654, it was time for Anthony to release John Casor, a black indentured servant. Instead Anthony told Casor he was extending his time. Casor left and became employed by the free white man Robert Parker.

Anthony Johnson sued Robert Parker in the Northampton Court in 1654. In 1655, the court ruled that Anthony Johnson could hold John Casor indefinitely. The court gave judicial sanction for blacks to own slave of their own race. Thus Casor became the first permanent slave and Johnson the first slave owner.

Whites still could not legally hold a black servant as an indefinite slave until 1670. In that year, the colonial assembly passed legislation permitting free whites, blacks, and Indians the right to own blacks as slaves.

By 1699, the number of free blacks prompted fears of a Negro insurrection. Virginia Colonial ordered the repatriation of freed blacks back to Africa. Many blacks sold themselves to white masters so they would not have to go to Africa. This was the first effort to gently repatriate free blacks back to Africa. The modern nations of Sierra Leone and Liberia both originated as colonies of repatriated former black slaves.

However, black slave owners continued to thrive in the United States.

By 1830 there were 3,775 black families living in the South who owned black slaves. By 1860 there were about 3,000 slaves owned by black households in the city of New Orleans alone.

Sources:
John Casor
Anthony Johnson


----------



## Tradewinds81186

natstew said:


> Tradewinds81186 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> and really has nothing to do with the Civil War fought over states rights and slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what the war was about has zip do with how or why it won.
> 
> which has no bearing on how American life is today.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, but it most certainly does have something to do with how American life is today!
> 
> There were other factors, but the one the South used as justification for seceding was "taxation without representation". I'll give a short explanation of that statement and if that's not enough I'll give a longer one.
> 
> The textile mills in the North were owned by filthy rich industry moguls who worked girls and boys as young as six years old to death in their mills. These moguls lived like Mid-evil Lords in their mansions on the Hudson and on the Massachusetts seacoast. They depended on cheap cotton from the South to maintain their 'serfdoms'. They bought and sold Senators and Congressmen like livestock. They made sure the power in Congress was centered in the northeastern States by controlling how new States were allowed to enter the Union, keeping the cotton producing States in the minority. By controlling Congress they got import/export Laws passed that guaranteed a continuous uninterrupted flow of cheap cotton from the South. How did this work? Okay another short explanation; They put a tax on exported cotton that gave the Northern textile moguls an unfair advantage. They also put an import tax on cloth and  clothes from England that gave the textile moguls even further advantage.
> The Southern States tried through all the legal means to gain fair and equal representation in Congress to no avail. They had no other recourse than seceding. They saw in the United States Declaration Of Independence the right, no, not the right, the Duty to secede and set up their own Government.
> 
> Now, I don't condone slavery, but I do agree with the right of States to secede from a Tyrannical United States Government. Abraham Lincoln violated the united States Constitution when he invaded Virginia.
> 
> Oh, Fort Sumter?  It belonged to the State of South Carolina by Sovereignty. The U.S. was unconstitutionally occupying it.
> 
> It's ironic how import/export taxes were seen as okay to support child labor to the point of death in the mills in the past, but not okay to support manufacturing jobs in the U.S. today. AND THAT IS WHAT IT HAS TO DO WITH LIFE IN THE UNITED STATES TODAY!!
> 
> 90% of politicians have a price and the business moguls are always there to buy them.
> 
> Don't blame the Corporations without including the politicians, and Democrat politicians are the biggest recipients of Corporate funds.
> 
> I hate both Parties but the "Scumbag Factor" tips the scale with me, with the Democrats owning the "Scumbag Factor".
Click to expand...



lol agreed


----------



## rightwinger

If this is true

Why does the Northeast continue to contribute more in taxes than they receive if Federal Spending while the south continues to be a drain on the rest of the country?


----------



## rightwinger

Tradewinds81186 said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a fact for you:
> 
> The South started a war to prove they were better than the slaves and lost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and here's a fact for you.
> 
> The south would beat the fuck out of ya today, because the south is in so much better condition.
> 
> More Industry, More Schools. Better Schools, More People, a Growing Economy, and better infrastructure, and the Most Americans in the Military.
> 
> so how about you fuck off.
Click to expand...


They lost then and would lose now

Our military is much stronger than it was in 1860. I would enjoy this generations Sherman marching through the South again


----------



## BlindBoo

Tradewinds81186 said:


> 1. The Northeast didn't win the war on liberalism, they won on industry, which they no longer have.
> 
> 2. The Northeast didn't win the Civil war on poverty, The Northeast won the Civil War, on money and economics, TEXAS is now as big as wall street, and will surpass it very shortly.
> 
> 3. The Northeast didn't win the Civil war on political bullshit, the northeast won the civil war on Action, through repeated defeats and comebacks and sheer guts.
> 
> 4. The Northeast didn't win the civil war by banning guns, they won the civil war by having more guns and larger flank.
> 
> 5. The Northeast didn't win the civil war with Cowardism or Unfitness, they won the Civil by having more men in the military.
> 
> 6. The Northeast didn't win the Civil War by having a 60 % high school drop out rate, and 40 % illiteracy rate,  they won the civil war, by having more educated people, educated by the standards of the time, which they certainly do not have today.
> 
> 7. The Northeast didn't win the civil war with laziness, but by having a low unemployment rate, or what would have been a low unemployment rate if such things were measured back then.
> 
> Today the south would win the civil war because today the south is where the industry and the economy is, and the weapons, and the military personnel, and the literacy is at.
> 
> Thank you.



Emancipation of slaves was a liberal idea at the time.

The first income tax was instituted during the War for Southern Independence.

Well the South certainly seceded on political Bullshit.

Most weapons were muzzle loaders.  No 30 round clips.  

The draft was hated in both the North and the South.

General Lee lost the war for the South.  All he needed to do was avoid large scale battles until they could secure recognition from a major foreign power.  But he had faith that the South was in the right.  And the righteous always win in battle.  That's why the North was able to win.


----------



## Tradewinds81186

BlindBoo said:


> Tradewinds81186 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The Northeast didn't win the war on liberalism, they won on industry, which they no longer have.
> 
> 2. The Northeast didn't win the Civil war on poverty, The Northeast won the Civil War, on money and economics, TEXAS is now as big as wall street, and will surpass it very shortly.
> 
> 3. The Northeast didn't win the Civil war on political bullshit, the northeast won the civil war on Action, through repeated defeats and comebacks and sheer guts.
> 
> 4. The Northeast didn't win the civil war by banning guns, they won the civil war by having more guns and larger flank.
> 
> 5. The Northeast didn't win the civil war with Cowardism or Unfitness, they won the Civil by having more men in the military.
> 
> 6. The Northeast didn't win the Civil War by having a 60 % high school drop out rate, and 40 % illiteracy rate,  they won the civil war, by having more educated people, educated by the standards of the time, which they certainly do not have today.
> 
> 7. The Northeast didn't win the civil war with laziness, but by having a low unemployment rate, or what would have been a low unemployment rate if such things were measured back then.
> 
> Today the south would win the civil war because today the south is where the industry and the economy is, and the weapons, and the military personnel, and the literacy is at.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Emancipation of slaves was a liberal idea at the time.
> 
> The first income tax was instituted during the War for Southern Independence.
> 
> Well the South certainly seceded on political Bullshit.
> 
> Most weapons were muzzle loaders.  No 30 round clips.
> 
> The draft was hated in both the North and the South.
> 
> General Lee lost the war for the South.  All he needed to do was avoid large scale battles until they could secure recognition from a major foreign power.  But he had faith that the South was in the right.  And the righteous always win in battle.  That's why the North was able to win.
Click to expand...


and I have the right to a 30 round clip


----------



## rightwinger

Tradewinds81186 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tradewinds81186 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The Northeast didn't win the war on liberalism, they won on industry, which they no longer have.
> 
> 2. The Northeast didn't win the Civil war on poverty, The Northeast won the Civil War, on money and economics, TEXAS is now as big as wall street, and will surpass it very shortly.
> 
> 3. The Northeast didn't win the Civil war on political bullshit, the northeast won the civil war on Action, through repeated defeats and comebacks and sheer guts.
> 
> 4. The Northeast didn't win the civil war by banning guns, they won the civil war by having more guns and larger flank.
> 
> 5. The Northeast didn't win the civil war with Cowardism or Unfitness, they won the Civil by having more men in the military.
> 
> 6. The Northeast didn't win the Civil War by having a 60 % high school drop out rate, and 40 % illiteracy rate,  they won the civil war, by having more educated people, educated by the standards of the time, which they certainly do not have today.
> 
> 7. The Northeast didn't win the civil war with laziness, but by having a low unemployment rate, or what would have been a low unemployment rate if such things were measured back then.
> 
> Today the south would win the civil war because today the south is where the industry and the economy is, and the weapons, and the military personnel, and the literacy is at.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Emancipation of slaves was a liberal idea at the time.
> 
> The first income tax was instituted during the War for Southern Independence.
> 
> Well the South certainly seceded on political Bullshit.
> 
> Most weapons were muzzle loaders.  No 30 round clips.
> 
> The draft was hated in both the North and the South.
> 
> General Lee lost the war for the South.  All he needed to do was avoid large scale battles until they could secure recognition from a major foreign power.  But he had faith that the South was in the right.  And the righteous always win in battle.  That's why the North was able to win.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and I have the right to a 30 round clip
Click to expand...


No you don't...there are no 30 round clips


----------



## bripat9643

Tradewinds81186 said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> and really has nothing to do with the Civil War fought over states rights and slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what the war was about has zip do with how or why it won.
> 
> which has no bearing on how American life is today.
Click to expand...


Actually it has a great deal to do with how American life is today.  The utter devastation General Grant and General Sherman inflicted on the Confederate states left a legacy of poverty and bitterness that persists to this very day.  Segregation and Jim Crow were results of the Civil War and the oppressive "reconstruction" period that followed.

The immense growth of the federal government is a direct result of the Civil War, which pretty much abolished the concept of state's rights and created an imperial federal government.

There are other effects too numerous to list here.


----------



## bripat9643

rightwinger said:


> Tradewinds81186 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Emancipation of slaves was a liberal idea at the time.
> 
> The first income tax was instituted during the War for Southern Independence.
> 
> Well the South certainly seceded on political Bullshit.
> 
> Most weapons were muzzle loaders.  No 30 round clips.
> 
> The draft was hated in both the North and the South.
> 
> General Lee lost the war for the South.  All he needed to do was avoid large scale battles until they could secure recognition from a major foreign power.  But he had faith that the South was in the right.  And the righteous always win in battle.  That's why the North was able to win.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and I have the right to a 30 round clip
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you don't...there are no 30 round clips
Click to expand...


Sure there are.  You can make them with a 3D printer.


----------



## BlindBoo

natstew said:


> Tradewinds81186 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> and really has nothing to do with the Civil War fought over states rights and slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what the war was about has zip do with how or why it won.
> 
> which has no bearing on how American life is today.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There were other factors, but the one the South used as justification for seceding was "taxation without representation". I'll give a short explanation of that statement and if that's not enough I'll give a longer one.
> 
> The textile mills in the North were owned by filth rich industry moguls who worked girls and boys as young as six years ole to death in their mills. These moguls lived like Mid-evil Lords in their mansions on the Hudson and on the Massachusetts seacoast. They depended on cheap cotton from the South to maintain their 'serfdoms'. They bought and sold Senators and Congressmen like livestock. They made sure the power in Congress was centered in the northeastern States by controlling how new States were allowed to enter the Union, keeping the cotton producing States in the minority. By controlling Congress they got import/export Laws passed that guaranteed a continuous uninterrupted flow of cheap cotton from the South. How did this work? Okay another short explanation; They put a tax on exported cotton that gave the Northern textile moguls an unfair advantage. They also put an import tax on cloth and  clothes from England that gave the textile moguls even further advantage.
> The Southern States tried through all the legal means to gain fair and equal representation in Congress to no avail. They had no other recourse than seceding. They saw in the United States Declaration Of Independence the right, no, not the right, the Duty to secede and set up their own Government.
> 
> Now, I don't condone slavery, but I do agree with the right of States to secede from a Tyrannical United States Government. Abraham Lincoln violated the united States Constitution when he invaded Virginia.
> 
> *Oh, Fort Sumter?  It belonged to the State of South Carolina by Sovereignty*. The U.S. was unconstitutionally occupying it.
> 
> It's ironic how import/export taxes were seen as okay to support child labor to the point of death in the mills in the past, but not okay to support manufacturing jobs in the U.S. now.
> 90% of politicians have a price and the business moguls are always there to buy them.
> 
> Don't blame the Corporations without including the politicians, and Democrat politicians are the biggest recipients of Corporate funds.
> 
> I hate both Parties but the "Scumbag Factor" tips the scale with me, with the Democrats owning the "Scumbag Factor".
Click to expand...


Fort Sumter was covered by a separate cession of land to the United States by the state of South Carolina, and covered in this resolution, passed by the South Carolina legislature in December of 1836:

The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governors message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:

Resolved, *That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory*, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.

Who Owned Fort Sumter? | Student of the American Civil War


----------



## bripat9643

rightwinger said:


> Tradewinds81186 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a fact for you:
> 
> The South started a war to prove they were better than the slaves and lost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and here's a fact for you.
> 
> The south would beat the fuck out of ya today, because the south is in so much better condition.
> 
> More Industry, More Schools. Better Schools, More People, a Growing Economy, and better infrastructure, and the Most Americans in the Military.
> 
> so how about you fuck off.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They lost then and would lose now
> 
> Our military is much stronger than it was in 1860. I would enjoy this generations Sherman marching through the South again
Click to expand...



That just goes to show what a bootlicking fascist you are.

I'm always amazed when liberals admit they would enjoy killing their fellow Americans.


----------



## bripat9643

rightwinger said:


> If this is true
> 
> Why does the Northeast continue to contribute more in taxes than they receive if Federal Spending while the south continues to be a drain on the rest of the country?



There's a simple solution to your whining:  abolish all those welfare programs you despise so much.


----------



## TheOldSchool




----------



## WinterBorn

Tradewinds81186 said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is it with the goobers and their constant rehashing of the Civil War.
> 
> You lost, get over it already.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and the south wouldn't lose today, so go fuck yourself, ghetto trash retard
Click to expand...


Once again, the south wouldn't try to secede today.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Civil War Myths

A soldier shot another soldier in the testes, the ball ammo continued on with some of his genetic material shall we say, and into a woman impregnating her. This claim was perpetuated until 1959 but was a complete fiction.


----------



## WinterBorn

rightwinger said:


> Tradewinds81186 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Emancipation of slaves was a liberal idea at the time.
> 
> The first income tax was instituted during the War for Southern Independence.
> 
> Well the South certainly seceded on political Bullshit.
> 
> Most weapons were muzzle loaders.  No 30 round clips.
> 
> The draft was hated in both the North and the South.
> 
> General Lee lost the war for the South.  All he needed to do was avoid large scale battles until they could secure recognition from a major foreign power.  But he had faith that the South was in the right.  And the righteous always win in battle.  That's why the North was able to win.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and I have the right to a 30 round clip
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you don't...there are no 30 round clips
Click to expand...


Wouldn't it be nice if those who claimed to be gun buffs knew the difference between a clip and a magazine?


----------



## bripat9643

BlindBoo said:


> natstew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tradewinds81186 said:
> 
> 
> 
> what the war was about has zip do with how or why it won.
> 
> which has no bearing on how American life is today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There were other factors, but the one the South used as justification for seceding was "taxation without representation". I'll give a short explanation of that statement and if that's not enough I'll give a longer one.
> 
> The textile mills in the North were owned by filth rich industry moguls who worked girls and boys as young as six years ole to death in their mills. These moguls lived like Mid-evil Lords in their mansions on the Hudson and on the Massachusetts seacoast. They depended on cheap cotton from the South to maintain their 'serfdoms'. They bought and sold Senators and Congressmen like livestock. They made sure the power in Congress was centered in the northeastern States by controlling how new States were allowed to enter the Union, keeping the cotton producing States in the minority. By controlling Congress they got import/export Laws passed that guaranteed a continuous uninterrupted flow of cheap cotton from the South. How did this work? Okay another short explanation; They put a tax on exported cotton that gave the Northern textile moguls an unfair advantage. They also put an import tax on cloth and  clothes from England that gave the textile moguls even further advantage.
> The Southern States tried through all the legal means to gain fair and equal representation in Congress to no avail. They had no other recourse than seceding. They saw in the United States Declaration Of Independence the right, no, not the right, the Duty to secede and set up their own Government.
> 
> Now, I don't condone slavery, but I do agree with the right of States to secede from a Tyrannical United States Government. Abraham Lincoln violated the united States Constitution when he invaded Virginia.
> 
> *Oh, Fort Sumter?  It belonged to the State of South Carolina by Sovereignty*. The U.S. was unconstitutionally occupying it.
> 
> It's ironic how import/export taxes were seen as okay to support child labor to the point of death in the mills in the past, but not okay to support manufacturing jobs in the U.S. now.
> 90% of politicians have a price and the business moguls are always there to buy them.
> 
> Don't blame the Corporations without including the politicians, and Democrat politicians are the biggest recipients of Corporate funds.
> 
> I hate both Parties but the "Scumbag Factor" tips the scale with me, with the Democrats owning the "Scumbag Factor".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fort Sumter was covered by a separate cession of land to the United States by the state of South Carolina, and covered in this resolution, passed by the South Carolina legislature in December of 1836:
> 
> &#8220;The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor&#8217;s message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:
> 
> &#8220;Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, *Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law;* and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.
> 
> Who Owned Fort Sumter? | Student of the American Civil War
Click to expand...


The issue isn't who owned it.  The issue is whose territory it was.  Maps of the United States made before the war show that Fort Sumter lay within the borders of South Carolina.  The United States government owns property in virtually every country of the world. That doesn't give us the right to station troops there despite the wishes of the governments where they are located.  Doing so would be an act of war, by anyone's standards.

The issue of ownership is a typical Lincoln cult red herring.  Fort Sumter was within the borders of South Carolina, and even your own source demonstrates that "That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law"  In other words, the state for South Carolina retained legal jurisdiction over the property.  The State of South Carolina issued a legal order for federal troops to vacate the property.  The federal government agreed to this authority.  The federal government violated this agreement and thereby committed an act of war.

Case closed.


----------



## rightwinger

bripat9643 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> If this is true
> 
> Why does the Northeast continue to contribute more in taxes than they receive if Federal Spending while the south continues to be a drain on the rest of the country?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a simple solution to your whining:  abolish all those welfare programs you despise so much.
Click to expand...


How will people in the south afford their Lone Star and Moon Pies?


----------



## rightwinger

bripat9643 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> natstew said:
> 
> 
> 
> There were other factors, but the one the South used as justification for seceding was "taxation without representation". I'll give a short explanation of that statement and if that's not enough I'll give a longer one.
> 
> The textile mills in the North were owned by filth rich industry moguls who worked girls and boys as young as six years ole to death in their mills. These moguls lived like Mid-evil Lords in their mansions on the Hudson and on the Massachusetts seacoast. They depended on cheap cotton from the South to maintain their 'serfdoms'. They bought and sold Senators and Congressmen like livestock. They made sure the power in Congress was centered in the northeastern States by controlling how new States were allowed to enter the Union, keeping the cotton producing States in the minority. By controlling Congress they got import/export Laws passed that guaranteed a continuous uninterrupted flow of cheap cotton from the South. How did this work? Okay another short explanation; They put a tax on exported cotton that gave the Northern textile moguls an unfair advantage. They also put an import tax on cloth and  clothes from England that gave the textile moguls even further advantage.
> The Southern States tried through all the legal means to gain fair and equal representation in Congress to no avail. They had no other recourse than seceding. They saw in the United States Declaration Of Independence the right, no, not the right, the Duty to secede and set up their own Government.
> 
> Now, I don't condone slavery, but I do agree with the right of States to secede from a Tyrannical United States Government. Abraham Lincoln violated the united States Constitution when he invaded Virginia.
> 
> *Oh, Fort Sumter?  It belonged to the State of South Carolina by Sovereignty*. The U.S. was unconstitutionally occupying it.
> 
> It's ironic how import/export taxes were seen as okay to support child labor to the point of death in the mills in the past, but not okay to support manufacturing jobs in the U.S. now.
> 90% of politicians have a price and the business moguls are always there to buy them.
> 
> Don't blame the Corporations without including the politicians, and Democrat politicians are the biggest recipients of Corporate funds.
> 
> I hate both Parties but the "Scumbag Factor" tips the scale with me, with the Democrats owning the "Scumbag Factor".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Sumter was covered by a separate cession of land to the United States by the state of South Carolina, and covered in this resolution, passed by the South Carolina legislature in December of 1836:
> 
> The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governors message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:
> 
> Resolved, *That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory*, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.
> 
> Who Owned Fort Sumter? | Student of the American Civil War
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issue isn't who owned it.  The issue is whose territory it was.  Maps of the United States made before the war show that Fort Sumter lay within the borders of South Carolina.  *The United States government owns property in virtually every country of the world. That doesn't give us the right to station troops there despite the wishes of the governments where they are located.  Doing so would be an act of war, by anyone's standards.*
> The issue of ownership is a typical Lincoln cult red herring.  Fort Sumter was within the borders of South Carolina, and even your own source demonstrates that "That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same."  In other words, the state for South Carolina retained legal jurisdiction over the property.  The State of South Carolina issued a legal order for federal troops to vacate the property.  The federal government agreed to this authority.  The federal government violated this agreement and thereby committed an act of war.
> 
> Case closed.
Click to expand...


Does Cuba know this?


----------



## bripat9643

WinterBorn said:


> Tradewinds81186 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is it with the goobers and their constant rehashing of the Civil War.
> 
> You lost, get over it already.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and the south wouldn't lose today, so go fuck yourself, ghetto trash retard
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, the south wouldn't try to secede today.
Click to expand...


Today, perhaps not.  But who knows what tomorrow will bring.  All the so-called experts all once believed that the USSR would beat the United States in the cold war.


----------



## bripat9643

rightwinger said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Sumter was covered by a separate cession of land to the United States by the state of South Carolina, and covered in this resolution, passed by the South Carolina legislature in December of 1836:
> 
> The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governors message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:
> 
> Resolved, *That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory*, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.
> 
> Who Owned Fort Sumter? | Student of the American Civil War
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The issue isn't who owned it.  The issue is whose territory it was.  Maps of the United States made before the war show that Fort Sumter lay within the borders of South Carolina.  *The United States government owns property in virtually every country of the world. That doesn't give us the right to station troops there despite the wishes of the governments where they are located.  Doing so would be an act of war, by anyone's standards.*
> The issue of ownership is a typical Lincoln cult red herring.  Fort Sumter was within the borders of South Carolina, and even your own source demonstrates that "That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same."  In other words, the state for South Carolina retained legal jurisdiction over the property.  The State of South Carolina issued a legal order for federal troops to vacate the property.  The federal government agreed to this authority.  The federal government violated this agreement and thereby committed an act of war.
> 
> Case closed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does Cuba know this?
Click to expand...


Sure it does, and we are committing an act of war against Cuba.  The only problem is our government doesn't give a damn and Cuba doesn't have the military capability to do anything about it.


----------



## TheOldSchool

bripat9643 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The issue isn't who owned it.  The issue is whose territory it was.  Maps of the United States made before the war show that Fort Sumter lay within the borders of South Carolina.  *The United States government owns property in virtually every country of the world. That doesn't give us the right to station troops there despite the wishes of the governments where they are located.  Doing so would be an act of war, by anyone's standards.*
> The issue of ownership is a typical Lincoln cult red herring.  Fort Sumter was within the borders of South Carolina, and even your own source demonstrates that "That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same."  In other words, the state for South Carolina retained legal jurisdiction over the property.  The State of South Carolina issued a legal order for federal troops to vacate the property.  The federal government agreed to this authority.  The federal government violated this agreement and thereby committed an act of war.
> 
> Case closed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does Cuba know this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure it does, and we are committing an act of war against Cuba.  The only problem is our government doesn't give a damn and Cuba doesn't have the military capability to do anything about it.
Click to expand...


Apparently neither did the south


----------



## bripat9643

rightwinger said:


> If this is true
> 
> Why does the Northeast continue to contribute more in taxes than they receive if Federal Spending while the south continues to be a drain on the rest of the country?



Brain damage is the only plausible explanation.


----------



## bripat9643

TheOldSchool said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does Cuba know this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it does, and we are committing an act of war against Cuba.  The only problem is our government doesn't give a damn and Cuba doesn't have the military capability to do anything about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently neither did the south
Click to expand...


Perhaps true, but then, they didn't understand how utterly ruthless and despicable Lincoln was.


----------



## rightwinger

I can't wait to see our tanks rolling through the South as our Air Force executes "Shock and Awe" on their former cities


Maybe Mexico will take in the refugees?


----------



## Mr Natural

rightwinger said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> If this is true
> 
> Why does the Northeast continue to contribute more in taxes than they receive if Federal Spending while the south continues to be a drain on the rest of the country?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a simple solution to your whining:  abolish all those welfare programs you despise so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How will people in the south afford their Lone Star and Moon Pies?
Click to expand...


They'll have to get their lazy trailer trash asses off the couch and get themselves one of those right-to-work-cooley-wage jobs they're so proud of.


----------



## Contumacious

Mr Clean said:


> What is it with the goobers and their constant rehashing of the Civil War.
> 
> You lost, get over it already.



Why is it that the folks in Yankeeland are so afraid of the rematch?

.


----------



## rightwinger

Contumacious said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is it with the goobers and their constant rehashing of the Civil War.
> 
> You lost, get over it already.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that the folks in Yankeeland are so afraid of the rematch?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Bring it on

We took it easy on you last go round


----------



## Mr Natural

Contumacious said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is it with the goobers and their constant rehashing of the Civil War.
> 
> You lost, get over it already.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that the folks in Yankeeland are so afraid of the rematch?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


 I wasn't aware that a rematch was in the offing.

But if it is, why don't you and your inbred buddies get yourselves all likkerd up and march on Washington and see how that goes for you.


----------



## Contumacious

rightwinger said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is it with the goobers and their constant rehashing of the Civil War.
> 
> You lost, get over it already.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that the folks in Yankeeland are so afraid of the rematch?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Bring it on*
> 
> We took it easy on you last go round
Click to expand...


Are you sure?

Fighting takes EFFORT, willpower, motivation, a drive To succeed. 

You guys have opted instead for parasitism - traded your votes for welfarism - killing couch potatoes will be like shooting fish in a barrel .

.


----------



## rightwinger

Contumacious said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that the folks in Yankeeland are so afraid of the rematch?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Bring it on*
> 
> We took it easy on you last go round
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you sure?
> 
> Fighting takes EFFORT, willpower, motivation, a drive To succeed.
> 
> You guys have opted instead for parasitism - traded your votes for welfarism - killing couch potatoes will be like shooting fish in a barrel .
> 
> .
Click to expand...


It is the South that leads the nation in public assistance
How are you guys going to survive without cheap beer and moon pies?

Like I said before, we took it easy on you last time. Sherman burned your fields, tore up your railroad tracks and freed your darkies

This time we hit your WalMarts, close your Waffle Houses and make you get jobs


----------



## WinterBorn

rightwinger said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Bring it on*
> 
> We took it easy on you last go round
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure?
> 
> Fighting takes EFFORT, willpower, motivation, a drive To succeed.
> 
> You guys have opted instead for parasitism - traded your votes for welfarism - killing couch potatoes will be like shooting fish in a barrel .
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is the South that leads the nation in public assistance
> How are you guys going to survive without cheap beer and moon pies?
> 
> Like I said before, we took it easy on you last time. Sherman burned your fields, tore up your railroad tracks and freed your darkies
> 
> This time we hit your WalMarts, close your Waffle Houses and make you get jobs
Click to expand...


How about we hold a rally for all the secessionists?   We could have it in Jackson MS.  That way you could blow them all up and leave the rest of the southerners alone to go about our day.  Taking that crowd out would probably raise the average IQ of the nation considerably.


----------



## Dutch

Contumacious said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is it with the goobers and their constant rehashing of the Civil War.
> 
> You lost, get over it already.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that the folks in Yankeeland are so afraid of the rematch?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Afraid, no.  Mildly amused, yes.


----------



## Dutch

WinterBorn said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure?
> 
> Fighting takes EFFORT, willpower, motivation, a drive To succeed.
> 
> You guys have opted instead for parasitism - traded your votes for welfarism - killing couch potatoes will be like shooting fish in a barrel .
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the South that leads the nation in public assistance
> How are you guys going to survive without cheap beer and moon pies?
> 
> Like I said before, we took it easy on you last time. Sherman burned your fields, tore up your railroad tracks and freed your darkies
> 
> This time we hit your WalMarts, close your Waffle Houses and make you get jobs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about we hold a rally for all the secessionists?   We could have it in Jackson MS.  That way you could blow them all up and leave the rest of the southerners alone to go about our day.  Taking that crowd out would probably raise the average IQ of the nation considerably.
Click to expand...


Just tell em they get a free Chik filet sandwhich and a Rascall scooter and they'll come a waddling in.


----------



## Contumacious

rightwinger said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Bring it on*
> 
> We took it easy on you last go round
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure?
> 
> Fighting takes EFFORT, willpower, motivation, a drive To succeed.
> 
> You guys have opted instead for parasitism - traded your votes for welfarism - killing couch potatoes will be like shooting fish in a barrel .
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is the South that leads the nation in public assistance
Click to expand...


Really?
*
State                                         Public Assistance*


South Carolina                            $30 millions

New York                                    $1,044 millions




> How are you guys going to survive without cheap beer and moon pies?



Water and pussy is all I need.



> and freed your darkies.



That was an UNintended afterthought.



> This time we hit your WalMarts, close your Waffle Houses and make you get jobs



You won't make it pass the Mason-Dixie Line the second time around.

.


----------



## boilermaker55

Here is a fact. 
Slave owners couldn't fight because they had no stamina and guts to fight.





Tradewinds81186 said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a fact for you:
> 
> The South started a war to prove they were better than the slaves and lost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and here's a fact for you.
> 
> The south would beat the fuck out of ya today, because the south is in so much better condition.
> 
> More Industry, More Schools. Better Schools, More People, a Growing Economy, and better infrastructure, and the Most Americans in the Military.
> 
> so how about you fuck off.
Click to expand...


----------



## Unkotare

Contumacious said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is it with the goobers and their constant rehashing of the Civil War.
> 
> You lost, get over it already.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that the folks in Yankeeland are so afraid of the rematch?
> 
> .
Click to expand...




"Yankeeland"?


----------



## racewright

Unkotare said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is it with the goobers and their constant rehashing of the Civil War.
> 
> You lost, get over it already.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that the folks in Yankeeland are so afraid of the rematch?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Yankeeland"?
Click to expand...


There is no way that Yankee land could ever defeat the south again.  If it ever happened Yankees will find out that fighting from your bed room or living room couch with your computer just will not cut it, after they have given up there guns and put the wrong things in there mouth.  

Any Yankee that thinks am wrong have never traveled 50 miles from the cities. 
But the real catch is it will not be the North against the south , but the rednecks who live even in NYC against the wimps who have given up all there rights. And have no way of fighting back.(the military will pick sides and most are from the south )


----------



## rightwinger

racewright said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that the folks in Yankeeland are so afraid of the rematch?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Yankeeland"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no way that Yankee land could ever defeat the south again.  If it ever happened Yankees will find out that fighting from your bed room or living room couch with your computer just will not cut it, after they have given up there guns and put the wrong things in there mouth.
> 
> Any Yankee that thinks am wrong have never traveled 50 miles from the cities.
> But the real catch is it will not be the North against the south , but the rednecks who live even in NYC against the wimps who have given up all there rights. And have no way of fighting back.(the military will pick sides and most are from the south )
Click to expand...


The military belongs to the United States.

Just like they did the last time the South got uppity


----------



## Contumacious

rightwinger said:


> racewright said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Yankeeland"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no way that Yankee land could ever defeat the south again.  If it ever happened Yankees will find out that fighting from your bed room or living room couch with your computer just will not cut it, after they have given up there guns and put the wrong things in there mouth.
> 
> Any Yankee that thinks am wrong have never traveled 50 miles from the cities.
> But the real catch is it will not be the North against the south , but the rednecks who live even in NYC against the wimps who have given up all there rights. And have no way of fighting back.(the military will pick sides and most are from the south )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The military belongs to the United States.*
> 
> Just like they did the last time the South got uppity
Click to expand...


Once we secede there is no United States - is the Feemen vs the Amoebas

.


----------



## Dutch

racewright said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that the folks in Yankeeland are so afraid of the rematch?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Yankeeland"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no way that Yankee land could ever defeat the south again.  If it ever happened Yankees will find out that fighting from your bed room or living room couch with your computer just will not cut it, after they have given up there guns and put the wrong things in there mouth.
> 
> Any Yankee that thinks am wrong have never traveled 50 miles from the cities.
> But the real catch is it will not be the North against the south , but the rednecks who live even in NYC against the wimps who have given up all there rights. And have no way of fighting back.(the military will pick sides and most are from the south )
Click to expand...


Then why do you guys cry like little girls every time the "Union Thugs" show up?


----------



## Unkotare

racewright said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that the folks in Yankeeland are so afraid of the rematch?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Yankeeland"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no way that Yankee land could ever defeat the south again.
Click to expand...




What the hell is "Yankee land," and why would you even be talking about "again"? Wasn't once more than enough?

And why does your English suck so badly?


----------



## Unkotare

Contumacious said:


> Once we secede there is no United States - is the Feemen vs the Amoebas
> 
> .




Who is "we"?


----------



## Contumacious

Unkotare said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once we secede there is no United States - is the Feemen vs the Amoebas
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is "we"?
Click to expand...


Da' good guys.

.


----------



## WinterBorn

Unkotare said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once we secede there is no United States - is the Feemen vs the Amoebas
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is "we"?
Click to expand...


He and a handful of whining Neanderthals that think life would have been better if the South won the civil war.

He is, of course, hypocritical enough to claim to be a patriotic American as well.  Typically what he, and those like him, actually are is under-achieving losers who want to blame someone else for their problems.

Luckily they are a small minority in the south.


----------



## Dutch

Unkotare said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once we secede there is no United States - is the Feemen vs the Amoebas
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is "we"?
Click to expand...


Just the two of them him and racewright.


----------



## KNB

Civil War Fact #1: The South lost and shall not rise again.  Get used to it.


----------



## Unkotare

Contumacious said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once we secede there is no United States - is the Feemen vs the Amoebas
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is "we"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Da' good guys.
> 
> .
Click to expand...



Why would good guys want another Civil War?


----------



## WinterBorn

Contumacious said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once we secede there is no United States - is the Feemen vs the Amoebas
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is "we"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Da' good guys.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


"Good guys"??   What do you claim to do that is good?


----------



## Contumacious

Unkotare said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is "we"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Da' good guys.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why would good guys want another Civil War?
Click to expand...



To kill the bad guys.

.


----------



## WinterBorn

Contumacious said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Da' good guys.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would good guys want another Civil War?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> To kill the bad guys.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


As one who advocates the destruction of the United States of America, you are one of the bad guys.


----------



## Contumacious

KNB said:


> Civil War Fact #1: The South lost and shall not rise again.  Get used to it.









.


----------



## Contumacious

WinterBorn said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would good guys want another Civil War?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To kill the bad guys.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As one who advocates the destruction of the United States of America, you are one of the bad guys.
Click to expand...


As one who advocates the destruction of the United States of America's Constitution  , you are one of the bad guys.


----------



## WinterBorn

Contumacious said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> To kill the bad guys.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As one who advocates the destruction of the United States of America, you are one of the bad guys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As one who advocates the destruction of the United States of America's Constitution  , you are one of the bad guys.
Click to expand...


I have not advocated anything of the kind.  But if lies help you feel better, keep tellin'em.


----------



## Unkotare

Contumacious said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Da' good guys.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would good guys want another Civil War?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> To kill the bad guys.
> 
> .
Click to expand...



You need a nap.


----------



## Contumacious

WinterBorn said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> As one who advocates the destruction of the United States of America, you are one of the bad guys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As one who advocates the destruction of the United States of America's Constitution  , you are one of the bad guys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not advocated anything of the kind.  But if lies help you feel better, keep tellin'em.
Click to expand...


The Union was one of sovereign free states

At the time the union was formed the Northern states knew that the Southern States allowed the the practice of slavery

The practice of slavery was on its way out

the Southern states AS SOVEREIGN FREE STATES RETAINED THE RIGHT TO SECEDE

That should have been the end. Ape Lincoln should have removed the northern troops from Fort Sumter and that would have been the end of it. But the fucker didn't one to be the Prez who caused the South to secede - that caused the union to divide - so he proceded to slaughter 650,000 southerners.

.


----------



## KNB

The South lost.  Get used to it.  Fuck slavery.


----------



## Unkotare

Why do I get the feeling that some people still think we are governed under the Articles of Confederation rather than the US Constitution?


----------



## WinterBorn

Contumacious said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> As one who advocates the destruction of the United States of America's Constitution  , you are one of the bad guys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have not advocated anything of the kind.  But if lies help you feel better, keep tellin'em.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Union was one of sovereign free states
> 
> At the time the union was formed the Northern states knew that the Southern States allowed the the practice of slavery
> 
> The practice of slavery was on its way out
> 
> the Southern states AS SOVEREIGN FREE STATES RETAINED THE RIGHT TO SECEDE
> 
> That should have been the end. Ape Lincoln should have removed the northern troops from Fort Sumter and that would have been the end of it. But the fucker didn't one to be the Prez who caused the South to secede - that caused the union to divide - so he proceded to slaughter 650,000 southerners.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


The practice of slavery was one its way out?  Is that why the states that seceded specifically mention slavery as the reason?  Is that why the confederate constitution expressly forbid outlawing slavery in any state in the confederacy?

Lincoln preserved the USA.  If you don't want to be a part of that you are welcome to leave.   But, aside from a few lunatics, none of the southern states are interested in secession in the least.

The south lost the war.  Deal with it and move on.


----------



## rightwinger

Contumacious said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> racewright said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no way that Yankee land could ever defeat the south again.  If it ever happened Yankees will find out that fighting from your bed room or living room couch with your computer just will not cut it, after they have given up there guns and put the wrong things in there mouth.
> 
> Any Yankee that thinks am wrong have never traveled 50 miles from the cities.
> But the real catch is it will not be the North against the south , but the rednecks who live even in NYC against the wimps who have given up all there rights. And have no way of fighting back.(the military will pick sides and most are from the south )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The military belongs to the United States.*
> 
> Just like they did the last time the South got uppity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once we secede there is no United States - is the Feemen vs the Amoebas
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Once you secede you are traitors and will be treated as such


----------



## WinterBorn

rightwinger said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The military belongs to the United States.*
> 
> Just like they did the last time the South got uppity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once we secede there is no United States - is the Feemen vs the Amoebas
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once you secede you are traitors and will be treated as such
Click to expand...


There will be no secession.  A handful of rednecks do not speak for the south.  Let them make whatever claims they will.  The rest of the south will never go along with them.  If they cross the line, we will deal with them like the criminals they will have become.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> Why do I get the feeling that some people still think we are governed under the Articles of Confederation rather than the US Constitution?



We aren't governed by the Constitution either.  We are governed by a gang of criminals.


----------



## bripat9643

WinterBorn said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would good guys want another Civil War?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To kill the bad guys.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As one who advocates the destruction of the United States of America, you are one of the bad guys.
Click to expand...


What will be destroyed, other than the power of a group of men to impose their will on unwilling subjects, if some of the states secede?


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do I get the feeling that some people still think we are governed under the Articles of Confederation rather than the US Constitution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't governed by the Constitution either.  We are governed by a gang of criminals.
Click to expand...



Just hang in there. We've had shitty administrations before. He'll be on his way back to Chicago before you know it. Then, if the voters have finally learned their lesson we can spend the next 50 years or so undoing the damage. Have hope for the future.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> To kill the bad guys.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As one who advocates the destruction of the United States of America, you are one of the bad guys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What will be destroyed, other than the power of a group of men to impose their will on unwilling subjects, if some of the states secede?
Click to expand...



Not gonna happen anyway, so relaxitate.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> As one who advocates the destruction of the United States of America, you are one of the bad guys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What will be destroyed, other than the power of a group of men to impose their will on unwilling subjects, if some of the states secede?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not gonna happen anyway, so relaxitate.
Click to expand...


That's a non-answer.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do I get the feeling that some people still think we are governed under the Articles of Confederation rather than the US Constitution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't governed by the Constitution either.  We are governed by a gang of criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Just hang in there. We've had shitty administrations before. He'll be on his way back to Chicago before you know it. Then, if the voters have finally learned their lesson we can spend the next 50 years or so undoing the damage. Have hope for the future.
Click to expand...


You are naïve if you believe the damage the Democrats have done will ever be repealed.  Secession is the only way we will ever be free of this current fascist government.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What will be destroyed, other than the power of a group of men to impose their will on unwilling subjects, if some of the states secede?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not gonna happen anyway, so relaxitate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a non-answer.
Click to expand...



It's a non-issue


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't governed by the Constitution either.  We are governed by a gang of criminals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just hang in there. We've had shitty administrations before. He'll be on his way back to Chicago before you know it. Then, if the voters have finally learned their lesson we can spend the next 50 years or so undoing the damage. Have hope for the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are naïve if you believe the damage the Democrats have done will ever be repealed.
Click to expand...




Pessimism is not an American quality. Chin up, lad!


----------



## bripat9643

WinterBorn said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once we secede there is no United States - is the Feemen vs the Amoebas
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once you secede you are traitors and will be treated as such
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There will be no secession.  A handful of rednecks do not speak for the south.  Let them make whatever claims they will.  The rest of the south will never go along with them.  If they cross the line, we will deal with them like the criminals they will have become.
Click to expand...


You don't speak for the South either, numbnuts.  Only time will tell who is right.  Smug assholes like you are typical proven wrong in the end.

A lot of people are waking up to the fact that Washington can't be reformed.  It would be easier to get a lion to eat alfalfa than to get Congress to reform itself.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Secession is the only way we will ever be free of this current fascist government.





You know, they make some really good decaf these days...


...just sayin'


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Time will tell who is right.





When? How much time? Or is this one of those "Ya know, some day the Sun will explode" sort of things?


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just hang in there. We've had shitty administrations before. He'll be on his way back to Chicago before you know it. Then, if the voters have finally learned their lesson we can spend the next 50 years or so undoing the damage. Have hope for the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are naïve if you believe the damage the Democrats have done will ever be repealed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pessimism is not an American quality. Chin up, lad!
Click to expand...


Ever heard the definition of a pessimist?  Anyone standing next to an optimist.

_"An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup."_

- H. L. Mencken -


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time will tell who is right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When? How much time? Or is this one of those "Ya know, some day the Sun will explode" sort of things?
Click to expand...


An optimist would say 20-30 years.  A pessimist would say we will descend into a dark age of world-wide tyranny that will last for 1000 years.  I'm actually in the later camp.  I think freedom is doomed in this world.


----------



## rightwinger

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time will tell who is right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When? How much time? Or is this one of those "Ya know, some day the Sun will explode" sort of things?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An optimist would say 20-30 years.  A pessimist would say we will descend into a dark age of world-wide tyranny that will last for 1000 years.  I'm actually in the later camp.  I think freedom is doomed in this world.
Click to expand...

You should get started on a survival shelter. You don't have a minute to spare


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are naïve if you believe the damage the Democrats have done will ever be repealed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pessimism is not an American quality. Chin up, lad!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ever heard the definition of a pessimist?  Anyone standing next to an optimist.
> 
> _"An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup."_
> 
> - H. L. Mencken -
Click to expand...




Have some faith in your country, champ.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time will tell who is right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When? How much time? Or is this one of those "Ya know, some day the Sun will explode" sort of things?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An optimist would say 20-30 years.  A pessimist would say we will descend into a dark age of world-wide tyranny that will last for 1000 years.  I'm actually in the later camp.  I think freedom is doomed in this world.
Click to expand...



Have you thought about seeking professional help in dealing with your emotions? I mean that sincerely.


----------



## WinterBorn

bripat9643 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once you secede you are traitors and will be treated as such
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be no secession.  A handful of rednecks do not speak for the south.  Let them make whatever claims they will.  The rest of the south will never go along with them.  If they cross the line, we will deal with them like the criminals they will have become.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't speak for the South either, numbnuts.  Only time will tell who is right.  Smug assholes like you are typical proven wrong in the end.
> 
> A lot of people are waking up to the fact that Washington can't be reformed.  It would be easier to get a lion to eat alfalfa than to get Congress to reform itself.
Click to expand...


I have lived and worked all over the south.  Yes, there are a handful of loud-mouthed idiots clamoring for secession.  But none of them have much influence beyond their trailer parks.  The south is typically heavily represented in the US military.  They are patriots not turncoats.

Considering that most of the southern states spend receive more in federal funding than they pay in taxes, the south would lose a good bit.  

Secession wil not happen in the south.  We are too integrated into the national picture.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pessimism is not an American quality. Chin up, lad!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ever heard the definition of a pessimist?  Anyone standing next to an optimist.
> 
> _"An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup."_
> 
> - H. L. Mencken -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have some faith in your country, champ.
Click to expand...


Americans have voted for tyranny every time they've been given the opportunity.  Why would I have any faith in them?


----------



## bripat9643

unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> when? How much time? Or is this one of those "ya know, some day the sun will explode" sort of things?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> an optimist would say 20-30 years.  A pessimist would say we will descend into a dark age of world-wide tyranny that will last for 1000 years.  I'm actually in the later camp.  I think freedom is doomed in this world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> have you thought about seeking professional help in dealing with your emotions? I mean that sincerely.
Click to expand...


rofl!


----------



## bripat9643

rightwinger said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> When? How much time? Or is this one of those "Ya know, some day the Sun will explode" sort of things?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An optimist would say 20-30 years.  A pessimist would say we will descend into a dark age of world-wide tyranny that will last for 1000 years.  I'm actually in the later camp.  I think freedom is doomed in this world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should get started on a survival shelter. You don't have a minute to spare
Click to expand...


You should make a down payment on a brain transplant.  It's amazing that you can stand upright with the one you are currently afflicted with.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever heard the definition of a pessimist?  Anyone standing next to an optimist.
> 
> _"An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup."_
> 
> - H. L. Mencken -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have some faith in your country, champ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Americans have voted for tyranny every time they've been given the opportunity.  Why would I have any faith in them?
Click to expand...




No one is begging you to stay. Is your passport up to date? Hell, you could join the Hollywood set and renounce the citizenship you value so little. 

Bye now.


----------



## Contumacious

WinterBorn said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have not advocated anything of the kind.  But if lies help you feel better, keep tellin'em.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Union was one of sovereign free states
> 
> At the time the union was formed the Northern states knew that the Southern States allowed the the practice of slavery
> 
> The practice of slavery was on its way out
> 
> the Southern states AS SOVEREIGN FREE STATES RETAINED THE RIGHT TO SECEDE
> 
> That should have been the end. Ape Lincoln should have removed the northern troops from Fort Sumter and that would have been the end of it. But the fucker didn't one to be the Prez who caused the South to secede - that caused the union to divide - so he proceded to slaughter 650,000 southerners.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The practice of slavery was one its way out?  Is that why the states that seceded specifically mention slavery as the reason?  Is that why the confederate constitution expressly forbid outlawing slavery in any state in the confederacy?
Click to expand...


*Lincoln's Greatest Failure (Or, How a Real Statesman Would Have Ended Slavery)*


 Among the tactics employed by the British, French, Spanish, Dutch, Danes, and others were slave rebellions, abolitionist campaigns to gain public support for emancipation, election of anti-slavery politicians, encouragement and assistance of runaway slaves, raising private funds to purchase the freedom of slaves, and the use of tax dollars to buy the freedom of slaves. There were some incidents of violence, but nothing remotely approaching the violence of a war that ended up killing 800,000 Americans.

There were once as many as 15,000 slaves in England herself, along with hundreds of thousands throughout the British empire. The British abolitionists combined religion, politics, publicity campaigns, legislation, and the legal system to end slavery there just two decades prior to the American "Civil War."



> Lincoln preserved the USA.




That was his REAL motive.

 So if you wife ever wants a divorce you will beat the crap out of her in order to "save" the union.

.

.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have some faith in your country, champ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Americans have voted for tyranny every time they've been given the opportunity.  Why would I have any faith in them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is begging you to stay. Is your passport up to date? Hell, you could join the Hollywood set and renounce the citizenship you value so little.
> 
> Bye now.
Click to expand...


Go fuck yourself.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Americans have voted for tyranny every time they've been given the opportunity.  Why would I have any faith in them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is begging you to stay. Is your passport up to date? Hell, you could join the Hollywood set and renounce the citizenship you value so little.
> 
> Bye now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go fuck yourself.
Click to expand...





Get the fuck out of my country. You don't deserve to live here.


----------



## racewright

rightwinger said:


> racewright said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Yankeeland"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no way that Yankee land could ever defeat the south again.  If it ever happened Yankees will find out that fighting from your bed room or living room couch with your computer just will not cut it, after they have given up there guns and put the wrong things in there mouth.
> 
> Any Yankee that thinks am wrong have never traveled 50 miles from the cities.
> But the real catch is it will not be the North against the south , but the rednecks who live even in NYC against the wimps who have given up all there rights. And have no way of fighting back.(the military will pick sides and most are from the south )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The military belongs to the United States.
> 
> Just like they did the last time the South got uppity
Click to expand...


And just like the last time both will have a military and the south is already ahead of the north.  The military belongs to the leaders of the military and not the president''SORRY


----------



## rightwinger

racewright said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> racewright said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no way that Yankee land could ever defeat the south again.  If it ever happened Yankees will find out that fighting from your bed room or living room couch with your computer just will not cut it, after they have given up there guns and put the wrong things in there mouth.
> 
> Any Yankee that thinks am wrong have never traveled 50 miles from the cities.
> But the real catch is it will not be the North against the south , but the rednecks who live even in NYC against the wimps who have given up all there rights. And have no way of fighting back.(the military will pick sides and most are from the south )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The military belongs to the United States.
> 
> Just like they did the last time the South got uppity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And just like the last time both will have a military and the south is already ahead of the north.  The military belongs to the leaders of the military and not the president''SORRY
Click to expand...


The United States already has a military. Southern Traitors can buy their weapons from China unless our Navy blockades them again


----------



## racewright

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one is begging you to stay. Is your passport up to date? Hell, you could join the Hollywood set and renounce the citizenship you value so little.
> 
> Bye now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go fuck yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get the fuck out of my country. You don't deserve to live here.
Click to expand...


Its not about get out of my country its about defending against all  enemies both foreign and domestic.   Domestic enemies are who ever is hurting this country sooooo it will depend on how many are committed to not allowing harm and fight what they believe is causing harm.
Side bar to this as Yankees have been slowly giving up there freedom for years (even before Owbama) southerner's are not so quick to give up freedom. Of course city people have a totally different point of view on freedom than country folk.


----------



## racewright

rightwinger said:


> racewright said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The military belongs to the United States.
> 
> Just like they did the last time the South got uppity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And just like the last time both will have a military and the south is already ahead of the north.  The military belongs to the leaders of the military and not the president''SORRY
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The United States already has a military. Southern Traitors can buy their weapons from China unless our Navy blockades them again
Click to expand...


Like I said the military is divided like never before.  As the soldiers can not openly speak against the president many are disgusted with him and his regime both Black and Whites.
 Oh and you just voiced as to the reason that gun folks will never give up there guns in particular assault weapons.  Only city folk surrender easy---this is not the north that your great grandparents were in.


----------



## Unkotare

racewright said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go fuck yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get the fuck out of my country. You don't deserve to live here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its not about get out of my country its about defending against all  enemies both foreign and domestic.   .
Click to expand...



Wasn't talking to you. Don't butt in.


----------



## bripat9643

rightwinger said:


> I can't wait to see our tanks rolling through the South as our Air Force executes "Shock and Awe" on their former cities
> 
> 
> Maybe Mexico will take in the refugees?



It's good to see your honesty about your desire to kill your fellow Americans.


Can you explain why anyone would want to be governed by a bunch of people like you?


----------



## racewright

Unkotare said:


> racewright said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get the fuck out of my country. You don't deserve to live here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its not about get out of my country its about defending against all  enemies both foreign and domestic.   .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't talking to you. Don't butt in.
Click to expand...



American Patriot added a new photo.





American Patriot's photo..


Like ·  · Share · 7338469 · 13 minutes ago ·


----------



## rightwinger

racewright said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> racewright said:
> 
> 
> 
> And just like the last time both will have a military and the south is already ahead of the north.  The military belongs to the leaders of the military and not the president''SORRY
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The United States already has a military. Southern Traitors can buy their weapons from China unless our Navy blockades them again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said the military is divided like never before.  As the soldiers can not openly speak against the president many are disgusted with him and his regime both Black and Whites.
> Oh and you just voiced as to the reason that gun folks will never give up there guns in particular assault weapons.  Only city folk surrender easy---this is not the north that your great grandparents were in.
Click to expand...

Our military is as loyal as they have ever been and would turn on the Southern traitors just like they did in 1861......only this time the war would be over in weeks


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one is begging you to stay. Is your passport up to date? Hell, you could join the Hollywood set and renounce the citizenship you value so little.
> 
> Bye now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go fuck yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get the fuck out of my country. You don't deserve to live here.
Click to expand...


What makes you any more deserving than me, a taste for boot polish?


----------



## rightwinger

bripat9643 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't wait to see our tanks rolling through the South as our Air Force executes "Shock and Awe" on their former cities
> 
> 
> Maybe Mexico will take in the refugees?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's good to see your honesty about your desire to kill your fellow Americans.
> 
> 
> Can you explain why anyone would want to be governed by a bunch of people like you?
Click to expand...

Like most loyal Americans, I have little tolerance for traitors


----------



## bripat9643

racewright said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go fuck yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get the fuck out of my country. You don't deserve to live here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its not about get out of my country its about defending against all  enemies both foreign and domestic.   Domestic enemies are who ever is hurting this country sooooo it will depend on how many are committed to not allowing harm and fight what they believe is causing harm.
> Side bar to this as Yankees have been slowly giving up there freedom for years (even before Owbama) southerner's are not so quick to give up freedom. Of course city people have a totally different point of view on freedom than country folk.
Click to expand...


Servile Toadies like Unkotare are the kind that would happily fire on their fellow Americans if given the order to do so.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go fuck yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get the fuck out of my country. You don't deserve to live here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes you any more deserving than me...?
Click to expand...



Your attitude toward my country proves you unworthy. Out.


----------



## bripat9643

rightwinger said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't wait to see our tanks rolling through the South as our Air Force executes "Shock and Awe" on their former cities
> 
> 
> Maybe Mexico will take in the refugees?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's good to see your honesty about your desire to kill your fellow Americans.
> 
> 
> Can you explain why anyone would want to be governed by a bunch of people like you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like most loyal Americans, I have little tolerance for traitors
Click to expand...


A sentiment expressed by every goose stepping Nazi in the Third Reich.

The true traitors are the people who would sell us all into slavery in exchange for a check from the government.

I don't follow fools who want to drive over the cliff.  That's where you and your ilk are taking us.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get the fuck out of my country. You don't deserve to live here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you any more deserving than me...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your attitude toward my country proves you unworthy. Out.
Click to expand...


ROFL!  You just didn't have the stomach to quote my entire statement, did you?  What's the matter?  Was it hitting too close to home?

Your attitude about the government proves that you're a moron.

It's my country too, asshole. 

Come make me get out.  Otherwise, shut your fucking yap.


----------



## rightwinger

bripat9643 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's good to see your honesty about your desire to kill your fellow Americans.
> 
> 
> Can you explain why anyone would want to be governed by a bunch of people like you?
> 
> 
> 
> Like most loyal Americans, I have little tolerance for traitors
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A sentiment expressed by every goose stepping Nazi in the Third Reich.
> 
> The true traitors are the people who would sell us all into slavery in exchange for a check from the government.
> 
> I don't follow fools who want to drive over the cliff.  That's where you and your ilk are taking us.
Click to expand...


A sentiment expressed by all who love this great country

We would have no issues taking care of anarchists such as yourself who would take up arms against your own country

Traitors deserve no quarter


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> It's my country too, asshole. .




You've denounced the country and clearly expressed your belief that it is hopeless and without worth. Nothing left but for you to *get the fuck out *while real Americans work to better the nation without the burden of whiny, pessimistic bitches like you.


----------



## hortysir

Tradewinds81186 said:


> 1. The Northeast didn't win the war on liberalism, they won on industry, which they no longer have.
> 
> 2. The Northeast didn't win the Civil war on poverty, The Northeast won the Civil War, on money and economics, TEXAS is now as big as wall street, and will surpass it very shortly.
> 
> 3. The Northeast didn't win the Civil war on political bullshit, the northeast won the civil war on Action, through repeated defeats and comebacks and sheer guts.
> 
> 4. The Northeast didn't win the civil war by banning guns, they won the civil war by having more guns and larger flank.
> 
> 5. The Northeast didn't win the civil war with Cowardism or Unfitness, they won the Civil by having more men in the military.
> 
> 6. The Northeast didn't win the Civil War by having a 60 % high school drop out rate, and 40 % illiteracy rate,  they won the civil war, by having more educated people, educated by the standards of the time, which they certainly do not have today.
> 
> 7. The Northeast didn't win the civil war with laziness, but by having a low unemployment rate, or what would have been a low unemployment rate if such things were measured back then.
> 
> Today the south would win the civil war because today the south is where the industry and the economy is, and the weapons, and the military personnel, and the literacy is *at*.
> 
> Thank you.



*fail*


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Come make me get out.  .





Why should I have to - unless you lack the courage of your convictions? Is that it? Are you lacking in courage, big mouth?


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come make me get out.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should I have to - unless you lack the courage of your convictions? Is that it? Are you lacking in courage, big mouth?
Click to expand...


What conviction of mine requires me to leave the country?  Certainly, respect for your opinion provides no motivation.

As for big mouths, I have encountered few blowhards as big as you.  The dumber they are, the more eager they are to spout their ignorance.


----------



## bripat9643

rightwinger said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like most loyal Americans, I have little tolerance for traitors
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A sentiment expressed by every goose stepping Nazi in the Third Reich.
> 
> The true traitors are the people who would sell us all into slavery in exchange for a check from the government.
> 
> I don't follow fools who want to drive over the cliff.  That's where you and your ilk are taking us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A sentiment expressed by all who love this great country
> 
> We would have no issues taking care of anarchists such as yourself who would take up arms against your own country
> 
> Traitors deserve no quarter
Click to expand...



Every Nazi loves his country.  There is no goose stepper more servile or eager to do the bidding of a dictator than the patriotic.

You and the other Lincoln cultists are the only ones in this thread who have mentioned taking up arms.

Here's a little clue for you, Nimrod:  Secession is not treason according to the definition in the Constitution, but invading a state of the union is treason.  That makes those who advocate such measures the traitors.

There is nothing on this earth more despicable or loathsome than some slimy little worm who is eager to slay people simply because they have no interest in being part of the herd and marching off to the slaughter house with the rest of the cattle.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come make me get out.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should I have to - unless you lack the courage of your convictions? Is that it? Are you lacking in courage, big mouth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What conviction of mine requires me to leave the country?  .
Click to expand...




You obviously have nothing but disdain and contempt for this country and do not believe it will get any 'better' in your estimation. Why would you stay in a country you hate as much as you obviously hate mine? Are you so spineless that you hate where you are but are afraid to leave? That's fucking pathetic. You're fucking pathetic.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> You and the other Lincoln cultists ...





And there it is. Every fucking time anything that even reminds you of the Civil War comes up you make an ass of yourself. Get it through your thick but fragile skull asshole: The Confederacy was wrong, the South lost, YOU CANNOT CHANGE THAT. It was a very long time ago. You were nowhere near being born at the time. Anything that it might have to do with you, you should be grateful for. IT'S OVER. THE TRAITOROUS REBELS LOST. Grow the fuck up and move the fuck on if you can't find the courage to move the fuck OUT of my country.


----------



## racewright

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You and the other Lincoln cultists ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there it is. Every fucking time anything that even reminds you of the Civil War comes up you make an ass of yourself. Get it through your thick but fragile skull asshole: The Confederacy was wrong, the South lost, YOU CANNOT CHANGE THAT. It was a very long time ago. You were nowhere near being born at the time. Anything that it might have to do with you, you should be grateful for. IT'S OVER. THE TRAITOROUS REBELS LOST. Grow the fuck up and move the fuck on if you can't find the courage to move the fuck OUT of my country.
Click to expand...


Have you taken up arms to defend this country against its enemies. I have so that gives me more rights to be here than you unless you also did.  Problem is I recognize that we now have to defend this great nation against Domestic enemies.  For now the war will be the 60 million that voted for the Conservative against the 65 million who voted wrongly for Owbama the traitor.
..There is a reason the oath that all military men (and women) swear to up hold the constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic. 
 That is because the writers of this oath recognized that both foreign enemies might need to be fought as well as domestic.  The military will have to decide who to fight although now the fight is political but as long as it 60against 65 it is only a matter of time before this becomes physical.
You see when the libs and Owbama avoid considering what the Conservative's wish and keep demonizing them it just angers way to many people and is just a powder keg waiting to explode. 
I also believe this is what Owbama wants.
For harmony it would need to be about 100 to 25 and I do not believe Owbama is capable of this.


----------



## rightwinger

bripat9643 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A sentiment expressed by every goose stepping Nazi in the Third Reich.
> 
> The true traitors are the people who would sell us all into slavery in exchange for a check from the government.
> 
> I don't follow fools who want to drive over the cliff.  That's where you and your ilk are taking us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A sentiment expressed by all who love this great country
> 
> We would have no issues taking care of anarchists such as yourself who would take up arms against your own country
> 
> Traitors deserve no quarter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Every Nazi loves his country.  There is no goose stepper more servile or eager to do the bidding of a dictator than the patriotic.
> 
> You and the other Lincoln cultists are the only ones in this thread who have mentioned taking up arms.
> 
> Here's a little clue for you, Nimrod:  Secession is not treason according to the definition in the Constitution, but invading a state of the union is treason.  That makes those who advocate such measures the traitors.
> 
> There is nothing on this earth more despicable or loathsome than some slimy little worm who is eager to slay people simply because they have no interest in being part of the herd and marching off to the slaughter house with the rest of the cattle.
Click to expand...


OMG!   NAZIS!  

You must be right


----------



## gipper

bripat9643 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A sentiment expressed by every goose stepping Nazi in the Third Reich.
> 
> The true traitors are the people who would sell us all into slavery in exchange for a check from the government.
> 
> I don't follow fools who want to drive over the cliff.  That's where you and your ilk are taking us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A sentiment expressed by all who love this great country
> 
> We would have no issues taking care of anarchists such as yourself who would take up arms against your own country
> 
> Traitors deserve no quarter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Every Nazi loves his country.  There is no goose stepper more servile or eager to do the bidding of a dictator than the patriotic.
> 
> You and the other Lincoln cultists are the only ones in this thread who have mentioned taking up arms.
> 
> Here's a little clue for you, Nimrod:  Secession is not treason according to the definition in the Constitution, but invading a state of the union is treason.  That makes those who advocate such measures the traitors.
> 
> There is nothing on this earth more despicable or loathsome than some slimy little worm who is eager to slay people simply because they have no interest in being part of the herd and marching off to the slaughter house with the rest of the cattle.
Click to expand...


Exactly right.

And there is no greater TRAITOR than Dishonest Abe.  This is clear to anyone capable of logical thinking.  Sadly...logical thinking is in short supply in America today.

It is amazing that many Americans think Lincoln's murderous and intolerant actions were appropriate.  To believe such tripe, one must be against ALL the founding principles of this nation....and to believe such tripe, one must believe the words spoken by that great democratic leader Il Duce...



> "All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state."



And those who disagree with Lincoln, are called Fascists.


----------



## nodoginnafight

> Were there black slave owners?


Yeah, there were.


----------



## nodoginnafight

> Have you taken up arms to defend this country against its enemies. I have so that gives me more rights to be here than you unless you also did.



The Timothy McVeigh brigade no doubt. 

The difference? I took my oath seriously.


----------



## racewright

nodoginnafight said:


> Have you taken up arms to defend this country against its enemies. I have so that gives me more rights to be here than you unless you also did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Timothy McVeigh brigade no doubt.
> 
> The difference? I took my oath seriously.
Click to expand...


Yea and which part.  If you served in war than My quest is not to eliminate you but if someone tells me that I should get out and never risked there life then fuck them I DO AND ALL OTHERE THAT WERE IN COMBAT HAVE MORE RIGHTS TO BE HERE THAN SOMEONE TELLING THEM TO GET OUT.  that attitude rubs me the wrong way and some times  I feel if you did not serve then maybe you should not vote--you are a taker not a giver.


----------



## bripat9643

racewright said:


> nodoginnafight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you taken up arms to defend this country against its enemies. I have so that gives me more rights to be here than you unless you also did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Timothy McVeigh brigade no doubt.
> 
> The difference? I took my oath seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea and which part.  If you served in war than My quest is not to eliminate you but if someone tells me that I should get out and never risked there life then fuck them I DO AND ALL OTHERE THAT WERE IN COMBAT HAVE MORE RIGHTS TO BE HERE THAN SOMEONE TELLING THEM TO GET OUT.  that attitude rubs me the wrong way and some times  I feel if you did not serve then maybe you should not vote--you are a taker not a giver.
Click to expand...


The assholes who tell you to get out are invariably the same ones who want to grant amnesty to illegal aliens.


----------



## Unkotare

racewright said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You and the other Lincoln cultists ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there it is. Every fucking time anything that even reminds you of the Civil War comes up you make an ass of yourself. Get it through your thick but fragile skull asshole: The Confederacy was wrong, the South lost, YOU CANNOT CHANGE THAT. It was a very long time ago. You were nowhere near being born at the time. Anything that it might have to do with you, you should be grateful for. IT'S OVER. THE TRAITOROUS REBELS LOST. Grow the fuck up and move the fuck on if you can't find the courage to move the fuck OUT of my country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you ....
Click to expand...



Wasn't talking to you. Don't butt in.


----------



## Steven_R

I like how people try to make it sound like Lincoln acted unilaterally in going to war. Lest we forget, the Northern states pushed for the war, their members of Congress funded the war, implemented the draft, passed taxes to pay for it, and punished the southern states during Reconstruction. For all the talk about states having the right to secede, a whole bunch of individual states disagreed with that notion and demanded Lincoln bring the southern states back into the fold.

I suspect that had Lincoln refused, he would have been removed from office and replaced with someone who would have had no compunctions about using force to return the secessionist state.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> racewright said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there it is. Every fucking time anything that even reminds you of the Civil War comes up you make an ass of yourself. Get it through your thick but fragile skull asshole: The Confederacy was wrong, the South lost, YOU CANNOT CHANGE THAT. It was a very long time ago. You were nowhere near being born at the time. Anything that it might have to do with you, you should be grateful for. IT'S OVER. THE TRAITOROUS REBELS LOST. Grow the fuck up and move the fuck on if you can't find the courage to move the fuck OUT of my country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't talking to you. Don't butt in.
Click to expand...


----------



## Drake_Roberts

Tradewinds81186 said:


> 1. The Northeast didn't win the war on liberalism, they won on industry, which they no longer have.
> 
> 2. The Northeast didn't win the Civil war on poverty, The Northeast won the Civil War, on money and economics, TEXAS is now as big as wall street, and will surpass it very shortly.
> 
> 3. The Northeast didn't win the Civil war on political bullshit, the northeast won the civil war on Action, through repeated defeats and comebacks and sheer guts.
> 
> 4. The Northeast didn't win the civil war by banning guns, they won the civil war by having more guns and larger flank.
> 
> 5. The Northeast didn't win the civil war with Cowardism or Unfitness, they won the Civil by having more men in the military.
> 
> 6. The Northeast didn't win the Civil War by having a 60 % high school drop out rate, and 40 % illiteracy rate,  they won the civil war, by having more educated people, educated by the standards of the time, which they certainly do not have today.
> 
> 7. The Northeast didn't win the civil war with laziness, but by having a low unemployment rate, or what would have been a low unemployment rate if such things were measured back then.
> 
> Today the south would win the civil war because today the south is where the industry and the economy is, and the weapons, and the military personnel, and the literacy is at.
> 
> Thank you.



8. The North won because not all of their actually talented Generals were killed. Especially by their own men: Stonewall Jackson dying from pneumonia caused by gunshots wounds he sustained from his own men.


----------



## Drake_Roberts

WinterBorn said:


> Tradewinds81186 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The Northeast didn't win the war on liberalism, they won on industry, which they no longer have.
> 
> 2. The Northeast didn't win the Civil war on poverty, The Northeast won the Civil War, on money and economics, TEXAS now as big as wall street, and will surpass it very shortly.
> 
> 3. The Northeast didn't win the Civil war on political bullshit, the northeast won the civil war on Action, through repeated defeats and comebacks and sheer guts.
> 
> 4. The Northeast didn't win the civil war by banning guns, they won the civil war by having more guns and larger flank.
> 
> 5. The Northeast didn't win the civil war with Cowardism or Unfitness, they won the Civil by having more men in the military.
> 
> 6. The Northeast didn't win the Civil War by having a 60 % high school drop out rate, and 40 % illiteracy rate,  they won the civil war, by having more educated people, educated by the standards of the time, which they certainly do not have today.
> 
> 7. The Northeast didn't win the civil war by laziness, but by having a low unemployment rate, or what would have been a low unemployment rate if such things were measured back then.
> 
> Today the south would win the civil war because today the south is where the industry and the economy is, and the weapons, and the military personnel, and the literacy is at.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While much of what you posted is true, you ignore the large population of semi-literate irish immigrants that had flooded the Northeast and were used as cannon fodder.
> 
> Also, to claim the south would win today is to assume that the war would be fought today.  There is no slavery and no single issue to push for a seccession.
> 
> As a lifelong southerner, let me say I am proud to be an American and will do whatever it takes to remain one.
Click to expand...


Long live America! Not the US, though. Long live the FISA!


----------



## racewright

Drake_Roberts said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tradewinds81186 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The Northeast didn't win the war on liberalism, they won on industry, which they no longer have.
> 
> 2. The Northeast didn't win the Civil war on poverty, The Northeast won the Civil War, on money and economics, TEXAS now as big as wall street, and will surpass it very shortly.
> 
> 3. The Northeast didn't win the Civil war on political bullshit, the northeast won the civil war on Action, through repeated defeats and comebacks and sheer guts.
> 
> 4. The Northeast didn't win the civil war by banning guns, they won the civil war by having more guns and larger flank.
> 
> 5. The Northeast didn't win the civil war with Cowardism or Unfitness, they won the Civil by having more men in the military.
> 
> 6. The Northeast didn't win the Civil War by having a 60 % high school drop out rate, and 40 % illiteracy rate,  they won the civil war, by having more educated people, educated by the standards of the time, which they certainly do not have today.
> 
> 7. The Northeast didn't win the civil war by laziness, but by having a low unemployment rate, or what would have been a low unemployment rate if such things were measured back then.
> 
> Today the south would win the civil war because today the south is where the industry and the economy is, and the weapons, and the military personnel, and the literacy is at.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While much of what you posted is true, you ignore the large population of semi-literate irish immigrants that had flooded the Northeast and were used as cannon fodder.
> 
> Also, to claim the south would win today is to assume that the war would be fought today.  There is no slavery and no single issue to push for a seccession.
> 
> As a lifelong southerner, let me say I am proud to be an American and will do whatever it takes to remain one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Long live America! Not the US, though. Long live the FISA!
Click to expand...




Hey you know what FUCK YOU


----------



## gipper

Steven_R said:


> I like how people try to make it sound like Lincoln acted unilaterally in going to war. Lest we forget, the Northern states pushed for the war, their members of Congress funded the war, implemented the draft, passed taxes to pay for it, and punished the southern states during Reconstruction. For all the talk about states having the right to secede, a whole bunch of individual states disagreed with that notion and demanded Lincoln bring the southern states back into the fold.
> 
> I suspect that had Lincoln refused, he would have been removed from office and replaced with someone who would have had no compunctions about using force to return the secessionist state.



There is nothing in the historical record that backs your conclusion.  Many state governments and northern newspapers believed the southern states had the right to secede and thought it best to let them go, rather than go to war to stop them.

To think the war was inevitable and the correct thing for Lincoln to do, is terribly anti-American.  The states were sovereign.  They had every right to secede just as they had done from Great Britain. 

Slavery was a terrible thing, but to destroy the South, causing mass death, razing vast amounts of private property, leading to decades of horrific repression against blacks; proves war was the worst option.

President Buchanan thought he could do nothing to stop the South from seceding.  The tyrant Lincoln believed otherwise and his premise had nothing to do with slavery.  He merely wanted the Southern states to pay duties to the Federal government or they must die.


----------



## rightwinger

gipper said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like how people try to make it sound like Lincoln acted unilaterally in going to war. Lest we forget, the Northern states pushed for the war, their members of Congress funded the war, implemented the draft, passed taxes to pay for it, and punished the southern states during Reconstruction. For all the talk about states having the right to secede, a whole bunch of individual states disagreed with that notion and demanded Lincoln bring the southern states back into the fold.
> 
> I suspect that had Lincoln refused, he would have been removed from office and replaced with someone who would have had no compunctions about using force to return the secessionist state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the historical record that backs your conclusion.  Many state governments and northern newspapers believed the southern states had the right to secede and thought it best to let them go, rather than go to war to stop them.
> 
> To think the war was inevitable and the correct thing for Lincoln to do, is terribly anti-American.  The states were sovereign.  They had every right to secede just as they had done from Great Britain.
> 
> Slavery was a terrible thing, but to destroy the South, causing mass death, razing vast amounts of private property, leading to decades of horrific repression against blacks; proves war was the worst option.
> 
> President Buchanan thought he could do nothing to stop the South from seceding.  The tyrant Lincoln believed otherwise and his premise had nothing to do with slavery.  He merely wanted the Southern states to pay duties to the Federal government or they must die.
Click to expand...


Where in the Constitution did it give the states a right to seceded?  Where does it provide a mechanism to do so?
The Constitution provides a mechanism to join the union but never envisioned a dissolution of that union


----------



## Steven_R

gipper said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like how people try to make it sound like Lincoln acted unilaterally in going to war. Lest we forget, the Northern states pushed for the war, their members of Congress funded the war, implemented the draft, passed taxes to pay for it, and punished the southern states during Reconstruction. For all the talk about states having the right to secede, a whole bunch of individual states disagreed with that notion and demanded Lincoln bring the southern states back into the fold.
> 
> I suspect that had Lincoln refused, he would have been removed from office and replaced with someone who would have had no compunctions about using force to return the secessionist state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the historical record that backs your conclusion.  Many state governments and northern newspapers believed the southern states had the right to secede and thought it best to let them go, rather than go to war to stop them.
> 
> To think the war was inevitable and the correct thing for Lincoln to do, is terribly anti-American.  The states were sovereign.  They had every right to secede just as they had done from Great Britain.
> 
> Slavery was a terrible thing, but to destroy the South, causing mass death, razing vast amounts of private property, leading to decades of horrific repression against blacks; proves war was the worst option.
> 
> President Buchanan thought he could do nothing to stop the South from seceding.  The tyrant Lincoln believed otherwise and his premise had nothing to do with slavery.  He merely wanted the Southern states to pay duties to the Federal government or they must die.
Click to expand...


You really need to look at the Congressional Record and look at the speeches made in both the House and Senate. Then look at the number of leading politicians writing in newspapers to gain support for going to war. Then look at the 1862 midterm platforms of people elected. Whether or not there was some legal justification for secession isn't the point. The point is a whole bunch of state and national politicians in northern states outright demanded that the south be forcibly returned to the Union.

Don't take my word for, go look it up.


----------



## gipper

Steven_R said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like how people try to make it sound like Lincoln acted unilaterally in going to war. Lest we forget, the Northern states pushed for the war, their members of Congress funded the war, implemented the draft, passed taxes to pay for it, and punished the southern states during Reconstruction. For all the talk about states having the right to secede, a whole bunch of individual states disagreed with that notion and demanded Lincoln bring the southern states back into the fold.
> 
> I suspect that had Lincoln refused, he would have been removed from office and replaced with someone who would have had no compunctions about using force to return the secessionist state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the historical record that backs your conclusion.  Many state governments and northern newspapers believed the southern states had the right to secede and thought it best to let them go, rather than go to war to stop them.
> 
> To think the war was inevitable and the correct thing for Lincoln to do, is terribly anti-American.  The states were sovereign.  They had every right to secede just as they had done from Great Britain.
> 
> Slavery was a terrible thing, but to destroy the South, causing mass death, razing vast amounts of private property, leading to decades of horrific repression against blacks; proves war was the worst option.
> 
> President Buchanan thought he could do nothing to stop the South from seceding.  The tyrant Lincoln believed otherwise and his premise had nothing to do with slavery.  He merely wanted the Southern states to pay duties to the Federal government or they must die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really need to look at the Congressional Record and look at the speeches made in both the House and Senate. Then look at the number of leading politicians writing in newspapers to gain support for going to war. Then look at the 1862 midterm platforms of people elected. Whether or not there was some legal justification for secession isn't the point. The point is a whole bunch of state and national politicians in northern states outright demanded that the south be forcibly returned to the Union.
> 
> Don't take my word for, go look it up.
Click to expand...


I never mentioned Congress in my posts and it is meaningless.  They are politicians and of course they are for the State first and foremost.  Just as they are today.

Plus you fail to recognize the tyrannical actions Lincoln was taking against anyone who opposed him.  He used government force to close numerous northern newspapers, arrested numerous citizens who used their first amendment right to oppose the war, he even deported a congressman from Ohio.  Do you not think these actions coercive and likely to influence many to support the war?

Many in the North, particularly in New England, were crazed abolitionists who demanded war to end slavery.  They was unbelievable and unwarranted hatred for the Southern Man.  They had become inflamed by propaganda such as Uncle Tom's Cabin and other BS.  Lincoln used them for his nefarious purposes.  He never intended to end slavery...he told the South they could keep slavery FOREVER in his first inaugural, but he also said if they do not pay the Federal government what it is owed, they must die.


----------



## Steven_R

I'm not ignoring Lincoln. I'm simply saying Lincoln didn't go to war on his own accord. Go back and look at the primary documents and you will see many Northern politicians at every level, from members of Congress, to state governors and legislatures, to local politicians all saying the South had no authority to leave the Union and demanding war to drag Southern states back to Union if it came to it.


----------



## WinterBorn

gipper said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing in the historical record that backs your conclusion.  Many state governments and northern newspapers believed the southern states had the right to secede and thought it best to let them go, rather than go to war to stop them.
> 
> To think the war was inevitable and the correct thing for Lincoln to do, is terribly anti-American.  The states were sovereign.  They had every right to secede just as they had done from Great Britain.
> 
> Slavery was a terrible thing, but to destroy the South, causing mass death, razing vast amounts of private property, leading to decades of horrific repression against blacks; proves war was the worst option.
> 
> President Buchanan thought he could do nothing to stop the South from seceding.  The tyrant Lincoln believed otherwise and his premise had nothing to do with slavery.  He merely wanted the Southern states to pay duties to the Federal government or they must die.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really need to look at the Congressional Record and look at the speeches made in both the House and Senate. Then look at the number of leading politicians writing in newspapers to gain support for going to war. Then look at the 1862 midterm platforms of people elected. Whether or not there was some legal justification for secession isn't the point. The point is a whole bunch of state and national politicians in northern states outright demanded that the south be forcibly returned to the Union.
> 
> Don't take my word for, go look it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never mentioned Congress in my posts and it is meaningless.  They are politicians and of course they are for the State first and foremost.  Just as they are today.
> 
> Plus you fail to recognize the tyrannical actions Lincoln was taking against anyone who opposed him.  He used government force to close numerous northern newspapers, arrested numerous citizens who used their first amendment right to oppose the war, he even deported a congressman from Ohio.  Do you not think these actions coercive and likely to influence many to support the war?
> 
> Many in the North, particularly in New England, were crazed abolitionists who demanded war to end slavery.  They was unbelievable and unwarranted hatred for the Southern Man.  They had become inflamed by propaganda such as Uncle Tom's Cabin and other BS.  Lincoln used them for his nefarious purposes.  He never intended to end slavery...he told the South they could keep slavery FOREVER in his first inaugural, but he also said if they do not pay the Federal government what it is owed, they must die.
Click to expand...


There was crazy on both sides of the issue.   When a senator from Maine talked about making any new states admitted to the Union non-slave states, the senator from South Carolina got up, walked down to the floor, and beat him with a walking stick so badly the senator from Maine was hospitalized.


----------



## gipper

WinterBorn said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really need to look at the Congressional Record and look at the speeches made in both the House and Senate. Then look at the number of leading politicians writing in newspapers to gain support for going to war. Then look at the 1862 midterm platforms of people elected. Whether or not there was some legal justification for secession isn't the point. The point is a whole bunch of state and national politicians in northern states outright demanded that the south be forcibly returned to the Union.
> 
> Don't take my word for, go look it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never mentioned Congress in my posts and it is meaningless.  They are politicians and of course they are for the State first and foremost.  Just as they are today.
> 
> Plus you fail to recognize the tyrannical actions Lincoln was taking against anyone who opposed him.  He used government force to close numerous northern newspapers, arrested numerous citizens who used their first amendment right to oppose the war, he even deported a congressman from Ohio.  Do you not think these actions coercive and likely to influence many to support the war?
> 
> Many in the North, particularly in New England, were crazed abolitionists who demanded war to end slavery.  They was unbelievable and unwarranted hatred for the Southern Man.  They had become inflamed by propaganda such as Uncle Tom's Cabin and other BS.  Lincoln used them for his nefarious purposes.  He never intended to end slavery...he told the South they could keep slavery FOREVER in his first inaugural, but he also said if they do not pay the Federal government what it is owed, they must die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was crazy on both sides of the issue.   When a senator from Maine talked about making any new states admitted to the Union non-slave states, the senator from South Carolina got up, walked down to the floor, and beat him with a walking stick so badly the senator from Maine was hospitalized.
Click to expand...


Yes...there were crazy fools on both sides wanting blood.  But only Lincoln invaded and is solely responsible for the war.

The leaders of the South tried repeatedly to work with Lincoln.  Only to be told to fuck off.  The South, before the war but after secession, offered to pay their share of the federal budget deficit.  They also offered to pay for all Federal installations on Southern lands.  Lincoln ignored all their efforts to avoid war.


----------



## Theowl32

The liberals and their constant rewriting of history is such a joke. One, the North did not want a war to "free the slaves." It was sold in the beginning to the people in the North that it was to preserve the union. Lets us not forget that the North greatly benefited from the free labor in the south. Love how liberals would even attempt to deny that. 

Right when Lincoln was elected the entire south KNEW it was over. His whole campaign was about stopping the EXPANSION OF SLAVERY into the west. Unlike other presidents (wink wink) he meant what he said in regards what he was going to do. Only a few months into his presidency, the south attacked Fort Sumter. 

Once it started, Lincoln still insisted that the war was not about emancipation but about preserving the Union. This, was to placate the North citizens. AND the North Generals. Once Lincoln fought tooth and nail for the emancipation of the slave, many in the North despised Lincoln. 

Lincoln was often called a war monger. Sound familiar? General Mclellan ran against Lincoln in 1864 based on the fact that he believed Lincoln lied. He ran based on the this notion of the Emancipation is something the North did not want. 


The Election of 1864 [ushistory.org]

M_*eanwhile the DEMOCRATIC PARTY SPLIT, with major opposition from Peace Democrats, who wanted a negotiated peace at any cost. They chose as their nominee George B. McClellan, Lincoln's former commander of the Army of the Potomac. Even Lincoln expected that McClellan would win.

The South was well aware of Union discontent. Many felt that if the Southern armies could hold out until the election, negotiations for Northern recognition of Confederate independence might begin.

Everything changed on September 6, 1864, when General Sherman seized Atlanta. The war effort had turned decidedly in the North's favor and even McClellan now sought military victory.*_


The simple fact is Lincoln was very unpopular with many citizens in this country. It is reflective in the fact that John Wilkes Booth really thought he was going to be received as a hero when he assassinated him. He truly believed he was a going to be a hero, and this is obviously based on the rhetoric that must have been prevalent, which is why he believed what he believed. 

It is amazing how ignorant liberals are, and what stupid shit is being taught by our pathetic commie teachers. 


**Side note****

Ever notice how we no longer celebrate specific presidents anymore? We use to honor Lincolns birthday and Washington's birthday. They are no longer really mentioned like that. It is all under "presidents day." Almost as though there is a systematic attempt to reduce specific heroes our American dream. 

Of course, we would never shuffle Martin Luther King day into something like...."civil rights day." 

Many of you will not get it, but it is what it is.


----------



## rightwinger

The war wasn't about slavery. It was about a states rights to allow slavery


----------



## Theowl32

rightwinger said:


> The war wasn't about slavery. It was about a states rights to allow slavery



Slavery expansion and emancipation of the slaves in the southern states are two different things. 

Your simple mind cannot conceive of the distinction between the two, cause you are a simpleton. A lieberal. Do not think I misspelled that word either. 


The war was sold in the north that it was about preserving the union. Lincoln campaigned on not allowing slave states to expand into the west. 

The Emancipation Proclamation was a very radical step, even for that time. Many in the North did not want that. Mainly due to the economic ramifications for the merchants in the North (constituents) that greatly benefited from the free labor.


----------



## rightwinger

Theowl32 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The war wasn't about slavery. It was about a states rights to allow slavery
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery expansion and emancipation of the slaves in the southern states are two different things.
> 
> Your simple mind cannot conceive of the distinction between the two, cause you are a simpleton. A lieberal. Do not think I misspelled that word either.
> 
> 
> The war was sold in the north that it was about preserving the union. Lincoln campaigned on not allowing slave states to expand into the west.
> 
> The Emancipation Proclamation was a very radical step, even for that time. Many in the North did not want that. Mainly due to the economic ramifications for the merchants in the North (constituents) that greatly benefited from the free labor.
Click to expand...


Why did all the southern states articles of secession all mention slavery?
Why was their Constitution identicle to ours except that it guarantees slavery?


----------



## nodoginnafight

Neo-Nazi revisionist crap: "The holocaust never happened."
Neo-Confederate revisionist crap: "The Civil War was not fought over slavery."


----------



## nodoginnafight

hey owl,
Maybe you should tell Alexander Stephens (the vice president of the confederacy) what the civil war was really about - because he seems to have it all wrong:

Internet History Sourcebooks


----------



## Theowl32

Who said the war was not about slavery?

Lincoln sold the war to the north that it was about preserving the union. The south wanted to EXPAND slavery.

When Lincoln fought for the emancipation of ALL slavery, he took a real risk.

If he had campaigned on emancipating all slavery, he would have lost his first ection...probably.

Now, who is saying the war was not about slavery?


----------



## WinterBorn

Theowl32 said:


> Who said the war was not about slavery?
> 
> Lincoln sold the war to the north that it was about preserving the union. The south wanted to EXPAND slavery.
> 
> When Lincoln fought for the emancipation of ALL slavery, he took a real risk.
> 
> If he had campaigned on emancipating all slavery, he would have lost his first ection...probably.
> 
> Now, who is saying the war was not about slavery?



There have been numerous posters who insist the war was about State's rights, tariffs ect ect.


----------



## Theowl32

WinterBorn said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said the war was not about slavery?
> 
> Lincoln sold the war to the north that it was about preserving the union. The south wanted to EXPAND slavery.
> 
> When Lincoln fought for the emancipation of ALL slavery, he took a real risk.
> 
> If he had campaigned on emancipating all slavery, he would have lost his first ection...probably.
> 
> Now, who is saying the war was not about slavery?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There have been numerous posters who insist the war was about State's rights, tariffs ect ect.
Click to expand...


Nodoginthefight was referring to me and what I was saying. The war initially started over slavery and remained that way.

However, people make the mistake in thinking the North opposed slavery in the south. Many did, but most were not in favor of the concept of an emancipation of the slaves in the south. Just from an economic stand point etc. Most in the north viewed the negro as lesser humans than europeans. People thinking that this racist perception was seprated by the mason dixon line are very simplistic in their thinking. In other words, the typical know it all lieberal.


----------



## bripat9643

Theowl32 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said the war was not about slavery?
> 
> Lincoln sold the war to the north that it was about preserving the union. The south wanted to EXPAND slavery.
> 
> When Lincoln fought for the emancipation of ALL slavery, he took a real risk.
> 
> If he had campaigned on emancipating all slavery, he would have lost his first ection...probably.
> 
> Now, who is saying the war was not about slavery?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There have been numerous posters who insist the war was about State's rights, tariffs ect ect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nodoginthefight was referring to me and what I was saying. The war initially started over slavery and remained that way.
Click to expand...


Dead wrong.  The Southern States may have seceded because of slavery, but Lincoln invaded purely because he wanted to enforce high tariffs on the Southern states.  That's the main reason people in the Northern states supported the invasion.   Their blood began to boil when they realized that the South was going to be a free trade zone and would no longer be forced to purchases overpriced products from Northern manufacturers,  

Lincoln and the population of Northern states didn't give a damn about the slaves.  They opposed slavery purely because they didn't want Northern labor to have to compete with slave labor.  It had nothing to do with any concern about slaves.



Theowl32 said:


> [However, people make the mistake in thinking the North opposed slavery in the south. Many did, but most were not in favor of the concept of an emancipation of the slaves in the south. Just from an economic stand point etc. Most in the north viewed the negro as lesser humans than europeans. People thinking that this racist perception was seprated by the mason dixon line are very simplistic in their thinking. In other words, the typical know it all lieberal.



Only libturds make that mistake.


----------



## Mr. H.

Frank Underwood's great-great-grandpappy died at Bull Run.

I done seed it on House of Cards.


----------



## Steven_R

As explained by a professor I once had...

High School Student: The Civil War was about slavery.
Undergraduate: The Civil War was mostly about tariffs and trade than any thing else.
Grad student: The Civil War was about a great many issues.
Professor: The Civil War was about slavery.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> ... Lincoln invaded purely because he wanted to enforce high tariffs on the Southern states.  ...





Wrong again, headcase. President Lincoln punished the traitors and brought them to heel to preserve the Union; a Union imperiled by arrogant, vainglorious fools who would sacrifice all for the sake of an evil institution that chiefly benefited a morally bankrupt minority.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Lincoln and the population of Northern states didn't give a damn about the slaves.  They opposed slavery purely because they didn't want Northern labor to have to compete with slave labor.  It had nothing to do with any concern about slaves.
> .




As usual, just more bitter, emotive, ignorant nonsense from the headcase.  



"From the beginning, some white colonists were uncomfortable with the notion of slavery. At the time of the American Revolution against the English Crown, Delaware (1776) and Virginia (1778) prohibited importation of African slaves; Vermont became the first of the 13 colonies to abolish slavery (1777); Rhode Island prohibited taking slaves from the colony (1778); and Pennsylvania began gradual emancipation in 1780.

The Maryland Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery and the Relief of Free Negroes and Others Unlawfully Held in Bondage was founded in 1789, the same year the former colonies replaced their Articles of Confederation with the new Constitution, "in order to form a more perfect union.""

Abolitionist Movement | Abolitionism


----------



## Theowl32

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Lincoln invaded purely because he wanted to enforce high tariffs on the Southern states.  ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again, headcase. President Lincoln punished the traitors and brought them to heel to preserve the Union; a Union imperiled by arrogant, vainglorious fools who would sacrifice all for the sake of an evil institution that chiefly benefited a morally bankrupt minority.
Click to expand...


So long as we understand that slavery has not really been abolished in the world. Cheap labor is and will always be sought so long as there is a monetary system firmly in place. Since we all agree that is not going anywhere soon, we should identify where these "slave like" conditions exist today. 

China, Vietnam etc etc is good place to start. There are hellish work conditions in these countries. Oh, ignorance is bliss. I wonder if Tiger Woods would reject his 8 figure contract with Nike for their horrible conditions they have for workers in Vietnam. I wonder if any of the "African American" athletes that make millions in endorsements from these companies that take advantage of human labor. 

Yeah, when the shoe is in the over foot, all of a sudden it is entirely different. Anyway, yes. We all enjoy the cheaper prices at stores like Walmart. 

The point is that this country (the North) indeed enjoyed the slave labor in the southern states. Many of the citizens in the North enjoyed the lower prices for an assortment of different things as a result. 

Like I said, just like we enjoy the lower prices as a result of the slave like conditions of workers in those countries. Ignorance is really bliss. In todays world, since it is so far away, we show little to no concern. Out of sight out of mind. 

I think Cicero was right about human behavior. When he observed the average Roman citizen in the ancient world, he mentioned they are really only concerned about the pebble in their shoe. 

I laugh at those who really believe we are living in such an innocent time now.


----------



## Unkotare

Theowl32 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Lincoln invaded purely because he wanted to enforce high tariffs on the Southern states.  ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again, headcase. President Lincoln punished the traitors and brought them to heel to preserve the Union; a Union imperiled by arrogant, vainglorious fools who would sacrifice all for the sake of an evil institution that chiefly benefited a morally bankrupt minority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So long as we understand that slavery has not really been abolished in the world. ...
Click to expand...




Who said that it was? Stay on topic.


----------



## Unkotare

Theowl32 said:


> Cheap labor is and will always be sought so long as there is a monetary system firmly in place. Since we all agree that is not going anywhere soon, we should identify where these "slave like" conditions exist today.
> 
> China, Vietnam etc etc is good place to start. There are hellish work conditions in these countries. Oh, ignorance is bliss. I wonder if Tiger Woods would reject his 8 figure contract with Nike for their horrible conditions they have for workers in Vietnam. I wonder if any of the "African American" athletes that make millions in endorsements from these companies that take advantage of human labor.




Equating "cheap" labor to slavery is an offensively false equivalency. Have you ever witnessed firsthand work conditions in China? Do you know the cost of living in various parts of Vietnam relative to average wages in various industries?

Start a new thread if you feel the need to go so far off topic.


----------



## Theowl32

Unkotare said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cheap labor is and will always be sought so long as there is a monetary system firmly in place. Since we all agree that is not going anywhere soon, we should identify where these "slave like" conditions exist today.
> 
> China, Vietnam etc etc is good place to start. There are hellish work conditions in these countries. Oh, ignorance is bliss. I wonder if Tiger Woods would reject his 8 figure contract with Nike for their horrible conditions they have for workers in Vietnam. I wonder if any of the "African American" athletes that make millions in endorsements from these companies that take advantage of human labor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Equating "cheap" labor to slavery is an offensively false equivalency. Have you ever witnessed firsthand work conditions in China? Do you know the cost of living in various parts of Vietnam relative to average wages in various industries?
> 
> Start a new thread if you feel the need to go so far off topic.
Click to expand...


Yeah, is this your way of denying there are slave like condition in those countries? 

Slave like conditions do exist. You can remain in your comfortable state of ignorance, and the issue of slavery is very much part of the topic in this thread. 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z35uzed1yIU]Vietnamese worker in Malaysia complains of being kept in slave-like conditions - YouTube[/ame]

BBC News - Vietnam's lost children in labyrinth of slave labour

Last year, three teenage boys jumped out of a third-floor window in Ho Chi Minh City and ran as fast as they could until they found help. It was one in the morning and they did not know where they were going.

"I was really scared someone would catch us," recalled Hieu, 18.

Hieu, who did not want to give his real name, is from the Khmu ethnic minority. He grew up in a small village in Dien Bien, a mountainous area in north-western Vietnam, one of the country's poorest provinces and bordering China.

When he was 16 he had a job making coal bricks in his home village when a woman approached him offering vocational training.

"My parents were happy I could go and earn some money," he said.

He and 11 other children from his village were taken by bus on a 2,100km (1,300 miles) journey and put to work in Ho Chi Minh City (formerly Saigon), south Vietnam.

They spent the next two years locked in a cramped room making clothes for a small garment factory with no wages.

"We started at 6am and finished work at midnight," he said. "If we made a mistake making the clothes they would beat us with a stick."

Prostitution, begging and garment factories
Hieu is one of more than 230 child-trafficking victims that the Vietnam-based charity Blue Dragon Children's Foundation has rescued since 2005.

Continue reading the main story

Start Quote

When they realise the kids are now slaves in sweatshops, [their parents] want them back

Michael Brosowski
Blue Dragon Children's Foundation
The charity helps children forced into a variety of jobs from prostitution to begging, but in the past year just over a quarter of that number have been rescued from garment factories in Ho Chi Minh City, the country's largest metropolis and industrial centre.

Conditions are often harsh.

"Last year we raided one factory. I think 14 people work, sleep, eat in a small room with the machines," says Blue Dragon's lawyer. "The factory owner only let them go to the bathroom for eight minutes a day, including brushing your teeth, washing, going to the toilet. "

The youngest was 11 and most were from ethnic minorities.

"They are taking kids from central and northern Vietnam because they are assuming those kids can't escape," said Blue Dragon co-founder Michael Brosowski.

"If they get kids from nearby, those kids can just walk out or walk home."

Mr Brosowski believes traffickers are targeting more remote areas such as Dien Bien province because communities there do not know about the risks of human trafficking.

Gangs approach local officials pretending to offer jobs or vocational training to children of the poorest families. Many are happy to send the children away.

Some villages Blue Dragon visit are missing dozens of children.

Parents and officials only realise there is a problem when the charity shows them pictures of garment factories they have raided in the past.

"When they realise the kids are now slaves in sweatshops, they want them back," he said.

Mr Brosowski believes the problem is getting worse, partly because it is so lucrative and other people in the trafficking business want "a piece of the pie", he said.

It also fits a nationwide trend as the rural poor seek jobs in the city. He does not believe the clothes are produced for export, but cannot say for sure.







Thousands of children have been treated like property in Vietnam due to the lack of sufficient pay, being sold as sex slaves, and the horrific working conditions of the sweatshops. This travesty has gone on for years without public knowledge for anyone to stop it. Kids as young as 9 years old are working for 10 hours a day. Laws in our country are clear cut as to the amount of hours a minor may work, but in other countries, such as Vietnam, laws are not followed through to that extent. Many businessmen view the situation as out of sight  out of mind and never stop this crime. Happy Meals at McDonalds always include a fluffy animal toy. 

It may be of surprise, but these are made by children themselves. Kids work longer hours than many men and women, but receive much less pay. They work in old buildings with no fresh air and many deathly chemicals. They are robbed of their childhood of fun and games. Some are abused sexually and are scarred from the traumatic experiences so young. 

Working for 10 hours, a person, especially a young growing child, needs at least three meals a day with a healthy snack in between. These children are being paid six cents an hour. Three basic meals cost two dollars and ten cents total. Teenage women, working for McDonalds take home a salary of $4.20 after working 70 hours per week. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Nike workers kicked, slapped and verbally abused at factories making Converse line in Indonesia | Mail Online

*Nike workers 'kicked, slapped and verbally abused' at factories making Converse *


They're one of the world's top sports clothing brands, but for years Nike have been dogged by allegations of sweatshops and child labour.

Now workers making Nike's Converse shoes at a factory in Indonesia say they are being physically and mentally abused.

Workers at the Sukabumi plant, about 60 miles from Jakarta, say supervisors frequently throw shoes at them, slap them in the face, kick them and call them dogs and pigs.


*Nike admits that such abuse has occurred among the contractors that make its hip high-tops but says there was little it could do to stop it.*

Dozens of interviews by The Associated Press, and a document released by Nike, show the company has a long way to go to meet the standards it set for itself a decade ago to end its reliance on sweatshop labour.

One worker at the Taiwanese-operated Pou Chen plant in Sukabumi said she was kicked by a supervisor last year after making a mistake while cutting rubber for soles.

'We're powerless,' said the woman, who like several others interviewed spoke on condition of anonymity out of fear of reprisals.

'Our only choice is to stay and suffer, or speak out and be fired.'

The 10,000 mostly female workers at the Taiwanese-operated Pou Chen plant make around 50 cents an hour.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Go ahead, read that whole story about Nike and working conditions. 


or....


Do not read it. BTW, these are things we know of. How much do we not know about?


----------



## Unkotare

Theowl32 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cheap labor is and will always be sought so long as there is a monetary system firmly in place. Since we all agree that is not going anywhere soon, we should identify where these "slave like" conditions exist today.
> 
> China, Vietnam etc etc is good place to start. There are hellish work conditions in these countries. Oh, ignorance is bliss. I wonder if Tiger Woods would reject his 8 figure contract with Nike for their horrible conditions they have for workers in Vietnam. I wonder if any of the "African American" athletes that make millions in endorsements from these companies that take advantage of human labor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Equating "cheap" labor to slavery is an offensively false equivalency. Have you ever witnessed firsthand work conditions in China? Do you know the cost of living in various parts of Vietnam relative to average wages in various industries?
> 
> Start a new thread if you feel the need to go so far off topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, is this your way of denying there are slave like condition in those countries?
Click to expand...



I notice you dodged my questions. Again, no one but YOU has tried to change the topic of this thread. Go start a new one to post common knowledge that there are poor working conditions around the world so you can feel as if you are informing the world about some great secret. Otherwise, you are just trolling this thread.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Lincoln invaded purely because he wanted to enforce high tariffs on the Southern states.  ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again, headcase. President Lincoln punished the traitors and brought them to heel to preserve the Union; a Union imperiled by arrogant, vainglorious fools who would sacrifice all for the sake of an evil institution that chiefly benefited a morally bankrupt minority.
Click to expand...


That's fascist carpetbagger horseshit.   Lincoln even told the Confederate states that he would leave them alone so long as they paid the tariff.   Lincoln stated quite plainly that he didn't give a damn about freeing the slaves.  He was even willing to sign a Constitutional Amendment that would enshrine slavery in the Constitution forever.

"Preserving the Union" was a means to an end, not an end in itself.  It was the means Lincoln used to force the Confederate states to pay ransom to the Northern states in the form of tariffs.

By the way, I looked up the definition of 'Unkotare.'

Unkotare 

unkotare \ woon-ko-ta-re \ , noun;

Japanese. Roughly translated as dripping poop. This word is used to describe a pornographic genre commonly known as Scat. 

_"Hey Bro checkout this sweet unkotare video I found... it is super kawaii-desu"_​

"Dripping shit"  That describes you to a 'T'


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln and the population of Northern states didn't give a damn about the slaves.  They opposed slavery purely because they didn't want Northern labor to have to compete with slave labor.  It had nothing to do with any concern about slaves.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, just more bitter, emotive, ignorant nonsense from the headcase.
> 
> "From the beginning, some white colonists were uncomfortable with the notion of slavery. At the time of the American Revolution against the English Crown, Delaware (1776) and Virginia (1778) prohibited importation of African slaves; Vermont became the first of the 13 colonies to abolish slavery (1777); Rhode Island prohibited taking slaves from the colony (1778); and Pennsylvania began gradual emancipation in 1780.
> 
> The Maryland Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery and the Relief of Free Negroes and Others Unlawfully Held in Bondage was founded in 1789, the same year the former colonies replaced their Articles of Confederation with the new Constitution, "in order to form a more perfect union.""
> 
> Abolitionist Movement | Abolitionism
Click to expand...


The abolitionist were always a very small minority of the population, perhaps 1% to 2%.  The rest of the population thought they were kooks.  Many Northern states had laws that persecuted blacks.  

http://www.constitution.org/14ll/truth_14th.txt

The fact is, Northern states pioneered viciously discriminatory "black codes" long before they existed in any Southern state, and these codes were supported
by many of the same Northern politicians who voted for the Fourteenth Amendment.

_The Revised Code of Indiana stated in 1862 that "Negroes and mulattos are not allowed to come into the state"; forbade the consummation of legal contracts with "Negroes and mulattos"; imposed a $500 fine on anyone who employed a black person; forbade interracial
marriage; and forbade blacks from testifying in court against white persons.

Illinois -- the "land of Lincoln" -- added almost identical restrictions in 1848, as did Oregon in 1857. Most Northern states in the 1860s did not permit immigration by blacks or, if they did, required them to post a $1,000 bond that would be confiscated if they behaved "improperly."

Senator Lyman Trimball of Illinois, a close confidant of Lincoln's, stated that "our people want nothing to do with the Negro" and was a strong supporter of Illinois' "black codes." Northern newspapers were often just as racist as the Northern black codes were. The Philadelphia Daily News editorialized on November 22, 1860, that "the African is naturally the
inferior race." The Daily Chicago Times wrote on December 7, 1860, that "nothing but evil" has come from the idea of Abolition and urged everyone to return any escaped slave "to his master where he belongs."_​
The bottom line is that everything you believe about the Civil War is bunk.  You're just a blowhard spouting off about a subject you know nothing about.  However, in true fascist fashion, you attack anyone who disputes your idiocies and threaten them with death.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... Lincoln invaded purely because he wanted to enforce high tariffs on the Southern states.  ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again, headcase. President Lincoln punished the traitors and brought them to heel to preserve the Union; a Union imperiled by arrogant, vainglorious fools who would sacrifice all for the sake of an evil institution that chiefly benefited a morally bankrupt minority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's fascist carpetbagger horseshit.
Click to expand...



No, that's historical reality, you bitter fucking weirdo. The Confederacy was wrong, and the traitorous curs who led so many good men to their deaths were arrogant fools rightly brought to heel by Union forces under the leadership of our greatest statesman. It's over, they lost, and it isn't your fight anyway, you fucking psycho.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> The bottom line is that everything you believe about the Civil War is bunk.






Because some idiot on the internet who personally feels he lost the war says so? You're a fucking headcase, and your attempts at rewriting history are doomed to fail. Say whatever else you want, but you KNOW that no one other than idiots like you and the overgrown geeks who like to play dress up will EVER buy your idiotic attempts at playing PR man for the Confederacy. You KNOW this to be true, and I hope it pisses you off as much as I think it does.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> However, in true fascist fashion, you attack anyone who disputes your idiocies and threaten them with death.





Who have I ever 'threatened with death,' you lying piece of shit? Is this how far you've gone? Is this how badly you've lost your shit over some shit that was lost long ago? Backup your accusation or retract it AT ONCE.


----------



## R.C. Christian

Or what?


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln and the population of Northern states didn't give a damn about the slaves.  They opposed slavery purely because they didn't want Northern labor to have to compete with slave labor.  It had nothing to do with any concern about slaves.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, just more bitter, emotive, ignorant nonsense from the headcase.
> 
> "From the beginning, some white colonists were uncomfortable with the notion of slavery. *At the time of the American Revolution against the English Crown, Delaware (1776) and Virginia (1778) prohibited importation of African slaves; Vermont became the first of the 13 colonies to abolish slavery (1777); Rhode Island prohibited taking slaves from the colony (1778); and Pennsylvania began gradual emancipation in 1780.*
> 
> *The Maryland Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery and the Relief of Free Negroes and Others Unlawfully Held in Bondage was founded in 1789*, the same year the former colonies replaced their Articles of Confederation with the new Constitution, "in order to form a more perfect union.""
> 
> Abolitionist Movement | Abolitionism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The abolitionist were always a very small minority of the population, perhaps 1% to 2%.  .
Click to expand...



Provide some proof of this "1% to 2%." Hurry up.


----------



## Unkotare

R.C. Christian said:


> Or what?



I wasn't talking to you, R.eally C.an't be a Christian. You'll get your turn.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again, headcase. President Lincoln punished the traitors and brought them to heel to preserve the Union; a Union imperiled by arrogant, vainglorious fools who would sacrifice all for the sake of an evil institution that chiefly benefited a morally bankrupt minority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's fascist carpetbagger horseshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's historical reality, you bitter fucking weirdo. The Confederacy was wrong, and the traitorous curs who led so many good men to their deaths were arrogant fools rightly brought to heel by Union forces under the leadership of our greatest statesman. It's over, they lost, and it isn't your fight anyway, you fucking psycho.
Click to expand...


You swear like a psychotic serial killer, but I'm the bitter one?

I love the way you can never bring yourself to quote my entire post, even when it's fairly short.  You just can't bare to repeat the ugly truth, can you?  I know it hurts when your greatest hero is revealed to be a dictator, a tyrant, a mass murderer and congenital liar.    

I know it must hurt to realize the Gettysburg address is nothing but a big lie and a cruel joke.  If anyone was fighting for government "by the people, of the people and for the people," it was the Confederacy, not Lincoln.  He was fighting to impose harsh tariffs on people who didn't want them.  He was fighting for the power to dispense swag to his railroad cronies.  He was fighting to turn the nation into an empire of subjects rather than a voluntary union of free states.

It's interesting to see how hysterical you get simply because I dare to post the facts about your dear sainted prophet.  If my claims were as absurd as you claim, I would think you would simply ignore them.  However, you just can't ignore historical facts, and they are all on my side of the issue.  I can back up everything I say about Lincoln.  All you can do is hysterically vent your spleen and lash out at those who try to educate you.

Every time you attack me you just provide me with another opportunity to educate people about the arch angel Lincoln.  I know that must make your blood boil.  You just can't shut me up.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> By the way, I looked up the definition of 'Unkotare.'





You're not going to Google your way out of ignorance. It is a colloquialism you won't find on the internet translators you spent all that time searching.  Once again you demonstrate the danger of '_a little knowledge_.'


Here's an internet dictionary for ya, stupid:  little knowledge is a dangerous thing - Idioms - by the Free Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's fascist carpetbagger horseshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's historical reality, you bitter fucking weirdo. The Confederacy was wrong, and the traitorous curs who led so many good men to their deaths were arrogant fools rightly brought to heel by Union forces under the leadership of our greatest statesman. It's over, they lost, and it isn't your fight anyway, you fucking psycho.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You swear like a psychotic serial killer, but I'm the bitter one?
Click to expand...




Yes, you're the bitter one. Even if reading the 'naughty' words offends your bugged-out, bloodshot eyes, you're still the bitter one.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, I looked up the definition of 'Unkotare.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're not going to Google your way out of ignorance. It is a colloquialism you won't find on the internet translators you spent all that time searching.  Once again you demonstrate the danger of '_a little knowledge_.'
> 
> 
> Here's an internet dictionary for ya, stupid:  little knowledge is a dangerous thing - Idioms - by the Free Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
Click to expand...


That's just more Unkotare (dripping shit)


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's historical reality, you bitter fucking weirdo. The Confederacy was wrong, and the traitorous curs who led so many good men to their deaths were arrogant fools rightly brought to heel by Union forces under the leadership of our greatest statesman. It's over, they lost, and it isn't your fight anyway, you fucking psycho.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You swear like a psychotic serial killer, but I'm the bitter one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you're the bitter one. Even if reading the 'naughty' words offends your bugged-out, bloodshot eyes, you're still the bitter one.
Click to expand...


Nope, it doesn't offend me at all.  I think it's hysterical.  It's like watching someone who just walked into a door start swearing at the door.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, just more bitter, emotive, ignorant nonsense from the headcase.
> 
> "From the beginning, some white colonists were uncomfortable with the notion of slavery. *At the time of the American Revolution against the English Crown, Delaware (1776) and Virginia (1778) prohibited importation of African slaves; Vermont became the first of the 13 colonies to abolish slavery (1777); Rhode Island prohibited taking slaves from the colony (1778); and Pennsylvania began gradual emancipation in 1780.*
> 
> *The Maryland Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery and the Relief of Free Negroes and Others Unlawfully Held in Bondage was founded in 1789*, the same year the former colonies replaced their Articles of Confederation with the new Constitution, "in order to form a more perfect union.""
> 
> Abolitionist Movement | Abolitionism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The abolitionist were always a very small minority of the population, perhaps 1% to 2%.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Provide some proof of this "1% to 2%." Hurry up.
Click to expand...


Abolitionism in the United States or Antislavery Movement in the United States 

_By 1838 the AASS claimed nearly 250,000 members and 1350 affiliated societies._​
In 1840 the population of the USA was about 20 million people.  

250,000/20 million = 0.0125   1.25%


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, I looked up the definition of 'Unkotare.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're not going to Google your way out of ignorance. It is a colloquialism you won't find on the internet translators you spent all that time searching.  Once again you demonstrate the danger of '_a little knowledge_.'
> 
> 
> Here's an internet dictionary for ya, stupid:  little knowledge is a dangerous thing - Idioms - by the Free Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's just more Unkotare (dripping shit)
Click to expand...




Wallow in your ignorance. It seems to be your forte.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The abolitionist were always a very small minority of the population, perhaps 1% to 2%.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Provide some proof of this "1% to 2%." Hurry up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abolitionism in the United States or Antislavery Movement in the United States
> 
> _By 1838 the AASS claimed nearly 250,000 members and 1350 affiliated societies._​
> In 1840 the population of the USA was about 20 million people.
> 
> 250,000/20 million = 0.0125   1.25%
Click to expand...


"and 1350 affiliated societies"

You're too stupid to use your own data, which of course doesn't - and can't - include those sympathetic to the idea of abolishing slavery but not historically accounted for members of some specifically registered group. You'll have to take those percentages and shove them back up your ass where you got them.


----------



## paperview

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Provide some proof of this "1% to 2%." Hurry up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abolitionism in the United States or Antislavery Movement in the United States
> 
> _By 1838 the AASS claimed nearly 250,000 members and 1350 affiliated societies._​
> In 1840 the population of the USA was about 20 million people.
> 
> 250,000/20 million = 0.0125   1.25%
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "and 1350 affiliated societies"
> 
> You're too stupid to use your own data, which of course doesn't - and can't - include those sympathetic to the idea of abolishing slavery but not historically accounted for members of some specifically registered group. You'll have to take those percentages and shove them back up your ass where you got them.
Click to expand...

Heh.  He does that a lot.

I'd also like to add, a number of Southern states also created laws barring anti-slavery  books, pamphlets, organizations, or even speaking ill against the  "peculiar institution" the majority in the South  wanted to preserve and  expand.

They would even put you in jail for speaking out against it, or printing  abolitionist material.  How's that for 1st Amendment rights for those "liberty loving" rebels?

Hell, the South even imposed a   Gag order in Congress preventing people from  even speaking about it on the floor of the House of Representatives.

You think that might have cut down on some of those otherwise outspoken abolitionists?


----------



## paperview

> _By 1838 the AASS claimed nearly 250,000 members and 1350 affiliated societies._​In 1840 the population of the USA was about 20 million people.
> 
> 250,000/20 million = 0.0125   1.25%



Actual figure is closer to 17 million.

Of which nearly 2.5 million were slaves.

Think those people were favor of an abolition movement?


----------



## Jitss617

WinterBorn said:


> Tradewinds81186 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The Northeast didn't win the war on liberalism, they won on industry, which they no longer have.
> 
> 2. The Northeast didn't win the Civil war on poverty, The Northeast won the Civil War, on money and economics, TEXAS now as big as wall street, and will surpass it very shortly.
> 
> 3. The Northeast didn't win the Civil war on political bullshit, the northeast won the civil war on Action, through repeated defeats and comebacks and sheer guts.
> 
> 4. The Northeast didn't win the civil war by banning guns, they won the civil war by having more guns and larger flank.
> 
> 5. The Northeast didn't win the civil war with Cowardism or Unfitness, they won the Civil by having more men in the military.
> 
> 6. The Northeast didn't win the Civil War by having a 60 % high school drop out rate, and 40 % illiteracy rate,  they won the civil war, by having more educated people, educated by the standards of the time, which they certainly do not have today.
> 
> 7. The Northeast didn't win the civil war by laziness, but by having a low unemployment rate, or what would have been a low unemployment rate if such things were measured back then.
> 
> Today the south would win the civil war because today the south is where the industry and the economy is, and the weapons, and the military personnel, and the literacy is at.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While much of what you posted is true, you ignore the large population of semi-literate irish immigrants that had flooded the Northeast and were used as cannon fodder.
> 
> Also, to claim the south would win today is to assume that the war would be fought today.  There is no slavery and no single issue to push for a seccession.
> 
> As a lifelong southerner, let me say I am proud to be an American and will do whatever it takes to remain one.
Click to expand...

It was never based on slavery you num nuts


----------



## JLW

Tradewinds81186 said:


> 1. The Northeast didn't win the war on liberalism, they won on industry, which they no longer have.
> 
> 2. The Northeast didn't win the Civil war on poverty, The Northeast won the Civil War, on money and economics, TEXAS is now as big as wall street, and will surpass it very shortly.
> 
> 3. The Northeast didn't win the Civil war on political bullshit, the northeast won the civil war on Action, through repeated defeats and comebacks and sheer guts.
> 
> 4. The Northeast didn't win the civil war by banning guns, they won the civil war by having more guns and larger flank.
> 
> 5. The Northeast didn't win the civil war with Cowardism or Unfitness, they won the Civil by having more men in the military.
> 
> 6. The Northeast didn't win the Civil War by having a 60 % high school drop out rate, and 40 % illiteracy rate,  they won the civil war, by having more educated people, educated by the standards of the time, which they certainly do not have today.
> 
> 7. The Northeast didn't win the civil war with laziness, but by having a low unemployment rate, or what would have been a low unemployment rate if such things were measured back then.
> 
> Today the south would win the civil war because today the south is where the industry and the economy is, and the weapons, and the military personnel, and the literacy is at.
> 
> Thank you.


I have news for you dumbass, no one would win in a civil war. Everyone loses.


----------



## rightwinger

More conservative fantasies of a Civil War

You had better be nice to us.....


----------



## WinterBorn

Jitss617 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tradewinds81186 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The Northeast didn't win the war on liberalism, they won on industry, which they no longer have.
> 
> 2. The Northeast didn't win the Civil war on poverty, The Northeast won the Civil War, on money and economics, TEXAS now as big as wall street, and will surpass it very shortly.
> 
> 3. The Northeast didn't win the Civil war on political bullshit, the northeast won the civil war on Action, through repeated defeats and comebacks and sheer guts.
> 
> 4. The Northeast didn't win the civil war by banning guns, they won the civil war by having more guns and larger flank.
> 
> 5. The Northeast didn't win the civil war with Cowardism or Unfitness, they won the Civil by having more men in the military.
> 
> 6. The Northeast didn't win the Civil War by having a 60 % high school drop out rate, and 40 % illiteracy rate,  they won the civil war, by having more educated people, educated by the standards of the time, which they certainly do not have today.
> 
> 7. The Northeast didn't win the civil war by laziness, but by having a low unemployment rate, or what would have been a low unemployment rate if such things were measured back then.
> 
> Today the south would win the civil war because today the south is where the industry and the economy is, and the weapons, and the military personnel, and the literacy is at.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While much of what you posted is true, you ignore the large population of semi-literate irish immigrants that had flooded the Northeast and were used as cannon fodder.
> 
> Also, to claim the south would win today is to assume that the war would be fought today.  There is no slavery and no single issue to push for a seccession.
> 
> As a lifelong southerner, let me say I am proud to be an American and will do whatever it takes to remain one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was never based on slavery you num nuts View attachment 300825
Click to expand...


Oh, so it was about state's rights?     Funny, the Vice-President of the confederacy said it was.

Also, the confederacy did not allow the states to determine whether or not slavery was allowed in their state.  The required that all states entering the confederacy would allow slavery and cooperate with returning runaway slaves, now and in the future.    So the confederacy did not allow state's rights.   Why would you bitch about the lack of state's rights, and then join a nation that allowed less state's rights?


----------



## Jitss617

WinterBorn said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tradewinds81186 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The Northeast didn't win the war on liberalism, they won on industry, which they no longer have.
> 
> 2. The Northeast didn't win the Civil war on poverty, The Northeast won the Civil War, on money and economics, TEXAS now as big as wall street, and will surpass it very shortly.
> 
> 3. The Northeast didn't win the Civil war on political bullshit, the northeast won the civil war on Action, through repeated defeats and comebacks and sheer guts.
> 
> 4. The Northeast didn't win the civil war by banning guns, they won the civil war by having more guns and larger flank.
> 
> 5. The Northeast didn't win the civil war with Cowardism or Unfitness, they won the Civil by having more men in the military.
> 
> 6. The Northeast didn't win the Civil War by having a 60 % high school drop out rate, and 40 % illiteracy rate,  they won the civil war, by having more educated people, educated by the standards of the time, which they certainly do not have today.
> 
> 7. The Northeast didn't win the civil war by laziness, but by having a low unemployment rate, or what would have been a low unemployment rate if such things were measured back then.
> 
> Today the south would win the civil war because today the south is where the industry and the economy is, and the weapons, and the military personnel, and the literacy is at.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While much of what you posted is true, you ignore the large population of semi-literate irish immigrants that had flooded the Northeast and were used as cannon fodder.
> 
> Also, to claim the south would win today is to assume that the war would be fought today.  There is no slavery and no single issue to push for a seccession.
> 
> As a lifelong southerner, let me say I am proud to be an American and will do whatever it takes to remain one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was never based on slavery you num nuts View attachment 300825
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, so it was about state's rights?     Funny, the Vice-President of the confederacy said it was.
> 
> Also, the confederacy did not allow the states to determine whether or not slavery was allowed in their state.  The required that all states entering the confederacy would allow slavery and cooperate with returning runaway slaves, now and in the future.    So the confederacy did not allow state's rights.   Why would you bitch about the lack of state's rights, and then join a nation that allowed less state's rights?
Click to expand...

Stick to what you said sucka..


----------



## evenflow1969

Tradewinds81186 said:


> 1. The Northeast didn't win the war on liberalism, they won on industry, which they no longer have.
> 
> 2. The Northeast didn't win the Civil war on poverty, The Northeast won the Civil War, on money and economics, TEXAS is now as big as wall street, and will surpass it very shortly.
> 
> 3. The Northeast didn't win the Civil war on political bullshit, the northeast won the civil war on Action, through repeated defeats and comebacks and sheer guts.
> 
> 4. The Northeast didn't win the civil war by banning guns, they won the civil war by having more guns and larger flank.
> 
> 5. The Northeast didn't win the civil war with Cowardism or Unfitness, they won the Civil by having more men in the military.
> 
> 6. The Northeast didn't win the Civil War by having a 60 % high school drop out rate, and 40 % illiteracy rate,  they won the civil war, by having more educated people, educated by the standards of the time, which they certainly do not have today.
> 
> 7. The Northeast didn't win the civil war with laziness, but by having a low unemployment rate, or what would have been a low unemployment rate if such things were measured back then.
> 
> Today the south would win the civil war because today the south is where the industry and the economy is, and the weapons, and the military personnel, and the literacy is at.
> 
> Thank you.


Where the industry,education and economies at? realy according to who exactly?


----------



## mikegriffith1

How about Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, and Indiana? These were not northeastern states.

The problem started when the seven Deep South states would not accept the results of a lawful election. They didn't even give Lincoln a chance to show how he would govern, even though the South still controlled the Senate and could block anything it didn't like, and even though the Republicans did not have an outright majority in the House.


----------



## rightwinger

mikegriffith1 said:


> How about Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, and Indiana? These were not northeastern states.
> 
> The problem started when the seven Deep South states would not accept the results of a lawful election. They didn't even give Lincoln a chance to show how he would govern, even though the South still controlled the Senate and could block anything it didn't like, and even though the Republicans did not have an outright majority in the House.



If the South had just accepted Lincoln there was little Lincoln could have done to end slavery. Best he could do was limit expansion into new states. 
If left on its own, slavery would have been gradually phased out and slave owners would have been compensated for their loss of “property”

But the South panicked and started a war. A war that ended slavery in four years


----------



## bripat9643

rightwinger said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, and Indiana? These were not northeastern states.
> 
> The problem started when the seven Deep South states would not accept the results of a lawful election. They didn't even give Lincoln a chance to show how he would govern, even though the South still controlled the Senate and could block anything it didn't like, and even though the Republicans did not have an outright majority in the House.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the South had just accepted Lincoln there was little Lincoln could have done to end slavery. Best he could do was limit expansion into new states.
> If left on its own, slavery would have been gradually phased out and slave owners would have been compensated for their loss of “property”
> 
> But the South panicked and started a war. A war that ended slavery in four years
Click to expand...

Lincoln started the war, moron.


----------



## rightwinger

bripat9643 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, and Indiana? These were not northeastern states.
> 
> The problem started when the seven Deep South states would not accept the results of a lawful election. They didn't even give Lincoln a chance to show how he would govern, even though the South still controlled the Senate and could block anything it didn't like, and even though the Republicans did not have an outright majority in the House.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the South had just accepted Lincoln there was little Lincoln could have done to end slavery. Best he could do was limit expansion into new states.
> If left on its own, slavery would have been gradually phased out and slave owners would have been compensated for their loss of “property”
> 
> But the South panicked and started a war. A war that ended slavery in four years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln started the war, moron.
Click to expand...


Lincoln responded to an attack on Ft Sumter

Another blunder by the Confederacy


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, and Indiana? These were not northeastern states.
> 
> The problem started when the seven Deep South states would not accept the results of a lawful election. They didn't even give Lincoln a chance to show how he would govern, even though the South still controlled the Senate and could block anything it didn't like, and even though the Republicans did not have an outright majority in the House.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the South had just accepted Lincoln there was little Lincoln could have done to end slavery. Best he could do was limit expansion into new states.
> If left on its own, slavery would have been gradually phased out and slave owners would have been compensated for their loss of “property”
> 
> But the South panicked and started a war. A war that ended slavery in four years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln started the war, moron.
Click to expand...



Wrong, moron.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, and Indiana? These were not northeastern states.
> 
> The problem started when the seven Deep South states would not accept the results of a lawful election. They didn't even give Lincoln a chance to show how he would govern, even though the South still controlled the Senate and could block anything it didn't like, and even though the Republicans did not have an outright majority in the House.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the South had just accepted Lincoln there was little Lincoln could have done to end slavery. Best he could do was limit expansion into new states.
> If left on its own, slavery would have been gradually phased out and slave owners would have been compensated for their loss of “property”
> 
> But the South panicked and started a war. A war that ended slavery in four years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln started the war, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, moron.
Click to expand...

It's irrefutable that he started it.  Who invaded Virginia?


----------



## there4eyeM

Virginia, and the 'South', was invaded by an emotion leading to illegal actions. These actions led to ruin for those seeking to renounce their obligations to the Perpetual Union. Thus, hundreds of thousands died and the economy of the South was transformed.
After the war, those highly placed persons most responsible for this disaster were not punished as they would have been in historically similar situations. This demonstrates a greatness of America that many overlook.


----------



## bripat9643

rightwinger said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, and Indiana? These were not northeastern states.
> 
> The problem started when the seven Deep South states would not accept the results of a lawful election. They didn't even give Lincoln a chance to show how he would govern, even though the South still controlled the Senate and could block anything it didn't like, and even though the Republicans did not have an outright majority in the House.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the South had just accepted Lincoln there was little Lincoln could have done to end slavery. Best he could do was limit expansion into new states.
> If left on its own, slavery would have been gradually phased out and slave owners would have been compensated for their loss of “property”
> 
> But the South panicked and started a war. A war that ended slavery in four years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln started the war, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lincoln responded to an attack on Ft Sumter
> 
> Another blunder by the Confederacy
Click to expand...

The Union was trespassing on the territory of South Carolina.  Furthermore, Lincoln sent a resupply ship that intruded on the waters of South Carolina.  There's no way that Lincoln had a right to occupy that fort and resupply it.  He violated every tenant of international law by doing so.


----------



## bripat9643

there4eyeM said:


> Virginia, and the 'South', was invaded by an emotion leading to illegal actions. These actions led to ruin for those seeking to renounce their obligations to the Perpetual Union. Thus, hundreds of thousands died and the economy of the South was transformed.
> After the war, those highly placed persons most responsible for this disaster were not punished as they would have been in historically similar situations. This demonstrates a greatness of America that many overlook.


ROFL!   Utter horseshit.  There were no illegal actions except on the part of Lincoln.  Lincoln waged war on the Southern states and utterly destroyed them.  The "highly placed persons" were not prosecuted because they would have been acquired.  They did not commit treason, according to the definition in the Constitution.  Lincoln did.  What is "great" about waging war on your countrymen?  That is the behavior of a scumbag and a tyrant.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, and Indiana? These were not northeastern states.
> 
> The problem started when the seven Deep South states would not accept the results of a lawful election. They didn't even give Lincoln a chance to show how he would govern, even though the South still controlled the Senate and could block anything it didn't like, and even though the Republicans did not have an outright majority in the House.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the South had just accepted Lincoln there was little Lincoln could have done to end slavery. Best he could do was limit expansion into new states.
> If left on its own, slavery would have been gradually phased out and slave owners would have been compensated for their loss of “property”
> 
> But the South panicked and started a war. A war that ended slavery in four years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln started the war, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's irrefutable that he started it.  ...
Click to expand...


Wannabe reb stupidity. The traitors fired on Fort Sumter. Your personal hatred for the United States of America does not change the facts.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, and Indiana? These were not northeastern states.
> 
> The problem started when the seven Deep South states would not accept the results of a lawful election. They didn't even give Lincoln a chance to show how he would govern, even though the South still controlled the Senate and could block anything it didn't like, and even though the Republicans did not have an outright majority in the House.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the South had just accepted Lincoln there was little Lincoln could have done to end slavery. Best he could do was limit expansion into new states.
> If left on its own, slavery would have been gradually phased out and slave owners would have been compensated for their loss of “property”
> 
> But the South panicked and started a war. A war that ended slavery in four years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln started the war, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's irrefutable that he started it.  ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wannabe reb stupidity. The traitors fired on Fort Sumter. Your personal hatred for the United States of America does not change the facts.
Click to expand...

Union troops were trespassing on the territory of SC, moron.  If foreigners refuse to leave your country, then they deserve to be fired on.


----------



## there4eyeM

Perpetual Union + "secession" = rebellion/treason.
The legal process would have been changes through Constitutional processes to the Constitution.
Declaring separation did not make separation a fact, merely a claim/attempt. 
American troops maneuvered on American territory to protect the Constitution and the nation from sedition.
They succeeded, albeit at horrendous cost, all due to illegal action by a minority.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the South had just accepted Lincoln there was little Lincoln could have done to end slavery. Best he could do was limit expansion into new states.
> If left on its own, slavery would have been gradually phased out and slave owners would have been compensated for their loss of “property”
> 
> But the South panicked and started a war. A war that ended slavery in four years
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln started the war, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's irrefutable that he started it.  ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wannabe reb stupidity. The traitors fired on Fort Sumter. Your personal hatred for the United States of America does not change the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Union troops were trespassing on the territory of SC, moron.  If foreigners refuse to leave your country, then they deserve to be fired on.
Click to expand...


American troops in America, you stupid traitor.


----------



## rightwinger

there4eyeM said:


> Virginia, and the 'South', was invaded by an emotion leading to illegal actions. These actions led to ruin for those seeking to renounce their obligations to the Perpetual Union. Thus, hundreds of thousands died and the economy of the South was transformed.
> After the war, those highly placed persons most responsible for this disaster were not punished as they would have been in historically similar situations. This demonstrates a greatness of America that many overlook.


They were led down the wrong path by zealots and fear mongerers 

Lincoln’s going to take away our slaves....we need to form a slave nation

The result was 600,000 dead and the end of slavery


----------



## rightwinger

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the South had just accepted Lincoln there was little Lincoln could have done to end slavery. Best he could do was limit expansion into new states.
> If left on its own, slavery would have been gradually phased out and slave owners would have been compensated for their loss of “property”
> 
> But the South panicked and started a war. A war that ended slavery in four years
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln started the war, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's irrefutable that he started it.  ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wannabe reb stupidity. The traitors fired on Fort Sumter. Your personal hatred for the United States of America does not change the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Union troops were trespassing on the territory of SC, moron.  If foreigners refuse to leave your country, then they deserve to be fired on.
Click to expand...


It was Federal Territory
The South had no claim to it


----------



## rightwinger

bripat9643 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, and Indiana? These were not northeastern states.
> 
> The problem started when the seven Deep South states would not accept the results of a lawful election. They didn't even give Lincoln a chance to show how he would govern, even though the South still controlled the Senate and could block anything it didn't like, and even though the Republicans did not have an outright majority in the House.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the South had just accepted Lincoln there was little Lincoln could have done to end slavery. Best he could do was limit expansion into new states.
> If left on its own, slavery would have been gradually phased out and slave owners would have been compensated for their loss of “property”
> 
> But the South panicked and started a war. A war that ended slavery in four years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln started the war, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lincoln responded to an attack on Ft Sumter
> 
> Another blunder by the Confederacy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Union was trespassing on the territory of South Carolina.  Furthermore, Lincoln sent a resupply ship that intruded on the waters of South Carolina.  There's no way that Lincoln had a right to occupy that fort and resupply it.  He violated every tenant of international law by doing so.
Click to expand...


We had a right to support and access our territory
Much like Guantanamo Bay today


----------



## mikegriffith1

mikegriffith1 said:


> How about Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, and Indiana? These were not northeastern states.
> 
> The problem started when the seven Deep South states would not accept the results of a lawful election. They didn't even give Lincoln a chance to show how he would govern, even though the South still controlled the Senate and could block anything it didn't like, and even though the Republicans did not have an outright majority in the House.





rightwinger said:


> If the South had just accepted Lincoln there was little Lincoln could have done to end slavery. Best he could do was limit expansion into new states.
> 
> If left on its own, slavery would have been gradually phased out and slave owners would have been compensated for their loss of “property”
> 
> But the South panicked and started a war. A war that ended slavery in four years





bripat9643 said:


> Lincoln started the war. . . .



Technically, Jefferson Davis started the war by bombarding Fort Sumter, one of the most foolish and senseless decisions in the history of bad decisions. That being said, Lincoln's reaction to the bloodless and amicably settled Sumter attack was quite overheated, but at that point Lincoln had no choice, unless he wanted to be disgraced and impeached and have his much more radical vice president take over.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln started the war, moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's irrefutable that he started it.  ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wannabe reb stupidity. The traitors fired on Fort Sumter. Your personal hatred for the United States of America does not change the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Union troops were trespassing on the territory of SC, moron.  If foreigners refuse to leave your country, then they deserve to be fired on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> American troops in America, you stupid traitor.
Click to expand...

South Carolina was no longer part of America after it seceded, you fucking dumbass.  If it was part of America, then Lincoln committed treason by making war on "the United States" (plural).


----------



## bripat9643

rightwinger said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, and Indiana? These were not northeastern states.
> 
> The problem started when the seven Deep South states would not accept the results of a lawful election. They didn't even give Lincoln a chance to show how he would govern, even though the South still controlled the Senate and could block anything it didn't like, and even though the Republicans did not have an outright majority in the House.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the South had just accepted Lincoln there was little Lincoln could have done to end slavery. Best he could do was limit expansion into new states.
> If left on its own, slavery would have been gradually phased out and slave owners would have been compensated for their loss of “property”
> 
> But the South panicked and started a war. A war that ended slavery in four years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln started the war, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lincoln responded to an attack on Ft Sumter
> 
> Another blunder by the Confederacy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Union was trespassing on the territory of South Carolina.  Furthermore, Lincoln sent a resupply ship that intruded on the waters of South Carolina.  There's no way that Lincoln had a right to occupy that fort and resupply it.  He violated every tenant of international law by doing so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We had a right to support and access our territory
> Much like Guantanamo Bay today
Click to expand...

No he didn't. It wasn't "our territory."  It was the territory of South Carolina.


----------



## bripat9643

rightwinger said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln started the war, moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's irrefutable that he started it.  ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wannabe reb stupidity. The traitors fired on Fort Sumter. Your personal hatred for the United States of America does not change the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Union troops were trespassing on the territory of SC, moron.  If foreigners refuse to leave your country, then they deserve to be fired on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was Federal Territory
> The South had no claim to it
Click to expand...


Of course they did.  Does North Carolina have a claim on the territory of Fort Bragg?  It enforces the laws there.  It levies taxes there.


----------



## bripat9643

there4eyeM said:


> Perpetual Union + "secession" = rebellion/treason.
> The legal process would have been changes through Constitutional processes to the Constitution.
> Declaring separation did not make separation a fact, merely a claim/attempt.
> American troops maneuvered on American territory to protect the Constitution and the nation from sedition.
> They succeeded, albeit at horrendous cost, all due to illegal action by a minority.


Really?  Where does the Constitution say that?

Post hoc rationalizations are just another form of lying.


----------



## rightwinger

mikegriffith1 said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, and Indiana? These were not northeastern states.
> 
> The problem started when the seven Deep South states would not accept the results of a lawful election. They didn't even give Lincoln a chance to show how he would govern, even though the South still controlled the Senate and could block anything it didn't like, and even though the Republicans did not have an outright majority in the House.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the South had just accepted Lincoln there was little Lincoln could have done to end slavery. Best he could do was limit expansion into new states.
> 
> If left on its own, slavery would have been gradually phased out and slave owners would have been compensated for their loss of “property”
> 
> But the South panicked and started a war. A war that ended slavery in four years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln started the war. . . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Technically, Jefferson Davis started the war by bombarding Fort Sumter, one of the most foolish and senseless decisions in the history of bad decisions. That being said, Lincoln's reaction to the bloodless and amicably settled Sumter attack was quite overheated, but at that point Lincoln had no choice, unless he wanted to be disgraced and impeached and have his much more radical vice president take over.
Click to expand...


Lincoln looked at an attack on our flag as war

The South gave him a reason to invade, the soon regretted it


----------



## rightwinger

bripat9643 said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perpetual Union + "secession" = rebellion/treason.
> The legal process would have been changes through Constitutional processes to the Constitution.
> Declaring separation did not make separation a fact, merely a claim/attempt.
> American troops maneuvered on American territory to protect the Constitution and the nation from sedition.
> They succeeded, albeit at horrendous cost, all due to illegal action by a minority.
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Where does the Constitution say that?
> 
> Post hoc rationalizations are just another form of lying.
Click to expand...

Our Constitution makes no provisions for secession
It provides for the formation of a UNITED States. If they wanted states to flop back and forth as the whim suited them, they would have included a procedure for that


----------



## there4eyeM

rightwinger said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, and Indiana? These were not northeastern states.
> 
> The problem started when the seven Deep South states would not accept the results of a lawful election. They didn't even give Lincoln a chance to show how he would govern, even though the South still controlled the Senate and could block anything it didn't like, and even though the Republicans did not have an outright majority in the House.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the South had just accepted Lincoln there was little Lincoln could have done to end slavery. Best he could do was limit expansion into new states.
> 
> If left on its own, slavery would have been gradually phased out and slave owners would have been compensated for their loss of “property”
> 
> But the South panicked and started a war. A war that ended slavery in four years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln started the war. . . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Technically, Jefferson Davis started the war by bombarding Fort Sumter, one of the most foolish and senseless decisions in the history of bad decisions. That being said, Lincoln's reaction to the bloodless and amicably settled Sumter attack was quite overheated, but at that point Lincoln had no choice, unless he wanted to be disgraced and impeached and have his much more radical vice president take over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lincoln looked at an attack on our flag as war
> 
> The South gave him a reason to invade, the soon regretted it
Click to expand...

There was no military invasion. There was a spiritual and moral invasion by forces of division, treachery and oppression. These were turned back, albeit imperfectly. 
In sum, the military operations of legitimate Union forces intervened and the Perpetual Union, the origin of this nation and the object of the Constitution, was preserved.
Mankind struck a blow for mankind.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, moron.
> 
> 
> 
> It's irrefutable that he started it.  ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wannabe reb stupidity. The traitors fired on Fort Sumter. Your personal hatred for the United States of America does not change the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Union troops were trespassing on the territory of SC, moron.  If foreigners refuse to leave your country, then they deserve to be fired on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> American troops in America, you stupid traitor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> South Carolina was no longer part of America after it seceded....
Click to expand...



Wrong.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, moron.
> 
> 
> 
> It's irrefutable that he started it.  ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wannabe reb stupidity. The traitors fired on Fort Sumter. Your personal hatred for the United States of America does not change the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Union troops were trespassing on the territory of SC, moron.  If foreigners refuse to leave your country, then they deserve to be fired on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> American troops in America, you stupid traitor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ... If it was part of America, then Lincoln committed treason by making war on "the United States" (plural).
Click to expand...


Wrong again.


----------



## bripat9643

there4eyeM said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, and Indiana? These were not northeastern states.
> 
> The problem started when the seven Deep South states would not accept the results of a lawful election. They didn't even give Lincoln a chance to show how he would govern, even though the South still controlled the Senate and could block anything it didn't like, and even though the Republicans did not have an outright majority in the House.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the South had just accepted Lincoln there was little Lincoln could have done to end slavery. Best he could do was limit expansion into new states.
> 
> If left on its own, slavery would have been gradually phased out and slave owners would have been compensated for their loss of “property”
> 
> But the South panicked and started a war. A war that ended slavery in four years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln started the war. . . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Technically, Jefferson Davis started the war by bombarding Fort Sumter, one of the most foolish and senseless decisions in the history of bad decisions. That being said, Lincoln's reaction to the bloodless and amicably settled Sumter attack was quite overheated, but at that point Lincoln had no choice, unless he wanted to be disgraced and impeached and have his much more radical vice president take over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lincoln looked at an attack on our flag as war
> 
> The South gave him a reason to invade, the soon regretted it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was no military invasion. There was a spiritual and moral invasion by forces of division, treachery and oppression. These were turned back, albeit imperfectly.
> In sum, the military operations of legitimate Union forces intervened and the Perpetual Union, the origin of this nation and the object of the Constitution, was preserved.
> Mankind struck a blow for mankind.
Click to expand...

The "perpetual union" was dissolved when they approved the Constitution.  There was nothing legitimate about occupying the sovereign territory of South Carolina, violating the territorial waters of South Carolina, and invading the sovereign state of Virginia.  

You're a goose stepping statist blowhard.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's irrefutable that he started it.  ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wannabe reb stupidity. The traitors fired on Fort Sumter. Your personal hatred for the United States of America does not change the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Union troops were trespassing on the territory of SC, moron.  If foreigners refuse to leave your country, then they deserve to be fired on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> American troops in America, you stupid traitor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> South Carolina was no longer part of America after it seceded....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
Click to expand...

Can you prove that?  Of course not.


----------



## regent

Citizens seem able to leave the United States legally, but they cannot take a state or bunch of  states with them when they leave. So, those citizens that want to leave the  US may do so, but cannot  not take states. nor parts of states with them when they leave.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's irrefutable that he started it.  ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wannabe reb stupidity. The traitors fired on Fort Sumter. Your personal hatred for the United States of America does not change the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Union troops were trespassing on the territory of SC, moron.  If foreigners refuse to leave your country, then they deserve to be fired on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> American troops in America, you stupid traitor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ... If it was part of America, then Lincoln committed treason by making war on "the United States" (plural).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again.
Click to expand...

Nope.  That's the irrefutable truth.  Allow me to quote the Constitution:

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

Note the use of the plural "them."  What the statement says is that making war against any of the states is treason.  Who did that?  Abraham Lincoln.


----------



## there4eyeM

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's irrefutable that he started it.  ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wannabe reb stupidity. The traitors fired on Fort Sumter. Your personal hatred for the United States of America does not change the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Union troops were trespassing on the territory of SC, moron.  If foreigners refuse to leave your country, then they deserve to be fired on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> American troops in America, you stupid traitor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ... If it was part of America, then Lincoln committed treason by making war on "the United States" (plural).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again.
Click to expand...

The new Constitution was to make the Perpetual Union more perfect, as anyone at the time or anyone who can read English would understand. Would you please tell him he is wrong once more? As he refuses to address others civilly, I refuse to address him directly.


----------



## bripat9643

regent said:


> Citizens seem able to leave the United States legally, but they cannot take a state or bunch of  states with them when they leave. So, those citizens that want to leave the  US may do so, but cannot  not take states. nor parts of states with them when they leave.


Where is that written?  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . that's right:  Nowhere.

All you Lincoln cultists can defend him only by making stuff up.  I've heard a thousand theories like yours, and they are all based on nothing.


----------



## bripat9643

there4eyeM said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wannabe reb stupidity. The traitors fired on Fort Sumter. Your personal hatred for the United States of America does not change the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> Union troops were trespassing on the territory of SC, moron.  If foreigners refuse to leave your country, then they deserve to be fired on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> American troops in America, you stupid traitor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ... If it was part of America, then Lincoln committed treason by making war on "the United States" (plural).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The new Constitution was to make the Perpetual Union more perfect, as anyone at the time or anyone who can read English would understand. Would you please tell him he is wrong once more? As he refuses to address others civilly, I refuse to address him directly.
Click to expand...

More theories with no visible means of support.  The bottom line is that the Constitution replaced the articles of Confederation.  The phrase "perpetual union" isn't in the Constitution.


----------



## Meathead

WinterBorn said:


> As a lifelong southerner, let me say I am proud to be an American and will do whatever it takes to remain one.


You would remain an American regardless of whoever won a civil war.


----------



## rightwinger

bripat9643 said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, and Indiana? These were not northeastern states.
> 
> The problem started when the seven Deep South states would not accept the results of a lawful election. They didn't even give Lincoln a chance to show how he would govern, even though the South still controlled the Senate and could block anything it didn't like, and even though the Republicans did not have an outright majority in the House.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the South had just accepted Lincoln there was little Lincoln could have done to end slavery. Best he could do was limit expansion into new states.
> 
> If left on its own, slavery would have been gradually phased out and slave owners would have been compensated for their loss of “property”
> 
> But the South panicked and started a war. A war that ended slavery in four years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln started the war. . . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Technically, Jefferson Davis started the war by bombarding Fort Sumter, one of the most foolish and senseless decisions in the history of bad decisions. That being said, Lincoln's reaction to the bloodless and amicably settled Sumter attack was quite overheated, but at that point Lincoln had no choice, unless he wanted to be disgraced and impeached and have his much more radical vice president take over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lincoln looked at an attack on our flag as war
> 
> The South gave him a reason to invade, the soon regretted it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was no military invasion. There was a spiritual and moral invasion by forces of division, treachery and oppression. These were turned back, albeit imperfectly.
> In sum, the military operations of legitimate Union forces intervened and the Perpetual Union, the origin of this nation and the object of the Constitution, was preserved.
> Mankind struck a blow for mankind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The "perpetual union" was dissolved when they approved the Constitution.  There was nothing legitimate about occupying the sovereign territory of South Carolina, violating the territorial waters of South Carolina, and invading the sovereign state of Virginia.
> 
> You're a goose stepping statist blowhard.
Click to expand...

Ft Sumter was US Property
S Carolina can’t just claim it without negotiating a transfer


----------



## rightwinger

bripat9643 said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Union troops were trespassing on the territory of SC, moron.  If foreigners refuse to leave your country, then they deserve to be fired on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American troops in America, you stupid traitor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ... If it was part of America, then Lincoln committed treason by making war on "the United States" (plural).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The new Constitution was to make the Perpetual Union more perfect, as anyone at the time or anyone who can read English would understand. Would you please tell him he is wrong once more? As he refuses to address others civilly, I refuse to address him directly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More theories with no visible means of support.  The bottom line is that the Constitution replaced the articles of Confederation.  The phrase "perpetual union" isn't in the Constitution.
Click to expand...


Doesn’t have to be
It still doesn’t say that......but we are a perpetual union


----------



## rightwinger

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wannabe reb stupidity. The traitors fired on Fort Sumter. Your personal hatred for the United States of America does not change the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> Union troops were trespassing on the territory of SC, moron.  If foreigners refuse to leave your country, then they deserve to be fired on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> American troops in America, you stupid traitor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ... If it was part of America, then Lincoln committed treason by making war on "the United States" (plural).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  That's the irrefutable truth.  Allow me to quote the Constitution:
> 
> _Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."_
> 
> Note the use of the plural "them."  What the statement says is that making war against any of the states is treason.  Who did that?  Abraham Lincoln.
Click to expand...

Making war against the whole is treason


----------



## bripat9643

rightwinger said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, and Indiana? These were not northeastern states.
> 
> The problem started when the seven Deep South states would not accept the results of a lawful election. They didn't even give Lincoln a chance to show how he would govern, even though the South still controlled the Senate and could block anything it didn't like, and even though the Republicans did not have an outright majority in the House.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the South had just accepted Lincoln there was little Lincoln could have done to end slavery. Best he could do was limit expansion into new states.
> 
> If left on its own, slavery would have been gradually phased out and slave owners would have been compensated for their loss of “property”
> 
> But the South panicked and started a war. A war that ended slavery in four years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln started the war. . . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Technically, Jefferson Davis started the war by bombarding Fort Sumter, one of the most foolish and senseless decisions in the history of bad decisions. That being said, Lincoln's reaction to the bloodless and amicably settled Sumter attack was quite overheated, but at that point Lincoln had no choice, unless he wanted to be disgraced and impeached and have his much more radical vice president take over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lincoln looked at an attack on our flag as war
> 
> The South gave him a reason to invade, the soon regretted it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was no military invasion. There was a spiritual and moral invasion by forces of division, treachery and oppression. These were turned back, albeit imperfectly.
> In sum, the military operations of legitimate Union forces intervened and the Perpetual Union, the origin of this nation and the object of the Constitution, was preserved.
> Mankind struck a blow for mankind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The "perpetual union" was dissolved when they approved the Constitution.  There was nothing legitimate about occupying the sovereign territory of South Carolina, violating the territorial waters of South Carolina, and invading the sovereign state of Virginia.
> 
> You're a goose stepping statist blowhard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ft Sumter was US Property
> S Carolina can’t just claim it without negotiating a transfer
Click to expand...

That's right, it was US property, not US territory.  SC could kick out federal troops just like Iran could kick out our embassy personnel.  The US embassy was also US property.


----------



## bripat9643

rightwinger said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Union troops were trespassing on the territory of SC, moron.  If foreigners refuse to leave your country, then they deserve to be fired on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American troops in America, you stupid traitor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ... If it was part of America, then Lincoln committed treason by making war on "the United States" (plural).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  That's the irrefutable truth.  Allow me to quote the Constitution:
> 
> _Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."_
> 
> Note the use of the plural "them."  What the statement says is that making war against any of the states is treason.  Who did that?  Abraham Lincoln.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Making war against the whole is treason
Click to expand...

Making war against any member state is treason.  Lincoln committed treason.  South Carolina didn't.


----------



## bripat9643

rightwinger said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> American troops in America, you stupid traitor.
> 
> 
> 
> ... If it was part of America, then Lincoln committed treason by making war on "the United States" (plural).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The new Constitution was to make the Perpetual Union more perfect, as anyone at the time or anyone who can read English would understand. Would you please tell him he is wrong once more? As he refuses to address others civilly, I refuse to address him directly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More theories with no visible means of support.  The bottom line is that the Constitution replaced the articles of Confederation.  The phrase "perpetual union" isn't in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn’t have to be
> It still doesn’t say that......but we are a perpetual union
Click to expand...

ROFL!  Yeah, sure.  You can claim whatever you want. The laws of the United States are whatever you say they are.   It doesn't have to be in any document.

What a moron.


----------



## Flash

The South has always been superior to the North.

By the way, The South was Right.


----------



## Flash

It is not really a North v South thing now.

It is not even a Blue v Red State thing.

It is America v the Democrat controlled big city shitholes.

That is the real division.


----------



## mikegriffith1

there4eyeM said:


> The new Constitution was to make the Perpetual Union more perfect, as anyone at the time or anyone who can read English would understand.



Then it's very odd that the new constitution they adopted says nothing, not one word, about the Union being perpetual, permanent, etc. The Articles of Confederation did so several times, but not the federal constitution. There is also no prohibition in the Constitution against a state revoking its ratification. Nothing in the document says that ratification is irrevocable. Indeed, if the framers had inserted such language, several states probably would not have ratified it.


----------



## Unkotare

SC's 'declaration' was not legal or legitimate. The territory of the United States was still the territory of the United States, including and especially federal forts. Federal forces killing armed criminals is not "war against" any state, it was enforcement of the law. Scumbag traitors like bripunk got a fraction of what they deserved as filthy, traitorous dogs.


----------



## Unkotare

Flash said:


> ......
> 
> By the way, The South was Right.




Is that what the traitorous dogs said when they admitted they were wrong and begged to be allowed back into the good graces of my Union?


----------



## rightwinger

bripat9643 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Technically, Jefferson Davis started the war by bombarding Fort Sumter, one of the most foolish and senseless decisions in the history of bad decisions. That being said, Lincoln's reaction to the bloodless and amicably settled Sumter attack was quite overheated, but at that point Lincoln had no choice, unless he wanted to be disgraced and impeached and have his much more radical vice president take over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln looked at an attack on our flag as war
> 
> The South gave him a reason to invade, the soon regretted it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was no military invasion. There was a spiritual and moral invasion by forces of division, treachery and oppression. These were turned back, albeit imperfectly.
> In sum, the military operations of legitimate Union forces intervened and the Perpetual Union, the origin of this nation and the object of the Constitution, was preserved.
> Mankind struck a blow for mankind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The "perpetual union" was dissolved when they approved the Constitution.  There was nothing legitimate about occupying the sovereign territory of South Carolina, violating the territorial waters of South Carolina, and invading the sovereign state of Virginia.
> 
> You're a goose stepping statist blowhard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ft Sumter was US Property
> S Carolina can’t just claim it without negotiating a transfer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's right, it was US property, not US territory.  SC could kick out federal troops just like Iran could kick out our embassy personnel.  The US embassy was also US property.
Click to expand...


They had no more right than Cuba to kick us out of Gitmo. Ft Sumter belonged to the UNITED STATES


----------



## rightwinger

mikegriffith1 said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> The new Constitution was to make the Perpetual Union more perfect, as anyone at the time or anyone who can read English would understand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then it's very odd that the new constitution they adopted says nothing, not one word, about the Union being perpetual, permanent, etc. The Articles of Confederation did so several times, but not the federal constitution. There is also no prohibition in the Constitution against a state revoking its ratification. Nothing in the document says that ratification is irrevocable. Indeed, if the framers had inserted such language, several states probably would not have ratified it.
Click to expand...

Nothing says you can break up the United States
Nothing says you can come and go as you please


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> SC's 'declaration' was not legal or legitimate.



Really?  Says who?



Unkotare said:


> The territory of the United States was still the territory of the United States, including and especially federal forts.



Wrong.  Ft Sumter was South Carolina territory.  Check a map.



Unkotare said:


> Federal forces killing armed criminals is not "war against" any state, it was enforcement of the law.



They weren't criminals.  They were the citizens of a sovereign state defending it from foreign aggression.



Unkotare said:


> Scumbag traitors like bripunk got a fraction of what they deserved as filthy, traitorous dogs.



Shit like that is why boot lickers like you do not deserve to be treated with respect.


----------



## bripat9643

rightwinger said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> The new Constitution was to make the Perpetual Union more perfect, as anyone at the time or anyone who can read English would understand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then it's very odd that the new constitution they adopted says nothing, not one word, about the Union being perpetual, permanent, etc. The Articles of Confederation did so several times, but not the federal constitution. There is also no prohibition in the Constitution against a state revoking its ratification. Nothing in the document says that ratification is irrevocable. Indeed, if the framers had inserted such language, several states probably would not have ratified it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing says you can break up the United States
> Nothing says you can come and go as you please
Click to expand...

Nothing says you can't leave if you please, shit for brains.


----------



## bripat9643

rightwinger said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln looked at an attack on our flag as war
> 
> The South gave him a reason to invade, the soon regretted it
> 
> 
> 
> There was no military invasion. There was a spiritual and moral invasion by forces of division, treachery and oppression. These were turned back, albeit imperfectly.
> In sum, the military operations of legitimate Union forces intervened and the Perpetual Union, the origin of this nation and the object of the Constitution, was preserved.
> Mankind struck a blow for mankind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The "perpetual union" was dissolved when they approved the Constitution.  There was nothing legitimate about occupying the sovereign territory of South Carolina, violating the territorial waters of South Carolina, and invading the sovereign state of Virginia.
> 
> You're a goose stepping statist blowhard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ft Sumter was US Property
> S Carolina can’t just claim it without negotiating a transfer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's right, it was US property, not US territory.  SC could kick out federal troops just like Iran could kick out our embassy personnel.  The US embassy was also US property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They had no more right than Cuba to kick us out of Gitmo. Ft Sumter belonged to the UNITED STATES
Click to expand...


Cuba does have the right to kick us out of Gitmo, moron.


----------



## rightwinger

bripat9643 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> The new Constitution was to make the Perpetual Union more perfect, as anyone at the time or anyone who can read English would understand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then it's very odd that the new constitution they adopted says nothing, not one word, about the Union being perpetual, permanent, etc. The Articles of Confederation did so several times, but not the federal constitution. There is also no prohibition in the Constitution against a state revoking its ratification. Nothing in the document says that ratification is irrevocable. Indeed, if the framers had inserted such language, several states probably would not have ratified it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing says you can break up the United States
> Nothing says you can come and go as you please
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing says you can't leave if you please, shit for brains.
Click to expand...


If the Constitution intended for states to leave, they would have provisions for leaving covering division of property, joint assets, situations like Ft Sumter, how debt is divided


----------



## bripat9643

rightwinger said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> The new Constitution was to make the Perpetual Union more perfect, as anyone at the time or anyone who can read English would understand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then it's very odd that the new constitution they adopted says nothing, not one word, about the Union being perpetual, permanent, etc. The Articles of Confederation did so several times, but not the federal constitution. There is also no prohibition in the Constitution against a state revoking its ratification. Nothing in the document says that ratification is irrevocable. Indeed, if the framers had inserted such language, several states probably would not have ratified it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing says you can break up the United States
> Nothing says you can come and go as you please
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing says you can't leave if you please, shit for brains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the Constitution intended for states to leave, they would have provisions for leaving covering division of property, joint assets, situations like Ft Sumter, how debt is divided
Click to expand...

The constitution is a scrap of paper.  It doesn't have intentions.  If you sign a contract, and it doesn't say 'X,' then you are perfectly free to do 'X.'  That's how contracts work, and the Constitution is a contract.

There is no way you can possibly spin the Constitution into meaning that a state couldn't leave.  That's why you make up these fairy tale legalism that have never been valid anywhere.


----------



## Likkmee

Tradewinds81186 said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a fact for you:
> 
> The South started a war to prove they were better than the slaves and lost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and here's a fact for you.
> 
> The south would beat the fuck out of ya today, because the south is in so much better condition.
> 
> More Industry, More Schools. Better Schools, More People, a Growing Economy, and better infrastructure, and the Most Americans in the Military.
> 
> so how about you fuck off.
Click to expand...

The south has always been the best part of the nation. NOT without its faults but the best from a "livable" outlook.Sweet home Alabama


----------



## Likkmee

Yankees please


----------



## Likkmee

Jew Joizzee is the garden state(to those from England)


----------



## Likkmee

BUT.....like I said. Everywhere is not perfect


----------



## there4eyeM

rightwinger said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> American troops in America, you stupid traitor.
> 
> 
> 
> ... If it was part of America, then Lincoln committed treason by making war on "the United States" (plural).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The new Constitution was to make the Perpetual Union more perfect, as anyone at the time or anyone who can read English would understand. Would you please tell him he is wrong once more? As he refuses to address others civilly, I refuse to address him directly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More theories with no visible means of support.  The bottom line is that the Constitution replaced the articles of Confederation.  The phrase "perpetual union" isn't in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn’t have to be
> It still doesn’t say that......but we are a perpetual union
Click to expand...

OK, to clarify.
The original agreement of all the States was that the Union was forever. 
Later, they met in order to modify and, hopefully, improve that Union. All the particpants fully understood that the original perpetuity was implicit, otherwise they would have changed it. They went on to vote on adoption of the new Constitution. That vote and decision did not, in fact, fully conform to the process of adoption. The 'new' Constitution was prematurely declared active. Thus, either we accept that the original terms of the Constitution apply, and it is still "Perpetual", or the 'new' Constitution is not valid and the 'old', Perpetual Union Constitution is actually in effect. 
Either way, the Union is Perpetual.
The attempt to renege on that agreement, that we call the Civil War, answered forever those who would wish to use violence in order to break their promise and oath.


----------



## MAGAman

rightwinger said:


> Our military is much stronger than it was in 1860. I would enjoy this generations Sherman marching through the South again


You're probably too stupid to know what that says about you.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> SC's 'declaration' was not legal or legitimate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Says who?....
Click to expand...



The Supreme Court.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> .... Ft Sumter was South Carolina territory.  .....



...in the United States of America.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> ...
> 
> They weren't criminals. .....




They very clearly were, and were treated far too gently.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> The new Constitution was to make the Perpetual Union more perfect, as anyone at the time or anyone who can read English would understand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then it's very odd that the new constitution they adopted says nothing, not one word, about the Union being perpetual, permanent, etc. The Articles of Confederation did so several times, but not the federal constitution. There is also no prohibition in the Constitution against a state revoking its ratification. Nothing in the document says that ratification is irrevocable. Indeed, if the framers had inserted such language, several states probably would not have ratified it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing says you can break up the United States
> Nothing says you can come and go as you please
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing says you can't leave if you please.....
Click to expand...



Leave what?


----------



## Bezukhov

bripat9643 said:


> Perhaps true, but then, they didn't understand how utterly ruthless and despicable Lincoln was.



Yeah, that Lincoln was certainly "ruthless and despicable". Only someone as ruthless and despicable as Lincoln would deny to Good, White Southerners all the pleasures and profits that comes from being ruthless and despicable to Black people.


----------



## Bezukhov

Contumacious said:


> The practice of slavery was on its way out



On its way out?

Census of 1850: 3,204,313 slaves.

Census of 1860: 3,953,762 slaves

Let me figure this out on my cocktail napkin... That's about a 20% 
increase. Hardly the statistic one associates with a dying institution. Besides, slavery in the South wasn't just an economic system, or even a social construct. It was a Religious Sacrament. Every Sunday those that owned slaves, and those that did not would gather at their church where a preacher would harangue the congregation with the message that Slavery was God's Ordained Plan for the Black Race.


----------



## bripat9643

there4eyeM said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... If it was part of America, then Lincoln committed treason by making war on "the United States" (plural).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The new Constitution was to make the Perpetual Union more perfect, as anyone at the time or anyone who can read English would understand. Would you please tell him he is wrong once more? As he refuses to address others civilly, I refuse to address him directly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More theories with no visible means of support.  The bottom line is that the Constitution replaced the articles of Confederation.  The phrase "perpetual union" isn't in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn’t have to be
> It still doesn’t say that......but we are a perpetual union
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, to clarify.
> The original agreement of all the States was that the Union was forever.
> Later, they met in order to modify and, hopefully, improve that Union. All the particpants fully understood that the original perpetuity was implicit, otherwise they would have changed it. They went on to vote on adoption of the new Constitution. That vote and decision did not, in fact, fully conform to the process of adoption. The 'new' Constitution was prematurely declared active. Thus, either we accept that the original terms of the Constitution apply, and it is still "Perpetual", or the 'new' Constitution is not valid and the 'old', Perpetual Union Constitution is actually in effect.
> Either way, the Union is Perpetual.
> The attempt to renege on that agreement, that we call the Civil War, answered forever those who would wish to use violence in order to break their promise and oath.
Click to expand...

Sorry, moron, but there's no clause in the Constitution that the union is forever.  When they adopted the Constitution, they threw the Atticles of Confederation into the waste bin.  If you accept the articles of Confederation, then you reject all the provisions in the Constitution, like the power to tax and make war.  You want to accept one statement from the Articles of Confederation, which no legal force, while rejecting all the rest.  That's the ultimate in dishonesty.


----------



## bripat9643

Bezukhov said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps true, but then, they didn't understand how utterly ruthless and despicable Lincoln was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that Lincoln was certainly "ruthless and despicable". Only someone as ruthless and despicable as Lincoln would deny to Good, White Southerners all the pleasures and profits that comes from being ruthless and despicable to Black people.
Click to expand...

Lincoln invented the concentration camp and put thousands of Americans in them without a trial.  He laid waste to large areas of American, plundered private property, destroyed entire American cities, and caused the deaths of 850,000 Americans.  Those are only a few of his crimes.

Yeah, he was a swell guy


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> They weren't criminals. .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They very clearly were, and were treated far too gently.
Click to expand...

Wrong, as always.  You also demonstrate what a complete asshole you are.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .... Ft Sumter was South Carolina territory.  .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...in the United States of America.
Click to expand...

Only until it seceded, moron.


----------



## Mr Natural

Civil War Fact:

The south were the only people to start a war to prove that they were better than the slaves and lose.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> SC's 'declaration' was not legal or legitimate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Says who?....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

Right, after the Civil war when it was packed with Lincoln appointed hacks in a decision that included numerous outright lies.


----------



## bripat9643

Mr Clean said:


> Civil War Fact:
> 
> The south were the only people to start a war to prove that they were better than the slaves and lose.


They didn't start the war, moron.


----------



## there4eyeM

Why would anyone continue to converse with those he considered morons?
Why would anyone converse with those who continually and unjustifiably refer to others as morons?


----------



## Bezukhov

bripat9643 said:


> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps true, but then, they didn't understand how utterly ruthless and despicable Lincoln was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that Lincoln was certainly "ruthless and despicable". Only someone as ruthless and despicable as Lincoln would deny to Good, White Southerners all the pleasures and profits that comes from being ruthless and despicable to Black people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln invented the concentration camp and put thousands of Americans in them without a trial.  He laid waste to large areas of American, plundered private property, destroyed entire American cities, and caused the deaths of 850,000 Americans.  Those are only a few of his crimes.
> 
> Yeah, he was a swell guy
Click to expand...

Lincoln did not invent the concentration camp. That dubious honor goes to whoever dreamed up the plantation system.


----------



## bripat9643

Bezukhov said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps true, but then, they didn't understand how utterly ruthless and despicable Lincoln was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that Lincoln was certainly "ruthless and despicable". Only someone as ruthless and despicable as Lincoln would deny to Good, White Southerners all the pleasures and profits that comes from being ruthless and despicable to Black people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln invented the concentration camp and put thousands of Americans in them without a trial.  He laid waste to large areas of American, plundered private property, destroyed entire American cities, and caused the deaths of 850,000 Americans.  Those are only a few of his crimes.
> 
> Yeah, he was a swell guy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln did not invent the concentration camp. That dubious honor goes to whoever dreamed up the plantation system.
Click to expand...

Sorry, asshole, but a plantation is not a concentration camp.  People don't become slaves because they oppose the government.  Lincoln is the inventor of the concentration camp.


----------



## bripat9643

there4eyeM said:


> Why would anyone continue to converse with those he considered morons?
> Why would anyone converse with those who continually and unjustifiably refer to others as morons?


I don't come here to converse with morons.  I come here to ridicule them and discredit them.  You are immune to facts and logic, so why would I bother trying to change your mind about anything?


----------



## Bezukhov

bripat9643 said:


> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps true, but then, they didn't understand how utterly ruthless and despicable Lincoln was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that Lincoln was certainly "ruthless and despicable". Only someone as ruthless and despicable as Lincoln would deny to Good, White Southerners all the pleasures and profits that comes from being ruthless and despicable to Black people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln invented the concentration camp and put thousands of Americans in them without a trial.  He laid waste to large areas of American, plundered private property, destroyed entire American cities, and caused the deaths of 850,000 Americans.  Those are only a few of his crimes.
> 
> Yeah, he was a swell guy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln did not invent the concentration camp. That dubious honor goes to whoever dreamed up the plantation system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, asshole, but a plantation is not a concentration camp.  People don't become slaves because they oppose the government.  Lincoln is the inventor of the concentration camp.
Click to expand...

Ask the slave living, err... make that existing, on the plantation. So how do people become slaves? Many slaves oppose their masters, and have the scars on their backs to prove it. To those hapless slaves it sure feels like a concentration camp.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> They weren't criminals. .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They very clearly were, and were treated far too gently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong, as always.  You also demonstrate what a complete asshole you are.
Click to expand...


Scumbag traitors like them, and you, only deserve to be crushed as your ilk always is in the end. Sucks for you to wake up every day knowing your beloved institution is never coming back to America, and that my Union is strong and WHOLE.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .... Ft Sumter was South Carolina territory.  .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...in the United States of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only until it seceded, moron.
Click to expand...



Wrong. Proven wrong.


----------



## bripat9643

Bezukhov said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps true, but then, they didn't understand how utterly ruthless and despicable Lincoln was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that Lincoln was certainly "ruthless and despicable". Only someone as ruthless and despicable as Lincoln would deny to Good, White Southerners all the pleasures and profits that comes from being ruthless and despicable to Black people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln invented the concentration camp and put thousands of Americans in them without a trial.  He laid waste to large areas of American, plundered private property, destroyed entire American cities, and caused the deaths of 850,000 Americans.  Those are only a few of his crimes.
> 
> Yeah, he was a swell guy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln did not invent the concentration camp. That dubious honor goes to whoever dreamed up the plantation system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, asshole, but a plantation is not a concentration camp.  People don't become slaves because they oppose the government.  Lincoln is the inventor of the concentration camp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ask the slave living, err... make that existing, on the plantation. So how do people become slaves? Many slaves oppose their masters, and have the scars on their backs to prove it.
Click to expand...

The fact that slavery is unpleasant doesn't make a plantation a concentration camp.   The inmates in a concentration camp are there because they opposed the government.

Try not to be so deliberately stupid.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .... Ft Sumter was South Carolina territory.  .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...in the United States of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only until it seceded, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. Proven wrong.
Click to expand...


When?


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> They weren't criminals. .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They very clearly were, and were treated far too gently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong, as always.  You also demonstrate what a complete asshole you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scumbag traitors like them, and you, only deserve to be crushed as your ilk always is in the end. Sucks for you to wake up every day knowing your beloved institution is never coming back to America, and that my Union is strong and WHOLE.
Click to expand...

Confederates weren't traitors, moron.  Lincoln was.


----------



## Bezukhov

bripat9643 said:


> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that Lincoln was certainly "ruthless and despicable". Only someone as ruthless and despicable as Lincoln would deny to Good, White Southerners all the pleasures and profits that comes from being ruthless and despicable to Black people.
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln invented the concentration camp and put thousands of Americans in them without a trial.  He laid waste to large areas of American, plundered private property, destroyed entire American cities, and caused the deaths of 850,000 Americans.  Those are only a few of his crimes.
> 
> Yeah, he was a swell guy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln did not invent the concentration camp. That dubious honor goes to whoever dreamed up the plantation system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, asshole, but a plantation is not a concentration camp.  People don't become slaves because they oppose the government.  Lincoln is the inventor of the concentration camp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ask the slave living, err... make that existing, on the plantation. So how do people become slaves? Many slaves oppose their masters, and have the scars on their backs to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact that slavery is unpleasant doesn't make a plantation a concentration camp.   The inmates in a concentration camp are there because they opposed the government.
> 
> Try not to be so deliberately stupid.
Click to expand...

So the crime of 'opposing the government' lands you in a concentration camp. What crime does one need to commit to end up on a plantation?


----------



## bripat9643

Bezukhov said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln invented the concentration camp and put thousands of Americans in them without a trial.  He laid waste to large areas of American, plundered private property, destroyed entire American cities, and caused the deaths of 850,000 Americans.  Those are only a few of his crimes.
> 
> Yeah, he was a swell guy
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln did not invent the concentration camp. That dubious honor goes to whoever dreamed up the plantation system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, asshole, but a plantation is not a concentration camp.  People don't become slaves because they oppose the government.  Lincoln is the inventor of the concentration camp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ask the slave living, err... make that existing, on the plantation. So how do people become slaves? Many slaves oppose their masters, and have the scars on their backs to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact that slavery is unpleasant doesn't make a plantation a concentration camp.   The inmates in a concentration camp are there because they opposed the government.
> 
> Try not to be so deliberately stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the crime of 'opposing the government' lands you in a concentration camp. What crime does one need to commit to end up on a plantation?
Click to expand...

Generally no crime at all is required to become a slave.  

How fucking stupid are you?


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> SC's 'declaration' was not legal or legitimate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Says who?....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right, after the Civil war when it was packed with Lincoln appointed hacks in a decision that included numerous outright lies.
Click to expand...



According to a brainless, uneducated apologist for slavery and treason? Your bitter, childish opinions are worthless.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that Lincoln was certainly "ruthless and despicable". Only someone as ruthless and despicable as Lincoln would deny to Good, White Southerners all the pleasures and profits that comes from being ruthless and despicable to Black people.
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln invented the concentration camp and put thousands of Americans in them without a trial.  He laid waste to large areas of American, plundered private property, destroyed entire American cities, and caused the deaths of 850,000 Americans.  Those are only a few of his crimes.
> 
> Yeah, he was a swell guy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln did not invent the concentration camp. That dubious honor goes to whoever dreamed up the plantation system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, asshole, but a plantation is not a concentration camp.  People don't become slaves because they oppose the government.  Lincoln is the inventor of the concentration camp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ask the slave living, err... make that existing, on the plantation. So how do people become slaves? Many slaves oppose their masters, and have the scars on their backs to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact that slavery is unpleasant doesn't make a plantation a concentration camp.   The inmates in a concentration camp are there because they opposed the government.
> 
> Try not to be so deliberately stupid.
Click to expand...




Incarceration for committing a crime does not constitute a concentration camp.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Civil War Fact:
> 
> The south were the only people to start a war to prove that they were better than the slaves and lose.
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't start the war, moron.
Click to expand...





Yes they did.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .... Ft Sumter was South Carolina territory.  .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...in the United States of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only until it seceded, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. Proven wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When?
Click to expand...



April 9, 1865.


----------



## Bezukhov

bripat9643 said:


> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln did not invent the concentration camp. That dubious honor goes to whoever dreamed up the plantation system.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, asshole, but a plantation is not a concentration camp.  People don't become slaves because they oppose the government.  Lincoln is the inventor of the concentration camp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ask the slave living, err... make that existing, on the plantation. So how do people become slaves? Many slaves oppose their masters, and have the scars on their backs to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact that slavery is unpleasant doesn't make a plantation a concentration camp.   The inmates in a concentration camp are there because they opposed the government.
> 
> Try not to be so deliberately stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the crime of 'opposing the government' lands you in a concentration camp. What crime does one need to commit to end up on a plantation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Generally no crime at all is required to become a slave.
> 
> How fucking stupid are you?
Click to expand...




bripat9643 said:


> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln did not invent the concentration camp. That dubious honor goes to whoever dreamed up the plantation system.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, asshole, but a plantation is not a concentration camp.  People don't become slaves because they oppose the government.  Lincoln is the inventor of the concentration camp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ask the slave living, err... make that existing, on the plantation. So how do people become slaves? Many slaves oppose their masters, and have the scars on their backs to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact that slavery is unpleasant doesn't make a plantation a concentration camp.   The inmates in a concentration camp are there because they opposed the government.
> 
> Try not to be so deliberately stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the crime of 'opposing the government' lands you in a concentration camp. What crime does one need to commit to end up on a plantation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Generally no crime at all is required to become a slave.
> 
> How fucking stupid are you?
Click to expand...

So they make you a slave as a reward for some noble deed?


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> They weren't criminals. .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They very clearly were, and were treated far too gently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong, as always.  You also demonstrate what a complete asshole you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scumbag traitors like them, and you, only deserve to be crushed as your ilk always is in the end. Sucks for you to wake up every day knowing your beloved institution is never coming back to America, and that my Union is strong and WHOLE.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Confederates weren't traitors, .....
Click to expand...



The exact definition of traitors.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> SC's 'declaration' was not legal or legitimate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Says who?....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right, after the Civil war when it was packed with Lincoln appointed hacks in a decision that included numerous outright lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> According to a brainless, uneducated apologist for slavery and treason? Your bitter, childish opinions are worthless.
Click to expand...

I posted facts that you can't honestly deny.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> They weren't criminals. .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They very clearly were, and were treated far too gently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong, as always.  You also demonstrate what a complete asshole you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scumbag traitors like them, and you, only deserve to be crushed as your ilk always is in the end. Sucks for you to wake up every day knowing your beloved institution is never coming back to America, and that my Union is strong and WHOLE.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Confederates weren't traitors, .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The exact definition of traitors.
Click to expand...

Wrong.  Read the Constitution.


----------



## bripat9643

Bezukhov said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, asshole, but a plantation is not a concentration camp.  People don't become slaves because they oppose the government.  Lincoln is the inventor of the concentration camp.
> 
> 
> 
> Ask the slave living, err... make that existing, on the plantation. So how do people become slaves? Many slaves oppose their masters, and have the scars on their backs to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact that slavery is unpleasant doesn't make a plantation a concentration camp.   The inmates in a concentration camp are there because they opposed the government.
> 
> Try not to be so deliberately stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the crime of 'opposing the government' lands you in a concentration camp. What crime does one need to commit to end up on a plantation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Generally no crime at all is required to become a slave.
> 
> How fucking stupid are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, asshole, but a plantation is not a concentration camp.  People don't become slaves because they oppose the government.  Lincoln is the inventor of the concentration camp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ask the slave living, err... make that existing, on the plantation. So how do people become slaves? Many slaves oppose their masters, and have the scars on their backs to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact that slavery is unpleasant doesn't make a plantation a concentration camp.   The inmates in a concentration camp are there because they opposed the government.
> 
> Try not to be so deliberately stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the crime of 'opposing the government' lands you in a concentration camp. What crime does one need to commit to end up on a plantation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Generally no crime at all is required to become a slave.
> 
> How fucking stupid are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So they make you a slave as a reward for some noble deed?
Click to expand...

Quit trying to prove that you're an idiot.  You know why people become slaves.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .... Ft Sumter was South Carolina territory.  .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...in the United States of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only until it seceded, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. Proven wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> April 9, 1865.
Click to expand...

So might makes right?  You only proved that you're a Stalinist scumbag.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Civil War Fact:
> 
> The south were the only people to start a war to prove that they were better than the slaves and lose.
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't start the war, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they did.
Click to expand...

Wrong.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> They very clearly were, and were treated far too gently.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, as always.  You also demonstrate what a complete asshole you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scumbag traitors like them, and you, only deserve to be crushed as your ilk always is in the end. Sucks for you to wake up every day knowing your beloved institution is never coming back to America, and that my Union is strong and WHOLE.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Confederates weren't traitors, .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The exact definition of traitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.  Read the Constitution.
Click to expand...


Unlike you, I have actually read it, scumbag.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Civil War Fact:
> 
> The south were the only people to start a war to prove that they were better than the slaves and lose.
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't start the war, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
Click to expand...





You dropped out of school too soon.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln invented the concentration camp and put thousands of Americans in them without a trial.  He laid waste to large areas of American, plundered private property, destroyed entire American cities, and caused the deaths of 850,000 Americans.  Those are only a few of his crimes.
> 
> Yeah, he was a swell guy
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln did not invent the concentration camp. That dubious honor goes to whoever dreamed up the plantation system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, asshole, but a plantation is not a concentration camp.  People don't become slaves because they oppose the government.  Lincoln is the inventor of the concentration camp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ask the slave living, err... make that existing, on the plantation. So how do people become slaves? Many slaves oppose their masters, and have the scars on their backs to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact that slavery is unpleasant doesn't make a plantation a concentration camp.   The inmates in a concentration camp are there because they opposed the government.
> 
> Try not to be so deliberately stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incarceration for committing a crime does not constitute a concentration camp.
Click to expand...

Opposing the government is not a crime, in any rational society.  The inmates in Lincolns gulag committed no crimes, you sleazy apologist for a tyrant.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, as always.  You also demonstrate what a complete asshole you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scumbag traitors like them, and you, only deserve to be crushed as your ilk always is in the end. Sucks for you to wake up every day knowing your beloved institution is never coming back to America, and that my Union is strong and WHOLE.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Confederates weren't traitors, .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The exact definition of traitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.  Read the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unlike you, I have actually read it, scumbag.
Click to expand...

Please post the definition of "treason."


----------



## there4eyeM

Bezukhov said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln invented the concentration camp and put thousands of Americans in them without a trial.  He laid waste to large areas of American, plundered private property, destroyed entire American cities, and caused the deaths of 850,000 Americans.  Those are only a few of his crimes.
> 
> Yeah, he was a swell guy
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln did not invent the concentration camp. That dubious honor goes to whoever dreamed up the plantation system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, asshole, but a plantation is not a concentration camp.  People don't become slaves because they oppose the government.  Lincoln is the inventor of the concentration camp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ask the slave living, err... make that existing, on the plantation. So how do people become slaves? Many slaves oppose their masters, and have the scars on their backs to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact that slavery is unpleasant doesn't make a plantation a concentration camp.   The inmates in a concentration camp are there because they opposed the government.
> 
> Try not to be so deliberately stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the crime of 'opposing the government' lands you in a concentration camp. What crime does one need to commit to end up on a plantation?
Click to expand...

The crime is not on the part of the slave, but on the part of the one who regards another as a slave.


----------



## there4eyeM

The basis for keeping slaves is that the might to do so is present. Any means to end slavery is as justifiable as slavery itself.


----------



## rightwinger

bripat9643 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> The new Constitution was to make the Perpetual Union more perfect, as anyone at the time or anyone who can read English would understand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then it's very odd that the new constitution they adopted says nothing, not one word, about the Union being perpetual, permanent, etc. The Articles of Confederation did so several times, but not the federal constitution. There is also no prohibition in the Constitution against a state revoking its ratification. Nothing in the document says that ratification is irrevocable. Indeed, if the framers had inserted such language, several states probably would not have ratified it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing says you can break up the United States
> Nothing says you can come and go as you please
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing says you can't leave if you please, shit for brains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the Constitution intended for states to leave, they would have provisions for leaving covering division of property, joint assets, situations like Ft Sumter, how debt is divided
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The constitution is a scrap of paper.  It doesn't have intentions.  If you sign a contract, and it doesn't say 'X,' then you are perfectly free to do 'X.'  That's how contracts work, and the Constitution is a contract.
> 
> There is no way you can possibly spin the Constitution into meaning that a state couldn't leave.  That's why you make up these fairy tale legalism that have never been valid anywhere.
Click to expand...


“In order to form a more perfect union”

Nothing about coming and going as you wish


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln did not invent the concentration camp. That dubious honor goes to whoever dreamed up the plantation system.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, asshole, but a plantation is not a concentration camp.  People don't become slaves because they oppose the government.  Lincoln is the inventor of the concentration camp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ask the slave living, err... make that existing, on the plantation. So how do people become slaves? Many slaves oppose their masters, and have the scars on their backs to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact that slavery is unpleasant doesn't make a plantation a concentration camp.   The inmates in a concentration camp are there because they opposed the government.
> 
> Try not to be so deliberately stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incarceration for committing a crime does not constitute a concentration camp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Opposing the government is not a crime, ....t.
Click to expand...



Taking up arms against it is, idiot.


----------



## rightwinger

bripat9643 said:


> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that Lincoln was certainly "ruthless and despicable". Only someone as ruthless and despicable as Lincoln would deny to Good, White Southerners all the pleasures and profits that comes from being ruthless and despicable to Black people.
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln invented the concentration camp and put thousands of Americans in them without a trial.  He laid waste to large areas of American, plundered private property, destroyed entire American cities, and caused the deaths of 850,000 Americans.  Those are only a few of his crimes.
> 
> Yeah, he was a swell guy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln did not invent the concentration camp. That dubious honor goes to whoever dreamed up the plantation system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, asshole, but a plantation is not a concentration camp.  People don't become slaves because they oppose the government.  Lincoln is the inventor of the concentration camp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ask the slave living, err... make that existing, on the plantation. So how do people become slaves? Many slaves oppose their masters, and have the scars on their backs to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact that slavery is unpleasant doesn't make a plantation a concentration camp.   The inmates in a concentration camp are there because they opposed the government.
> 
> Try not to be so deliberately stupid.
Click to expand...

It is worse than a concentration camp
Not only are you there, but your family and descendants


----------



## there4eyeM

rightwinger said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then it's very odd that the new constitution they adopted says nothing, not one word, about the Union being perpetual, permanent, etc. The Articles of Confederation did so several times, but not the federal constitution. There is also no prohibition in the Constitution against a state revoking its ratification. Nothing in the document says that ratification is irrevocable. Indeed, if the framers had inserted such language, several states probably would not have ratified it.
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing says you can break up the United States
> Nothing says you can come and go as you please
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing says you can't leave if you please, shit for brains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the Constitution intended for states to leave, they would have provisions for leaving covering division of property, joint assets, situations like Ft Sumter, how debt is divided
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The constitution is a scrap of paper.  It doesn't have intentions.  If you sign a contract, and it doesn't say 'X,' then you are perfectly free to do 'X.'  That's how contracts work, and the Constitution is a contract.
> 
> There is no way you can possibly spin the Constitution into meaning that a state couldn't leave.  That's why you make up these fairy tale legalism that have never been valid anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> “In order to form a more perfect union”
> 
> Nothing about coming and going as you wish
Click to expand...

A more perfect *Perpetual* Union.


----------



## bripat9643

there4eyeM said:


> The basis for keeping slaves is that the might to do so is present. Any means to end slavery is as justifiable as slavery itself.


Murdering 850,000 people is not a justifiable means to end slavery.


----------



## bripat9643

rightwinger said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln invented the concentration camp and put thousands of Americans in them without a trial.  He laid waste to large areas of American, plundered private property, destroyed entire American cities, and caused the deaths of 850,000 Americans.  Those are only a few of his crimes.
> 
> Yeah, he was a swell guy
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln did not invent the concentration camp. That dubious honor goes to whoever dreamed up the plantation system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, asshole, but a plantation is not a concentration camp.  People don't become slaves because they oppose the government.  Lincoln is the inventor of the concentration camp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ask the slave living, err... make that existing, on the plantation. So how do people become slaves? Many slaves oppose their masters, and have the scars on their backs to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact that slavery is unpleasant doesn't make a plantation a concentration camp.   The inmates in a concentration camp are there because they opposed the government.
> 
> Try not to be so deliberately stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is worse than a concentration camp
> Not only are you there, but your family and descendants
Click to expand...

Whether it's better or worse is irrelevant.  The fact is that it's a violation of the Bill of Rights and the work of a tyrant.

Are you saying it was OK for Lincoln to put people in concentration camps?


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, asshole, but a plantation is not a concentration camp.  People don't become slaves because they oppose the government.  Lincoln is the inventor of the concentration camp.
> 
> 
> 
> Ask the slave living, err... make that existing, on the plantation. So how do people become slaves? Many slaves oppose their masters, and have the scars on their backs to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact that slavery is unpleasant doesn't make a plantation a concentration camp.   The inmates in a concentration camp are there because they opposed the government.
> 
> Try not to be so deliberately stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incarceration for committing a crime does not constitute a concentration camp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Opposing the government is not a crime, ....t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Taking up arms against it is, idiot.
Click to expand...

Not when it's a foreign government that is invading your homeland.


----------



## bripat9643

rightwinger said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then it's very odd that the new constitution they adopted says nothing, not one word, about the Union being perpetual, permanent, etc. The Articles of Confederation did so several times, but not the federal constitution. There is also no prohibition in the Constitution against a state revoking its ratification. Nothing in the document says that ratification is irrevocable. Indeed, if the framers had inserted such language, several states probably would not have ratified it.
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing says you can break up the United States
> Nothing says you can come and go as you please
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing says you can't leave if you please, shit for brains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the Constitution intended for states to leave, they would have provisions for leaving covering division of property, joint assets, situations like Ft Sumter, how debt is divided
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The constitution is a scrap of paper.  It doesn't have intentions.  If you sign a contract, and it doesn't say 'X,' then you are perfectly free to do 'X.'  That's how contracts work, and the Constitution is a contract.
> 
> There is no way you can possibly spin the Constitution into meaning that a state couldn't leave.  That's why you make up these fairy tale legalism that have never been valid anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> “In order to form a more perfect union”
> 
> Nothing about coming and going as you wish
Click to expand...

If it says nothing about leaving, then it's perfectly OK to do so.


----------



## there4eyeM

Anyone keeping slaves deserves anything that might happen to him.


----------



## Bezukhov

bripat9643 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing says you can break up the United States
> Nothing says you can come and go as you please
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing says you can't leave if you please, shit for brains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the Constitution intended for states to leave, they would have provisions for leaving covering division of property, joint assets, situations like Ft Sumter, how debt is divided
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The constitution is a scrap of paper.  It doesn't have intentions.  If you sign a contract, and it doesn't say 'X,' then you are perfectly free to do 'X.'  That's how contracts work, and the Constitution is a contract.
> 
> There is no way you can possibly spin the Constitution into meaning that a state couldn't leave.  That's why you make up these fairy tale legalism that have never been valid anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> “In order to form a more perfect union”
> 
> Nothing about coming and going as you wish
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it says nothing about leaving, then it's perfectly OK to do so.
Click to expand...

Can a slave leave his owner?


----------



## bripat9643

Bezukhov said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing says you can't leave if you please, shit for brains.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the Constitution intended for states to leave, they would have provisions for leaving covering division of property, joint assets, situations like Ft Sumter, how debt is divided
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The constitution is a scrap of paper.  It doesn't have intentions.  If you sign a contract, and it doesn't say 'X,' then you are perfectly free to do 'X.'  That's how contracts work, and the Constitution is a contract.
> 
> There is no way you can possibly spin the Constitution into meaning that a state couldn't leave.  That's why you make up these fairy tale legalism that have never been valid anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> “In order to form a more perfect union”
> 
> Nothing about coming and going as you wish
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it says nothing about leaving, then it's perfectly OK to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can a slave leave his owner?
Click to expand...

Are you claiming we are all slaves?


----------



## bripat9643

there4eyeM said:


> Anyone keeping slaves deserves anything that might happen to him.


I feel the same about anyone who votes for Democrats.  The difference is that the Constitution condoned slavery.

You don't care what the Constitution says, do you, shit for brains?


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ask the slave living, err... make that existing, on the plantation. So how do people become slaves? Many slaves oppose their masters, and have the scars on their backs to prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that slavery is unpleasant doesn't make a plantation a concentration camp.   The inmates in a concentration camp are there because they opposed the government.
> 
> Try not to be so deliberately stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incarceration for committing a crime does not constitute a concentration camp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Opposing the government is not a crime, ....t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Taking up arms against it is, idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not when it's a foreign government that is invading your homeland.
Click to expand...



That was not the case.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that slavery is unpleasant doesn't make a plantation a concentration camp.   The inmates in a concentration camp are there because they opposed the government.
> 
> Try not to be so deliberately stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incarceration for committing a crime does not constitute a concentration camp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Opposing the government is not a crime, ....t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Taking up arms against it is, idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not when it's a foreign government that is invading your homeland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That was not the case.
Click to expand...

That was the case.


----------



## mikegriffith1

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Incarceration for committing a crime does not constitute a concentration camp.
> 
> 
> 
> Opposing the government is not a crime, ....t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Taking up arms against it is, idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not when it's a foreign government that is invading your homeland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That was not the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was the case.
Click to expand...


If you read documents from the War of Independence, you quickly discover that a core principle of the American Patriots was that the colonies had a natural right to separate from England and that England was violating natural law and committing aggression by trying to force the colonies to remain under British control.

The American Revolution and the Right of Peaceful Separation

Even without Davis's foolish--and bloodless--bombardment of Fort Sumter, the Radical Republicans were determined to pick a fight with the Confederacy.  There is good evidence that Lincoln was doing all he dared to *avoid* an armed showdown, but Davis made this impossible with his attack on Sumter.


----------



## there4eyeM

mikegriffith1 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Opposing the government is not a crime, ....t.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taking up arms against it is, idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not when it's a foreign government that is invading your homeland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That was not the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you read documents from the War of Independence, you quickly discover that a core principle of the American Patriots was that the colonies had a natural right to separate from England and that England was violating natural law and committing aggression by trying to force the colonies to remain under British control.
> 
> The American Revolution and the Right of Peaceful Separation
> 
> Even without Davis's foolish--and bloodless--bombardment of Fort Sumter, the Radical Republicans were determined to pick a fight with the Confederacy.  There is good evidence that Lincoln was doing all he dared to *avoid* an armed showdown, but Davis made this impossible with his attack on Sumter.
Click to expand...

The immense difference is that all the states entered voluntarily into the Perpetual Union. The attempt to destroy that was treasonous, and was justly put down.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> The new Constitution was to make the Perpetual Union more perfect, as anyone at the time or anyone who can read English would understand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then it's very odd that the new constitution they adopted says nothing, not one word, about the Union being perpetual, permanent, etc. The Articles of Confederation did so several times, but not the federal constitution. There is also no prohibition in the Constitution against a state revoking its ratification. Nothing in the document says that ratification is irrevocable. Indeed, if the framers had inserted such language, several states probably would not have ratified it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing says you can break up the United States
> Nothing says you can come and go as you please
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing says you can't leave if you please, shit for brains.
Click to expand...



You're the only one here who openly hates America. GTFO, scumbag.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> SC's 'declaration' was not legal or legitimate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Says who?....
Click to expand...



The Supreme Court.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> ....
> 
> Wrong.  Ft Sumter was South Carolina territory.  ......




Which is in the United States of America. Check a map.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> ....
> 
> They weren't criminals.  .......




They were absolutely criminals. They were armed criminals committing murder and attempted murder.


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> Scumbag traitors like bripunk got a fraction of what they deserved as filthy, traitorous dogs.



.


----------



## rightwinger

bripat9643 said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> The basis for keeping slaves is that the might to do so is present. Any means to end slavery is as justifiable as slavery itself.
> 
> 
> 
> Murdering 850,000 people is not a justifiable means to end slavery.
Click to expand...

Most countries gave up slavery without a fuss

We demanded 600,000 dead


----------



## bripat9643

there4eyeM said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Taking up arms against it is, idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> Not when it's a foreign government that is invading your homeland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That was not the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you read documents from the War of Independence, you quickly discover that a core principle of the American Patriots was that the colonies had a natural right to separate from England and that England was violating natural law and committing aggression by trying to force the colonies to remain under British control.
> 
> The American Revolution and the Right of Peaceful Separation
> 
> Even without Davis's foolish--and bloodless--bombardment of Fort Sumter, the Radical Republicans were determined to pick a fight with the Confederacy.  There is good evidence that Lincoln was doing all he dared to *avoid* an armed showdown, but Davis made this impossible with his attack on Sumter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The immense difference is that all the states entered voluntarily into the Perpetual Union. The attempt to destroy that was treasonous, and was justly put down.
Click to expand...

The "perpetual union" didn't exist after the Constitution was approved.  The Articles of Confederation were thrown into the waste bin.  Furthermore, the idea that you can't leave a club you have joined isn't supported by any theory of law.  Only bootlicking statists make such claims.  

I have seen theories like yours proposed hundreds of times in this forum.  They are not just wrong, they are absurd.  There is no theory of law that supports them.  Not national law, nor international law.

You believe in a fantasy.  You're a fool.


----------



## bripat9643

rightwinger said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> The basis for keeping slaves is that the might to do so is present. Any means to end slavery is as justifiable as slavery itself.
> 
> 
> 
> Murdering 850,000 people is not a justifiable means to end slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most countries gave up slavery without a fuss
> 
> We demanded 600,000 dead
Click to expand...

No, Lincoln demanded 850,000 dead.  You are right about one thing, if Lincoln only wanted to end slavery, he could have done it without a single life being lost.  The cost of buying all the slaves would have been cheaper than the cost of the war.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not when it's a foreign government that is invading your homeland.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was not the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you read documents from the War of Independence, you quickly discover that a core principle of the American Patriots was that the colonies had a natural right to separate from England and that England was violating natural law and committing aggression by trying to force the colonies to remain under British control.
> 
> The American Revolution and the Right of Peaceful Separation
> 
> Even without Davis's foolish--and bloodless--bombardment of Fort Sumter, the Radical Republicans were determined to pick a fight with the Confederacy.  There is good evidence that Lincoln was doing all he dared to *avoid* an armed showdown, but Davis made this impossible with his attack on Sumter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The immense difference is that all the states entered voluntarily into the Perpetual Union. The attempt to destroy that was treasonous, and was justly put down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The "perpetual union" didn't exist after the Constitution was approved.  The Articles of Confederation were thrown into the waste bin.  Furthermore, the idea that you can't leave a club you have joined isn't supported by any theory of law.  Only bootlicking statists make such claims.
> 
> I have seen theories like yours proposed hundreds of times in this forum.  They are not just wrong, they are absurd.  There is no theory of law that supports them.  Not national law, nor international law.
> 
> You believe in a fantasy.  You're a fool.
Click to expand...



Texas v. White | law case


----------



## Unkotare

there4eyeM said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Taking up arms against it is, idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> Not when it's a foreign government that is invading your homeland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That was not the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you read documents from the War of Independence, you quickly discover that a core principle of the American Patriots was that the colonies had a natural right to separate from England and that England was violating natural law and committing aggression by trying to force the colonies to remain under British control.
> 
> The American Revolution and the Right of Peaceful Separation
> 
> Even without Davis's foolish--and bloodless--bombardment of Fort Sumter, the Radical Republicans were determined to pick a fight with the Confederacy.  There is good evidence that Lincoln was doing all he dared to *avoid* an armed showdown, but Davis made this impossible with his attack on Sumter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The immense difference is that all the states entered voluntarily into the Perpetual Union. The attempt to destroy that was treasonous, and was justly put down.
Click to expand...


And not universally supported by the people living in those states.


----------



## there4eyeM

All the deaths in the Civil War fall on the shoulders of those who refused to confront the problem of slavery at the beginnings of the nation and all those who sought to renege on their oath of Perpetual Union and insist on inhuman slavery. That is many shoulders, and not merely Southern, yet the final cost was their 'cause'.


----------



## bripat9643

there4eyeM said:


> All the deaths in the Civil War fall on the shoulders of those who refused to confront the problem of slavery at the beginnings of the nation and all those who sought to renege on their oath of Perpetual Union and insist on inhuman slavery. That is many shoulders, and not merely Southern, yet the final cost was their 'cause'.


Wrong, douchebag.   The people who refused to confront slavery when the Constitution was passed were all dead by the time of the Civil War.  No one made an oath to the perpetual union, especially not anyone alive at the time of the Civil War.  

Almost everything you post on this subject is based on pure fantasy.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was not the case.
> 
> 
> 
> That was the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you read documents from the War of Independence, you quickly discover that a core principle of the American Patriots was that the colonies had a natural right to separate from England and that England was violating natural law and committing aggression by trying to force the colonies to remain under British control.
> 
> The American Revolution and the Right of Peaceful Separation
> 
> Even without Davis's foolish--and bloodless--bombardment of Fort Sumter, the Radical Republicans were determined to pick a fight with the Confederacy.  There is good evidence that Lincoln was doing all he dared to *avoid* an armed showdown, but Davis made this impossible with his attack on Sumter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The immense difference is that all the states entered voluntarily into the Perpetual Union. The attempt to destroy that was treasonous, and was justly put down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The "perpetual union" didn't exist after the Constitution was approved.  The Articles of Confederation were thrown into the waste bin.  Furthermore, the idea that you can't leave a club you have joined isn't supported by any theory of law.  Only bootlicking statists make such claims.
> 
> I have seen theories like yours proposed hundreds of times in this forum.  They are not just wrong, they are absurd.  There is no theory of law that supports them.  Not national law, nor international law.
> 
> You believe in a fantasy.  You're a fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Texas v. White | law case
Click to expand...


I've already addressed this fraudulent case.  At the time it was made, the court was appointed with Lincoln appointed hacks.  It was also based on a number of outright lies, like the claim that at the time Texas was a state of the union.  A legal state of the union has representation in the House and the Senate.   Texas had none at the time.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was the case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you read documents from the War of Independence, you quickly discover that a core principle of the American Patriots was that the colonies had a natural right to separate from England and that England was violating natural law and committing aggression by trying to force the colonies to remain under British control.
> 
> The American Revolution and the Right of Peaceful Separation
> 
> Even without Davis's foolish--and bloodless--bombardment of Fort Sumter, the Radical Republicans were determined to pick a fight with the Confederacy.  There is good evidence that Lincoln was doing all he dared to *avoid* an armed showdown, but Davis made this impossible with his attack on Sumter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The immense difference is that all the states entered voluntarily into the Perpetual Union. The attempt to destroy that was treasonous, and was justly put down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The "perpetual union" didn't exist after the Constitution was approved.  The Articles of Confederation were thrown into the waste bin.  Furthermore, the idea that you can't leave a club you have joined isn't supported by any theory of law.  Only bootlicking statists make such claims.
> 
> I have seen theories like yours proposed hundreds of times in this forum.  They are not just wrong, they are absurd.  There is no theory of law that supports them.  Not national law, nor international law.
> 
> You believe in a fantasy.  You're a fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Texas v. White | law case
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've already addressed this fraudulent case.  At the time it was made, the court was appointed with Lincoln appointed hacks.  It was also based on a number of outright lies, like the claim that at the time Texas was a state of the union.  A legal state of the union has representation in the House and the Senate.   Texas had none at the time.
Click to expand...


It has already been pointed out that the legal views of justices of the Supreme Court are infinitely more weighty and legitimate than the bitter, uneducated mewling of some brainless scumbag like you on the internet.

Everyone knows how much you hate America. Now shut the fuck up and move the fuck on.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you read documents from the War of Independence, you quickly discover that a core principle of the American Patriots was that the colonies had a natural right to separate from England and that England was violating natural law and committing aggression by trying to force the colonies to remain under British control.
> 
> The American Revolution and the Right of Peaceful Separation
> 
> Even without Davis's foolish--and bloodless--bombardment of Fort Sumter, the Radical Republicans were determined to pick a fight with the Confederacy.  There is good evidence that Lincoln was doing all he dared to *avoid* an armed showdown, but Davis made this impossible with his attack on Sumter.
> 
> 
> 
> The immense difference is that all the states entered voluntarily into the Perpetual Union. The attempt to destroy that was treasonous, and was justly put down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The "perpetual union" didn't exist after the Constitution was approved.  The Articles of Confederation were thrown into the waste bin.  Furthermore, the idea that you can't leave a club you have joined isn't supported by any theory of law.  Only bootlicking statists make such claims.
> 
> I have seen theories like yours proposed hundreds of times in this forum.  They are not just wrong, they are absurd.  There is no theory of law that supports them.  Not national law, nor international law.
> 
> You believe in a fantasy.  You're a fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Texas v. White | law case
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've already addressed this fraudulent case.  At the time it was made, the court was appointed with Lincoln appointed hacks.  It was also based on a number of outright lies, like the claim that at the time Texas was a state of the union.  A legal state of the union has representation in the House and the Senate.   Texas had none at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has already been pointed out that the legal views of justices of the Supreme Court are infinitely more weighty and legitimate than the bitter, uneducated mewling of some brainless scumbag like you on the internet.
Click to expand...



Appeal to authority - a logical fallacy
It doesn't matter what their credentials are.  The fact is they lied.


----------



## regent

bripat9643 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> The basis for keeping slaves is that the might to do so is present. Any means to end slavery is as justifiable as slavery itself.
> 
> 
> 
> Murdering 850,000 people is not a justifiable means to end slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most countries gave up slavery without a fuss
> 
> We demanded 600,000 dead
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, Lincoln demanded 850,000 dead.  You are right about one thing, if Lincoln only wanted to end slavery, he could have done it without a single life being lost.  The cost of buying all the slaves would have been cheaper than the cost of the war.
Click to expand...

Boy, the slave industry would have been busier than ever then, not growing cotton but producing new slaves.


----------



## bripat9643

regent said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> The basis for keeping slaves is that the might to do so is present. Any means to end slavery is as justifiable as slavery itself.
> 
> 
> 
> Murdering 850,000 people is not a justifiable means to end slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most countries gave up slavery without a fuss
> 
> We demanded 600,000 dead
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, Lincoln demanded 850,000 dead.  You are right about one thing, if Lincoln only wanted to end slavery, he could have done it without a single life being lost.  The cost of buying all the slaves would have been cheaper than the cost of the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Boy, the slave industry would have been busier than ever then, not growing cotton but producing new slaves.
Click to expand...

How would they produce new slaves when they didn't own any?


----------



## Bezukhov

bripat9643 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> The basis for keeping slaves is that the might to do so is present. Any means to end slavery is as justifiable as slavery itself.
> 
> 
> 
> Murdering 850,000 people is not a justifiable means to end slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most countries gave up slavery without a fuss
> 
> We demanded 600,000 dead
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, Lincoln demanded 850,000 dead.  You are right about one thing, if Lincoln only wanted to end slavery, he could have done it without a single life being lost.  The cost of buying all the slaves would have been cheaper than the cost of the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Boy, the slave industry would have been busier than ever then, not growing cotton but producing new slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would they produce new slaves when they didn't own any?
Click to expand...

Suppose a slave owner didn't want to sell?


----------



## bripat9643

Bezukhov said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Murdering 850,000 people is not a justifiable means to end slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> Most countries gave up slavery without a fuss
> 
> We demanded 600,000 dead
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, Lincoln demanded 850,000 dead.  You are right about one thing, if Lincoln only wanted to end slavery, he could have done it without a single life being lost.  The cost of buying all the slaves would have been cheaper than the cost of the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Boy, the slave industry would have been busier than ever then, not growing cotton but producing new slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would they produce new slaves when they didn't own any?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Suppose a slave owner didn't want to sell?
Click to expand...

Eminent domain.  He would be forced to sell.  That's actually in the Constitution, unlike invading Virginia.


----------



## mikegriffith1

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> The immense difference is that all the states entered voluntarily into the Perpetual Union. The attempt to destroy that was treasonous, and was justly put down.
> 
> 
> 
> The "perpetual union" didn't exist after the Constitution was approved.  The Articles of Confederation were thrown into the waste bin.  Furthermore, the idea that you can't leave a club you have joined isn't supported by any theory of law.  Only bootlicking statists make such claims.
> 
> I have seen theories like yours proposed hundreds of times in this forum.  They are not just wrong, they are absurd.  There is no theory of law that supports them.  Not national law, nor international law.
> 
> You believe in a fantasy.  You're a fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Texas v. White | law case
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've already addressed this fraudulent case.  At the time it was made, the court was appointed with Lincoln appointed hacks.  It was also based on a number of outright lies, like the claim that at the time Texas was a state of the union.  A legal state of the union has representation in the House and the Senate.   Texas had none at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has already been pointed out that the legal views of justices of the Supreme Court are infinitely more weighty and legitimate than the bitter, uneducated mewling of some brainless scumbag like you on the internet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Appeal to authority - a logical fallacy
> It doesn't matter what their credentials are.  The fact is they lied.
Click to expand...


Texas v. White was a poorly argued, poorly supported decision that ignored most of the relevant evidence.

Articles: On Secession: An Analysis of Texas v. White


----------



## there4eyeM

The only really relative evidence in the whole matter is that slavery is a crime needing extirpation. That the South resorted to treason in order to preserve it only ads to the crime. The ends, maintaining slavery, did not justify any means at all.


----------



## there4eyeM

There is no defending slavery.


----------



## there4eyeM

Think what one will of Lincoln, nothing he did was worse than what the institution of slavery inflicted on our fellow humans.


----------



## bripat9643

there4eyeM said:


> The only really relative evidence in the whole matter is that slavery is a crime needing extirpation. That the South resorted to treason in order to preserve it only ads to the crime. The ends, maintaining slavery, did not justify any means at all.


Wrong, turd, slavery wasn't a crime then.  The South didn't commit treason.  Abraham Lincoln did. He made war on member states of the Union.

Bottom line:  You're a sleazy lying piece of shit.


----------



## bripat9643

there4eyeM said:


> Think what one will of Lincoln, nothing he did was worse than what the institution of slavery inflicted on our fellow humans.


Right.  Throwing innocent Americans into concentration camps and slaughtering 850,000 more was not worse than slavery.

You're such a dumbass.


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle

bripat9643 said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only really relative evidence in the whole matter is that slavery is a crime needing extirpation. That the South resorted to treason in order to preserve it only ads to the crime. The ends, maintaining slavery, did not justify any means at all.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, turd, slavery wasn't a crime then.  The South didn't commit treason.  Abraham Lincoln did. He made war on member states of the Union.
> 
> Bottom line:  You're a sleazy lying piece of shit.
Click to expand...

And you have zero knowledge of history...LOL~

When Abe made war...the Southern States had already succeeded..and thus, were no longer members of the United States..they were the Confederacy. 

The South started the war--we, the United States of America..finished it.

Slavery was a crime against humanity..that there was no statute against it...is irrelevant. the South, especially the deep South..were NEVER going to give up their slaves..hell, it took another hundred years to actually free their descendants from Jim Crow!


----------



## Unkotare

there4eyeM said:


> Think what one will of Lincoln, nothing he did was worse than what the institution of slavery inflicted on our fellow humans.




What he did was preserve the Union.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> .... He made war on member states of the Union.
> 
> ......




Wrong. The 'confederate' traitors made war. The vile criminals were put down like the dogs they were. Apologists today for the evil of that time are lower than dogs and deserve no less.


----------



## there4eyeM

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's irrefutable that he started it.  ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wannabe reb stupidity. The traitors fired on Fort Sumter. Your personal hatred for the United States of America does not change the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Union troops were trespassing on the territory of SC, moron.  If foreigners refuse to leave your country, then they deserve to be fired on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> American troops in America, you stupid traitor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ... If it was part of America, then Lincoln committed treason by making war on "the United States" (plural).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again.
Click to expand...

And, you can say that again.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think what one will of Lincoln, nothing he did was worse than what the institution of slavery inflicted on our fellow humans.
> 
> 
> 
> Right.  Throwing innocent Americans into concentration camps and slaughtering 850,000 .....
Click to expand...



That did not happen. Criminals incarcerated for committing crimes are not "concentration camps," and criminals killed in the course of committing crime are not "slaughtered," they are getting what they deserve.


----------



## bripat9643

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only really relative evidence in the whole matter is that slavery is a crime needing extirpation. That the South resorted to treason in order to preserve it only ads to the crime. The ends, maintaining slavery, did not justify any means at all.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, turd, slavery wasn't a crime then.  The South didn't commit treason.  Abraham Lincoln did. He made war on member states of the Union.
> 
> Bottom line:  You're a sleazy lying piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you have zero knowledge of history...LOL~
> 
> When Abe made war...the Southern States had already succeeded..and thus, were no longer members of the United States..they were the Confederacy.
> 
> The South started the war--we, the United States of America..finished it.
> 
> Slavery was a crime against humanity..that there was no statute against it...is irrelevant. the South, especially the deep South..were NEVER going to give up their slaves..hell, it took another hundred years to actually free their descendants from Jim Crow!
Click to expand...

If that's the case, then Lincoln was trespassing on the territory of a sovereign country and sent warships through the territorial waters of a sovereign country.  Both are acts of war.  The South didn't declare war.  South Carolina simply kicked trespassers out of their country.  You got one thing right:  there was no statute against slavery.  It was expressly legal.  What you think about it is irrelevant.  Lincoln had no legal authority to invade Virginia or resupply Ft Sumpter, period.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think what one will of Lincoln, nothing he did was worse than what the institution of slavery inflicted on our fellow humans.
> 
> 
> 
> Right.  Throwing innocent Americans into concentration camps and slaughtering 850,000 .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That did not happen. Criminals incarcerated for committing crimes are not "concentration camps," and criminals killed in the course of committing crime are not "slaughtered," they are getting what they deserve.
Click to expand...

The only "crime" they committed was criticizing Lincoln and his policies.  They were never tried, nor even charged with a crime.  They weren't criminals of any kind.  Most of them weren't even Southerners, you fucking dumbass.  

Everyone who died during the war was slaughtered by Lincoln.  They committed no crimes.  None were ever even charged with a crime.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .... He made war on member states of the Union.
> 
> ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. The 'confederate' traitors made war. The vile criminals were put down like the dogs they were. Apologists today for the evil of that time are lower than dogs and deserve no less.
Click to expand...

Totally wrong, of course.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think what one will of Lincoln, nothing he did was worse than what the institution of slavery inflicted on our fellow humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What he did was preserve the Union.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the same way Staling "preserved" the USSR.  I see nothing noble about preserving a police state.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you read documents from the War of Independence, you quickly discover that a core principle of the American Patriots was that the colonies had a natural right to separate from England and that England was violating natural law and committing aggression by trying to force the colonies to remain under British control.
> 
> The American Revolution and the Right of Peaceful Separation
> 
> Even without Davis's foolish--and bloodless--bombardment of Fort Sumter, the Radical Republicans were determined to pick a fight with the Confederacy.  There is good evidence that Lincoln was doing all he dared to *avoid* an armed showdown, but Davis made this impossible with his attack on Sumter.
> 
> 
> 
> The immense difference is that all the states entered voluntarily into the Perpetual Union. The attempt to destroy that was treasonous, and was justly put down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The "perpetual union" didn't exist after the Constitution was approved.  The Articles of Confederation were thrown into the waste bin.  Furthermore, the idea that you can't leave a club you have joined isn't supported by any theory of law.  Only bootlicking statists make such claims.
> 
> I have seen theories like yours proposed hundreds of times in this forum.  They are not just wrong, they are absurd.  There is no theory of law that supports them.  Not national law, nor international law.
> 
> You believe in a fantasy.  You're a fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Texas v. White | law case
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've already addressed this fraudulent case.  At the time it was made, the court was appointed with Lincoln appointed hacks.  It was also based on a number of outright lies, like the claim that at the time Texas was a state of the union.  A legal state of the union has representation in the House and the Senate.   Texas had none at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has already been pointed out that the legal views of justices of the Supreme Court are infinitely more weighty and legitimate than the bitter, uneducated mewling of some brainless scumbag like you on the internet.
> 
> Everyone knows how much you hate America. Now shut the fuck up and move the fuck on.
Click to expand...

Sorry, turd, but your belief that the court is infallible is obviously wrong.


----------



## bripat9643

there4eyeM said:


> There is no defending slavery.


Whose defending it, asshole?


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> The immense difference is that all the states entered voluntarily into the Perpetual Union. The attempt to destroy that was treasonous, and was justly put down.
> 
> 
> 
> The "perpetual union" didn't exist after the Constitution was approved.  The Articles of Confederation were thrown into the waste bin.  Furthermore, the idea that you can't leave a club you have joined isn't supported by any theory of law.  Only bootlicking statists make such claims.
> 
> I have seen theories like yours proposed hundreds of times in this forum.  They are not just wrong, they are absurd.  There is no theory of law that supports them.  Not national law, nor international law.
> 
> You believe in a fantasy.  You're a fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Texas v. White | law case
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've already addressed this fraudulent case.  At the time it was made, the court was appointed with Lincoln appointed hacks.  It was also based on a number of outright lies, like the claim that at the time Texas was a state of the union.  A legal state of the union has representation in the House and the Senate.   Texas had none at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has already been pointed out that the legal views of justices of the Supreme Court are infinitely more weighty and legitimate than the bitter, uneducated mewling of some brainless scumbag like you on the internet.
> 
> Everyone knows how much you hate America. Now shut the fuck up and move the fuck on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, turd, but your belief that the court is infallible is obviously wrong.
Click to expand...


Not as wrong as  your belief that you are, little Mr. Nobody.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think what one will of Lincoln, nothing he did was worse than what the institution of slavery inflicted on our fellow humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What he did was preserve the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, the same way Staling "preserved" the USSR.  I see nothing noble about preserving a police state.
Click to expand...


If you hate my country so much, what the fuck are you still doing here? Grow some balls and go live your convictions, scumbag.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .... He made war on member states of the Union.
> 
> ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. The 'confederate' traitors made war. The vile criminals were put down like the dogs they were. Apologists today for the evil of that time are lower than dogs and deserve no less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Totally wrong, of course.
Click to expand...


The 'confederate' traitors made war. The vile criminals were put down like the dogs they were. Apologists today for the evil of that time are lower than dogs and deserve no less.

Screw your apologist bullshit, scumbag.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think what one will of Lincoln, nothing he did was worse than what the institution of slavery inflicted on our fellow humans.
> 
> 
> 
> Right.  Throwing innocent Americans into concentration camps and slaughtering 850,000 .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That did not happen. Criminals incarcerated for committing crimes are not "concentration camps," and criminals killed in the course of committing crime are not "slaughtered," they are getting what they deserve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only "crime" they committed was criticizing Lincoln and his policies. ......
Click to expand...


Pick up a gun and go shoot at an American soldier. You'll get what  you deserve as the traitors you worship got theirs.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "perpetual union" didn't exist after the Constitution was approved.  The Articles of Confederation were thrown into the waste bin.  Furthermore, the idea that you can't leave a club you have joined isn't supported by any theory of law.  Only bootlicking statists make such claims.
> 
> I have seen theories like yours proposed hundreds of times in this forum.  They are not just wrong, they are absurd.  There is no theory of law that supports them.  Not national law, nor international law.
> 
> You believe in a fantasy.  You're a fool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas v. White | law case
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've already addressed this fraudulent case.  At the time it was made, the court was appointed with Lincoln appointed hacks.  It was also based on a number of outright lies, like the claim that at the time Texas was a state of the union.  A legal state of the union has representation in the House and the Senate.   Texas had none at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has already been pointed out that the legal views of justices of the Supreme Court are infinitely more weighty and legitimate than the bitter, uneducated mewling of some brainless scumbag like you on the internet.
> 
> Everyone knows how much you hate America. Now shut the fuck up and move the fuck on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, turd, but your belief that the court is infallible is obviously wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not as wrong as  your belief that you are, little Mr. Nobody.
Click to expand...

When did I ever say I was infallible.  I don't claim something is true because I say it's true.   I say it's true because the evidence shows it to be true.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .... He made war on member states of the Union.
> 
> ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. The 'confederate' traitors made war. The vile criminals were put down like the dogs they were. Apologists today for the evil of that time are lower than dogs and deserve no less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Totally wrong, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 'confederate' traitors made war. The vile criminals were put down like the dogs they were. Apologists today for the evil of that time are lower than dogs and deserve no less.
> 
> Screw your apologist bullshit, scumbag.
Click to expand...

Lincoln invaded Virginia.  Lincoln trespassed on Ft Sumter.  Lincoln is the one who made war.   Lincoln is the one who slaughtered 850,000 Americans.


----------



## there4eyeM

And Perpetual doesn't mean perpetual.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Texas v. White | law case
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've already addressed this fraudulent case.  At the time it was made, the court was appointed with Lincoln appointed hacks.  It was also based on a number of outright lies, like the claim that at the time Texas was a state of the union.  A legal state of the union has representation in the House and the Senate.   Texas had none at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has already been pointed out that the legal views of justices of the Supreme Court are infinitely more weighty and legitimate than the bitter, uneducated mewling of some brainless scumbag like you on the internet.
> 
> Everyone knows how much you hate America. Now shut the fuck up and move the fuck on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, turd, but your belief that the court is infallible is obviously wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not as wrong as  your belief that you are, little Mr. Nobody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When did I ever say I was infallible.  I don't claim something is true because I say it's true.   I say it's true because the evidence shows it to be true.
Click to expand...


Which brings us back to the legal interpretation of justices on the US Supreme Court vs some uneducated scumbag on the internet. Hmmm......


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .... He made war on member states of the Union.
> 
> ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. The 'confederate' traitors made war. The vile criminals were put down like the dogs they were. Apologists today for the evil of that time are lower than dogs and deserve no less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Totally wrong, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 'confederate' traitors made war. The vile criminals were put down like the dogs they were. Apologists today for the evil of that time are lower than dogs and deserve no less.
> 
> Screw your apologist bullshit, scumbag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln invaded Virginia. .....
Click to expand...


A nation cannot invade itself.


----------



## there4eyeM

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .... He made war on member states of the Union.
> 
> ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. The 'confederate' traitors made war. The vile criminals were put down like the dogs they were. Apologists today for the evil of that time are lower than dogs and deserve no less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Totally wrong, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 'confederate' traitors made war. The vile criminals were put down like the dogs they were. Apologists today for the evil of that time are lower than dogs and deserve no less.
> 
> Screw your apologist bullshit, scumbag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln invaded Virginia. .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A nation cannot invade itself.
Click to expand...

...but there is one big beautiful one in the process of 'luving' itself.


----------



## there4eyeM

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .... He made war on member states of the Union.
> 
> ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. The 'confederate' traitors made war. The vile criminals were put down like the dogs they were. Apologists today for the evil of that time are lower than dogs and deserve no less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Totally wrong, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 'confederate' traitors made war. The vile criminals were put down like the dogs they were. Apologists today for the evil of that time are lower than dogs and deserve no less.
> 
> Screw your apologist bullshit, scumbag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln invaded Virginia. .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A nation cannot invade itself.
Click to expand...

One can sense him stamping his feet.


----------



## mikegriffith1

I think it's pretty clear from early American sources that the right of secession was an understood natural right. The founders hoped secession would never be invoked, but they did not prohibit it. Certainly one of the core principles--if not the core principle--of the American Revolution was that the colonies had a natural right to peacefully separate from England and that it was immoral and unnatural for England to deny that right.

All that being said, the Deep South picked a terrible time to invoke the right of secession. There was no valid cause or compelling reason for secession. I believe that the right of secession is absolute and that the Deep South should have been allowed to leave in peace, but Jefferson Davis's horrendous handling of dealings with the U.S. made that impossible under the then-existing conditions.


----------



## there4eyeM

There was no right of secession. There is always the 'right' to renege on agreements, to break promises and oaths, in that one can do it and try to get away with it. History show innumerable illustrations of both successes and failures in this regard. 
There was a contest of words and insistence on both sides that they were right. When men get into such situations, they eventually resort to violence to 'settle' the matter. The South was no different, no more original than any other group. They did lack the sense to know from the start that they could not win. They lacked the humanity to see that they should not win.
They did not win.


----------



## mikegriffith1

there4eyeM said:


> There was no right of secession.



Yes, there was. Both of America's early legal giants, George Tucker and William Rawle, said secession was a constitutional right, since the framers were careful to omit from the Constitution any statement that even implied that ratification was irrevocable and any statement that the federal union was permanent. Again, one of the main principles of the American Revolution was that the colonies had a natural right to peacefully separate from England and that England was violating natural law by trying to force the colonies to remain British. Plus, James Madison expressly said the federal government had no right to use force against a state. To believe that the framers intended for the federal government to be able to use force to maintain the Union is to believe that they gave the federal government a right that they bitterly denied belonged to the British government.

The American Revolution and the Right of Peaceful Separation

Proof that the Union was Supposed to be Voluntary


----------



## there4eyeM

This has all been addressed.


----------



## bripat9643

there4eyeM said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. The 'confederate' traitors made war. The vile criminals were put down like the dogs they were. Apologists today for the evil of that time are lower than dogs and deserve no less.
> 
> 
> 
> Totally wrong, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 'confederate' traitors made war. The vile criminals were put down like the dogs they were. Apologists today for the evil of that time are lower than dogs and deserve no less.
> 
> Screw your apologist bullshit, scumbag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln invaded Virginia. .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A nation cannot invade itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One can sense him stamping his feet.
Click to expand...

One can sense you getting a score of 15 on an I.Q. test


----------



## bripat9643

there4eyeM said:


> This has all been addressed.


It was "addressed" with fairy tales.  None of you Lincoln cultists has posted a single fact.


----------



## bripat9643

there4eyeM said:


> There was no right of secession.



Sure there is.



there4eyeM said:


> There is always the 'right' to renege on agreements, to break promises and oaths, in that one can do it and try to get away with it.  History show innumerable illustrations of both successes and failures in this regard.



When did anyone ever agree that they couldn't secede from the Union?  Answer:  never.  You post idiocies like this because you have no facts.  You only have fairy tales.




there4eyeM said:


> There was a contest of words and insistence on both sides that they were right. When men get into such situations, they eventually resort to violence to 'settle' the matter. The South was no different, no more original than any other group. They did lack the sense to know from the start that they could not win. They lacked the humanity to see that they should not win.
> They did not win.



In other words, might makes right.   

You are so beautifully liberal!


----------



## bripat9643

there4eyeM said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. The 'confederate' traitors made war. The vile criminals were put down like the dogs they were. Apologists today for the evil of that time are lower than dogs and deserve no less.
> 
> 
> 
> Totally wrong, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 'confederate' traitors made war. The vile criminals were put down like the dogs they were. Apologists today for the evil of that time are lower than dogs and deserve no less.
> 
> Screw your apologist bullshit, scumbag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln invaded Virginia. .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A nation cannot invade itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One can sense him stamping his feet.
Click to expand...

I can sense you shitting in your hand and flinging the proceeds.

You're the one apologizing for the mass murderer Lincoln.  Killing 850,000 people to impose your rule on them is pure evil.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Totally wrong, of course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 'confederate' traitors made war. The vile criminals were put down like the dogs they were. Apologists today for the evil of that time are lower than dogs and deserve no less.
> 
> Screw your apologist bullshit, scumbag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln invaded Virginia. .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A nation cannot invade itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One can sense him stamping his feet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can sense you shitting in your hand and flinging the proceeds.
> 
> You're the one apologizing for the mass murderer Lincoln.  Killing 850,000 people to impose your rule on them is pure evil.
Click to expand...


That is not what happened, wannabe.


----------



## mikegriffith1

there4eyeM said:


> This has all been addressed.



Do some homework. The founders never, ever intended for the Union to be maintained by force.

Proof that the Union was Supposed to be Voluntary


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 'confederate' traitors made war. The vile criminals were put down like the dogs they were. Apologists today for the evil of that time are lower than dogs and deserve no less.
> 
> Screw your apologist bullshit, scumbag.
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln invaded Virginia. .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A nation cannot invade itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One can sense him stamping his feet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can sense you shitting in your hand and flinging the proceeds.
> 
> You're the one apologizing for the mass murderer Lincoln.  Killing 850,000 people to impose your rule on them is pure evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not what happened, wannabe.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what happened.


----------



## bripat9643

mikegriffith1 said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> This has all been addressed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do some homework. The founders never, ever intended for the Union to be maintained by force.
> 
> Proof that the Union was Supposed to be Voluntary
Click to expand...

Good article.  How much do you want to bet the Mr.  4eyes won't read it?


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln invaded Virginia. .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A nation cannot invade itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One can sense him stamping his feet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can sense you shitting in your hand and flinging the proceeds.
> 
> You're the one apologizing for the mass murderer Lincoln.  Killing 850,000 people to impose your rule on them is pure evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not what happened, wannabe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's exactly what happened.
Click to expand...


You dropped out too soon, brainless.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> A nation cannot invade itself.
> 
> 
> 
> One can sense him stamping his feet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can sense you shitting in your hand and flinging the proceeds.
> 
> You're the one apologizing for the mass murderer Lincoln.  Killing 850,000 people to impose your rule on them is pure evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not what happened, wannabe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's exactly what happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You dropped out too soon, brainless.
Click to expand...

I see you've given up all pretense of proving your imbecile claims.

Thanks for conceding.


----------



## there4eyeM

Talk about "triggered"! Who could imagine in this day and age that anyone could be so adamant in defending not only treason but slavery?


----------



## bripat9643

there4eyeM said:


> Talk about "triggered"! Who could imagine in this day and age that anyone could be so adamant in defending not only treason but slavery?


More poo flinging.  

I haven't defended slavery, douchebag.  Lincoln committed treason, and you're defending it.


----------



## boilermaker55

Who ever believes that BS you posted would believe that tRUMP was chosen by god.







Jitss617 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tradewinds81186 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The Northeast didn't win the war on liberalism, they won on industry, which they no longer have.
> 
> 2. The Northeast didn't win the Civil war on poverty, The Northeast won the Civil War, on money and economics, TEXAS now as big as wall street, and will surpass it very shortly.
> 
> 3. The Northeast didn't win the Civil war on political bullshit, the northeast won the civil war on Action, through repeated defeats and comebacks and sheer guts.
> 
> 4. The Northeast didn't win the civil war by banning guns, they won the civil war by having more guns and larger flank.
> 
> 5. The Northeast didn't win the civil war with Cowardism or Unfitness, they won the Civil by having more men in the military.
> 
> 6. The Northeast didn't win the Civil War by having a 60 % high school drop out rate, and 40 % illiteracy rate,  they won the civil war, by having more educated people, educated by the standards of the time, which they certainly do not have today.
> 
> 7. The Northeast didn't win the civil war by laziness, but by having a low unemployment rate, or what would have been a low unemployment rate if such things were measured back then.
> 
> Today the south would win the civil war because today the south is where the industry and the economy is, and the weapons, and the military personnel, and the literacy is at.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While much of what you posted is true, you ignore the large population of semi-literate irish immigrants that had flooded the Northeast and were used as cannon fodder.
> 
> Also, to claim the south would win today is to assume that the war would be fought today.  There is no slavery and no single issue to push for a seccession.
> 
> As a lifelong southerner, let me say I am proud to be an American and will do whatever it takes to remain one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was never based on slavery you num nuts View attachment 300825
Click to expand...


----------



## boilermaker55

Sorry you are full of SH*T look at the website LOL
Index of /files voluntary.htm




mikegriffith1 said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> This has all been addressed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do some homework. The founders never, ever intended for the Union to be maintained by force.
> 
> Proof that the Union was Supposed to be Voluntary
Click to expand...


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> One can sense him stamping his feet.
> 
> 
> 
> I can sense you shitting in your hand and flinging the proceeds.
> 
> You're the one apologizing for the mass murderer Lincoln.  Killing 850,000 people to impose your rule on them is pure evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not what happened, wannabe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's exactly what happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You dropped out too soon, brainless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see you've given up all pretense of proving your imbecile claims.
> 
> Thanks for conceding.
Click to expand...


Stomping your feet and insisting won’t change History, dumbass.


----------



## Jitss617

boilermaker55 said:


> Who ever believes that BS you posted would believe that tRUMP was chosen by god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tradewinds81186 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The Northeast didn't win the war on liberalism, they won on industry, which they no longer have.
> 
> 2. The Northeast didn't win the Civil war on poverty, The Northeast won the Civil War, on money and economics, TEXAS now as big as wall street, and will surpass it very shortly.
> 
> 3. The Northeast didn't win the Civil war on political bullshit, the northeast won the civil war on Action, through repeated defeats and comebacks and sheer guts.
> 
> 4. The Northeast didn't win the civil war by banning guns, they won the civil war by having more guns and larger flank.
> 
> 5. The Northeast didn't win the civil war with Cowardism or Unfitness, they won the Civil by having more men in the military.
> 
> 6. The Northeast didn't win the Civil War by having a 60 % high school drop out rate, and 40 % illiteracy rate,  they won the civil war, by having more educated people, educated by the standards of the time, which they certainly do not have today.
> 
> 7. The Northeast didn't win the civil war by laziness, but by having a low unemployment rate, or what would have been a low unemployment rate if such things were measured back then.
> 
> Today the south would win the civil war because today the south is where the industry and the economy is, and the weapons, and the military personnel, and the literacy is at.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While much of what you posted is true, you ignore the large population of semi-literate irish immigrants that had flooded the Northeast and were used as cannon fodder.
> 
> Also, to claim the south would win today is to assume that the war would be fought today.  There is no slavery and no single issue to push for a seccession.
> 
> As a lifelong southerner, let me say I am proud to be an American and will do whatever it takes to remain one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was never based on slavery you num nuts View attachment 300825
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

He was


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can sense you shitting in your hand and flinging the proceeds.
> 
> You're the one apologizing for the mass murderer Lincoln.  Killing 850,000 people to impose your rule on them is pure evil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what happened, wannabe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's exactly what happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You dropped out too soon, brainless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see you've given up all pretense of proving your imbecile claims.
> 
> Thanks for conceding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stomping your feet and insisting won’t change History, dumbass.
Click to expand...

Repeating your idiocies 1000 times won't make them true.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what happened, wannabe.
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly what happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You dropped out too soon, brainless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see you've given up all pretense of proving your imbecile claims.
> 
> Thanks for conceding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stomping your feet and insisting won’t change History, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Repeating your idiocies 1000 times won't make them true.
Click to expand...



I’m informing you about the facts of History. You are engaging in the most absurd revisionism, and you’ve repeated your nonsense more than 1000 times.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly what happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You dropped out too soon, brainless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see you've given up all pretense of proving your imbecile claims.
> 
> Thanks for conceding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stomping your feet and insisting won’t change History, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Repeating your idiocies 1000 times won't make them true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I’m informing you about the facts of History. You are engaging in the most absurd revisionism, and you’ve repeated your nonsense more than 1000 times.
Click to expand...

You're reporting fantasies.  Nothing you have posted is true.


----------



## there4eyeM

...and the founding 'fathers' didn't understand the word perpetual.


----------



## Syriusly

Jitss617 said:


> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who ever believes that BS you posted would believe that tRUMP was chosen by god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tradewinds81186 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The Northeast didn't win the war on liberalism, they won on industry, which they no longer have.
> 
> 2. The Northeast didn't win the Civil war on poverty, The Northeast won the Civil War, on money and economics, TEXAS now as big as wall street, and will surpass it very shortly.
> 
> 3. The Northeast didn't win the Civil war on political bullshit, the northeast won the civil war on Action, through repeated defeats and comebacks and sheer guts.
> 
> 4. The Northeast didn't win the civil war by banning guns, they won the civil war by having more guns and larger flank.
> 
> 5. The Northeast didn't win the civil war with Cowardism or Unfitness, they won the Civil by having more men in the military.
> 
> 6. The Northeast didn't win the Civil War by having a 60 % high school drop out rate, and 40 % illiteracy rate,  they won the civil war, by having more educated people, educated by the standards of the time, which they certainly do not have today.
> 
> 7. The Northeast didn't win the civil war by laziness, but by having a low unemployment rate, or what would have been a low unemployment rate if such things were measured back then.
> 
> Today the south would win the civil war because today the south is where the industry and the economy is, and the weapons, and the military personnel, and the literacy is at.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While much of what you posted is true, you ignore the large population of semi-literate irish immigrants that had flooded the Northeast and were used as cannon fodder.
> 
> Also, to claim the south would win today is to assume that the war would be fought today.  There is no slavery and no single issue to push for a seccession.
> 
> As a lifelong southerner, let me say I am proud to be an American and will do whatever it takes to remain one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was never based on slavery you num nuts View attachment 300825
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He was
Click to expand...


I always am amused by those who decide that their President was selected by God. 

Either every President is selected by god- those you like and dislike- or if god is only responsible for the ones you like- why the hell is god tormenting you with those other Presidents?


----------



## there4eyeM

Anyone who criticizes the South's action is a Lincoln-loving bootlicker, but anyone defending the South has only the highest of moral reasons to do so. No, they aren't defending inhumanity, repression and cruelty to fellow beings! It's all very intellectual and in the interest of fairness. 
What can possibly be the true motive for such perverse insistence on a fantasy?


----------



## bripat9643

there4eyeM said:


> ...and the founding 'fathers' didn't understand the word perpetual.


The Articles of Confederation were thrown into the waste bin, moron.


----------



## there4eyeM

...more perfect (Perpetual) Union...


----------



## bripat9643

there4eyeM said:


> ...more perfect (Perpetual) Union...


The Articles of Confederation were thrown into the waste bin, moron.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You dropped out too soon, brainless.
> 
> 
> 
> I see you've given up all pretense of proving your imbecile claims.
> 
> Thanks for conceding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stomping your feet and insisting won’t change History, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Repeating your idiocies 1000 times won't make them true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I’m informing you about the facts of History. You are engaging in the most absurd revisionism, and you’ve repeated your nonsense more than 1000 times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're reporting fantasies.  Nothing you have posted is true.
Click to expand...


Your bitter hatred of my country doesn’t change the reality of History, wannabe reb loser.


----------



## there4eyeM

Not a 'new' union or a new organization. The comparative case, clearly bearing the past agreements into the clarified re-statement of Union.


----------



## there4eyeM

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see you've given up all pretense of proving your imbecile claims.
> 
> Thanks for conceding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stomping your feet and insisting won’t change History, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Repeating your idiocies 1000 times won't make them true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I’m informing you about the facts of History. You are engaging in the most absurd revisionism, and you’ve repeated your nonsense more than 1000 times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're reporting fantasies.  Nothing you have posted is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your bitter hatred of my country doesn’t change the reality of History, wannabe reb loser.
Click to expand...

He may pop a blood vessel at any moment.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see you've given up all pretense of proving your imbecile claims.
> 
> Thanks for conceding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stomping your feet and insisting won’t change History, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Repeating your idiocies 1000 times won't make them true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I’m informing you about the facts of History. You are engaging in the most absurd revisionism, and you’ve repeated your nonsense more than 1000 times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're reporting fantasies.  Nothing you have posted is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your bitter hatred of my country doesn’t change the reality of History, wannabe reb loser.
Click to expand...

The reality of history is that Lincoln was a tyrant who threw innocent Americans into concentration camps and slaughtered 850,000 people.


----------



## bripat9643

there4eyeM said:


> Not a 'new' union or a new organization. The comparative case, clearly bearing the past agreements into the clarified re-statement of Union.


what the fuck is "clearly bearing the past agreements" supposed to mean?  Does the Constitution even mention the Articles of Confederation?  Why .  .  .  . no, it doesn't.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stomping your feet and insisting won’t change History, dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> Repeating your idiocies 1000 times won't make them true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I’m informing you about the facts of History. You are engaging in the most absurd revisionism, and you’ve repeated your nonsense more than 1000 times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're reporting fantasies.  Nothing you have posted is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your bitter hatred of my country doesn’t change the reality of History, wannabe reb loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The reality of history is that Lincoln was a tyrant who threw innocent Americans into concentration camps and slaughtered 850,000 people.
Click to expand...



Wipe the spittle off your chin, you spiteful, uneducated buffoon.


----------



## there4eyeM

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Repeating your idiocies 1000 times won't make them true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I’m informing you about the facts of History. You are engaging in the most absurd revisionism, and you’ve repeated your nonsense more than 1000 times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're reporting fantasies.  Nothing you have posted is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your bitter hatred of my country doesn’t change the reality of History, wannabe reb loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The reality of history is that Lincoln was a tyrant who threw innocent Americans into concentration camps and slaughtered 850,000 people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wipe the spittle off your chin, you spiteful, uneducated buffoon.
Click to expand...

If there is a reality in history, the Civil War and its results exemplify it.


----------



## bripat9643

there4eyeM said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> I’m informing you about the facts of History. You are engaging in the most absurd revisionism, and you’ve repeated your nonsense more than 1000 times.
> 
> 
> 
> You're reporting fantasies.  Nothing you have posted is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your bitter hatred of my country doesn’t change the reality of History, wannabe reb loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The reality of history is that Lincoln was a tyrant who threw innocent Americans into concentration camps and slaughtered 850,000 people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wipe the spittle off your chin, you spiteful, uneducated buffoon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there is a reality in history, the Civil War and its results exemplify it.
Click to expand...

Yes, they show what a douchebag president is capable of when he ignores the Constitution - mass slaughter.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Repeating your idiocies 1000 times won't make them true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I’m informing you about the facts of History. You are engaging in the most absurd revisionism, and you’ve repeated your nonsense more than 1000 times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're reporting fantasies.  Nothing you have posted is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your bitter hatred of my country doesn’t change the reality of History, wannabe reb loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The reality of history is that Lincoln was a tyrant who threw innocent Americans into concentration camps and slaughtered 850,000 people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wipe the spittle off your chin, you spiteful, uneducated buffoon.
Click to expand...

ROFL!   You want to execute me, but I'm the spiteful one?


----------



## Bezukhov

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stomping your feet and insisting won’t change History, dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> Repeating your idiocies 1000 times won't make them true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I’m informing you about the facts of History. You are engaging in the most absurd revisionism, and you’ve repeated your nonsense more than 1000 times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're reporting fantasies.  Nothing you have posted is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your bitter hatred of my country doesn’t change the reality of History, wannabe reb loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The reality of history is that Lincoln was a tyrant who threw innocent Americans into concentration camps and slaughtered 850,000 people.
Click to expand...

What really made Lincoln a most ruthless and despotic tyrant wasn't those concentration camps. No, that evil Lincoln went out of his way to deny to Good, White Christian Southerners all the pleasures and profits that comes from tyrannizing Black people.


----------



## Unkotare

Bezukhov said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Repeating your idiocies 1000 times won't make them true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I’m informing you about the facts of History. You are engaging in the most absurd revisionism, and you’ve repeated your nonsense more than 1000 times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're reporting fantasies.  Nothing you have posted is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your bitter hatred of my country doesn’t change the reality of History, wannabe reb loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The reality of history is that Lincoln was a tyrant who threw innocent Americans into concentration camps and slaughtered 850,000 people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What really made Lincoln a most ruthless and despotic tyrant wasn't those concentration camps. No, that evil Lincoln went out of his way to deny to Good, White Christian Southerners all the pleasures and profits that comes from tyrannizing Black people.
Click to expand...



Jails and prisoner of war camps are not concentration camps.


----------



## Bezukhov

Unkotare said:


> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> I’m informing you about the facts of History. You are engaging in the most absurd revisionism, and you’ve repeated your nonsense more than 1000 times.
> 
> 
> 
> You're reporting fantasies.  Nothing you have posted is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your bitter hatred of my country doesn’t change the reality of History, wannabe reb loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The reality of history is that Lincoln was a tyrant who threw innocent Americans into concentration camps and slaughtered 850,000 people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What really made Lincoln a most ruthless and despotic tyrant wasn't those concentration camps. No, that evil Lincoln went out of his way to deny to Good, White Christian Southerners all the pleasures and profits that comes from tyrannizing Black people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Jails and prisoner of war camps are not concentration camps.
Click to expand...

I was engaging in a little sarcasm.


----------



## Unkotare

Bezukhov said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're reporting fantasies.  Nothing you have posted is true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your bitter hatred of my country doesn’t change the reality of History, wannabe reb loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The reality of history is that Lincoln was a tyrant who threw innocent Americans into concentration camps and slaughtered 850,000 people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What really made Lincoln a most ruthless and despotic tyrant wasn't those concentration camps. No, that evil Lincoln went out of his way to deny to Good, White Christian Southerners all the pleasures and profits that comes from tyrannizing Black people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Jails and prisoner of war camps are not concentration camps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was engaging in a little sarcasm.
Click to expand...


I gotcha.


----------



## bripat9643

Bezukhov said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Repeating your idiocies 1000 times won't make them true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I’m informing you about the facts of History. You are engaging in the most absurd revisionism, and you’ve repeated your nonsense more than 1000 times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're reporting fantasies.  Nothing you have posted is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your bitter hatred of my country doesn’t change the reality of History, wannabe reb loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The reality of history is that Lincoln was a tyrant who threw innocent Americans into concentration camps and slaughtered 850,000 people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What really made Lincoln a most ruthless and despotic tyrant wasn't those concentration camps. No, that evil Lincoln went out of his way to deny to Good, White Christian Southerners all the pleasures and profits that comes from tyrannizing Black people.
Click to expand...

Why are you trying to prove that you're a jackass?  We already know that.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> I’m informing you about the facts of History. You are engaging in the most absurd revisionism, and you’ve repeated your nonsense more than 1000 times.
> 
> 
> 
> You're reporting fantasies.  Nothing you have posted is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your bitter hatred of my country doesn’t change the reality of History, wannabe reb loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The reality of history is that Lincoln was a tyrant who threw innocent Americans into concentration camps and slaughtered 850,000 people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What really made Lincoln a most ruthless and despotic tyrant wasn't those concentration camps. No, that evil Lincoln went out of his way to deny to Good, White Christian Southerners all the pleasures and profits that comes from tyrannizing Black people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Jails and prisoner of war camps are not concentration camps.
Click to expand...

Concentration camps, where Americans are imprisoned without the benefit of a trial, are concentrations camps.

You really are a clueless dumbass.  Pull your head out of your ass.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're reporting fantasies.  Nothing you have posted is true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your bitter hatred of my country doesn’t change the reality of History, wannabe reb loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The reality of history is that Lincoln was a tyrant who threw innocent Americans into concentration camps and slaughtered 850,000 people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What really made Lincoln a most ruthless and despotic tyrant wasn't those concentration camps. No, that evil Lincoln went out of his way to deny to Good, White Christian Southerners all the pleasures and profits that comes from tyrannizing Black people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Jails and prisoner of war camps are not concentration camps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Concentration camps, where Americans are imprisoned without the benefit of a trial, are concentrations camps.
> 
> .....
Click to expand...



Prisoner of war camps are not concentration camps. Words have meanings. If you had a better command of the English language I wouldn't need to instruct you on this.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your bitter hatred of my country doesn’t change the reality of History, wannabe reb loser.
> 
> 
> 
> The reality of history is that Lincoln was a tyrant who threw innocent Americans into concentration camps and slaughtered 850,000 people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What really made Lincoln a most ruthless and despotic tyrant wasn't those concentration camps. No, that evil Lincoln went out of his way to deny to Good, White Christian Southerners all the pleasures and profits that comes from tyrannizing Black people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Jails and prisoner of war camps are not concentration camps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Concentration camps, where Americans are imprisoned without the benefit of a trial, are concentrations camps.
> 
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Prisoner of war camps are not concentration camps. Words have meanings. If you had a better command of the English language I wouldn't need to instruct you on this.
Click to expand...

They wren't housing prisoners of war, dumbass.  The inmates were civilians who lived in Union States.

Yes, words have meanings, and you mostly don't know what they are.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reality of history is that Lincoln was a tyrant who threw innocent Americans into concentration camps and slaughtered 850,000 people.
> 
> 
> 
> What really made Lincoln a most ruthless and despotic tyrant wasn't those concentration camps. No, that evil Lincoln went out of his way to deny to Good, White Christian Southerners all the pleasures and profits that comes from tyrannizing Black people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Jails and prisoner of war camps are not concentration camps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Concentration camps, where Americans are imprisoned without the benefit of a trial, are concentrations camps.
> 
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Prisoner of war camps are not concentration camps. Words have meanings. If you had a better command of the English language I wouldn't need to instruct you on this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They wren't housing prisoners of war, dumbass.  The inmates were civilians who lived in Union States.
> 
> Yes, words have meanings, and you mostly don't know what they are.
Click to expand...


Prisoners in jail for violating the law are also not a concentration camp.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> What really made Lincoln a most ruthless and despotic tyrant wasn't those concentration camps. No, that evil Lincoln went out of his way to deny to Good, White Christian Southerners all the pleasures and profits that comes from tyrannizing Black people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jails and prisoner of war camps are not concentration camps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Concentration camps, where Americans are imprisoned without the benefit of a trial, are concentrations camps.
> 
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Prisoner of war camps are not concentration camps. Words have meanings. If you had a better command of the English language I wouldn't need to instruct you on this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They wren't housing prisoners of war, dumbass.  The inmates were civilians who lived in Union States.
> 
> Yes, words have meanings, and you mostly don't know what they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prisoners in jail for violating the law are also not a concentration camp.
Click to expand...

The only thing they did is criticize Lincoln, shit for brains.


----------



## gipper

rightwinger said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, and Indiana? These were not northeastern states.
> 
> The problem started when the seven Deep South states would not accept the results of a lawful election. They didn't even give Lincoln a chance to show how he would govern, even though the South still controlled the Senate and could block anything it didn't like, and even though the Republicans did not have an outright majority in the House.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the South had just accepted Lincoln there was little Lincoln could have done to end slavery. Best he could do was limit expansion into new states.
> If left on its own, slavery would have been gradually phased out and slave owners would have been compensated for their loss of “property”
> 
> But the South panicked and started a war. A war that ended slavery in four years
Click to expand...

Jesus man. Get an education. That’s all wrong.


----------



## gipper

rightwinger said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, and Indiana? These were not northeastern states.
> 
> The problem started when the seven Deep South states would not accept the results of a lawful election. They didn't even give Lincoln a chance to show how he would govern, even though the South still controlled the Senate and could block anything it didn't like, and even though the Republicans did not have an outright majority in the House.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the South had just accepted Lincoln there was little Lincoln could have done to end slavery. Best he could do was limit expansion into new states.
> If left on its own, slavery would have been gradually phased out and slave owners would have been compensated for their loss of “property”
> 
> But the South panicked and started a war. A war that ended slavery in four years
Click to expand...

Jesus man. Get an education. That’s all wrong.


----------



## gipper

rightwinger said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, and Indiana? These were not northeastern states.
> 
> The problem started when the seven Deep South states would not accept the results of a lawful election. They didn't even give Lincoln a chance to show how he would govern, even though the South still controlled the Senate and could block anything it didn't like, and even though the Republicans did not have an outright majority in the House.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the South had just accepted Lincoln there was little Lincoln could have done to end slavery. Best he could do was limit expansion into new states.
> If left on its own, slavery would have been gradually phased out and slave owners would have been compensated for their loss of “property”
> 
> But the South panicked and started a war. A war that ended slavery in four years
Click to expand...

Jesus man. Get an education. That’s all wrong.


----------



## rightwinger

bripat9643 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> The basis for keeping slaves is that the might to do so is present. Any means to end slavery is as justifiable as slavery itself.
> 
> 
> 
> Murdering 850,000 people is not a justifiable means to end slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most countries gave up slavery without a fuss
> 
> We demanded 600,000 dead
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, Lincoln demanded 850,000 dead.  You are right about one thing, if Lincoln only wanted to end slavery, he could have done it without a single life being lost.  The cost of buying all the slaves would have been cheaper than the cost of the war.
Click to expand...


Lincoln was not the one who insisted on forming a nation where 40 percent of the population was in slavery 
Lincoln was not the one who preferred war to letting people live free


----------



## rightwinger

gipper said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, and Indiana? These were not northeastern states.
> 
> The problem started when the seven Deep South states would not accept the results of a lawful election. They didn't even give Lincoln a chance to show how he would govern, even though the South still controlled the Senate and could block anything it didn't like, and even though the Republicans did not have an outright majority in the House.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the South had just accepted Lincoln there was little Lincoln could have done to end slavery. Best he could do was limit expansion into new states.
> If left on its own, slavery would have been gradually phased out and slave owners would have been compensated for their loss of “property”
> 
> But the South panicked and started a war. A war that ended slavery in four years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jesus man. Get an education. That’s all wrong.
Click to expand...

Refute it


----------



## gipper

rightwinger said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, and Indiana? These were not northeastern states.
> 
> The problem started when the seven Deep South states would not accept the results of a lawful election. They didn't even give Lincoln a chance to show how he would govern, even though the South still controlled the Senate and could block anything it didn't like, and even though the Republicans did not have an outright majority in the House.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the South had just accepted Lincoln there was little Lincoln could have done to end slavery. Best he could do was limit expansion into new states.
> If left on its own, slavery would have been gradually phased out and slave owners would have been compensated for their loss of “property”
> 
> But the South panicked and started a war. A war that ended slavery in four years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jesus man. Get an education. That’s all wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Refute it
Click to expand...

I’ve done so many times before with you, but apparently you never learn. So, I give up.


----------



## rightwinger

gipper said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, and Indiana? These were not northeastern states.
> 
> The problem started when the seven Deep South states would not accept the results of a lawful election. They didn't even give Lincoln a chance to show how he would govern, even though the South still controlled the Senate and could block anything it didn't like, and even though the Republicans did not have an outright majority in the House.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the South had just accepted Lincoln there was little Lincoln could have done to end slavery. Best he could do was limit expansion into new states.
> If left on its own, slavery would have been gradually phased out and slave owners would have been compensated for their loss of “property”
> 
> But the South panicked and started a war. A war that ended slavery in four years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jesus man. Get an education. That’s all wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Refute it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’ve done so many times before with you, but apparently you never learn. So, I give up.
Click to expand...

Refute what I said or STFU


----------



## gipper

rightwinger said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> The basis for keeping slaves is that the might to do so is present. Any means to end slavery is as justifiable as slavery itself.
> 
> 
> 
> Murdering 850,000 people is not a justifiable means to end slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most countries gave up slavery without a fuss
> 
> We demanded 600,000 dead
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, Lincoln demanded 850,000 dead.  You are right about one thing, if Lincoln only wanted to end slavery, he could have done it without a single life being lost.  The cost of buying all the slaves would have been cheaper than the cost of the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lincoln was not the one who insisted on forming a nation where 40 percent of the population was in slavery
> Lincoln was not the one who preferred war to letting people live free
Click to expand...

Yet he chose war. He warred on fellow Americans. The exact definition of treason.


----------



## gipper

rightwinger said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, and Indiana? These were not northeastern states.
> 
> The problem started when the seven Deep South states would not accept the results of a lawful election. They didn't even give Lincoln a chance to show how he would govern, even though the South still controlled the Senate and could block anything it didn't like, and even though the Republicans did not have an outright majority in the House.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the South had just accepted Lincoln there was little Lincoln could have done to end slavery. Best he could do was limit expansion into new states.
> If left on its own, slavery would have been gradually phased out and slave owners would have been compensated for their loss of “property”
> 
> But the South panicked and started a war. A war that ended slavery in four years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jesus man. Get an education. That’s all wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Refute it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’ve done so many times before with you, but apparently you never learn. So, I give up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Refute what I said or STFU
Click to expand...

He was much worse than Benedict Arnold, who all Americans know was a traitor.


----------



## rightwinger

gipper said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> The basis for keeping slaves is that the might to do so is present. Any means to end slavery is as justifiable as slavery itself.
> 
> 
> 
> Murdering 850,000 people is not a justifiable means to end slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most countries gave up slavery without a fuss
> 
> We demanded 600,000 dead
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, Lincoln demanded 850,000 dead.  You are right about one thing, if Lincoln only wanted to end slavery, he could have done it without a single life being lost.  The cost of buying all the slaves would have been cheaper than the cost of the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lincoln was not the one who insisted on forming a nation where 40 percent of the population was in slavery
> Lincoln was not the one who preferred war to letting people live free
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet he chose war. He warred on fellow Americans. The exact definition of treason.
Click to expand...

Firing on US troops was treason


----------



## rightwinger

gipper said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the South had just accepted Lincoln there was little Lincoln could have done to end slavery. Best he could do was limit expansion into new states.
> If left on its own, slavery would have been gradually phased out and slave owners would have been compensated for their loss of “property”
> 
> But the South panicked and started a war. A war that ended slavery in four years
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus man. Get an education. That’s all wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Refute it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’ve done so many times before with you, but apparently you never learn. So, I give up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Refute what I said or STFU
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He was much worse than Benedict Arnold, who all Americans know was a traitor.
Click to expand...

Refute what I said or STFU

Changing the subject does not help you


----------



## there4eyeM

rightwinger said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Murdering 850,000 people is not a justifiable means to end slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> Most countries gave up slavery without a fuss
> 
> We demanded 600,000 dead
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, Lincoln demanded 850,000 dead.  You are right about one thing, if Lincoln only wanted to end slavery, he could have done it without a single life being lost.  The cost of buying all the slaves would have been cheaper than the cost of the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lincoln was not the one who insisted on forming a nation where 40 percent of the population was in slavery
> Lincoln was not the one who preferred war to letting people live free
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet he chose war. He warred on fellow Americans. The exact definition of treason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Firing on US troops was treason
Click to expand...

A violent criminal may be stopped by police who use violence. That does not make the police criminal.
Insurrection invites attempts to repress it. If it isn't strong enough to win, that doesn't make those who repress it insurrectionists.


----------



## bripat9643

rightwinger said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> The basis for keeping slaves is that the might to do so is present. Any means to end slavery is as justifiable as slavery itself.
> 
> 
> 
> Murdering 850,000 people is not a justifiable means to end slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most countries gave up slavery without a fuss
> 
> We demanded 600,000 dead
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, Lincoln demanded 850,000 dead.  You are right about one thing, if Lincoln only wanted to end slavery, he could have done it without a single life being lost.  The cost of buying all the slaves would have been cheaper than the cost of the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lincoln was not the one who insisted on forming a nation where 40 percent of the population was in slavery
> Lincoln was not the one who preferred war to letting people live free
Click to expand...

Lincoln is the one who invaded Virginia.  That's all that matters.


----------



## bripat9643

rightwinger said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Murdering 850,000 people is not a justifiable means to end slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> Most countries gave up slavery without a fuss
> 
> We demanded 600,000 dead
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, Lincoln demanded 850,000 dead.  You are right about one thing, if Lincoln only wanted to end slavery, he could have done it without a single life being lost.  The cost of buying all the slaves would have been cheaper than the cost of the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lincoln was not the one who insisted on forming a nation where 40 percent of the population was in slavery
> Lincoln was not the one who preferred war to letting people live free
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet he chose war. He warred on fellow Americans. The exact definition of treason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Firing on US troops was treason
Click to expand...

Wrong.   If they are trespassing on the sovereign territory of another country, then they deserve what they get.


----------



## rightwinger

bripat9643 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most countries gave up slavery without a fuss
> 
> We demanded 600,000 dead
> 
> 
> 
> No, Lincoln demanded 850,000 dead.  You are right about one thing, if Lincoln only wanted to end slavery, he could have done it without a single life being lost.  The cost of buying all the slaves would have been cheaper than the cost of the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lincoln was not the one who insisted on forming a nation where 40 percent of the population was in slavery
> Lincoln was not the one who preferred war to letting people live free
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet he chose war. He warred on fellow Americans. The exact definition of treason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Firing on US troops was treason
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.   If they are trespassing on the sovereign territory of another country, then they deserve what they get.
Click to expand...

Wasn’t their territory
It was a US Military installation


----------



## bripat9643

rightwinger said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, Lincoln demanded 850,000 dead.  You are right about one thing, if Lincoln only wanted to end slavery, he could have done it without a single life being lost.  The cost of buying all the slaves would have been cheaper than the cost of the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln was not the one who insisted on forming a nation where 40 percent of the population was in slavery
> Lincoln was not the one who preferred war to letting people live free
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet he chose war. He warred on fellow Americans. The exact definition of treason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Firing on US troops was treason
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.   If they are trespassing on the sovereign territory of another country, then they deserve what they get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wasn’t their territory
> It was a US Military installation
Click to expand...

It was their territory.  It just wasn't their property.  US doesn't have the right to occupy foreign territory, moron.


----------



## mikegriffith1

rightwinger said:


> Firing on US troops was treason



Only if you reject one of the core principles of the American Revolution: the right of peaceful separation, and only if you ignore the fact that the founding fathers forbade the federal government from using force to maintain the Union. If the Republicans had recognized these two core American principles, they would have withdrawn the federal garrison from Fort Sumter and would have accepted the Confederacy's offer for peaceful relations, which offer included an offer to pay compensation for federal forts in the South, to pay the South's share of the national debt, and to establish most-favored-nation trading status.

Now, again, all that being said, Jefferson Davis wrecked the chance for eventual peaceful separation and de facto recognition, or for a voluntary reunion after tempers had cooled, by cutting off the garrison's food supply and then firing on the fort in response to Lincoln's notice that federal ships would be delivering food to the garrison. As eminent Lincoln scholar J. G. Randall noted, there is good evidence that Lincoln was willing to maintain the status quo on Fort Sumter, to avoid a showdown there, and to risk de facto acceptance of the Deep South's independence, but Davis ruined all that by forcing Lincoln's hand by cutting off the garrison's food supply.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jails and prisoner of war camps are not concentration camps.
> 
> 
> 
> Concentration camps, where Americans are imprisoned without the benefit of a trial, are concentrations camps.
> 
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Prisoner of war camps are not concentration camps. Words have meanings. If you had a better command of the English language I wouldn't need to instruct you on this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They wren't housing prisoners of war, dumbass.  The inmates were civilians who lived in Union States.
> 
> Yes, words have meanings, and you mostly don't know what they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prisoners in jail for violating the law are also not a concentration camp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only thing they did is criticize Lincoln, shit for brains.
Click to expand...



Now we're back to the legal interpretations of a brainless scumbag on the internet.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Concentration camps, where Americans are imprisoned without the benefit of a trial, are concentrations camps.
> 
> .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prisoner of war camps are not concentration camps. Words have meanings. If you had a better command of the English language I wouldn't need to instruct you on this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They wren't housing prisoners of war, dumbass.  The inmates were civilians who lived in Union States.
> 
> Yes, words have meanings, and you mostly don't know what they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prisoners in jail for violating the law are also not a concentration camp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only thing they did is criticize Lincoln, shit for brains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Now we're back to the legal interpretations of a brainless scumbag on the internet.
Click to expand...

Nope.  I simply post facts, you Stalinist asshole.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prisoner of war camps are not concentration camps. Words have meanings. If you had a better command of the English language I wouldn't need to instruct you on this.
> 
> 
> 
> They wren't housing prisoners of war, dumbass.  The inmates were civilians who lived in Union States.
> 
> Yes, words have meanings, and you mostly don't know what they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prisoners in jail for violating the law are also not a concentration camp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only thing they did is criticize Lincoln, shit for brains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Now we're back to the legal interpretations of a brainless scumbag on the internet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  I simply post facts, .....
Click to expand...


You wouldn’t know a fact if it dropped you on your head, wannabe.


----------



## boilermaker55

See TDS is strong in the weak-minded and weak-willed.







Jitss617 said:


> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who ever believes that BS you posted would believe that tRUMP was chosen by god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tradewinds81186 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The Northeast didn't win the war on liberalism, they won on industry, which they no longer have.
> 
> 2. The Northeast didn't win the Civil war on poverty, The Northeast won the Civil War, on money and economics, TEXAS now as big as wall street, and will surpass it very shortly.
> 
> 3. The Northeast didn't win the Civil war on political bullshit, the northeast won the civil war on Action, through repeated defeats and comebacks and sheer guts.
> 
> 4. The Northeast didn't win the civil war by banning guns, they won the civil war by having more guns and larger flank.
> 
> 5. The Northeast didn't win the civil war with Cowardism or Unfitness, they won the Civil by having more men in the military.
> 
> 6. The Northeast didn't win the Civil War by having a 60 % high school drop out rate, and 40 % illiteracy rate,  they won the civil war, by having more educated people, educated by the standards of the time, which they certainly do not have today.
> 
> 7. The Northeast didn't win the civil war by laziness, but by having a low unemployment rate, or what would have been a low unemployment rate if such things were measured back then.
> 
> Today the south would win the civil war because today the south is where the industry and the economy is, and the weapons, and the military personnel, and the literacy is at.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While much of what you posted is true, you ignore the large population of semi-literate irish immigrants that had flooded the Northeast and were used as cannon fodder.
> 
> Also, to claim the south would win today is to assume that the war would be fought today.  There is no slavery and no single issue to push for a seccession.
> 
> As a lifelong southerner, let me say I am proud to be an American and will do whatever it takes to remain one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was never based on slavery you num nuts View attachment 300825
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He was
Click to expand...


----------



## boilermaker55

You have TDS, how would you know that is truth or not.
Some more lies for you to absorb from "tRUMPenFuherer"...
*Trump says 'with me, there's no lying' -- and makes 14 false claims about impeachment and Ukraine*
President Trump says 'with me, there's no lying' -- and makes 14 false claims about impeachment and Ukraine - CNNPolitics



bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You dropped out too soon, brainless.
> 
> 
> 
> I see you've given up all pretense of proving your imbecile claims.
> 
> Thanks for conceding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stomping your feet and insisting won’t change History, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Repeating your idiocies 1000 times won't make them true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I’m informing you about the facts of History. You are engaging in the most absurd revisionism, and you’ve repeated your nonsense more than 1000 times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're reporting fantasies.  Nothing you have posted is true.
Click to expand...


----------



## rightwinger

bripat9643 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln was not the one who insisted on forming a nation where 40 percent of the population was in slavery
> Lincoln was not the one who preferred war to letting people live free
> 
> 
> 
> Yet he chose war. He warred on fellow Americans. The exact definition of treason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Firing on US troops was treason
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.   If they are trespassing on the sovereign territory of another country, then they deserve what they get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wasn’t their territory
> It was a US Military installation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was their territory.  It just wasn't their property.  US doesn't have the right to occupy foreign territory, moron.
Click to expand...


Evidently, it is not

Ft Sumter STILL belongs to the Federal Government


----------



## bripat9643

boilermaker55 said:


> You have TDS, how would you know that is truth or not.
> Some more lies for you to absorb from "tRUMPenFuherer"...
> *Trump says 'with me, there's no lying' -- and makes 14 false claims about impeachment and Ukraine*
> President Trump says 'with me, there's no lying' -- and makes 14 false claims about impeachment and Ukraine - CNNPolitics
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see you've given up all pretense of proving your imbecile claims.
> 
> Thanks for conceding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stomping your feet and insisting won’t change History, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Repeating your idiocies 1000 times won't make them true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I’m informing you about the facts of History. You are engaging in the most absurd revisionism, and you’ve repeated your nonsense more than 1000 times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're reporting fantasies.  Nothing you have posted is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Your article is mostly lies, douchebag.


----------



## bripat9643

rightwinger said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet he chose war. He warred on fellow Americans. The exact definition of treason.
> 
> 
> 
> Firing on US troops was treason
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.   If they are trespassing on the sovereign territory of another country, then they deserve what they get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wasn’t their territory
> It was a US Military installation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was their territory.  It just wasn't their property.  US doesn't have the right to occupy foreign territory, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evidently, it is not
> 
> Ft Sumter STILL belongs to the Federal Government
Click to expand...

Thanks for proving you don't know the difference between property and territory.  Ft Sumter is within the boundaries of South Carolina and subject to its legal jurisdiction.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Firing on US troops was treason
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.   If they are trespassing on the sovereign territory of another country, then they deserve what they get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wasn’t their territory
> It was a US Military installation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was their territory.  It just wasn't their property.  US doesn't have the right to occupy foreign territory, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evidently, it is not
> 
> Ft Sumter STILL belongs to the Federal Government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for proving you don't know the difference between property and territory.  Ft Sumter is within the boundaries of South Carolina and subject to its legal jurisdiction.
Click to expand...


SC is within the boundaries of the United States of America.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.   If they are trespassing on the sovereign territory of another country, then they deserve what they get.
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn’t their territory
> It was a US Military installation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was their territory.  It just wasn't their property.  US doesn't have the right to occupy foreign territory, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evidently, it is not
> 
> Ft Sumter STILL belongs to the Federal Government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for proving you don't know the difference between property and territory.  Ft Sumter is within the boundaries of South Carolina and subject to its legal jurisdiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SC is within the boundaries of the United States of America.
Click to expand...

It was not within the boundaries of the United States of America after it seceded, shit for brains.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn’t their territory
> It was a US Military installation
> 
> 
> 
> It was their territory.  It just wasn't their property.  US doesn't have the right to occupy foreign territory, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evidently, it is not
> 
> Ft Sumter STILL belongs to the Federal Government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for proving you don't know the difference between property and territory.  Ft Sumter is within the boundaries of South Carolina and subject to its legal jurisdiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SC is within the boundaries of the United States of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was not within the boundaries of the United States of America after it seceded, ....
Click to expand...



Wrong. That was not legal or legitimate. It was, as it remains, a part of the United States of America.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was their territory.  It just wasn't their property.  US doesn't have the right to occupy foreign territory, moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidently, it is not
> 
> Ft Sumter STILL belongs to the Federal Government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for proving you don't know the difference between property and territory.  Ft Sumter is within the boundaries of South Carolina and subject to its legal jurisdiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SC is within the boundaries of the United States of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was not within the boundaries of the United States of America after it seceded, ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. That was not legal or legitimate. It was, as it remains, a part of the United States of America.
Click to expand...

Of course, you can't cite any law that it violates.  All you can do is stamp your foot and insist that your fantasies are legitimate.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evidently, it is not
> 
> Ft Sumter STILL belongs to the Federal Government
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving you don't know the difference between property and territory.  Ft Sumter is within the boundaries of South Carolina and subject to its legal jurisdiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SC is within the boundaries of the United States of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was not within the boundaries of the United States of America after it seceded, ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. That was not legal or legitimate. It was, as it remains, a part of the United States of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course, you can't cite any law that it violates.  All you can do is stamp your foot and insist that your fantasies are legitimate.
Click to expand...



The Supreme Court ruled on this question, which brings us back to their interpretation of the law vs ignorant nobody on the internet. You lose AGAIN.


----------



## there4eyeM

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving you don't know the difference between property and territory.  Ft Sumter is within the boundaries of South Carolina and subject to its legal jurisdiction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SC is within the boundaries of the United States of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was not within the boundaries of the United States of America after it seceded, ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. That was not legal or legitimate. It was, as it remains, a part of the United States of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course, you can't cite any law that it violates.  All you can do is stamp your foot and insist that your fantasies are legitimate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court ruled on this question, which brings us back to their interpretation of the law vs ignorant nobody on the internet. You lose AGAIN.
Click to expand...

He has to be paid for this somehow. Why would anyone continue with all this so repetitively and erroneously unless lucre were involved somewhere? What possibly could otherwise be his recompense?


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving you don't know the difference between property and territory.  Ft Sumter is within the boundaries of South Carolina and subject to its legal jurisdiction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SC is within the boundaries of the United States of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was not within the boundaries of the United States of America after it seceded, ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. That was not legal or legitimate. It was, as it remains, a part of the United States of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course, you can't cite any law that it violates.  All you can do is stamp your foot and insist that your fantasies are legitimate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court ruled on this question, which brings us back to their interpretation of the law vs ignorant nobody on the internet. You lose AGAIN.
Click to expand...

We've been over this ground already.  At the time of the Texas v White decision, the court was packed with Lincoln appointed hacks, and their decision was based on multiple fallacies, like the claim that Texas was a state of the union at a time when it had no Senators and no Congressman.

You keep dragging up the same old debunked arguments time and time again.


----------



## bripat9643

there4eyeM said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> SC is within the boundaries of the United States of America.
> 
> 
> 
> It was not within the boundaries of the United States of America after it seceded, ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. That was not legal or legitimate. It was, as it remains, a part of the United States of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course, you can't cite any law that it violates.  All you can do is stamp your foot and insist that your fantasies are legitimate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court ruled on this question, which brings us back to their interpretation of the law vs ignorant nobody on the internet. You lose AGAIN.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He has to be paid for this somehow. Why would anyone continue with all this so repetitively and erroneously unless lucre were involved somewhere? What possibly could otherwise be his recompense?
Click to expand...

Well, we know the reason for your obstinacy:  shear stupidity.


----------



## gipper

rightwinger said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet he chose war. He warred on fellow Americans. The exact definition of treason.
> 
> 
> 
> Firing on US troops was treason
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.   If they are trespassing on the sovereign territory of another country, then they deserve what they get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wasn’t their territory
> It was a US Military installation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was their territory.  It just wasn't their property.  US doesn't have the right to occupy foreign territory, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evidently, it is not
> 
> Ft Sumter STILL belongs to the Federal Government
Click to expand...

So, your point is since the SC militia fired on Sumter, in which no one was killed or injured, Lincoln was justified in attacking all the seceding states causing 850k deaths and massive destruction.  Are you stupid? 




RHETORICAL


----------



## bripat9643

gipper said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Firing on US troops was treason
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.   If they are trespassing on the sovereign territory of another country, then they deserve what they get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wasn’t their territory
> It was a US Military installation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was their territory.  It just wasn't their property.  US doesn't have the right to occupy foreign territory, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evidently, it is not
> 
> Ft Sumter STILL belongs to the Federal Government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, your point is since the SC militia fired on Sumter, in which no one was killed or injured, Lincoln was justified in attacking all the seceding states causing 850k deaths and massive destruction.  Are you stupid?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RHETORICAL
Click to expand...

*"Are you stupid?"*

Yes he is!


----------



## boilermaker55

Once again we see the TDS boys falling in line for tRUMPenFuherer.
By the way, lick your lips and so the shit stains from tRUMPS ass is not still showing. Have a little dignity if you can find any. It is mixing with the sperm you suck down.
Butt muncher.



bripat9643 said:


> boilermaker55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have TDS, how would you know that is truth or not.
> Some more lies for you to absorb from "tRUMPenFuherer"...
> *Trump says 'with me, there's no lying' -- and makes 14 false claims about impeachment and Ukraine*
> President Trump says 'with me, there's no lying' -- and makes 14 false claims about impeachment and Ukraine - CNNPolitics
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stomping your feet and insisting won’t change History, dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> Repeating your idiocies 1000 times won't make them true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I’m informing you about the facts of History. You are engaging in the most absurd revisionism, and you’ve repeated your nonsense more than 1000 times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're reporting fantasies.  Nothing you have posted is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your article is mostly lies, douchebag.
Click to expand...


----------



## there4eyeM

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was their territory.  It just wasn't their property.  US doesn't have the right to occupy foreign territory, moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidently, it is not
> 
> Ft Sumter STILL belongs to the Federal Government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for proving you don't know the difference between property and territory.  Ft Sumter is within the boundaries of South Carolina and subject to its legal jurisdiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SC is within the boundaries of the United States of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was not within the boundaries of the United States of America after it seceded, ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. That was not legal or legitimate. It was, as it remains, a part of the United States of America.
Click to expand...

Maybe S.C. identified as being trans-national.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> SC is within the boundaries of the United States of America.
> 
> 
> 
> It was not within the boundaries of the United States of America after it seceded, ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. That was not legal or legitimate. It was, as it remains, a part of the United States of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course, you can't cite any law that it violates.  All you can do is stamp your foot and insist that your fantasies are legitimate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court ruled on this question, which brings us back to their interpretation of the law vs ignorant nobody on the internet. You lose AGAIN.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We've been over this ground already.  At the time of the Texas v White decision, the court was packed with Lincoln appointed hacks, and their decision was based on multiple fallacies, like the claim that Texas was a state of the union at a time when it had no Senators and no Congressman.
> 
> You keep dragging up the same old debunked arguments time and time again.
Click to expand...


And again, the uneducated nobody on the internet seeks to discredit real legal experts. Your bitter hatred for my country grants your ignorant ass not one iota of legitimacy, and obviously no understanding of History.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was not within the boundaries of the United States of America after it seceded, ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. That was not legal or legitimate. It was, as it remains, a part of the United States of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course, you can't cite any law that it violates.  All you can do is stamp your foot and insist that your fantasies are legitimate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court ruled on this question, which brings us back to their interpretation of the law vs ignorant nobody on the internet. You lose AGAIN.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We've been over this ground already.  At the time of the Texas v White decision, the court was packed with Lincoln appointed hacks, and their decision was based on multiple fallacies, like the claim that Texas was a state of the union at a time when it had no Senators and no Congressman.
> 
> You keep dragging up the same old debunked arguments time and time again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And again, the uneducated nobody on the internet seeks to discredit real legal experts. Your bitter hatred for my country grants your ignorant ass not one iota of legitimacy, and obviously no understanding of History.
Click to expand...

It takes a special kind of stupid to believe that no one can contest the validity of a Supreme Court decision.


----------



## there4eyeM

Perpetual.
link: Definition of perpetual | Dictionary.com
*perpetual*
[ per-pech-oo-uhl ]
*adjective*
continuing or enduring forever; everlasting.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. That was not legal or legitimate. It was, as it remains, a part of the United States of America.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, you can't cite any law that it violates.  All you can do is stamp your foot and insist that your fantasies are legitimate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court ruled on this question, which brings us back to their interpretation of the law vs ignorant nobody on the internet. You lose AGAIN.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We've been over this ground already.  At the time of the Texas v White decision, the court was packed with Lincoln appointed hacks, and their decision was based on multiple fallacies, like the claim that Texas was a state of the union at a time when it had no Senators and no Congressman.
> 
> You keep dragging up the same old debunked arguments time and time again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And again, the uneducated nobody on the internet seeks to discredit real legal experts. Your bitter hatred for my country grants your ignorant ass not one iota of legitimacy, and obviously no understanding of History.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It takes a special kind of stupid to believe that no one can contest the validity of a Supreme Court decision.
Click to expand...



You are a special kind of stupid if you think your knowledge of the law in any way approaches that of a Justice of the US Supreme Court. You're just a bitter little nobody stomping his feet in impotent frustration. Over 150 years and no SC, liberal of conservative, has seen fit to revisit or overturn the ruling in question, you stupid fuck.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, you can't cite any law that it violates.  All you can do is stamp your foot and insist that your fantasies are legitimate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court ruled on this question, which brings us back to their interpretation of the law vs ignorant nobody on the internet. You lose AGAIN.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We've been over this ground already.  At the time of the Texas v White decision, the court was packed with Lincoln appointed hacks, and their decision was based on multiple fallacies, like the claim that Texas was a state of the union at a time when it had no Senators and no Congressman.
> 
> You keep dragging up the same old debunked arguments time and time again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And again, the uneducated nobody on the internet seeks to discredit real legal experts. Your bitter hatred for my country grants your ignorant ass not one iota of legitimacy, and obviously no understanding of History.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It takes a special kind of stupid to believe that no one can contest the validity of a Supreme Court decision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are a special kind of stupid if you think your knowledge of the law in any way approaches that of a Justice of the US Supreme Court. You're just a bitter little nobody stomping his feet in impotent frustration. Over 150 years and no SC, liberal of conservative, has seen fit to revisit or overturn the ruling in question, you stupid fuck.
Click to expand...

Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.  You lack the capacity to commit logic.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court ruled on this question, which brings us back to their interpretation of the law vs ignorant nobody on the internet. You lose AGAIN.
> 
> 
> 
> We've been over this ground already.  At the time of the Texas v White decision, the court was packed with Lincoln appointed hacks, and their decision was based on multiple fallacies, like the claim that Texas was a state of the union at a time when it had no Senators and no Congressman.
> 
> You keep dragging up the same old debunked arguments time and time again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And again, the uneducated nobody on the internet seeks to discredit real legal experts. Your bitter hatred for my country grants your ignorant ass not one iota of legitimacy, and obviously no understanding of History.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It takes a special kind of stupid to believe that no one can contest the validity of a Supreme Court decision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are a special kind of stupid if you think your knowledge of the law in any way approaches that of a Justice of the US Supreme Court. You're just a bitter little nobody stomping his feet in impotent frustration. Over 150 years and no SC, liberal of conservative, has seen fit to revisit or overturn the ruling in question, you stupid fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.  You lack the capacity to commit logic.
Click to expand...



Too bad you don't understand that particular fallacy, or logic in general.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've been over this ground already.  At the time of the Texas v White decision, the court was packed with Lincoln appointed hacks, and their decision was based on multiple fallacies, like the claim that Texas was a state of the union at a time when it had no Senators and no Congressman.
> 
> You keep dragging up the same old debunked arguments time and time again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And again, the uneducated nobody on the internet seeks to discredit real legal experts. Your bitter hatred for my country grants your ignorant ass not one iota of legitimacy, and obviously no understanding of History.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It takes a special kind of stupid to believe that no one can contest the validity of a Supreme Court decision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are a special kind of stupid if you think your knowledge of the law in any way approaches that of a Justice of the US Supreme Court. You're just a bitter little nobody stomping his feet in impotent frustration. Over 150 years and no SC, liberal of conservative, has seen fit to revisit or overturn the ruling in question, you stupid fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.  You lack the capacity to commit logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad you don't understand that particular fallacy, or logic in general.
Click to expand...

You're the one who keeps doing it, but I'm the one who doesn't understand it?


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> And again, the uneducated nobody on the internet seeks to discredit real legal experts. Your bitter hatred for my country grants your ignorant ass not one iota of legitimacy, and obviously no understanding of History.
> 
> 
> 
> It takes a special kind of stupid to believe that no one can contest the validity of a Supreme Court decision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are a special kind of stupid if you think your knowledge of the law in any way approaches that of a Justice of the US Supreme Court. You're just a bitter little nobody stomping his feet in impotent frustration. Over 150 years and no SC, liberal of conservative, has seen fit to revisit or overturn the ruling in question, you stupid fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.  You lack the capacity to commit logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad you don't understand that particular fallacy, or logic in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .... I'm the one who doesn't understand it?
Click to expand...


That is correct.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It takes a special kind of stupid to believe that no one can contest the validity of a Supreme Court decision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a special kind of stupid if you think your knowledge of the law in any way approaches that of a Justice of the US Supreme Court. You're just a bitter little nobody stomping his feet in impotent frustration. Over 150 years and no SC, liberal of conservative, has seen fit to revisit or overturn the ruling in question, you stupid fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.  You lack the capacity to commit logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad you don't understand that particular fallacy, or logic in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .... I'm the one who doesn't understand it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is correct.
Click to expand...

So tell us again, dumbass, how is your theory that secession is illegal proven?


----------



## Unkotare

Supporting a claim by reference to the findings of an expert source is not a logical fallacy, you idiot.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> Supporting a claim by reference to the findings of an expert source is not a logical fallacy, you idiot.


Yes it is, moron.  What do you believe "appeal to authority" means?


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Supporting a claim by reference to the findings of an expert source is not a logical fallacy, you idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is, moron.  What do you believe "appeal to authority" means?
Click to expand...



I knew you had no idea what it means.  Idiot


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Supporting a claim by reference to the findings of an expert source is not a logical fallacy, you idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is, moron.  What do you believe "appeal to authority" means?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I knew you had no idea what it means.  Idiot
Click to expand...

Whenever you claim something is true because so-and-so says it's true, you've committed a logical fallacy.  No one is infallible, moron.  You believe the SC can't be wrong.  The truth is that yes it can.  The SC has been wrong numerous times.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Supporting a claim by reference to the findings of an expert source is not a logical fallacy, you idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is, moron.  What do you believe "appeal to authority" means?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I knew you had no idea what it means.  Idiot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whenever you claim something is true because so-and-so says it's true, you've committed a logical fallacy.  No one is infallible, moron.  You believe the SC can't be wrong.  The truth is that yes it can.  The SC has been wrong numerous times.
Click to expand...


Now you’re trying to use a straw man, idiot. Next time don’t try to use terminology you don’t understand.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Supporting a claim by reference to the findings of an expert source is not a logical fallacy, you idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is, moron.  What do you believe "appeal to authority" means?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I knew you had no idea what it means.  Idiot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whenever you claim something is true because so-and-so says it's true, you've committed a logical fallacy.  No one is infallible, moron.  You believe the SC can't be wrong.  The truth is that yes it can.  The SC has been wrong numerous times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you’re trying to use a straw man, idiot. Next time don’t try to use terminology you don’t understand.
Click to expand...

wrong, idiot.  You claimed that if the SC made a decision about the Constitution, then that is the infallible truth about it.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Supporting a claim by reference to the findings of an expert source is not a logical fallacy, you idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is, moron.  What do you believe "appeal to authority" means?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I knew you had no idea what it means.  Idiot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whenever you claim something is true because so-and-so says it's true, you've committed a logical fallacy.  No one is infallible, moron.  You believe the SC can't be wrong.  The truth is that yes it can.  The SC has been wrong numerous times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you’re trying to use a straw man, idiot. Next time don’t try to use terminology you don’t understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong, idiot.  You claimed that if the SC made a decision about the Constitution, then that is the infallible truth about it.
Click to expand...



Your straw man, brainless.


----------



## mikegriffith1

Texas v. White was a very biased, pre-determined, uncritical, and superficial decision made by a Republican-controlled Supreme Court at a time when feelings were still very raw over the Civil War. The court simply ignored the mass of evidence that the Union was supposed to be voluntary, that ratification was not mandated as permanent, and that the Constitution does not even describe the Union as perpetual/permanent. The decision also ignored the writings of two of early America's greatest legal giants: William Rawle and George Tucker, both of whom said that secession was an implied and understood constitutional right and that to deny that right would be to reject America's founding principles.

Secession is a lot like divorce. Sometimes the right of divorce is used for invalid/petty/immoral reasons, but no one suggests that we force the couple to stay together, even if one of the spouses opposes the separation.

As unnecessary, foolish, and unjustified as the Deep South's secession was, if the Republicans had not reacted so combatively and had respected the Deep South's right to leave, secession would have been limited to seven states, and those states might well have decided to rejoin the Union once tempers cooled down and Deep South leaders saw that Lincoln was not their enemy.


----------



## there4eyeM

The Constitution describes an attempt to make the Perpetual Union "more perfect". There was no negation stated of the original, permanent status.
That argument is more linguistically valid than the refutations so far submitted. In any case, the difference became of opinions, then degenerated into arms, unfortunately and unnecessarily. It was those attempting to leave the Union who precipitated this catastrophe. It was their attachment to the inhuman institute of slavery that led them to the attempt. They lost, and deservedly so.


----------



## mikegriffith1

there4eyeM said:


> The Constitution describes an attempt to make the Perpetual Union "more perfect". There was no negation stated of the original, permanent status.



"More perfect" does not equal permanent. The framers of the Articles of Confederation constitution specified several times therein that the union it was forming was perpetual. The framers of the federal constitution did not so specify, precisely because they regarded it as an experiment that might fall apart through de-ratification. 

Furthermore, I again point out that the federal framers made it clear that the federal union was *not* to be maintained by force. This subject came up in the constitutional debates, and the idea of a union maintained by force was expressly rejected.

Proof that the Union was Supposed to be Voluntary



there4eyeM said:


> In any case, the difference became of opinions, then degenerated into arms, unfortunately and unnecessarily. It was those attempting to leave the Union who precipitated this catastrophe. It was their attachment to the inhuman institute of slavery that led them to the attempt. They lost, and deservedly so.



I pretty much agree with you here, but we need to be careful to point out that four of the 11 Confederate states did not secede over concerns about slavery. When the four Upper South states voted on secession the first time, when it was expressly mainly over slavery (and secondarily the tariff), they rejected secession by wide margins. Those four states only joined in April, after the Republicans made it clear that they were going to invade the seceded states (and would therefore have to march through the Upper South states). 

I agree that the Deep Southern pro-slavery hotheads, such as Rhett and Wigfall, pushed the Deep South states to secede, partly by grossly distorting Lincoln's views and intentions and conjuring up non-existent Northern plans to carry out more John Brown raids. The irony is that Rhett and many of his associates honestly believed the slaves were better off in bondage than free. These guys had a moral blindspot that kept them from seeing that no matter how humanely slavery was administered in most cases, the fact that at least 5% of slaves were brutalized meant that, at the bare minimum, 175,000 slaves were enduring cruelty, which was a human catastrophe and justified the extinction of slavery as soon as possible.


----------



## there4eyeM

The more perfect Perpetual Union was not maintained by force. A forceful rebellion was put down.


----------



## bripat9643

there4eyeM said:


> The Constitution describes an attempt to make the Perpetual Union "more perfect". There was no negation stated of the original, permanent status.
> That argument is more linguistically valid than the refutations so far submitted. In any case, the difference became of opinions, then degenerated into arms, unfortunately and unnecessarily. It was those attempting to leave the Union who precipitated this catastrophe. It was their attachment to the inhuman institute of slavery that led them to the attempt. They lost, and deservedly so.


Man, you are so fucking desperate it's hilarious.  None of what you claim has any basis in reality.  The Articles of Confederate became waste paper the minute the Constitution was approved.  

Lincoln started the war.   Nothing in the Constitution bars secession.  Those facts are indisputable.


----------



## bripat9643

there4eyeM said:


> The more perfect Perpetual Union was not maintained by force. A forceful rebellion was put down.


How was it a "forceful rebellion," when none of the confederate states ever set foot in a Union State?  You're obviously one of those idiots who believes wives deserve to be beaten when they do something their husbands don't like.


----------



## there4eyeM

Perpetual.
link: Definition of perpetual | Dictionary.com
*perpetual*
[ per-pech-oo-uhl ]
*adjective*
continuing or enduring forever; everlasting.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is, moron.  What do you believe "appeal to authority" means?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I knew you had no idea what it means.  Idiot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whenever you claim something is true because so-and-so says it's true, you've committed a logical fallacy.  No one is infallible, moron.  You believe the SC can't be wrong.  The truth is that yes it can.  The SC has been wrong numerous times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you’re trying to use a straw man, idiot. Next time don’t try to use terminology you don’t understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong, idiot.  You claimed that if the SC made a decision about the Constitution, then that is the infallible truth about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your straw man, brainless.
Click to expand...

You don't know what a straw man is, moron..


----------



## there4eyeM

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is, moron.  What do you believe "appeal to authority" means?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I knew you had no idea what it means.  Idiot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whenever you claim something is true because so-and-so says it's true, you've committed a logical fallacy.  No one is infallible, moron.  You believe the SC can't be wrong.  The truth is that yes it can.  The SC has been wrong numerous times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you’re trying to use a straw man, idiot. Next time don’t try to use terminology you don’t understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong, idiot.  You claimed that if the SC made a decision about the Constitution, then that is the infallible truth about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your straw man, brainless.
Click to expand...

It may be that he just wants to have the last post in this thread.


----------



## eagle1462010

While it is a movie...........Lincoln ordered Southern States to form regiments to fight against their own neighbors..................WASN'T GOING TO HAPPEN............

He forced states like Virginia to make a choice........and killing their own people of the State Forced them to arm up against the Union............

The North could have toned it down..........and allowed discussion over War with Lincoln...........which guaranteed a War............

If your neighbor was about to be attacked in your own neighborhood.....and the police ordered you to join them in killing them...........you knew their kids.........Had barbaques with them............WOULD YOU DO IT.

No YOU WOULDN'T.........and many who fought were left with that choice GUARANTEEING a long and bloody War.


----------



## bripat9643

there4eyeM said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> I knew you had no idea what it means.  Idiot
> 
> 
> 
> Whenever you claim something is true because so-and-so says it's true, you've committed a logical fallacy.  No one is infallible, moron.  You believe the SC can't be wrong.  The truth is that yes it can.  The SC has been wrong numerous times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you’re trying to use a straw man, idiot. Next time don’t try to use terminology you don’t understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong, idiot.  You claimed that if the SC made a decision about the Constitution, then that is the infallible truth about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your straw man, brainless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It may be that he just wants to have the last post in this thread.
Click to expand...

I never let douchebags have the last word.


----------



## bripat9643

there4eyeM said:


> Perpetual.
> link: Definition of perpetual | Dictionary.com
> *perpetual*
> [ per-pech-oo-uhl ]
> *adjective*
> continuing or enduring forever; everlasting.


Trash bin - the place we throw stuff that is no longer useful, like the Articles of Confederation.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> I knew you had no idea what it means.  Idiot
> 
> 
> 
> Whenever you claim something is true because so-and-so says it's true, you've committed a logical fallacy.  No one is infallible, moron.  You believe the SC can't be wrong.  The truth is that yes it can.  The SC has been wrong numerous times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you’re trying to use a straw man, idiot. Next time don’t try to use terminology you don’t understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong, idiot.  You claimed that if the SC made a decision about the Constitution, then that is the infallible truth about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your straw man, brainless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know what a straw man is, moron..
Click to expand...



I know exactly what it is, brainless. Stop trying to rely on one.


----------



## Unkotare

eagle1462010 said:


> While it is a movie...........Lincoln ordered Southern States to form regiments to fight against their own neighbors..................WASN'T GOING TO HAPPEN............
> 
> He forced states like Virginia to make a choice........and killing their own people of the State Forced them to arm up against the Union............
> 
> The North could have toned it down..........and allowed discussion over War with Lincoln...........which guaranteed a War............
> 
> If your neighbor was about to be attacked in your own neighborhood.....and the police ordered you to join them in killing them...........you knew their kids.........Had barbaques with them............WOULD YOU DO IT.
> 
> No YOU WOULDN'T.........and many who fought were left with that choice GUARANTEEING a long and bloody War.



Every state in the so-called confederacy DID have regiments that DID resist the illegal actions of the traitors.


----------



## eagle1462010

Unkotare said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While it is a movie...........Lincoln ordered Southern States to form regiments to fight against their own neighbors..................WASN'T GOING TO HAPPEN............
> 
> He forced states like Virginia to make a choice........and killing their own people of the State Forced them to arm up against the Union............
> 
> The North could have toned it down..........and allowed discussion over War with Lincoln...........which guaranteed a War............
> 
> If your neighbor was about to be attacked in your own neighborhood.....and the police ordered you to join them in killing them...........you knew their kids.........Had barbaques with them............WOULD YOU DO IT.
> 
> No YOU WOULDN'T.........and many who fought were left with that choice GUARANTEEING a long and bloody War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every state in the so-called confederacy DID have regiments that DID resist the illegal actions of the traitors.
Click to expand...

Lincoln asked them to kill their neighbors whether you like it or not......most that fought were too dang poor to own slaves...........

Had Lincoln taken a different approach then the War may not have happened.

We look at the Civil War via the PRISM of NOW and not the past................Ideologies back then were not the same..........neither was Morality of it.............Slavery was dying and rightfully so...........but the mindset of then versus NOW was not the same.........

The very Name of New York was named after the Duke of York who was a slave Trader.........should we change the name of that STATE???????????  Did the North also do slavery..........yes it did......Changing the name or applying the continual bitching over the Civil War is NOT EQUAL to the mindset of that time...........Doesn't change the History of it............you can't wash it away........all you can do is play the stupid little game of using it for Political reasons from a time that is long gone.......

Don't like my words I don't care...........I call it like I see it......and the neighbors back then would not have turned their guns on their neighbors........Forced the War.........by Lincoln policy.


----------



## Unkotare

eagle1462010 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While it is a movie...........Lincoln ordered Southern States to form regiments to fight against their own neighbors..................WASN'T GOING TO HAPPEN............
> 
> He forced states like Virginia to make a choice........and killing their own people of the State Forced them to arm up against the Union............
> 
> The North could have toned it down..........and allowed discussion over War with Lincoln...........which guaranteed a War............
> 
> If your neighbor was about to be attacked in your own neighborhood.....and the police ordered you to join them in killing them...........you knew their kids.........Had barbaques with them............WOULD YOU DO IT.
> 
> No YOU WOULDN'T.........and many who fought were left with that choice GUARANTEEING a long and bloody War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every state in the so-called confederacy DID have regiments that DID resist the illegal actions of the traitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln asked them to kill their neighbors whether you like it or not......most that fought were too dang poor to own slaves...........
> 
> Had Lincoln taken a different approach then the War may not have happened.
> 
> We look at the Civil War via the PRISM of NOW and not the past................Ideologies back then were not the same..........neither was Morality of it.............Slavery was dying and rightfully so...........but the mindset of then versus NOW was not the same.........
> 
> The very Name of New York was named after the Duke of York who was a slave Trader.........should we change the name of that STATE???????????  Did the North also do slavery..........yes it did......Changing the name or applying the continual bitching over the Civil War is NOT EQUAL to the mindset of that time...........Doesn't change the History of it............you can't wash it away........all you can do is play the stupid little game of using it for Political reasons from a time that is long gone.......
> 
> Don't like my words I don't care...........I call it like I see it......and the neighbors back then would not have turned their guns on their neighbors........Forced the War.........by Lincoln policy.
Click to expand...



Promulgating lies and misrepresentation on behalf of long-dead traitors drenches you in shame and exposes your disdain for the United States of America, and for freedom and justice in general.


----------



## eagle1462010

Unkotare said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While it is a movie...........Lincoln ordered Southern States to form regiments to fight against their own neighbors..................WASN'T GOING TO HAPPEN............
> 
> He forced states like Virginia to make a choice........and killing their own people of the State Forced them to arm up against the Union............
> 
> The North could have toned it down..........and allowed discussion over War with Lincoln...........which guaranteed a War............
> 
> If your neighbor was about to be attacked in your own neighborhood.....and the police ordered you to join them in killing them...........you knew their kids.........Had barbaques with them............WOULD YOU DO IT.
> 
> No YOU WOULDN'T.........and many who fought were left with that choice GUARANTEEING a long and bloody War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every state in the so-called confederacy DID have regiments that DID resist the illegal actions of the traitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln asked them to kill their neighbors whether you like it or not......most that fought were too dang poor to own slaves...........
> 
> Had Lincoln taken a different approach then the War may not have happened.
> 
> We look at the Civil War via the PRISM of NOW and not the past................Ideologies back then were not the same..........neither was Morality of it.............Slavery was dying and rightfully so...........but the mindset of then versus NOW was not the same.........
> 
> The very Name of New York was named after the Duke of York who was a slave Trader.........should we change the name of that STATE???????????  Did the North also do slavery..........yes it did......Changing the name or applying the continual bitching over the Civil War is NOT EQUAL to the mindset of that time...........Doesn't change the History of it............you can't wash it away........all you can do is play the stupid little game of using it for Political reasons from a time that is long gone.......
> 
> Don't like my words I don't care...........I call it like I see it......and the neighbors back then would not have turned their guns on their neighbors........Forced the War.........by Lincoln policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Promulgating lies and misrepresentation on behalf of long-dead traitors drenches you in shame and exposes your disdain for the United States of America, and for freedom and justice in general.
Click to expand...

STFU...............You look at History through todays PRISM.............

Then you accuse me of being a dang Traitor because I look at it trying to understand the mindset of the time......

You ARE FULL OF IT...........same with the BS panties in a wad history of Japan you always whine about.


----------



## Unkotare

eagle1462010 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While it is a movie...........Lincoln ordered Southern States to form regiments to fight against their own neighbors..................WASN'T GOING TO HAPPEN............
> 
> He forced states like Virginia to make a choice........and killing their own people of the State Forced them to arm up against the Union............
> 
> The North could have toned it down..........and allowed discussion over War with Lincoln...........which guaranteed a War............
> 
> If your neighbor was about to be attacked in your own neighborhood.....and the police ordered you to join them in killing them...........you knew their kids.........Had barbaques with them............WOULD YOU DO IT.
> 
> No YOU WOULDN'T.........and many who fought were left with that choice GUARANTEEING a long and bloody War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every state in the so-called confederacy DID have regiments that DID resist the illegal actions of the traitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln asked them to kill their neighbors whether you like it or not......most that fought were too dang poor to own slaves...........
> 
> Had Lincoln taken a different approach then the War may not have happened.
> 
> We look at the Civil War via the PRISM of NOW and not the past................Ideologies back then were not the same..........neither was Morality of it.............Slavery was dying and rightfully so...........but the mindset of then versus NOW was not the same.........
> 
> The very Name of New York was named after the Duke of York who was a slave Trader.........should we change the name of that STATE???????????  Did the North also do slavery..........yes it did......Changing the name or applying the continual bitching over the Civil War is NOT EQUAL to the mindset of that time...........Doesn't change the History of it............you can't wash it away........all you can do is play the stupid little game of using it for Political reasons from a time that is long gone.......
> 
> Don't like my words I don't care...........I call it like I see it......and the neighbors back then would not have turned their guns on their neighbors........Forced the War.........by Lincoln policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Promulgating lies and misrepresentation on behalf of long-dead traitors drenches you in shame and exposes your disdain for the United States of America, and for freedom and justice in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> STFU...............You look at History through todays PRISM.............
> 
> ...
Click to expand...



Through the PRISM of that time, the majority of Americans opposed the illegal actions of your beloved traitors.


----------



## Unkotare

eagle1462010 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While it is a movie...........Lincoln ordered Southern States to form regiments to fight against their own neighbors..................WASN'T GOING TO HAPPEN............
> 
> He forced states like Virginia to make a choice........and killing their own people of the State Forced them to arm up against the Union............
> 
> The North could have toned it down..........and allowed discussion over War with Lincoln...........which guaranteed a War............
> 
> If your neighbor was about to be attacked in your own neighborhood.....and the police ordered you to join them in killing them...........you knew their kids.........Had barbaques with them............WOULD YOU DO IT.
> 
> No YOU WOULDN'T.........and many who fought were left with that choice GUARANTEEING a long and bloody War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every state in the so-called confederacy DID have regiments that DID resist the illegal actions of the traitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln asked them to kill their neighbors whether you like it or not......most that fought were too dang poor to own slaves...........
> 
> Had Lincoln taken a different approach then the War may not have happened.
> 
> We look at the Civil War via the PRISM of NOW and not the past................Ideologies back then were not the same..........neither was Morality of it.............Slavery was dying and rightfully so...........but the mindset of then versus NOW was not the same.........
> 
> The very Name of New York was named after the Duke of York who was a slave Trader.........should we change the name of that STATE???????????  Did the North also do slavery..........yes it did......Changing the name or applying the continual bitching over the Civil War is NOT EQUAL to the mindset of that time...........Doesn't change the History of it............you can't wash it away........all you can do is play the stupid little game of using it for Political reasons from a time that is long gone.......
> 
> Don't like my words I don't care...........I call it like I see it......and the neighbors back then would not have turned their guns on their neighbors........Forced the War.........by Lincoln policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Promulgating lies and misrepresentation on behalf of long-dead traitors drenches you in shame and exposes your disdain for the United States of America, and for freedom and justice in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...history of Japan you always whine about.
Click to expand...



What “whining” are you referring to?


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While it is a movie...........Lincoln ordered Southern States to form regiments to fight against their own neighbors..................WASN'T GOING TO HAPPEN............
> 
> He forced states like Virginia to make a choice........and killing their own people of the State Forced them to arm up against the Union............
> 
> The North could have toned it down..........and allowed discussion over War with Lincoln...........which guaranteed a War............
> 
> If your neighbor was about to be attacked in your own neighborhood.....and the police ordered you to join them in killing them...........you knew their kids.........Had barbaques with them............WOULD YOU DO IT.
> 
> No YOU WOULDN'T.........and many who fought were left with that choice GUARANTEEING a long and bloody War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every state in the so-called confederacy DID have regiments that DID resist the illegal actions of the traitors.
Click to expand...

You mean they fought Union troops that were invading their state and destroying their homes?  How awful of them.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While it is a movie...........Lincoln ordered Southern States to form regiments to fight against their own neighbors..................WASN'T GOING TO HAPPEN............
> 
> He forced states like Virginia to make a choice........and killing their own people of the State Forced them to arm up against the Union............
> 
> The North could have toned it down..........and allowed discussion over War with Lincoln...........which guaranteed a War............
> 
> If your neighbor was about to be attacked in your own neighborhood.....and the police ordered you to join them in killing them...........you knew their kids.........Had barbaques with them............WOULD YOU DO IT.
> 
> No YOU WOULDN'T.........and many who fought were left with that choice GUARANTEEING a long and bloody War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every state in the so-called confederacy DID have regiments that DID resist the illegal actions of the traitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln asked them to kill their neighbors whether you like it or not......most that fought were too dang poor to own slaves...........
> 
> Had Lincoln taken a different approach then the War may not have happened.
> 
> We look at the Civil War via the PRISM of NOW and not the past................Ideologies back then were not the same..........neither was Morality of it.............Slavery was dying and rightfully so...........but the mindset of then versus NOW was not the same.........
> 
> The very Name of New York was named after the Duke of York who was a slave Trader.........should we change the name of that STATE???????????  Did the North also do slavery..........yes it did......Changing the name or applying the continual bitching over the Civil War is NOT EQUAL to the mindset of that time...........Doesn't change the History of it............you can't wash it away........all you can do is play the stupid little game of using it for Political reasons from a time that is long gone.......
> 
> Don't like my words I don't care...........I call it like I see it......and the neighbors back then would not have turned their guns on their neighbors........Forced the War.........by Lincoln policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Promulgating lies and misrepresentation on behalf of long-dead traitors drenches you in shame and exposes your disdain for the United States of America, and for freedom and justice in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> STFU...............You look at History through todays PRISM.............
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Through the PRISM of that time, the majority of Americans opposed the illegal actions of your beloved traitors.
Click to expand...

"Through the prism of time?"  You mean after thorough brainwashing


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While it is a movie...........Lincoln ordered Southern States to form regiments to fight against their own neighbors..................WASN'T GOING TO HAPPEN............
> 
> He forced states like Virginia to make a choice........and killing their own people of the State Forced them to arm up against the Union............
> 
> The North could have toned it down..........and allowed discussion over War with Lincoln...........which guaranteed a War............
> 
> If your neighbor was about to be attacked in your own neighborhood.....and the police ordered you to join them in killing them...........you knew their kids.........Had barbaques with them............WOULD YOU DO IT.
> 
> No YOU WOULDN'T.........and many who fought were left with that choice GUARANTEEING a long and bloody War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every state in the so-called confederacy DID have regiments that DID resist the illegal actions of the traitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean they fought Union troops ...
Click to expand...



No, I mean they fought the traitorous dogs that had taken over their states.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every state in the so-called confederacy DID have regiments that DID resist the illegal actions of the traitors.
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln asked them to kill their neighbors whether you like it or not......most that fought were too dang poor to own slaves...........
> 
> Had Lincoln taken a different approach then the War may not have happened.
> 
> We look at the Civil War via the PRISM of NOW and not the past................Ideologies back then were not the same..........neither was Morality of it.............Slavery was dying and rightfully so...........but the mindset of then versus NOW was not the same.........
> 
> The very Name of New York was named after the Duke of York who was a slave Trader.........should we change the name of that STATE???????????  Did the North also do slavery..........yes it did......Changing the name or applying the continual bitching over the Civil War is NOT EQUAL to the mindset of that time...........Doesn't change the History of it............you can't wash it away........all you can do is play the stupid little game of using it for Political reasons from a time that is long gone.......
> 
> Don't like my words I don't care...........I call it like I see it......and the neighbors back then would not have turned their guns on their neighbors........Forced the War.........by Lincoln policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Promulgating lies and misrepresentation on behalf of long-dead traitors drenches you in shame and exposes your disdain for the United States of America, and for freedom and justice in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> STFU...............You look at History through todays PRISM.............
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Through the PRISM of that time, the majority of Americans opposed the illegal actions of your beloved traitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Through the prism of time?"  You mean after thorough brainwashing
Click to expand...


No, that’s not what I mean, you dishonest sack of shit.


----------



## eagle1462010

Unkotare said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While it is a movie...........Lincoln ordered Southern States to form regiments to fight against their own neighbors..................WASN'T GOING TO HAPPEN............
> 
> He forced states like Virginia to make a choice........and killing their own people of the State Forced them to arm up against the Union............
> 
> The North could have toned it down..........and allowed discussion over War with Lincoln...........which guaranteed a War............
> 
> If your neighbor was about to be attacked in your own neighborhood.....and the police ordered you to join them in killing them...........you knew their kids.........Had barbaques with them............WOULD YOU DO IT.
> 
> No YOU WOULDN'T.........and many who fought were left with that choice GUARANTEEING a long and bloody War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every state in the so-called confederacy DID have regiments that DID resist the illegal actions of the traitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln asked them to kill their neighbors whether you like it or not......most that fought were too dang poor to own slaves...........
> 
> Had Lincoln taken a different approach then the War may not have happened.
> 
> We look at the Civil War via the PRISM of NOW and not the past................Ideologies back then were not the same..........neither was Morality of it.............Slavery was dying and rightfully so...........but the mindset of then versus NOW was not the same.........
> 
> The very Name of New York was named after the Duke of York who was a slave Trader.........should we change the name of that STATE???????????  Did the North also do slavery..........yes it did......Changing the name or applying the continual bitching over the Civil War is NOT EQUAL to the mindset of that time...........Doesn't change the History of it............you can't wash it away........all you can do is play the stupid little game of using it for Political reasons from a time that is long gone.......
> 
> Don't like my words I don't care...........I call it like I see it......and the neighbors back then would not have turned their guns on their neighbors........Forced the War.........by Lincoln policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Promulgating lies and misrepresentation on behalf of long-dead traitors drenches you in shame and exposes your disdain for the United States of America, and for freedom and justice in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...history of Japan you always whine about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What “whining” are you referring to?
Click to expand...

YOURS


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln asked them to kill their neighbors whether you like it or not......most that fought were too dang poor to own slaves...........
> 
> Had Lincoln taken a different approach then the War may not have happened.
> 
> We look at the Civil War via the PRISM of NOW and not the past................Ideologies back then were not the same..........neither was Morality of it.............Slavery was dying and rightfully so...........but the mindset of then versus NOW was not the same.........
> 
> The very Name of New York was named after the Duke of York who was a slave Trader.........should we change the name of that STATE???????????  Did the North also do slavery..........yes it did......Changing the name or applying the continual bitching over the Civil War is NOT EQUAL to the mindset of that time...........Doesn't change the History of it............you can't wash it away........all you can do is play the stupid little game of using it for Political reasons from a time that is long gone.......
> 
> Don't like my words I don't care...........I call it like I see it......and the neighbors back then would not have turned their guns on their neighbors........Forced the War.........by Lincoln policy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Promulgating lies and misrepresentation on behalf of long-dead traitors drenches you in shame and exposes your disdain for the United States of America, and for freedom and justice in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> STFU...............You look at History through todays PRISM.............
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Through the PRISM of that time, the majority of Americans opposed the illegal actions of your beloved traitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Through the prism of time?"  You mean after thorough brainwashing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that’s not what I mean, you dishonest sack of shit.
Click to expand...

Right, because the public understanding of the facts gets better the further back in time they are.

What a dumbass.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While it is a movie...........Lincoln ordered Southern States to form regiments to fight against their own neighbors..................WASN'T GOING TO HAPPEN............
> 
> He forced states like Virginia to make a choice........and killing their own people of the State Forced them to arm up against the Union............
> 
> The North could have toned it down..........and allowed discussion over War with Lincoln...........which guaranteed a War............
> 
> If your neighbor was about to be attacked in your own neighborhood.....and the police ordered you to join them in killing them...........you knew their kids.........Had barbaques with them............WOULD YOU DO IT.
> 
> No YOU WOULDN'T.........and many who fought were left with that choice GUARANTEEING a long and bloody War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every state in the so-called confederacy DID have regiments that DID resist the illegal actions of the traitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean they fought Union troops ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, I mean they fought the traitorous dogs that had taken over their states.
Click to expand...

They elected those "traitorous dogs," you Stalinist douchebag.


----------



## Unkotare

eagle1462010 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every state in the so-called confederacy DID have regiments that DID resist the illegal actions of the traitors.
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln asked them to kill their neighbors whether you like it or not......most that fought were too dang poor to own slaves...........
> 
> Had Lincoln taken a different approach then the War may not have happened.
> 
> We look at the Civil War via the PRISM of NOW and not the past................Ideologies back then were not the same..........neither was Morality of it.............Slavery was dying and rightfully so...........but the mindset of then versus NOW was not the same.........
> 
> The very Name of New York was named after the Duke of York who was a slave Trader.........should we change the name of that STATE???????????  Did the North also do slavery..........yes it did......Changing the name or applying the continual bitching over the Civil War is NOT EQUAL to the mindset of that time...........Doesn't change the History of it............you can't wash it away........all you can do is play the stupid little game of using it for Political reasons from a time that is long gone.......
> 
> Don't like my words I don't care...........I call it like I see it......and the neighbors back then would not have turned their guns on their neighbors........Forced the War.........by Lincoln policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Promulgating lies and misrepresentation on behalf of long-dead traitors drenches you in shame and exposes your disdain for the United States of America, and for freedom and justice in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...history of Japan you always whine about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What “whining” are you referring to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YOURS
Click to expand...



Link?


----------



## eagle1462010

Unkotare said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln asked them to kill their neighbors whether you like it or not......most that fought were too dang poor to own slaves...........
> 
> Had Lincoln taken a different approach then the War may not have happened.
> 
> We look at the Civil War via the PRISM of NOW and not the past................Ideologies back then were not the same..........neither was Morality of it.............Slavery was dying and rightfully so...........but the mindset of then versus NOW was not the same.........
> 
> The very Name of New York was named after the Duke of York who was a slave Trader.........should we change the name of that STATE???????????  Did the North also do slavery..........yes it did......Changing the name or applying the continual bitching over the Civil War is NOT EQUAL to the mindset of that time...........Doesn't change the History of it............you can't wash it away........all you can do is play the stupid little game of using it for Political reasons from a time that is long gone.......
> 
> Don't like my words I don't care...........I call it like I see it......and the neighbors back then would not have turned their guns on their neighbors........Forced the War.........by Lincoln policy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Promulgating lies and misrepresentation on behalf of long-dead traitors drenches you in shame and exposes your disdain for the United States of America, and for freedom and justice in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...history of Japan you always whine about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What “whining” are you referring to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YOURS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...

LOL

Reread your own history of posting and take the blinders off.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Promulgating lies and misrepresentation on behalf of long-dead traitors drenches you in shame and exposes your disdain for the United States of America, and for freedom and justice in general.
> 
> 
> 
> STFU...............You look at History through todays PRISM.............
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Through the PRISM of that time, the majority of Americans opposed the illegal actions of your beloved traitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Through the prism of time?"  You mean after thorough brainwashing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that’s not what I mean, you dishonest sack of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right, because the public understanding of the facts gets better the further back in time they are.
> 
> What a dumbass.
Click to expand...


Make up your ‘mind.’ You’ll still be wrong either way.


----------



## Unkotare

eagle1462010 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Promulgating lies and misrepresentation on behalf of long-dead traitors drenches you in shame and exposes your disdain for the United States of America, and for freedom and justice in general.
> 
> 
> 
> ...history of Japan you always whine about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What “whining” are you referring to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YOURS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Reread your own history of posting and take the blinders off.
Click to expand...


So you’ve got nothing to support your claim. Figures.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While it is a movie...........Lincoln ordered Southern States to form regiments to fight against their own neighbors..................WASN'T GOING TO HAPPEN............
> 
> He forced states like Virginia to make a choice........and killing their own people of the State Forced them to arm up against the Union............
> 
> The North could have toned it down..........and allowed discussion over War with Lincoln...........which guaranteed a War............
> 
> If your neighbor was about to be attacked in your own neighborhood.....and the police ordered you to join them in killing them...........you knew their kids.........Had barbaques with them............WOULD YOU DO IT.
> 
> No YOU WOULDN'T.........and many who fought were left with that choice GUARANTEEING a long and bloody War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every state in the so-called confederacy DID have regiments that DID resist the illegal actions of the traitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean they fought Union troops ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, I mean they fought the traitorous dogs that had taken over their states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They elected those "traitorous dogs," ....
Click to expand...


Some of them, yeah. They lived to regret it. Some idiots, like you, can only learn the hard way.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While it is a movie...........Lincoln ordered Southern States to form regiments to fight against their own neighbors..................WASN'T GOING TO HAPPEN............
> 
> He forced states like Virginia to make a choice........and killing their own people of the State Forced them to arm up against the Union............
> 
> The North could have toned it down..........and allowed discussion over War with Lincoln...........which guaranteed a War............
> 
> If your neighbor was about to be attacked in your own neighborhood.....and the police ordered you to join them in killing them...........you knew their kids.........Had barbaques with them............WOULD YOU DO IT.
> 
> No YOU WOULDN'T.........and many who fought were left with that choice GUARANTEEING a long and bloody War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every state in the so-called confederacy DID have regiments that DID resist the illegal actions of the traitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean they fought Union troops ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, I mean they fought the traitorous dogs that had taken over their states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They elected those "traitorous dogs," ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some of them, yeah. They lived to regret it. Some idiots, like you, can only learn the hard way.
Click to expand...

So you lied, in other words.  

They learned to regret being invaded by the Federal government?

What a stupid comment.  Why would anyone be happy about being invaded?


----------



## eagle1462010

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While it is a movie...........Lincoln ordered Southern States to form regiments to fight against their own neighbors..................WASN'T GOING TO HAPPEN............
> 
> He forced states like Virginia to make a choice........and killing their own people of the State Forced them to arm up against the Union............
> 
> The North could have toned it down..........and allowed discussion over War with Lincoln...........which guaranteed a War............
> 
> If your neighbor was about to be attacked in your own neighborhood.....and the police ordered you to join them in killing them...........you knew their kids.........Had barbaques with them............WOULD YOU DO IT.
> 
> No YOU WOULDN'T.........and many who fought were left with that choice GUARANTEEING a long and bloody War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every state in the so-called confederacy DID have regiments that DID resist the illegal actions of the traitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean they fought Union troops ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, I mean they fought the traitorous dogs that had taken over their states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They elected those "traitorous dogs," ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some of them, yeah. They lived to regret it. Some idiots, like you, can only learn the hard way.
Click to expand...

Ok Rambo.............in your past life you were in Devils Den killing Rebels......

You Imagine shit a lot don't you.............You haven't done a dang thing but run your big mouth all your life......LOL

Got news for you........No one alive today fought in the Civil War.........So save your I'M RAMBO with a Musket BS for someone else.


----------



## August West

bripat9643 said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> The more perfect Perpetual Union was not maintained by force. A forceful rebellion was put down.
> 
> 
> 
> How was it a "forceful rebellion," when none of the confederate states ever set foot in a Union State?  You're obviously one of those idiots who believes wives deserve to be beaten when they do something their husbands don't like.
Click to expand...

South Carolinians thought bombarding fort Sumter was a good idea. It wasn`t.


----------



## bripat9643

August West said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> The more perfect Perpetual Union was not maintained by force. A forceful rebellion was put down.
> 
> 
> 
> How was it a "forceful rebellion," when none of the confederate states ever set foot in a Union State?  You're obviously one of those idiots who believes wives deserve to be beaten when they do something their husbands don't like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> South Carolinians thought bombarding fort Sumter was a good idea. It wasn`t.
Click to expand...

So?


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every state in the so-called confederacy DID have regiments that DID resist the illegal actions of the traitors.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean they fought Union troops ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, I mean they fought the traitorous dogs that had taken over their states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They elected those "traitorous dogs," ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> They learned to regret being invaded by the Federal government?
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They learned by being held accountable for their treason. They were brought to heel like the filthy curs that they were, that _you_ are.
Click to expand...


----------



## Unkotare

eagle1462010 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every state in the so-called confederacy DID have regiments that DID resist the illegal actions of the traitors.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean they fought Union troops ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, I mean they fought the traitorous dogs that had taken over their states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They elected those "traitorous dogs," ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some of them, yeah. They lived to regret it. Some idiots, like you, can only learn the hard way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .............in your past life you were in Devils Den killing Rebels...........
Click to expand...



I don't have any past lives that I'm aware of, but it I did it would probably have involved growing potatoes.


----------



## Unkotare

eagle1462010 said:


> ...............You haven't done a dang thing but run your big mouth all your life..........




If you say so, champ.


----------



## Unkotare

eagle1462010 said:


> ... save your I'M RAMBO with a Musket BS for someone else.




I don't recall ever saying anything like that. Are  you feeling alright?


----------



## eagle1462010

Unkotare said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...............You haven't done a dang thing but run your big mouth all your life..........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you say so, champ.
Click to expand...

Ok ROCKY


----------



## Unkotare

eagle1462010 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...............You haven't done a dang thing but run your big mouth all your life..........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you say so, champ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok ROCKY
Click to expand...


Rocky's Italian. Don't insult me.


----------



## mikegriffith1

there4eyeM said:


> The more perfect Perpetual Union was not maintained by force. A forceful rebellion was put down.



Uh, well, no, no, no. Who invaded whom? The federal government sent armies into the South to force the Southern states to rejoin the Union against their will. Even after the Fort Sumter attack, Jefferson Davis expressed his desire for peace and repeated his offer for peaceful coexistence and MFN trading status, but by that time the Republicans were determined to invade.

You are taking the same attitude toward the right of peaceful separation that the British took when the colonies sought to exercise it. The South did not want to fight.

The actual war, with battles and casualties, began when federal armies invaded states that had revoked their ratification of the Constitution, which they had every right to do.


----------



## there4eyeM

When people do not understand a language and the sense of adjectives and comparatives, discussion in that language is futile.


----------



## bripat9643

there4eyeM said:


> When people do not understand a language and the sense of adjectives and comparatives, discussion in that language is futile.


What adjectives and comparatives don't you understand?


----------



## August West

mikegriffith1 said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> The more perfect Perpetual Union was not maintained by force. A forceful rebellion was put down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, well, no, no, no. Who invaded whom? The federal government sent armies into the South to force the Southern states to rejoin the Union against their will. Even after the Fort Sumter attack, Jefferson Davis expressed his desire for peace and repeated his offer for peaceful coexistence and MFN trading status, but by that time the Republicans were determined to invade.
> 
> You are taking the same attitude toward the right of peaceful separation that the British took when the colonies sought to exercise it. The South did not want to fight.
> 
> The actual war, with battles and casualties, began when federal armies invaded states that had revoked their ratification of the Constitution, which they had every right to do.
Click to expand...

Jeff Davis spoke of a peaceful co-existence between the two countries but there was only one country. The confederacy was recognized by no other nations. It was a southern fantasy.


----------



## mikegriffith1

August West said:


> Jeff Davis spoke of a peaceful co-existence between the two countries but there was only one country. The confederacy was recognized by no other nations. It was a southern fantasy.



No, actually, under the original intent of the Constitution, when those states revoked their ratification, which they had a constitutional right to do, they reverted to the status of independent and sovereign nation states. Before all 13 states ratified the federal constitution, those states that had not yet ratified the constitution were treated as separate nations by the states that had joined the federal union.

You see, the problem is that you guys are adopting the same attitude toward peaceful separation that the British adopted when the colonies tried to peacefully separate from England. The Patriots (i.e., the colonists who wanted to separate) bitterly condemned England's attempt to force the colonies to remain under British control. The British replied that they were merely putting down a rebellion.

That's why the framers were so emphatic that their union would not be maintained by force. That's why they did not specify that ratification was irrevocable. That's why they decidedly rejected the idea that the federal government would be able to use force against disobedient states. That's why they even specified that the federal government could not even send troops into a state without the state government's permission.

I've documented all of these facts in the following two articles:

Proof that the Union was Supposed to be Voluntary

The American Revolution and the Right of Peaceful Separation


----------



## there4eyeM

We see it all now! How wrong we were! How could we have so erred? 
Bring back the slaves! Divide up the country! We're convinced!


----------



## The Sage of Main Street

mikegriffith1 said:


> August West said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Davis spoke of a peaceful co-existence between the two countries but there was only one country. The confederacy was recognized by no other nations. It was a southern fantasy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually, under the original intent of the Constitution, when those states revoked their ratification, which they had a constitutional right to do, they reverted to the status of independent and sovereign nation states. Before all 13 states ratified the federal constitution, those states that had not yet ratified the constitution were treated as separate nations by the states that had joined the federal union.
> 
> You see, the problem is that you guys are adopting the same attitude toward peaceful separation that the British adopted when the colonies tried to peacefully separate from England. The Patriots (i.e., the colonists who wanted to separate) bitterly condemned England's attempt to force the colonies to remain under British control. The British replied that they were merely putting down a rebellion.
> 
> That's why the framers were so emphatic that their union would not be maintained by force. That's why they did not specify that ratification was irrevocable. That's why they decidedly rejected the idea that the federal government would be able to use force against disobedient states. That's why they even specified that the federal government could not even send troops into a state without the state government's permission.
> 
> I've documented all of these facts in the following two articles:
> 
> Proof that the Union was Supposed to be Voluntary
> 
> The American Revolution and the Right of Peaceful Separation
Click to expand...

*That Horrible War Must Be Blamed on Our Sacred-Cow Constitution*



Also helpful, because everyone is too conformist to shallow historians to think beyond the propaganda, is the fact that Congress didn't seat any Senators or Representatives from the South during the war.  That meant the Confederacy was recognized _de jure _as a separate country.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street

there4eyeM said:


> We see it all now! How wrong we were! How could we have so erred?
> Bring back the slaves! Divide up the country! We're convinced!


*The Republicans Sent Americans to Kill Their Fellow Americans on Behalf of Africans*

If the South had won, every neighborhood in our Northern cities would be safe and the national debt would be reduced by the $20 trillion wasted on lazy and violent minorities.


----------



## there4eyeM

...but we wouldn't have Rock 'n Roll!


----------



## bripat9643

August West said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> The more perfect Perpetual Union was not maintained by force. A forceful rebellion was put down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, well, no, no, no. Who invaded whom? The federal government sent armies into the South to force the Southern states to rejoin the Union against their will. Even after the Fort Sumter attack, Jefferson Davis expressed his desire for peace and repeated his offer for peaceful coexistence and MFN trading status, but by that time the Republicans were determined to invade.
> 
> You are taking the same attitude toward the right of peaceful separation that the British took when the colonies sought to exercise it. The South did not want to fight.
> 
> The actual war, with battles and casualties, began when federal armies invaded states that had revoked their ratification of the Constitution, which they had every right to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jeff Davis spoke of a peaceful co-existence between the two countries but there was only one country. The confederacy was recognized by no other nations. It was a southern fantasy.
Click to expand...

Countries aren't recognized until they are, dumbass.  You proved nothing.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> August West said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> The more perfect Perpetual Union was not maintained by force. A forceful rebellion was put down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, well, no, no, no. Who invaded whom? The federal government sent armies into the South to force the Southern states to rejoin the Union against their will. Even after the Fort Sumter attack, Jefferson Davis expressed his desire for peace and repeated his offer for peaceful coexistence and MFN trading status, but by that time the Republicans were determined to invade.
> 
> You are taking the same attitude toward the right of peaceful separation that the British took when the colonies sought to exercise it. The South did not want to fight.
> 
> The actual war, with battles and casualties, began when federal armies invaded states that had revoked their ratification of the Constitution, which they had every right to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jeff Davis spoke of a peaceful co-existence between the two countries but there was only one country. The confederacy was recognized by no other nations. It was a southern fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Countries aren't recognized until they are, dumbass.  You proved nothing.
Click to expand...


Since you know nothing about History, you don't know that the so-called confederates were _desperate_ for any European country to recognize them. None would because the truth was obvious even to them. The failure of the vile traitors was inevitable from the moment they started an unnecessary state of civil war.


----------



## Bezukhov

there4eyeM said:


> ...but we wouldn't have Rock 'n Roll!



And horror of horrors...

*No Jazz!!!!*


----------



## gipper

mikegriffith1 said:


> August West said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Davis spoke of a peaceful co-existence between the two countries but there was only one country. The confederacy was recognized by no other nations. It was a southern fantasy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually, under the original intent of the Constitution, when those states revoked their ratification, which they had a constitutional right to do, they reverted to the status of independent and sovereign nation states. Before all 13 states ratified the federal constitution, those states that had not yet ratified the constitution were treated as separate nations by the states that had joined the federal union.
> 
> You see, the problem is that you guys are adopting the same attitude toward peaceful separation that the British adopted when the colonies tried to peacefully separate from England. The Patriots (i.e., the colonists who wanted to separate) bitterly condemned England's attempt to force the colonies to remain under British control. The British replied that they were merely putting down a rebellion.
> 
> That's why the framers were so emphatic that their union would not be maintained by force. That's why they did not specify that ratification was irrevocable. That's why they decidedly rejected the idea that the federal government would be able to use force against disobedient states. That's why they even specified that the federal government could not even send troops into a state without the state government's permission.
> 
> I've documented all of these facts in the following two articles:
> 
> Proof that the Union was Supposed to be Voluntary
> 
> The American Revolution and the Right of Peaceful Separation
Click to expand...

I wonder what might happen if states tried to secede today. Would they federal government mass murder them, as Lincoln did?  

What if California were to secede, after Trump wins re-election. Just a thought. 

The result might be a total dismantling of our criminal central government. I say that might be a wonderful thing.


----------



## there4eyeM

Ahh, and having all those slave women at total disposition! Yes, the glory days of that great 'cause'! Bring it back!


----------



## Bezukhov

there4eyeM said:


> Ahh, and having all those slave women at total disposition! Yes, the glory days of that great 'cause'! Bring it back!



At the end of the day that's what bripat9643, The Sage of Main Street and & Company want.


----------



## gipper

Bezukhov said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh, and having all those slave women at total disposition! Yes, the glory days of that great 'cause'! Bring it back!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the end of the day that's what bripat9643, The Sage of Main Street and & Company want.
Click to expand...

So, is it your belief that those who know Lincoln’s War was unjust and treasonous, want the return of slavery?


----------



## Bezukhov

gipper said:


> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh, and having all those slave women at total disposition! Yes, the glory days of that great 'cause'! Bring it back!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the end of the day that's what bripat9643, The Sage of Main Street and & Company want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, is it your belief that those who know Lincoln’s War was unjust and treasonous, want the return of slavery?
Click to expand...


If Lincoln's war was unjust, and the abolition of slavery was a result of this unjust war, then the abolition of slavery was unjust. To right that injustice the 13th amendment must be abolished. QED


----------



## gipper

Bezukhov said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh, and having all those slave women at total disposition! Yes, the glory days of that great 'cause'! Bring it back!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the end of the day that's what bripat9643, The Sage of Main Street and & Company want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, is it your belief that those who know Lincoln’s War was unjust and treasonous, want the return of slavery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Lincoln's war was unjust, and the abolition of slavery was a result of this unjust war, then the abolition of slavery was unjust. To right that injustice the 13th amendment must be abolished. QED
Click to expand...

There is no doubt slavery is unjust. 

Lincoln had no intention of abolishing it, wanted to ensconce it in the constitution if the south stayed, was willing to terminate the Emancipation Proclamation if the South surrendered, then after the war considered deporting all blacks. 

At any rate, most of the world eliminated slavery without a shot being fired. Lincoln’s War was entirely unnecessary.


----------



## there4eyeM

No one "knows" that it was "Lincoln's war"; some merely choose to distort history in such a way that they can allow themselves to 'think' it. The reason for this is difficult to understand. Whatever flaws that President had, there is nothing that overrides his clear reasoning of what was made necessary to turn back the treachery, treason and inhumanity of those who precipitated the conflict.
It is a mistake to make people into glorious icons.
It is a mistake to ignore what Lincoln faced and what would have happened if a lesser mind had been in place.


----------



## Jitss617




----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> August West said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> The more perfect Perpetual Union was not maintained by force. A forceful rebellion was put down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, well, no, no, no. Who invaded whom? The federal government sent armies into the South to force the Southern states to rejoin the Union against their will. Even after the Fort Sumter attack, Jefferson Davis expressed his desire for peace and repeated his offer for peaceful coexistence and MFN trading status, but by that time the Republicans were determined to invade.
> 
> You are taking the same attitude toward the right of peaceful separation that the British took when the colonies sought to exercise it. The South did not want to fight.
> 
> The actual war, with battles and casualties, began when federal armies invaded states that had revoked their ratification of the Constitution, which they had every right to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jeff Davis spoke of a peaceful co-existence between the two countries but there was only one country. The confederacy was recognized by no other nations. It was a southern fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Countries aren't recognized until they are, dumbass.  You proved nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you know nothing about History, you don't know that the so-called confederates were _desperate_ for any European country to recognize them. None would because the truth was obvious even to them. The failure of the vile traitors was inevitable from the moment they started an unnecessary state of civil war.
Click to expand...

How does that prove that Lincoln didn't start the war?


----------



## bripat9643

there4eyeM said:


> No one "knows" that it was "Lincoln's war"; some merely choose to distort history in such a way that they can allow themselves to 'think' it. The reason for this is difficult to understand. Whatever flaws that President had, there is nothing that overrides his clear reasoning of what was made necessary to turn back the treachery, treason and inhumanity of those who precipitated the conflict.
> It is a mistake to make people into glorious icons.
> It is a mistake to ignore what Lincoln faced and what would have happened if a lesser mind had been in place.


Lincoln is the one guilty of treachery, treason and inhumanity, you fucking dumbass.  There is simply no doubt about that.  The Confederates were simply defending their homeland.


----------



## August West

bripat9643 said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one "knows" that it was "Lincoln's war"; some merely choose to distort history in such a way that they can allow themselves to 'think' it. The reason for this is difficult to understand. Whatever flaws that President had, there is nothing that overrides his clear reasoning of what was made necessary to turn back the treachery, treason and inhumanity of those who precipitated the conflict.
> It is a mistake to make people into glorious icons.
> It is a mistake to ignore what Lincoln faced and what would have happened if a lesser mind had been in place.
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln is the one guilty of treachery, treason and inhumanity, you fucking dumbass.  There is simply no doubt about that.  The Confederates were simply defending their homeland.
Click to expand...

Confederate "homeland" was the homeland of all Americans. The confederacy was a mythical land recognized by no other nations.


----------



## bripat9643

August West said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one "knows" that it was "Lincoln's war"; some merely choose to distort history in such a way that they can allow themselves to 'think' it. The reason for this is difficult to understand. Whatever flaws that President had, there is nothing that overrides his clear reasoning of what was made necessary to turn back the treachery, treason and inhumanity of those who precipitated the conflict.
> It is a mistake to make people into glorious icons.
> It is a mistake to ignore what Lincoln faced and what would have happened if a lesser mind had been in place.
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln is the one guilty of treachery, treason and inhumanity, you fucking dumbass.  There is simply no doubt about that.  The Confederates were simply defending their homeland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Confederate "homeland" was the homeland of all Americans. The confederacy was a mythical land recognized by no other nations.
Click to expand...

It was recognized by the people who lived there.  Prior to the Civil War, each of the states thought of itself as a separate nation.  No one every said "I'm an American."   They said "I'm a Virginian."  There was nothing "mythical" about the Confederacy.  If that was the case, then how can we see Confederate money in museums? 

Virginia was not the homeland of people who lived in Ohio.  That's Lincoln cult propaganda.

To sum up, your just plain full of shit.


----------



## August West

gipper said:


> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh, and having all those slave women at total disposition! Yes, the glory days of that great 'cause'! Bring it back!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the end of the day that's what bripat9643, The Sage of Main Street and & Company want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, is it your belief that those who know Lincoln’s War was unjust and treasonous, want the return of slavery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Lincoln's war was unjust, and the abolition of slavery was a result of this unjust war, then the abolition of slavery was unjust. To right that injustice the 13th amendment must be abolished. QED
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no doubt slavery is unjust.
> 
> Lincoln had no intention of abolishing it, wanted to ensconce it in the constitution if the south stayed, was willing to terminate the Emancipation Proclamation if the South surrendered, then after the war considered deporting all blacks.
> 
> At any rate, most of the world eliminated slavery without a shot being fired. Lincoln’s War was entirely unnecessary.
Click to expand...

What Lincoln said in his first inaugural speech was an effort to hold off the war that South Carolinians started with their firing on Ft. Sumter. His thoughts on slavery evolved over the years.
Lincoln's Evolving Thoughts On Slavery, And Freedom


----------



## gipper

August West said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one "knows" that it was "Lincoln's war"; some merely choose to distort history in such a way that they can allow themselves to 'think' it. The reason for this is difficult to understand. Whatever flaws that President had, there is nothing that overrides his clear reasoning of what was made necessary to turn back the treachery, treason and inhumanity of those who precipitated the conflict.
> It is a mistake to make people into glorious icons.
> It is a mistake to ignore what Lincoln faced and what would have happened if a lesser mind had been in place.
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln is the one guilty of treachery, treason and inhumanity, you fucking dumbass.  There is simply no doubt about that.  The Confederates were simply defending their homeland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Confederate "homeland" was the homeland of all Americans. The confederacy was a mythical land recognized by no other nations.
Click to expand...

Yet you believe in the mythical perpetual Union. LMFAO.


----------



## gipper

August West said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh, and having all those slave women at total disposition! Yes, the glory days of that great 'cause'! Bring it back!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the end of the day that's what bripat9643, The Sage of Main Street and & Company want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, is it your belief that those who know Lincoln’s War was unjust and treasonous, want the return of slavery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Lincoln's war was unjust, and the abolition of slavery was a result of this unjust war, then the abolition of slavery was unjust. To right that injustice the 13th amendment must be abolished. QED
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no doubt slavery is unjust.
> 
> Lincoln had no intention of abolishing it, wanted to ensconce it in the constitution if the south stayed, was willing to terminate the Emancipation Proclamation if the South surrendered, then after the war considered deporting all blacks.
> 
> At any rate, most of the world eliminated slavery without a shot being fired. Lincoln’s War was entirely unnecessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What Lincoln said in his first inaugural speech was an effort to hold off the war that South Carolinians started with their firing on Ft. Sumter. His thoughts on slavery evolved over the years.
> Lincoln's Evolving Thoughts On Slavery, And Freedom
Click to expand...

No. What he did was threaten the South. He said there will be no war, as long as you pay me the tax. We kill you if you don’t pay.

Why are Lincoln cultists so uninformed?


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> August West said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> The more perfect Perpetual Union was not maintained by force. A forceful rebellion was put down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, well, no, no, no. Who invaded whom? The federal government sent armies into the South to force the Southern states to rejoin the Union against their will. Even after the Fort Sumter attack, Jefferson Davis expressed his desire for peace and repeated his offer for peaceful coexistence and MFN trading status, but by that time the Republicans were determined to invade.
> 
> You are taking the same attitude toward the right of peaceful separation that the British took when the colonies sought to exercise it. The South did not want to fight.
> 
> The actual war, with battles and casualties, began when federal armies invaded states that had revoked their ratification of the Constitution, which they had every right to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jeff Davis spoke of a peaceful co-existence between the two countries but there was only one country. The confederacy was recognized by no other nations. It was a southern fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Countries aren't recognized until they are, dumbass.  You proved nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you know nothing about History, you don't know that the so-called confederates were _desperate_ for any European country to recognize them. None would because the truth was obvious even to them. The failure of the vile traitors was inevitable from the moment they started an unnecessary state of civil war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does that prove that Lincoln didn't start the war?
Click to expand...



The traitors firing on Ft. Sumter started the war. You’ve been taught this before. Stop licking the lead paint, kid.


----------



## August West

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> August West said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, well, no, no, no. Who invaded whom? The federal government sent armies into the South to force the Southern states to rejoin the Union against their will. Even after the Fort Sumter attack, Jefferson Davis expressed his desire for peace and repeated his offer for peaceful coexistence and MFN trading status, but by that time the Republicans were determined to invade.
> 
> You are taking the same attitude toward the right of peaceful separation that the British took when the colonies sought to exercise it. The South did not want to fight.
> 
> The actual war, with battles and casualties, began when federal armies invaded states that had revoked their ratification of the Constitution, which they had every right to do.
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Davis spoke of a peaceful co-existence between the two countries but there was only one country. The confederacy was recognized by no other nations. It was a southern fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Countries aren't recognized until they are, dumbass.  You proved nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you know nothing about History, you don't know that the so-called confederates were _desperate_ for any European country to recognize them. None would because the truth was obvious even to them. The failure of the vile traitors was inevitable from the moment they started an unnecessary state of civil war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does that prove that Lincoln didn't start the war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The traitors firing on Ft. Sumter started the war. You’ve been taught this before. Stop licking the lead paint, kid.
Click to expand...

Notice that the kid is holding his hand up with one finger indicating his IQ? He`s making a case against home schooling.


----------



## bripat9643

August West said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh, and having all those slave women at total disposition! Yes, the glory days of that great 'cause'! Bring it back!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the end of the day that's what bripat9643, The Sage of Main Street and & Company want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, is it your belief that those who know Lincoln’s War was unjust and treasonous, want the return of slavery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Lincoln's war was unjust, and the abolition of slavery was a result of this unjust war, then the abolition of slavery was unjust. To right that injustice the 13th amendment must be abolished. QED
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no doubt slavery is unjust.
> 
> Lincoln had no intention of abolishing it, wanted to ensconce it in the constitution if the south stayed, was willing to terminate the Emancipation Proclamation if the South surrendered, then after the war considered deporting all blacks.
> 
> At any rate, most of the world eliminated slavery without a shot being fired. Lincoln’s War was entirely unnecessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What Lincoln said in his first inaugural speech was an effort to hold off the war that South Carolinians started with their firing on Ft. Sumter. His thoughts on slavery evolved over the years.
> Lincoln's Evolving Thoughts On Slavery, And Freedom
Click to expand...

Even until shortly before his death Lincoln was making plans to ship all the freed slaves to Africa of some island in the Caribbean.


----------



## bripat9643

August West said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> August West said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Davis spoke of a peaceful co-existence between the two countries but there was only one country. The confederacy was recognized by no other nations. It was a southern fantasy.
> 
> 
> 
> Countries aren't recognized until they are, dumbass.  You proved nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you know nothing about History, you don't know that the so-called confederates were _desperate_ for any European country to recognize them. None would because the truth was obvious even to them. The failure of the vile traitors was inevitable from the moment they started an unnecessary state of civil war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does that prove that Lincoln didn't start the war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The traitors firing on Ft. Sumter started the war. You’ve been taught this before. Stop licking the lead paint, kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Notice that the kid is holding his hand up with one finger indicating his IQ? He`s making a case against home schooling.
Click to expand...

You obviously can't answer the question either.  I've noticed that the personal attacks start in earnest when you ask members of the Lincoln cult questions they have no answer for.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> August West said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, well, no, no, no. Who invaded whom? The federal government sent armies into the South to force the Southern states to rejoin the Union against their will. Even after the Fort Sumter attack, Jefferson Davis expressed his desire for peace and repeated his offer for peaceful coexistence and MFN trading status, but by that time the Republicans were determined to invade.
> 
> You are taking the same attitude toward the right of peaceful separation that the British took when the colonies sought to exercise it. The South did not want to fight.
> 
> The actual war, with battles and casualties, began when federal armies invaded states that had revoked their ratification of the Constitution, which they had every right to do.
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Davis spoke of a peaceful co-existence between the two countries but there was only one country. The confederacy was recognized by no other nations. It was a southern fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Countries aren't recognized until they are, dumbass.  You proved nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you know nothing about History, you don't know that the so-called confederates were _desperate_ for any European country to recognize them. None would because the truth was obvious even to them. The failure of the vile traitors was inevitable from the moment they started an unnecessary state of civil war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does that prove that Lincoln didn't start the war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The traitors firing on Ft. Sumter started the war. You’ve been taught this before. Stop licking the lead paint, kid.
Click to expand...

No they didn't, moron. You’ve been taught this before. Stop licking the lead paint.


----------



## August West

bripat9643 said:


> August West said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the end of the day that's what bripat9643, The Sage of Main Street and & Company want.
> 
> 
> 
> So, is it your belief that those who know Lincoln’s War was unjust and treasonous, want the return of slavery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Lincoln's war was unjust, and the abolition of slavery was a result of this unjust war, then the abolition of slavery was unjust. To right that injustice the 13th amendment must be abolished. QED
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no doubt slavery is unjust.
> 
> Lincoln had no intention of abolishing it, wanted to ensconce it in the constitution if the south stayed, was willing to terminate the Emancipation Proclamation if the South surrendered, then after the war considered deporting all blacks.
> 
> At any rate, most of the world eliminated slavery without a shot being fired. Lincoln’s War was entirely unnecessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What Lincoln said in his first inaugural speech was an effort to hold off the war that South Carolinians started with their firing on Ft. Sumter. His thoughts on slavery evolved over the years.
> Lincoln's Evolving Thoughts On Slavery, And Freedom
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even until shortly before his death Lincoln was making plans to ship all the freed slaves to Africa of some island in the Caribbean.
Click to expand...

Lincoln had long favored the colonization option but only voluntary. The Emancipation Proclamation rendered that idea effectively dead.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> August West said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Davis spoke of a peaceful co-existence between the two countries but there was only one country. The confederacy was recognized by no other nations. It was a southern fantasy.
> 
> 
> 
> Countries aren't recognized until they are, dumbass.  You proved nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you know nothing about History, you don't know that the so-called confederates were _desperate_ for any European country to recognize them. None would because the truth was obvious even to them. The failure of the vile traitors was inevitable from the moment they started an unnecessary state of civil war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does that prove that Lincoln didn't start the war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The traitors firing on Ft. Sumter started the war. You’ve been taught this before. Stop licking the lead paint, kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they didn't, moron. You’ve been taught this before. Stop licking the lead paint.
Click to expand...



Stop pretending that stormfront is actual History. Go back to school, you ignorant douche. Your  hated for my country does not alter history, fool.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Countries aren't recognized until they are, dumbass.  You proved nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since you know nothing about History, you don't know that the so-called confederates were _desperate_ for any European country to recognize them. None would because the truth was obvious even to them. The failure of the vile traitors was inevitable from the moment they started an unnecessary state of civil war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does that prove that Lincoln didn't start the war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The traitors firing on Ft. Sumter started the war. You’ve been taught this before. Stop licking the lead paint, kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they didn't, moron. You’ve been taught this before. Stop licking the lead paint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Stop pretending that stormfront is actual History. Go back to school, you ignorant douche. Your  hated for my country does not alter history, fool.
Click to expand...

Stop pretending you know any actual history.  All you've done is post one lie after another.  And then you support it with a barrage of personal attacks.

No one is fooled.


----------



## bripat9643

August West said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> August West said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, is it your belief that those who know Lincoln’s War was unjust and treasonous, want the return of slavery?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Lincoln's war was unjust, and the abolition of slavery was a result of this unjust war, then the abolition of slavery was unjust. To right that injustice the 13th amendment must be abolished. QED
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no doubt slavery is unjust.
> 
> Lincoln had no intention of abolishing it, wanted to ensconce it in the constitution if the south stayed, was willing to terminate the Emancipation Proclamation if the South surrendered, then after the war considered deporting all blacks.
> 
> At any rate, most of the world eliminated slavery without a shot being fired. Lincoln’s War was entirely unnecessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What Lincoln said in his first inaugural speech was an effort to hold off the war that South Carolinians started with their firing on Ft. Sumter. His thoughts on slavery evolved over the years.
> Lincoln's Evolving Thoughts On Slavery, And Freedom
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even until shortly before his death Lincoln was making plans to ship all the freed slaves to Africa of some island in the Caribbean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln had long favored the colonization option but only voluntary. The Emancipation Proclamation rendered that idea effectively dead.
Click to expand...

What part of "just before he died" didn't you understand?  And he had no intention of making it voluntary.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since you know nothing about History, you don't know that the so-called confederates were _desperate_ for any European country to recognize them. None would because the truth was obvious even to them. The failure of the vile traitors was inevitable from the moment they started an unnecessary state of civil war.
> 
> 
> 
> How does that prove that Lincoln didn't start the war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The traitors firing on Ft. Sumter started the war. You’ve been taught this before. Stop licking the lead paint, kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they didn't, moron. You’ve been taught this before. Stop licking the lead paint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Stop pretending that stormfront is actual History. Go back to school, you ignorant douche. Your  hated for my country does not alter history, fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop pretending you know any actual history.  ....
Click to expand...



Unlike you, I actually do. All you have is bitter hatred for my country and a sick nostalgia for slavery.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does that prove that Lincoln didn't start the war?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The traitors firing on Ft. Sumter started the war. You’ve been taught this before. Stop licking the lead paint, kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they didn't, moron. You’ve been taught this before. Stop licking the lead paint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Stop pretending that stormfront is actual History. Go back to school, you ignorant douche. Your  hated for my country does not alter history, fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop pretending you know any actual history.  ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you, I actually do. All you have is bitter hatred for my country and a sick nostalgia for slavery.
Click to expand...

If you know so much about history, then why is everything you post so wrong?


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> The traitors firing on Ft. Sumter started the war. You’ve been taught this before. Stop licking the lead paint, kid.
> 
> 
> 
> No they didn't, moron. You’ve been taught this before. Stop licking the lead paint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Stop pretending that stormfront is actual History. Go back to school, you ignorant douche. Your  hated for my country does not alter history, fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop pretending you know any actual history.  ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you, I actually do. All you have is bitter hatred for my country and a sick nostalgia for slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you know so much about history, then why is everything you post so wrong?
Click to expand...


It’s not, you ignorant buffoon.


----------



## Unkotare

August West said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one "knows" that it was "Lincoln's war"; some merely choose to distort history in such a way that they can allow themselves to 'think' it. The reason for this is difficult to understand. Whatever flaws that President had, there is nothing that overrides his clear reasoning of what was made necessary to turn back the treachery, treason and inhumanity of those who precipitated the conflict.
> It is a mistake to make people into glorious icons.
> It is a mistake to ignore what Lincoln faced and what would have happened if a lesser mind had been in place.
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln is the one guilty of treachery, treason and inhumanity, you fucking dumbass.  There is simply no doubt about that.  The Confederates were simply defending their homeland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Confederate "homeland" was the homeland of all Americans. The confederacy was a mythical land recognized by no other nations.
Click to expand...



Correct.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street

there4eyeM said:


> ...but we wouldn't have Rock 'n Roll!


*Dung Beatles*


Despite the pushy disinformation, that was really White Working-Class music.  The Preppie snobs were terrified that the culture might be taken over by real Americans, so they had their Daddies replace it with sick vibes.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street

gipper said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> August West said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Davis spoke of a peaceful co-existence between the two countries but there was only one country. The confederacy was recognized by no other nations. It was a southern fantasy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually, under the original intent of the Constitution, when those states revoked their ratification, which they had a constitutional right to do, they reverted to the status of independent and sovereign nation states. Before all 13 states ratified the federal constitution, those states that had not yet ratified the constitution were treated as separate nations by the states that had joined the federal union.
> 
> You see, the problem is that you guys are adopting the same attitude toward peaceful separation that the British adopted when the colonies tried to peacefully separate from England. The Patriots (i.e., the colonists who wanted to separate) bitterly condemned England's attempt to force the colonies to remain under British control. The British replied that they were merely putting down a rebellion.
> 
> That's why the framers were so emphatic that their union would not be maintained by force. That's why they did not specify that ratification was irrevocable. That's why they decidedly rejected the idea that the federal government would be able to use force against disobedient states. That's why they even specified that the federal government could not even send troops into a state without the state government's permission.
> 
> I've documented all of these facts in the following two articles:
> 
> Proof that the Union was Supposed to be Voluntary
> 
> The American Revolution and the Right of Peaceful Separation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wonder what might happen if states tried to secede today. Would they federal government mass murder them, as Lincoln did?
> 
> What if California were to secede, after Trump wins re-election. Just a thought.
> 
> The result might be a total dismantling of our criminal central government. I say that might be a wonderful thing.
Click to expand...

*Kit Carson, Where Are You?*

The opposite would happen.  The kind of people who built California would rise up and quickly destroy its Deep State, which is spoiled and gutless degenerate trash.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street

Bezukhov said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh, and having all those slave women at total disposition! Yes, the glory days of that great 'cause'! Bring it back!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the end of the day that's what bripat9643, The Sage of Main Street and & Company want.
Click to expand...

*The South Had Slavery; the North Had Sweatshops.  The North Had No Moral Superiority.*


What Preppy Progressive snobs want is the subjugation of all other White people, using Black thugs as their enforcers.


----------



## Bezukhov

The Sage of Main Street said:


> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh, and having all those slave women at total disposition! Yes, the glory days of that great 'cause'! Bring it back!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the end of the day that's what bripat9643, The Sage of Main Street and & Company want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The South Had Slavery; the North Had Sweatshops.  The North Had No Moral Superiority.*
> 
> 
> What Preppy Progressive snobs want is the subjugation of all other White people, using Black thugs as their enforcers.
Click to expand...


What was the punishment dished out to a worker for leaving his job at a sweat shop? What was the punishment dished out to a slave for leaving his job at a plantation? There's our Moral Superiority. Which situation would you rather be in?


----------



## gipper

rightwinger said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet he chose war. He warred on fellow Americans. The exact definition of treason.
> 
> 
> 
> Firing on US troops was treason
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.   If they are trespassing on the sovereign territory of another country, then they deserve what they get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wasn’t their territory
> It was a US Military installation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was their territory.  It just wasn't their property.  US doesn't have the right to occupy foreign territory, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evidently, it is not
> 
> Ft Sumter STILL belongs to the Federal Government
Click to expand...




The Sage of Main Street said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> August West said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Davis spoke of a peaceful co-existence between the two countries but there was only one country. The confederacy was recognized by no other nations. It was a southern fantasy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually, under the original intent of the Constitution, when those states revoked their ratification, which they had a constitutional right to do, they reverted to the status of independent and sovereign nation states. Before all 13 states ratified the federal constitution, those states that had not yet ratified the constitution were treated as separate nations by the states that had joined the federal union.
> 
> You see, the problem is that you guys are adopting the same attitude toward peaceful separation that the British adopted when the colonies tried to peacefully separate from England. The Patriots (i.e., the colonists who wanted to separate) bitterly condemned England's attempt to force the colonies to remain under British control. The British replied that they were merely putting down a rebellion.
> 
> That's why the framers were so emphatic that their union would not be maintained by force. That's why they did not specify that ratification was irrevocable. That's why they decidedly rejected the idea that the federal government would be able to use force against disobedient states. That's why they even specified that the federal government could not even send troops into a state without the state government's permission.
> 
> I've documented all of these facts in the following two articles:
> 
> Proof that the Union was Supposed to be Voluntary
> 
> The American Revolution and the Right of Peaceful Separation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *That Horrible War Must Be Blamed on Our Sacred-Cow Constitution*
> 
> 
> 
> Also helpful, because everyone is too conformist to shallow historians to think beyond the propaganda, is the fact that Congress didn't seat any Senators or Representatives from the South during the war.  That meant the Confederacy was recognized _de jure _as a separate country.
Click to expand...




Bezukhov said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh, and having all those slave women at total disposition! Yes, the glory days of that great 'cause'! Bring it back!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the end of the day that's what bripat9643, The Sage of Main Street and & Company want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, is it your belief that those who know Lincoln’s War was unjust and treasonous, want the return of slavery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Lincoln's war was unjust, and the abolition of slavery was a result of this unjust war, then the abolition of slavery was unjust. To right that injustice the 13th amendment must be abolished. QED
Click to expand...


Here is another great book on the War of Northern Aggression. If only the Lincoln Cultist had the capacity to understand truth. Order your copy today, as I did.

The truth...can you accept it?





_*It Wasn’t About Slavery: Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War*_
As John Donne so correctly informs us, truth is not something easily discerned, recognized, nor often embraced.  Often when the truth is found and it does not comport to man’s hoped-for meaning, instead of graciously embracing the truth it is attacked and those seeking it are scorned. * In today’s post-modern, politically correct society anyone who expresses the truth about slavery and the War for Southern Independence must be willing to be subjected to the most horrendous attacks from leftists in the media, and academia, as well as being harangued by establishment politicians and many religious groups.*  But this is precisely what Dr. Samuel Mitcham has willingly subjected himself to in his latest book, _It Wasn’t About Slavery.[1] _

*Mitcham concludes his book by firmly pointing out that any open-minded reader should understand “that the war was not just about slavery and certainly not primarily about slavery.”  Mitcham explains that it was control of a powerful centralized and unquestionable supreme Federal government that was the primary reason for the conquest of the South.*  The War provided a victory of Hamiltonian big government over Jeffersonian small (local) government. “The Hamiltonian system called for principal loyalty to a strong, dominant federal government.  The Jeffersonian ideal that the principal loyalty was to the state and to the idea that ‘that governs best which governs least.’ The issue is now settled.  Hamiltonianism eventually (and naturally) evolved into the present Nanny State…. Since 1865, the only restraint to the federal government _has been _the federal government—an oxymoron that works for very few Americans today.”[8]

In his concluding remarks Mitcham has hit upon an issue even more important than simply slavery or secession. This issue is also one that most patriotic Americans are fearful to examine. *After the conquest of the South, General Lee warned that with the concentration (consolidation) of all power into the hands of an all-powerful federal government, America would become “aggressive abroad and despotic at home.”*[9]

https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/wasnt-slavery.jpg


----------



## Picaro

The Sage of Main Street said:


> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh, and having all those slave women at total disposition! Yes, the glory days of that great 'cause'! Bring it back!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the end of the day that's what bripat9643, The Sage of Main Street and & Company want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The South Had Slavery; the North Had Sweatshops.  The North Had No Moral Superiority.*
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


The Republicans ran on keeping *all* black people out of the North and out of the new territories, period. They nearly lost everything in the 1862 mid-terms when many voters thought the GOP was making emancipation an issue instead. the only reason they held on to a thin margin of Congress was because of Lincoln's private armies controlling the ballot boxes in the border states and much of Pennsylvania.


----------



## Picaro

Bezukhov said:


> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh, and having all those slave women at total disposition! Yes, the glory days of that great 'cause'! Bring it back!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the end of the day that's what bripat9643, The Sage of Main Street and & Company want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The South Had Slavery; the North Had Sweatshops.  The North Had No Moral Superiority.*
> 
> 
> What Preppy Progressive snobs want is the subjugation of all other White people, using Black thugs as their enforcers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What was the punishment dished out to a worker for leaving his job at a sweat shop? What was the punishment dished out to a slave for leaving his job at a plantation? There's our Moral Superiority. Which situation would you rather be in?
Click to expand...


In Illinois trying to leave a sweatshop landed you in debtor's prison, which in turn meant you could be  rented out by the sheriffs to private employers as a 'contract worker'. Google up 'company stores'.  You still had slaves all over the North, they just used a different method, is all. It was nearly impossible for any black person to make a legal living in Illinois, Indiana, and other states, thanks to the Black Codes legislation there, several of which passed much stronger ones after the SC rulings in favor of slave owners in the early 1850's, including Lincoln's home state.Also see several studies of Americans from 1820 on; the average white American laborer lost several inches in height and had much shorter lifespans and high infant mortality rates under industrialization than before, and this trend continued right up the end of the 19th century.

You familiar with Lincoln's plans for southern 'free' blacks? He didn't really 'free' them, as we know from his martial law regs for the southern states the North conquered. He made it illegal fro many to leave the govt. run plantations without written permission from the owners. Those who weren't needed were forced into 'Property Camps', where they were left to die of starvation and disease, some 700,000 or so.


----------



## August West

gipper said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Firing on US troops was treason
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.   If they are trespassing on the sovereign territory of another country, then they deserve what they get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wasn’t their territory
> It was a US Military installation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was their territory.  It just wasn't their property.  US doesn't have the right to occupy foreign territory, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evidently, it is not
> 
> Ft Sumter STILL belongs to the Federal Government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> August West said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Davis spoke of a peaceful co-existence between the two countries but there was only one country. The confederacy was recognized by no other nations. It was a southern fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, actually, under the original intent of the Constitution, when those states revoked their ratification, which they had a constitutional right to do, they reverted to the status of independent and sovereign nation states. Before all 13 states ratified the federal constitution, those states that had not yet ratified the constitution were treated as separate nations by the states that had joined the federal union.
> 
> You see, the problem is that you guys are adopting the same attitude toward peaceful separation that the British adopted when the colonies tried to peacefully separate from England. The Patriots (i.e., the colonists who wanted to separate) bitterly condemned England's attempt to force the colonies to remain under British control. The British replied that they were merely putting down a rebellion.
> 
> That's why the framers were so emphatic that their union would not be maintained by force. That's why they did not specify that ratification was irrevocable. That's why they decidedly rejected the idea that the federal government would be able to use force against disobedient states. That's why they even specified that the federal government could not even send troops into a state without the state government's permission.
> 
> I've documented all of these facts in the following two articles:
> 
> Proof that the Union was Supposed to be Voluntary
> 
> The American Revolution and the Right of Peaceful Separation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *That Horrible War Must Be Blamed on Our Sacred-Cow Constitution*
> 
> 
> 
> Also helpful, because everyone is too conformist to shallow historians to think beyond the propaganda, is the fact that Congress didn't seat any Senators or Representatives from the South during the war.  That meant the Confederacy was recognized _de jure _as a separate country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh, and having all those slave women at total disposition! Yes, the glory days of that great 'cause'! Bring it back!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At the end of the day that's what bripat9643, The Sage of Main Street and & Company want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, is it your belief that those who know Lincoln’s War was unjust and treasonous, want the return of slavery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Lincoln's war was unjust, and the abolition of slavery was a result of this unjust war, then the abolition of slavery was unjust. To right that injustice the 13th amendment must be abolished. QED
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is another great book on the War of Northern Aggression. If only the Lincoln Cultist had the capacity to understand truth. Order your copy today, as I did.
> 
> The truth...can you accept it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*It Wasn’t About Slavery: Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War*_
> As John Donne so correctly informs us, truth is not something easily discerned, recognized, nor often embraced.  Often when the truth is found and it does not comport to man’s hoped-for meaning, instead of graciously embracing the truth it is attacked and those seeking it are scorned. * In today’s post-modern, politically correct society anyone who expresses the truth about slavery and the War for Southern Independence must be willing to be subjected to the most horrendous attacks from leftists in the media, and academia, as well as being harangued by establishment politicians and many religious groups.*  But this is precisely what Dr. Samuel Mitcham has willingly subjected himself to in his latest book, _It Wasn’t About Slavery.[1] _
> 
> *Mitcham concludes his book by firmly pointing out that any open-minded reader should understand “that the war was not just about slavery and certainly not primarily about slavery.”  Mitcham explains that it was control of a powerful centralized and unquestionable supreme Federal government that was the primary reason for the conquest of the South.*  The War provided a victory of Hamiltonian big government over Jeffersonian small (local) government. “The Hamiltonian system called for principal loyalty to a strong, dominant federal government.  The Jeffersonian ideal that the principal loyalty was to the state and to the idea that ‘that governs best which governs least.’ The issue is now settled.  Hamiltonianism eventually (and naturally) evolved into the present Nanny State…. Since 1865, the only restraint to the federal government _has been _the federal government—an oxymoron that works for very few Americans today.”[8]
> 
> In his concluding remarks Mitcham has hit upon an issue even more important than simply slavery or secession. This issue is also one that most patriotic Americans are fearful to examine. *After the conquest of the South, General Lee warned that with the concentration (consolidation) of all power into the hands of an all-powerful federal government, America would become “aggressive abroad and despotic at home.”*[9]
> 
> https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/wasnt-slavery.jpg
Click to expand...

The Truth is laid out nicely by a southern who is a prominent CW author and whose ancestors fought for the south. It was about slavery as nearly every state`s Ordinance of Secession clearly stated. There is no way around it.
http://78ohio.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Fellow-Southerners-final-version.pdf


----------



## bripat9643

August West said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.   If they are trespassing on the sovereign territory of another country, then they deserve what they get.
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn’t their territory
> It was a US Military installation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was their territory.  It just wasn't their property.  US doesn't have the right to occupy foreign territory, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evidently, it is not
> 
> Ft Sumter STILL belongs to the Federal Government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> August West said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Davis spoke of a peaceful co-existence between the two countries but there was only one country. The confederacy was recognized by no other nations. It was a southern fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, actually, under the original intent of the Constitution, when those states revoked their ratification, which they had a constitutional right to do, they reverted to the status of independent and sovereign nation states. Before all 13 states ratified the federal constitution, those states that had not yet ratified the constitution were treated as separate nations by the states that had joined the federal union.
> 
> You see, the problem is that you guys are adopting the same attitude toward peaceful separation that the British adopted when the colonies tried to peacefully separate from England. The Patriots (i.e., the colonists who wanted to separate) bitterly condemned England's attempt to force the colonies to remain under British control. The British replied that they were merely putting down a rebellion.
> 
> That's why the framers were so emphatic that their union would not be maintained by force. That's why they did not specify that ratification was irrevocable. That's why they decidedly rejected the idea that the federal government would be able to use force against disobedient states. That's why they even specified that the federal government could not even send troops into a state without the state government's permission.
> 
> I've documented all of these facts in the following two articles:
> 
> Proof that the Union was Supposed to be Voluntary
> 
> The American Revolution and the Right of Peaceful Separation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *That Horrible War Must Be Blamed on Our Sacred-Cow Constitution*
> 
> 
> 
> Also helpful, because everyone is too conformist to shallow historians to think beyond the propaganda, is the fact that Congress didn't seat any Senators or Representatives from the South during the war.  That meant the Confederacy was recognized _de jure _as a separate country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh, and having all those slave women at total disposition! Yes, the glory days of that great 'cause'! Bring it back!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At the end of the day that's what bripat9643, The Sage of Main Street and & Company want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, is it your belief that those who know Lincoln’s War was unjust and treasonous, want the return of slavery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Lincoln's war was unjust, and the abolition of slavery was a result of this unjust war, then the abolition of slavery was unjust. To right that injustice the 13th amendment must be abolished. QED
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is another great book on the War of Northern Aggression. If only the Lincoln Cultist had the capacity to understand truth. Order your copy today, as I did.
> 
> The truth...can you accept it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*It Wasn’t About Slavery: Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War*_
> As John Donne so correctly informs us, truth is not something easily discerned, recognized, nor often embraced.  Often when the truth is found and it does not comport to man’s hoped-for meaning, instead of graciously embracing the truth it is attacked and those seeking it are scorned. * In today’s post-modern, politically correct society anyone who expresses the truth about slavery and the War for Southern Independence must be willing to be subjected to the most horrendous attacks from leftists in the media, and academia, as well as being harangued by establishment politicians and many religious groups.*  But this is precisely what Dr. Samuel Mitcham has willingly subjected himself to in his latest book, _It Wasn’t About Slavery.[1] _
> 
> *Mitcham concludes his book by firmly pointing out that any open-minded reader should understand “that the war was not just about slavery and certainly not primarily about slavery.”  Mitcham explains that it was control of a powerful centralized and unquestionable supreme Federal government that was the primary reason for the conquest of the South.*  The War provided a victory of Hamiltonian big government over Jeffersonian small (local) government. “The Hamiltonian system called for principal loyalty to a strong, dominant federal government.  The Jeffersonian ideal that the principal loyalty was to the state and to the idea that ‘that governs best which governs least.’ The issue is now settled.  Hamiltonianism eventually (and naturally) evolved into the present Nanny State…. Since 1865, the only restraint to the federal government _has been _the federal government—an oxymoron that works for very few Americans today.”[8]
> 
> In his concluding remarks Mitcham has hit upon an issue even more important than simply slavery or secession. This issue is also one that most patriotic Americans are fearful to examine. *After the conquest of the South, General Lee warned that with the concentration (consolidation) of all power into the hands of an all-powerful federal government, America would become “aggressive abroad and despotic at home.”*[9]
> 
> https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/wasnt-slavery.jpg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Truth is laid out nicely by a southern who is a prominent CW author and whose ancestors fought for the south. It was about slavery as nearly every state`s Ordinance of Secession clearly stated. There is no way around it.
> http://78ohio.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Fellow-Southerners-final-version.pdf
Click to expand...


It wasn't about slavery:

Why The War Was Not About Slavery | Abbeville Institute

Abraham Lincoln said war was over taxes, not slavery

How We Know The So-Called “Civil War” Was Not Over Slavery - PaulCraigRoberts.org

https://www.mightytaxes.com/taxes-caused-civil-war/


----------



## Unkotare

Howis this idiot any different than the Holocaust denier idiots? ^^^^^


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> Howis this idiot any different than the Holocaust denier idiots? ^^^^^


Who's denying that slavery existed?  Which "idiot" are you referring to?


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Howis this idiot any different than the Holocaust denier idiots? ^^^^^
> 
> 
> 
> Who's denying that slavery existed?  Which "idiot" are you referring to?
Click to expand...




You, idiot.


----------



## Syriusly

Unkotare said:


> Howis this idiot any different than the Holocaust denier idiots? ^^^^^



It really isn't. 

The facts are that Lincoln did not go to war to free the slaves.
But the Confederate States left the Union to protect their slave property rights. 

Yep- the denialists about the Confederacy's commitment to slavery really are no different from the Holocaust deniers.


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Howis this idiot any different than the Holocaust denier idiots? ^^^^^
> 
> 
> 
> Who's denying that slavery existed?  Which "idiot" are you referring to?
Click to expand...


You- and your fellow pro-slavery statists.


----------



## Bezukhov

bripat9643 said:


> August West said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn’t their territory
> It was a US Military installation
> 
> 
> 
> It was their territory.  It just wasn't their property.  US doesn't have the right to occupy foreign territory, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evidently, it is not
> 
> Ft Sumter STILL belongs to the Federal Government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> August West said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Davis spoke of a peaceful co-existence between the two countries but there was only one country. The confederacy was recognized by no other nations. It was a southern fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, actually, under the original intent of the Constitution, when those states revoked their ratification, which they had a constitutional right to do, they reverted to the status of independent and sovereign nation states. Before all 13 states ratified the federal constitution, those states that had not yet ratified the constitution were treated as separate nations by the states that had joined the federal union.
> 
> You see, the problem is that you guys are adopting the same attitude toward peaceful separation that the British adopted when the colonies tried to peacefully separate from England. The Patriots (i.e., the colonists who wanted to separate) bitterly condemned England's attempt to force the colonies to remain under British control. The British replied that they were merely putting down a rebellion.
> 
> That's why the framers were so emphatic that their union would not be maintained by force. That's why they did not specify that ratification was irrevocable. That's why they decidedly rejected the idea that the federal government would be able to use force against disobedient states. That's why they even specified that the federal government could not even send troops into a state without the state government's permission.
> 
> I've documented all of these facts in the following two articles:
> 
> Proof that the Union was Supposed to be Voluntary
> 
> The American Revolution and the Right of Peaceful Separation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *That Horrible War Must Be Blamed on Our Sacred-Cow Constitution*
> 
> 
> 
> Also helpful, because everyone is too conformist to shallow historians to think beyond the propaganda, is the fact that Congress didn't seat any Senators or Representatives from the South during the war.  That meant the Confederacy was recognized _de jure _as a separate country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the end of the day that's what bripat9643, The Sage of Main Street and & Company want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, is it your belief that those who know Lincoln’s War was unjust and treasonous, want the return of slavery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Lincoln's war was unjust, and the abolition of slavery was a result of this unjust war, then the abolition of slavery was unjust. To right that injustice the 13th amendment must be abolished. QED
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is another great book on the War of Northern Aggression. If only the Lincoln Cultist had the capacity to understand truth. Order your copy today, as I did.
> 
> The truth...can you accept it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*It Wasn’t About Slavery: Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War*_
> As John Donne so correctly informs us, truth is not something easily discerned, recognized, nor often embraced.  Often when the truth is found and it does not comport to man’s hoped-for meaning, instead of graciously embracing the truth it is attacked and those seeking it are scorned. * In today’s post-modern, politically correct society anyone who expresses the truth about slavery and the War for Southern Independence must be willing to be subjected to the most horrendous attacks from leftists in the media, and academia, as well as being harangued by establishment politicians and many religious groups.*  But this is precisely what Dr. Samuel Mitcham has willingly subjected himself to in his latest book, _It Wasn’t About Slavery.[1] _
> 
> *Mitcham concludes his book by firmly pointing out that any open-minded reader should understand “that the war was not just about slavery and certainly not primarily about slavery.”  Mitcham explains that it was control of a powerful centralized and unquestionable supreme Federal government that was the primary reason for the conquest of the South.*  The War provided a victory of Hamiltonian big government over Jeffersonian small (local) government. “The Hamiltonian system called for principal loyalty to a strong, dominant federal government.  The Jeffersonian ideal that the principal loyalty was to the state and to the idea that ‘that governs best which governs least.’ The issue is now settled.  Hamiltonianism eventually (and naturally) evolved into the present Nanny State…. Since 1865, the only restraint to the federal government _has been _the federal government—an oxymoron that works for very few Americans today.”[8]
> 
> In his concluding remarks Mitcham has hit upon an issue even more important than simply slavery or secession. This issue is also one that most patriotic Americans are fearful to examine. *After the conquest of the South, General Lee warned that with the concentration (consolidation) of all power into the hands of an all-powerful federal government, America would become “aggressive abroad and despotic at home.”*[9]
> 
> https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/wasnt-slavery.jpg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Truth is laid out nicely by a southern who is a prominent CW author and whose ancestors fought for the south. It was about slavery as nearly every state`s Ordinance of Secession clearly stated. There is no way around it.
> http://78ohio.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Fellow-Southerners-final-version.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wasn't about slavery:
> 
> Why The War Was Not About Slavery | Abbeville Institute
> 
> Abraham Lincoln said war was over taxes, not slavery
> 
> How We Know The So-Called “Civil War” Was Not Over Slavery - PaulCraigRoberts.org
> 
> https://www.mightytaxes.com/taxes-caused-civil-war/
Click to expand...


Secession was all about slavery. The Southern states made that quite plain. Was Slavery a valid reason for secession?


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Howis this idiot any different than the Holocaust denier idiots? ^^^^^
> 
> 
> 
> Who's denying that slavery existed?  Which "idiot" are you referring to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You, idiot.
Click to expand...

When did I deny that slavery existed?  Please quote me saying that.


----------



## bripat9643

Bezukhov said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> August West said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was their territory.  It just wasn't their property.  US doesn't have the right to occupy foreign territory, moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidently, it is not
> 
> Ft Sumter STILL belongs to the Federal Government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually, under the original intent of the Constitution, when those states revoked their ratification, which they had a constitutional right to do, they reverted to the status of independent and sovereign nation states. Before all 13 states ratified the federal constitution, those states that had not yet ratified the constitution were treated as separate nations by the states that had joined the federal union.
> 
> You see, the problem is that you guys are adopting the same attitude toward peaceful separation that the British adopted when the colonies tried to peacefully separate from England. The Patriots (i.e., the colonists who wanted to separate) bitterly condemned England's attempt to force the colonies to remain under British control. The British replied that they were merely putting down a rebellion.
> 
> That's why the framers were so emphatic that their union would not be maintained by force. That's why they did not specify that ratification was irrevocable. That's why they decidedly rejected the idea that the federal government would be able to use force against disobedient states. That's why they even specified that the federal government could not even send troops into a state without the state government's permission.
> 
> I've documented all of these facts in the following two articles:
> 
> Proof that the Union was Supposed to be Voluntary
> 
> The American Revolution and the Right of Peaceful Separation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *That Horrible War Must Be Blamed on Our Sacred-Cow Constitution*
> 
> 
> 
> Also helpful, because everyone is too conformist to shallow historians to think beyond the propaganda, is the fact that Congress didn't seat any Senators or Representatives from the South during the war.  That meant the Confederacy was recognized _de jure _as a separate country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, is it your belief that those who know Lincoln’s War was unjust and treasonous, want the return of slavery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Lincoln's war was unjust, and the abolition of slavery was a result of this unjust war, then the abolition of slavery was unjust. To right that injustice the 13th amendment must be abolished. QED
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is another great book on the War of Northern Aggression. If only the Lincoln Cultist had the capacity to understand truth. Order your copy today, as I did.
> 
> The truth...can you accept it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*It Wasn’t About Slavery: Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War*_
> As John Donne so correctly informs us, truth is not something easily discerned, recognized, nor often embraced.  Often when the truth is found and it does not comport to man’s hoped-for meaning, instead of graciously embracing the truth it is attacked and those seeking it are scorned. * In today’s post-modern, politically correct society anyone who expresses the truth about slavery and the War for Southern Independence must be willing to be subjected to the most horrendous attacks from leftists in the media, and academia, as well as being harangued by establishment politicians and many religious groups.*  But this is precisely what Dr. Samuel Mitcham has willingly subjected himself to in his latest book, _It Wasn’t About Slavery.[1] _
> 
> *Mitcham concludes his book by firmly pointing out that any open-minded reader should understand “that the war was not just about slavery and certainly not primarily about slavery.”  Mitcham explains that it was control of a powerful centralized and unquestionable supreme Federal government that was the primary reason for the conquest of the South.*  The War provided a victory of Hamiltonian big government over Jeffersonian small (local) government. “The Hamiltonian system called for principal loyalty to a strong, dominant federal government.  The Jeffersonian ideal that the principal loyalty was to the state and to the idea that ‘that governs best which governs least.’ The issue is now settled.  Hamiltonianism eventually (and naturally) evolved into the present Nanny State…. Since 1865, the only restraint to the federal government _has been _the federal government—an oxymoron that works for very few Americans today.”[8]
> 
> In his concluding remarks Mitcham has hit upon an issue even more important than simply slavery or secession. This issue is also one that most patriotic Americans are fearful to examine. *After the conquest of the South, General Lee warned that with the concentration (consolidation) of all power into the hands of an all-powerful federal government, America would become “aggressive abroad and despotic at home.”*[9]
> 
> https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/wasnt-slavery.jpg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Truth is laid out nicely by a southern who is a prominent CW author and whose ancestors fought for the south. It was about slavery as nearly every state`s Ordinance of Secession clearly stated. There is no way around it.
> http://78ohio.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Fellow-Southerners-final-version.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wasn't about slavery:
> 
> Why The War Was Not About Slavery | Abbeville Institute
> 
> Abraham Lincoln said war was over taxes, not slavery
> 
> How We Know The So-Called “Civil War” Was Not Over Slavery - PaulCraigRoberts.org
> 
> https://www.mightytaxes.com/taxes-caused-civil-war/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Secession was all about slavery. The Southern states made that quite plain. Was Slavery a valid reason for secession?
Click to expand...

Lincoln made it plain that he was not invading Virginia to end slavery.


----------



## Bezukhov

bripat9643 said:


> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> August West said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evidently, it is not
> 
> Ft Sumter STILL belongs to the Federal Government
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> 
> *That Horrible War Must Be Blamed on Our Sacred-Cow Constitution*
> 
> 
> 
> Also helpful, because everyone is too conformist to shallow historians to think beyond the propaganda, is the fact that Congress didn't seat any Senators or Representatives from the South during the war.  That meant the Confederacy was recognized _de jure _as a separate country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Lincoln's war was unjust, and the abolition of slavery was a result of this unjust war, then the abolition of slavery was unjust. To right that injustice the 13th amendment must be abolished. QED
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is another great book on the War of Northern Aggression. If only the Lincoln Cultist had the capacity to understand truth. Order your copy today, as I did.
> 
> The truth...can you accept it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*It Wasn’t About Slavery: Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War*_
> As John Donne so correctly informs us, truth is not something easily discerned, recognized, nor often embraced.  Often when the truth is found and it does not comport to man’s hoped-for meaning, instead of graciously embracing the truth it is attacked and those seeking it are scorned. * In today’s post-modern, politically correct society anyone who expresses the truth about slavery and the War for Southern Independence must be willing to be subjected to the most horrendous attacks from leftists in the media, and academia, as well as being harangued by establishment politicians and many religious groups.*  But this is precisely what Dr. Samuel Mitcham has willingly subjected himself to in his latest book, _It Wasn’t About Slavery.[1] _
> 
> *Mitcham concludes his book by firmly pointing out that any open-minded reader should understand “that the war was not just about slavery and certainly not primarily about slavery.”  Mitcham explains that it was control of a powerful centralized and unquestionable supreme Federal government that was the primary reason for the conquest of the South.*  The War provided a victory of Hamiltonian big government over Jeffersonian small (local) government. “The Hamiltonian system called for principal loyalty to a strong, dominant federal government.  The Jeffersonian ideal that the principal loyalty was to the state and to the idea that ‘that governs best which governs least.’ The issue is now settled.  Hamiltonianism eventually (and naturally) evolved into the present Nanny State…. Since 1865, the only restraint to the federal government _has been _the federal government—an oxymoron that works for very few Americans today.”[8]
> 
> In his concluding remarks Mitcham has hit upon an issue even more important than simply slavery or secession. This issue is also one that most patriotic Americans are fearful to examine. *After the conquest of the South, General Lee warned that with the concentration (consolidation) of all power into the hands of an all-powerful federal government, America would become “aggressive abroad and despotic at home.”*[9]
> 
> https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/wasnt-slavery.jpg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Truth is laid out nicely by a southern who is a prominent CW author and whose ancestors fought for the south. It was about slavery as nearly every state`s Ordinance of Secession clearly stated. There is no way around it.
> http://78ohio.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Fellow-Southerners-final-version.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wasn't about slavery:
> 
> Why The War Was Not About Slavery | Abbeville Institute
> 
> Abraham Lincoln said war was over taxes, not slavery
> 
> How We Know The So-Called “Civil War” Was Not Over Slavery - PaulCraigRoberts.org
> 
> https://www.mightytaxes.com/taxes-caused-civil-war/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Secession was all about slavery. The Southern states made that quite plain. Was Slavery a valid reason for secession?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln made it plain that he was not invading Virginia to end slavery.
Click to expand...


Was slavery a valid reason for secession?


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Howis this idiot any different than the Holocaust denier idiots? ^^^^^
> 
> 
> 
> Who's denying that slavery existed?  Which "idiot" are you referring to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You- and your fellow pro-slavery statists.
Click to expand...

I have never denied that slavery existed, and a statist is one who believes the states should be compelled by invasion to remain in the Union.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Howis this idiot any different than the Holocaust denier idiots? ^^^^^
> 
> 
> 
> Who's denying that slavery existed?  Which "idiot" are you referring to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You, idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When did I deny that slavery existed?  Please quote me saying that.
Click to expand...



Put away your straw man, scumbag.


----------



## bripat9643

Bezukhov said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> August West said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is another great book on the War of Northern Aggression. If only the Lincoln Cultist had the capacity to understand truth. Order your copy today, as I did.
> 
> The truth...can you accept it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*It Wasn’t About Slavery: Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War*_
> As John Donne so correctly informs us, truth is not something easily discerned, recognized, nor often embraced.  Often when the truth is found and it does not comport to man’s hoped-for meaning, instead of graciously embracing the truth it is attacked and those seeking it are scorned. * In today’s post-modern, politically correct society anyone who expresses the truth about slavery and the War for Southern Independence must be willing to be subjected to the most horrendous attacks from leftists in the media, and academia, as well as being harangued by establishment politicians and many religious groups.*  But this is precisely what Dr. Samuel Mitcham has willingly subjected himself to in his latest book, _It Wasn’t About Slavery.[1] _
> 
> *Mitcham concludes his book by firmly pointing out that any open-minded reader should understand “that the war was not just about slavery and certainly not primarily about slavery.”  Mitcham explains that it was control of a powerful centralized and unquestionable supreme Federal government that was the primary reason for the conquest of the South.*  The War provided a victory of Hamiltonian big government over Jeffersonian small (local) government. “The Hamiltonian system called for principal loyalty to a strong, dominant federal government.  The Jeffersonian ideal that the principal loyalty was to the state and to the idea that ‘that governs best which governs least.’ The issue is now settled.  Hamiltonianism eventually (and naturally) evolved into the present Nanny State…. Since 1865, the only restraint to the federal government _has been _the federal government—an oxymoron that works for very few Americans today.”[8]
> 
> In his concluding remarks Mitcham has hit upon an issue even more important than simply slavery or secession. This issue is also one that most patriotic Americans are fearful to examine. *After the conquest of the South, General Lee warned that with the concentration (consolidation) of all power into the hands of an all-powerful federal government, America would become “aggressive abroad and despotic at home.”*[9]
> 
> https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/wasnt-slavery.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> The Truth is laid out nicely by a southern who is a prominent CW author and whose ancestors fought for the south. It was about slavery as nearly every state`s Ordinance of Secession clearly stated. There is no way around it.
> http://78ohio.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Fellow-Southerners-final-version.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wasn't about slavery:
> 
> Why The War Was Not About Slavery | Abbeville Institute
> 
> Abraham Lincoln said war was over taxes, not slavery
> 
> How We Know The So-Called “Civil War” Was Not Over Slavery - PaulCraigRoberts.org
> 
> https://www.mightytaxes.com/taxes-caused-civil-war/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Secession was all about slavery. The Southern states made that quite plain. Was Slavery a valid reason for secession?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln made it plain that he was not invading Virginia to end slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was slavery a valid reason for secession?
Click to expand...

Any reason is valid for secession.  When you quit a private club, do you have to give a "valid" reason?


----------



## August West

Syriusly said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Howis this idiot any different than the Holocaust denier idiots? ^^^^^
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It really isn't.
> 
> The facts are that Lincoln did not go to war to free the slaves.
> But the Confederate States left the Union to protect their slave property rights.
> 
> Yep- the denialists about the Confederacy's commitment to slavery really are no different from the Holocaust deniers.
Click to expand...

Lincoln went to war because South Carolinians attacked the United States in Charleston`s (that`s a U.S. city) harbor. I had no idea that so many people had skipped 6th grade.


----------



## there4eyeM

The 'South' went to war instead of pursuing legal methods of maintaining its slave based economy.
The United States was not formed to be a debating society where members could come and go as through a revolving door. No one at its formation thought the country could be broken up at the whim of political dissension. There was no doubt that original intent was a permanent union. 
Joining this Perpetual Union was voluntary (with no similarity to the condition as colonies of the British Empire!). To break this sworn allegiance would require the agreement of the rest of the country. That would have been legal, at least. Attacking the foundations of the nation was intolerable sedition and treason. 
To those whom this is not clear, we can only say that history settled the matter. Squawk if it amuses you, but you are alone and absurd.


----------



## bripat9643

August West said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Howis this idiot any different than the Holocaust denier idiots? ^^^^^
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It really isn't.
> 
> The facts are that Lincoln did not go to war to free the slaves.
> But the Confederate States left the Union to protect their slave property rights.
> 
> Yep- the denialists about the Confederacy's commitment to slavery really are no different from the Holocaust deniers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln went to war because South Carolinians attacked the United States in Charleston`s (that`s a U.S. city) harbor. I had no idea that so many people had skipped 6th grade.
Click to expand...

You mean they kicked out criminals trespassing on their territory.  Lincoln went to war for the same reason that a abusive husband beats his wife.


----------



## Picaro

If Lincoln was trying to preserve the Union, he wouldn't have copied Buchanan's actions re Sumter; he needed a propaganda gimmick and knew trying to extort tariffs from ships entering Charleston would provoke a war. Blockading harbors is a deliberate act of war, so the claim that the South started it is pure rubbish, and no, it was about robbing the South to pay for corporate welfare programs and protectionism for northern sweat shops, had nothing to do with slavery at all; that's just rubbish dumbasses and bigots try to peddle to cover up their own thuggery.

For those in the Peanut Gallery who want the real history, they can look up the results of Buchanan's attempt to supply Sumter; the result was 4 more states seceding. When Lincoln decided to do it as well, he got what he wanted, the rest of the southern states seceding. He rejected peace, he needed to rob the South by force, and he did.


----------



## bripat9643

there4eyeM said:


> The 'South' went to war instead of pursuing legal methods of maintaining its slave based economy.
> The United States was not formed to be a debating society where members could come and go as through a revolving door. No one at its formation thought the country could be broken up at the whim of political dissension. There was no doubt that original intent was a permanent union.
> Joining this Perpetual Union was voluntary (with no similarity to the condition as colonies of the British Empire!). To break this sworn allegiance would require the agreement of the rest of the country. That would have been legal, at least. Attacking the foundations of the nation was intolerable sedition and treason.
> To those whom this is not clear, we can only say that history settled the matter. Squawk if it amuses you, but you are alone and absurd.


Total bullshit.   The Constitution doesn't make secession illegal.  All claims that it does are pure Lincoln cult fantasy.  All your claims about the Constitution are pure propaganda.


----------



## Picaro

there4eyeM said:


> The 'South' went to war instead of pursuing legal methods of maintaining its slave based economy.
> The United States was not formed to be a debating society where members could come and go as through a revolving door. No one at its formation thought the country could be broken up at the whim of political dissension. There was no doubt that original intent was a permanent union.
> .



Complete rubbish. You obviously missed all those decades of New England states threatening to secede every time they didn't get their way, beginning with whining about the election of Thomas Jefferson. In fact, during the Constitutional Convention, just such a proposal to allow the Federal to use force to  against states to keep them in the Union was resoundingly rejected, thanks to Madison. There was no doubt at all it was to be voluntary.


----------



## bripat9643

Picaro said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 'South' went to war instead of pursuing legal methods of maintaining its slave based economy.
> The United States was not formed to be a debating society where members could come and go as through a revolving door. No one at its formation thought the country could be broken up at the whim of political dissension. There was no doubt that original intent was a permanent union.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Complete rubbish. You obviously missed all those decades of New England states threatening to secede every time they didn't get their way, beginning with whining about the election of Thomas Jefferson. In fact, during the Constitutional Convention, just such a proposal to allow the Federal to use force to  against states to keep them in the Union was resoundingly rejected, thanks to Madison. There was no doubt at all it was to be voluntary.
Click to expand...

The Lincoln cult can't win on the facts, so they just flat out lie and make things up.


----------



## there4eyeM

Perpetual Union.


----------



## Syriusly

Picaro said:


> If Lincoln was trying to preserve the Union, he wouldn't have copied Buchanan's actions re Sumter; he needed a propaganda gimmick and knew trying to extort tariffs from ships entering Charleston would provoke a war. Blockading harbors is a deliberate act of war, so the claim that the South started it is pure rubbish, and no, it was about robbing the South to pay for corporate welfare programs and protectionism for northern sweat shops, had nothing to do with slavery at all; that's just rubbish dumbasses and bigots try to peddle to cover up their own thuggery.
> 
> For those in the Peanut Gallery who want the real history, they can look up the results of Buchanan's attempt to supply Sumter; the result was 4 more states seceding. When Lincoln decided to do it as well, he got what he wanted, the rest of the southern states seceding. He rejected peace, he needed to rob the South by force, and he did.



If the Confederate Slave States didn't want war- they wouldn't have fired on the Army of the United States. 

And I just really don't feel too bad about the Southern slave owners being 'robbed'.


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 'South' went to war instead of pursuing legal methods of maintaining its slave based economy.
> The United States was not formed to be a debating society where members could come and go as through a revolving door. No one at its formation thought the country could be broken up at the whim of political dissension. There was no doubt that original intent was a permanent union.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Complete rubbish. You obviously missed all those decades of New England states threatening to secede every time they didn't get their way, beginning with whining about the election of Thomas Jefferson. In fact, during the Constitutional Convention, just such a proposal to allow the Federal to use force to  against states to keep them in the Union was resoundingly rejected, thanks to Madison. There was no doubt at all it was to be voluntary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Lincoln cult can't win on the facts, so they just flat out lie and make things up.
Click to expand...


And by the "Lincoln cult" you mean the vast majority of Americans who overwhelmingly consider Lincoln to be one of the best Presidents in American History- always putting him in the top 3. 
And by "Lincoln cult" you mean virtually every African American.

Meanwhile you slavery apologists continue doing what you do- trying to justify the Confederate Slave states, and the formation of the Confederacy to perpetuate slavery forever.


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> August West said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Truth is laid out nicely by a southern who is a prominent CW author and whose ancestors fought for the south. It was about slavery as nearly every state`s Ordinance of Secession clearly stated. There is no way around it.
> http://78ohio.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Fellow-Southerners-final-version.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't about slavery:
> 
> Why The War Was Not About Slavery | Abbeville Institute
> 
> Abraham Lincoln said war was over taxes, not slavery
> 
> How We Know The So-Called “Civil War” Was Not Over Slavery - PaulCraigRoberts.org
> 
> https://www.mightytaxes.com/taxes-caused-civil-war/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Secession was all about slavery. The Southern states made that quite plain. Was Slavery a valid reason for secession?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln made it plain that he was not invading Virginia to end slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was slavery a valid reason for secession?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any reason is valid for secession.  When you quit a private club, do you have to give a "valid" reason?
Click to expand...


In this case the reason was to protect the rights of Confederate slave owners to own human property.

That is what you slavery apologists are defending.


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> August West said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evidently, it is not
> 
> Ft Sumter STILL belongs to the Federal Government
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> 
> *That Horrible War Must Be Blamed on Our Sacred-Cow Constitution*
> 
> 
> 
> Also helpful, because everyone is too conformist to shallow historians to think beyond the propaganda, is the fact that Congress didn't seat any Senators or Representatives from the South during the war.  That meant the Confederacy was recognized _de jure _as a separate country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Lincoln's war was unjust, and the abolition of slavery was a result of this unjust war, then the abolition of slavery was unjust. To right that injustice the 13th amendment must be abolished. QED
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is another great book on the War of Northern Aggression. If only the Lincoln Cultist had the capacity to understand truth. Order your copy today, as I did.
> 
> The truth...can you accept it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*It Wasn’t About Slavery: Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War*_
> As John Donne so correctly informs us, truth is not something easily discerned, recognized, nor often embraced.  Often when the truth is found and it does not comport to man’s hoped-for meaning, instead of graciously embracing the truth it is attacked and those seeking it are scorned. * In today’s post-modern, politically correct society anyone who expresses the truth about slavery and the War for Southern Independence must be willing to be subjected to the most horrendous attacks from leftists in the media, and academia, as well as being harangued by establishment politicians and many religious groups.*  But this is precisely what Dr. Samuel Mitcham has willingly subjected himself to in his latest book, _It Wasn’t About Slavery.[1] _
> 
> *Mitcham concludes his book by firmly pointing out that any open-minded reader should understand “that the war was not just about slavery and certainly not primarily about slavery.”  Mitcham explains that it was control of a powerful centralized and unquestionable supreme Federal government that was the primary reason for the conquest of the South.*  The War provided a victory of Hamiltonian big government over Jeffersonian small (local) government. “The Hamiltonian system called for principal loyalty to a strong, dominant federal government.  The Jeffersonian ideal that the principal loyalty was to the state and to the idea that ‘that governs best which governs least.’ The issue is now settled.  Hamiltonianism eventually (and naturally) evolved into the present Nanny State…. Since 1865, the only restraint to the federal government _has been _the federal government—an oxymoron that works for very few Americans today.”[8]
> 
> In his concluding remarks Mitcham has hit upon an issue even more important than simply slavery or secession. This issue is also one that most patriotic Americans are fearful to examine. *After the conquest of the South, General Lee warned that with the concentration (consolidation) of all power into the hands of an all-powerful federal government, America would become “aggressive abroad and despotic at home.”*[9]
> 
> https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/wasnt-slavery.jpg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Truth is laid out nicely by a southern who is a prominent CW author and whose ancestors fought for the south. It was about slavery as nearly every state`s Ordinance of Secession clearly stated. There is no way around it.
> http://78ohio.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Fellow-Southerners-final-version.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wasn't about slavery:
> 
> Why The War Was Not About Slavery | Abbeville Institute
> 
> Abraham Lincoln said war was over taxes, not slavery
> 
> How We Know The So-Called “Civil War” Was Not Over Slavery - PaulCraigRoberts.org
> 
> https://www.mightytaxes.com/taxes-caused-civil-war/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Secession was all about slavery. The Southern states made that quite plain. Was Slavery a valid reason for secession?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln made it plain that he was not invading Virginia to end slavery.
Click to expand...


The Confederate Slave States made it plain that they were seceding to ensure the perpetuation of slavery. 

And then they attacked the U.S. Army as part of the agenda to protect slavery 'rights'


----------



## bripat9643

there4eyeM said:


> Perpetual Union.


Fantasy


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> August West said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is another great book on the War of Northern Aggression. If only the Lincoln Cultist had the capacity to understand truth. Order your copy today, as I did.
> 
> The truth...can you accept it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*It Wasn’t About Slavery: Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War*_
> As John Donne so correctly informs us, truth is not something easily discerned, recognized, nor often embraced.  Often when the truth is found and it does not comport to man’s hoped-for meaning, instead of graciously embracing the truth it is attacked and those seeking it are scorned. * In today’s post-modern, politically correct society anyone who expresses the truth about slavery and the War for Southern Independence must be willing to be subjected to the most horrendous attacks from leftists in the media, and academia, as well as being harangued by establishment politicians and many religious groups.*  But this is precisely what Dr. Samuel Mitcham has willingly subjected himself to in his latest book, _It Wasn’t About Slavery.[1] _
> 
> *Mitcham concludes his book by firmly pointing out that any open-minded reader should understand “that the war was not just about slavery and certainly not primarily about slavery.”  Mitcham explains that it was control of a powerful centralized and unquestionable supreme Federal government that was the primary reason for the conquest of the South.*  The War provided a victory of Hamiltonian big government over Jeffersonian small (local) government. “The Hamiltonian system called for principal loyalty to a strong, dominant federal government.  The Jeffersonian ideal that the principal loyalty was to the state and to the idea that ‘that governs best which governs least.’ The issue is now settled.  Hamiltonianism eventually (and naturally) evolved into the present Nanny State…. Since 1865, the only restraint to the federal government _has been _the federal government—an oxymoron that works for very few Americans today.”[8]
> 
> In his concluding remarks Mitcham has hit upon an issue even more important than simply slavery or secession. This issue is also one that most patriotic Americans are fearful to examine. *After the conquest of the South, General Lee warned that with the concentration (consolidation) of all power into the hands of an all-powerful federal government, America would become “aggressive abroad and despotic at home.”*[9]
> 
> https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/wasnt-slavery.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> The Truth is laid out nicely by a southern who is a prominent CW author and whose ancestors fought for the south. It was about slavery as nearly every state`s Ordinance of Secession clearly stated. There is no way around it.
> http://78ohio.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Fellow-Southerners-final-version.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wasn't about slavery:
> 
> Why The War Was Not About Slavery | Abbeville Institute
> 
> Abraham Lincoln said war was over taxes, not slavery
> 
> How We Know The So-Called “Civil War” Was Not Over Slavery - PaulCraigRoberts.org
> 
> https://www.mightytaxes.com/taxes-caused-civil-war/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Secession was all about slavery. The Southern states made that quite plain. Was Slavery a valid reason for secession?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln made it plain that he was not invading Virginia to end slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Confederate Slave States made it plain that they were seceding to ensure the perpetuation of slavery.
> 
> And then they attacked the U.S. Army as part of the agenda to protect slavery 'rights'
Click to expand...

Lincoln made it clear that ending slavery was not the reason he was invading Virginia.

End of story.

The U.S. Army was trespassing on the territory of South Carolina.


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 'South' went to war instead of pursuing legal methods of maintaining its slave based economy.
> The United States was not formed to be a debating society where members could come and go as through a revolving door. No one at its formation thought the country could be broken up at the whim of political dissension. There was no doubt that original intent was a permanent union.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Complete rubbish. You obviously missed all those decades of New England states threatening to secede every time they didn't get their way, beginning with whining about the election of Thomas Jefferson. In fact, during the Constitutional Convention, just such a proposal to allow the Federal to use force to  against states to keep them in the Union was resoundingly rejected, thanks to Madison. There was no doubt at all it was to be voluntary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Lincoln cult can't win on the facts, so they just flat out lie and make things up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And by the "Lincoln cult" you mean the vast majority of Americans who overwhelmingly consider Lincoln to be one of the best Presidents in American History- always putting him in the top 3.
> And by "Lincoln cult" you mean virtually every African American.
> 
> Meanwhile you slavery apologists continue doing what you do- trying to justify the Confederate Slave states, and the formation of the Confederacy to perpetuate slavery forever.
Click to expand...

That's what 150 years of brainwashing will do.  I have never "apologized" for slavery, douchebag.   Accusing your critics of supporting slavery is a classic tactic for those who defend the actions of the tyrant and mass murdering dictator, Abraham Lincoln.


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> August West said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Truth is laid out nicely by a southern who is a prominent CW author and whose ancestors fought for the south. It was about slavery as nearly every state`s Ordinance of Secession clearly stated. There is no way around it.
> http://78ohio.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Fellow-Southerners-final-version.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't about slavery:
> 
> Why The War Was Not About Slavery | Abbeville Institute
> 
> Abraham Lincoln said war was over taxes, not slavery
> 
> How We Know The So-Called “Civil War” Was Not Over Slavery - PaulCraigRoberts.org
> 
> https://www.mightytaxes.com/taxes-caused-civil-war/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Secession was all about slavery. The Southern states made that quite plain. Was Slavery a valid reason for secession?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln made it plain that he was not invading Virginia to end slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Confederate Slave States made it plain that they were seceding to ensure the perpetuation of slavery.
> 
> And then they attacked the U.S. Army as part of the agenda to protect slavery 'rights'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln made it clear that ending slavery was not the reason he was invading Virginia.
> 
> End of story.
> 
> The U.S. Army was trespassing on the territory of South Carolina.
Click to expand...


The Confederate Slave States made it plain that they were seceding to ensure the perpetuation of slavery.

And then they attacked the U.S. Army as part of the agenda to protect slavery 'rights'

Which of course you defend. 

Which is what you slavery apologists do.


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't about slavery:
> 
> Why The War Was Not About Slavery | Abbeville Institute
> 
> Abraham Lincoln said war was over taxes, not slavery
> 
> How We Know The So-Called “Civil War” Was Not Over Slavery - PaulCraigRoberts.org
> 
> https://www.mightytaxes.com/taxes-caused-civil-war/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secession was all about slavery. The Southern states made that quite plain. Was Slavery a valid reason for secession?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln made it plain that he was not invading Virginia to end slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was slavery a valid reason for secession?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any reason is valid for secession.  When you quit a private club, do you have to give a "valid" reason?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In this case the reason was to protect the rights of Confederate slave owners to own human property.
> 
> That is what you slavery apologists are defending.
Click to expand...

Even if that were true, it isn't a valid justification for the mass slaughter perpetrated by Abraham Lincoln.


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 'South' went to war instead of pursuing legal methods of maintaining its slave based economy.
> The United States was not formed to be a debating society where members could come and go as through a revolving door. No one at its formation thought the country could be broken up at the whim of political dissension. There was no doubt that original intent was a permanent union.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Complete rubbish. You obviously missed all those decades of New England states threatening to secede every time they didn't get their way, beginning with whining about the election of Thomas Jefferson. In fact, during the Constitutional Convention, just such a proposal to allow the Federal to use force to  against states to keep them in the Union was resoundingly rejected, thanks to Madison. There was no doubt at all it was to be voluntary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Lincoln cult can't win on the facts, so they just flat out lie and make things up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And by the "Lincoln cult" you mean the vast majority of Americans who overwhelmingly consider Lincoln to be one of the best Presidents in American History- always putting him in the top 3.
> And by "Lincoln cult" you mean virtually every African American.
> 
> Meanwhile you slavery apologists continue doing what you do- trying to justify the Confederate Slave states, and the formation of the Confederacy to perpetuate slavery forever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's what 150 years of brainwashing will do.  I have never "apologized" for slavery, douchebag.   Accusing your critics of supporting slavery is a classic tactic for those who defend the actions of the tyrant and mass murdering dictator, Abraham Lincoln.
Click to expand...


Everytime you defend the Confederate States you are defending slavery.

So feel good that you are defending the slave holding, mass murdering tyrants of the Confederate States, a


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't about slavery:
> 
> Why The War Was Not About Slavery | Abbeville Institute
> 
> Abraham Lincoln said war was over taxes, not slavery
> 
> How We Know The So-Called “Civil War” Was Not Over Slavery - PaulCraigRoberts.org
> 
> https://www.mightytaxes.com/taxes-caused-civil-war/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secession was all about slavery. The Southern states made that quite plain. Was Slavery a valid reason for secession?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln made it plain that he was not invading Virginia to end slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Confederate Slave States made it plain that they were seceding to ensure the perpetuation of slavery.
> 
> And then they attacked the U.S. Army as part of the agenda to protect slavery 'rights'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln made it clear that ending slavery was not the reason he was invading Virginia.
> 
> End of story.
> 
> The U.S. Army was trespassing on the territory of South Carolina.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Confederate Slave States made it plain that they were seceding to ensure the perpetuation of slavery.
> 
> And then they attacked the U.S. Army as part of the agenda to protect slavery 'rights'
> 
> Which of course you defend.
> 
> Which is what you slavery apologists do.
Click to expand...

Please show me where I have defended "slaver rights."  Criticizing Lincoln is not synonymous with defending slavery.


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> Secession was all about slavery. The Southern states made that quite plain. Was Slavery a valid reason for secession?
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln made it plain that he was not invading Virginia to end slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was slavery a valid reason for secession?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any reason is valid for secession.  When you quit a private club, do you have to give a "valid" reason?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In this case the reason was to protect the rights of Confederate slave owners to own human property.
> 
> That is what you slavery apologists are defending.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even if that were true, it isn't a valid justification for the mass slaughter perpetrated by Abraham Lincoln.
Click to expand...


Of course- in your mind there is no justification for ending slavery.


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> Secession was all about slavery. The Southern states made that quite plain. Was Slavery a valid reason for secession?
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln made it plain that he was not invading Virginia to end slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Confederate Slave States made it plain that they were seceding to ensure the perpetuation of slavery.
> 
> And then they attacked the U.S. Army as part of the agenda to protect slavery 'rights'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln made it clear that ending slavery was not the reason he was invading Virginia.
> 
> End of story.
> 
> The U.S. Army was trespassing on the territory of South Carolina.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Confederate Slave States made it plain that they were seceding to ensure the perpetuation of slavery.
> 
> And then they attacked the U.S. Army as part of the agenda to protect slavery 'rights'
> 
> Which of course you defend.
> 
> Which is what you slavery apologists do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please show me where I have defended "slaver rights."  Criticizing Lincoln is not synonymous with defending slavery.
Click to expand...


Everytime you defend the Confederate Slave States- you defend slaver rights.


----------



## there4eyeM

All the states signed on to Perpetual Union. That is absolute, incontrovertible fact. Why would they have done that? Did they not understand the word, the concept, the gravity? Were they too stupid?
Or, did someone "make it up"?


----------



## August West

there4eyeM said:


> All the states signed on to Perpetual Union. That is absolute, incontrovertible fact. Why would they have done that? Did they not understand the word, the concept, the gravity? Were they too stupid?
> Or, did someone "make it up"?


How many southern cities didn`t have statues of Washington, Jefferson etc. ? They considered themselves to be citizens of the United States, not some make believe thing called a confederacy.


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't about slavery:
> 
> Why The War Was Not About Slavery | Abbeville Institute
> 
> Abraham Lincoln said war was over taxes, not slavery
> 
> How We Know The So-Called “Civil War” Was Not Over Slavery - PaulCraigRoberts.org
> 
> https://www.mightytaxes.com/taxes-caused-civil-war/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secession was all about slavery. The Southern states made that quite plain. Was Slavery a valid reason for secession?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln made it plain that he was not invading Virginia to end slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Confederate Slave States made it plain that they were seceding to ensure the perpetuation of slavery.
> 
> And then they attacked the U.S. Army as part of the agenda to protect slavery 'rights'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln made it clear that ending slavery was not the reason he was invading Virginia.
> 
> End of story.
> 
> The U.S. Army was trespassing on the territory of South Carolina.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Confederate Slave States made it plain that they were seceding to ensure the perpetuation of slavery.
> 
> And then they attacked the U.S. Army as part of the agenda to protect slavery 'rights'
> 
> Which of course you defend.
> 
> Which is what you slavery apologists do.
Click to expand...

The US army was trespassing on their territory.  They were legally entitled to attack them.

It doesn't matter what reason the Confederate states stated, there was no law saying they couldn't secede, and the bottom line is that Lincoln stated quite plainly that he didn't invade Virginia to end slavery.  He didn't give a damn about slavery.

Your claim that South Carolina started the war is therefore absurd.

I have never apologized for slavery, so that means you're a sleazy lying douchebag.


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 'South' went to war instead of pursuing legal methods of maintaining its slave based economy.
> The United States was not formed to be a debating society where members could come and go as through a revolving door. No one at its formation thought the country could be broken up at the whim of political dissension. There was no doubt that original intent was a permanent union.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Complete rubbish. You obviously missed all those decades of New England states threatening to secede every time they didn't get their way, beginning with whining about the election of Thomas Jefferson. In fact, during the Constitutional Convention, just such a proposal to allow the Federal to use force to  against states to keep them in the Union was resoundingly rejected, thanks to Madison. There was no doubt at all it was to be voluntary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Lincoln cult can't win on the facts, so they just flat out lie and make things up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And by the "Lincoln cult" you mean the vast majority of Americans who overwhelmingly consider Lincoln to be one of the best Presidents in American History- always putting him in the top 3.
> And by "Lincoln cult" you mean virtually every African American.
> 
> Meanwhile you slavery apologists continue doing what you do- trying to justify the Confederate Slave states, and the formation of the Confederacy to perpetuate slavery forever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's what 150 years of brainwashing will do.  I have never "apologized" for slavery, douchebag.   Accusing your critics of supporting slavery is a classic tactic for those who defend the actions of the tyrant and mass murdering dictator, Abraham Lincoln.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everytime you defend the Confederate States you are defending slavery.
> 
> So feel good that you are defending the slave holding, mass murdering tyrants of the Confederate States, a
Click to expand...

Wrong, asshole.  Your syllogism does not compute.

I know that's what you want people to believe because you know all your arguments are pure horseshit, but intelligent people aren't swallowing it.  Only sleazy lying douchebags like you believe it.


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln made it plain that he was not invading Virginia to end slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was slavery a valid reason for secession?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any reason is valid for secession.  When you quit a private club, do you have to give a "valid" reason?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In this case the reason was to protect the rights of Confederate slave owners to own human property.
> 
> That is what you slavery apologists are defending.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even if that were true, it isn't a valid justification for the mass slaughter perpetrated by Abraham Lincoln.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course- in your mind there is no justification for ending slavery.
Click to expand...

There is justification for ending it, but slaughtering 850,000 people isn't a legitimate means of ending it.


----------



## bripat9643

there4eyeM said:


> All the states signed on to Perpetual Union. That is absolute, incontrovertible fact. Why would they have done that? Did they not understand the word, the concept, the gravity? Were they too stupid?
> Or, did someone "make it up"?


The Articles of Confederation became null and void the minute the Constitution was adopted.  

Why should anyone believe this one phrase is still in force when the rest of the document no longer is?  Do you believe the citizens of the various states shouldn't have to pay taxes to the federal government?  Do you believe the federal government shouldn't be able to raise an army?  

Do you really think about the stupid shit you post?


----------



## bripat9643

August West said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the states signed on to Perpetual Union. That is absolute, incontrovertible fact. Why would they have done that? Did they not understand the word, the concept, the gravity? Were they too stupid?
> Or, did someone "make it up"?
> 
> 
> 
> How many southern cities didn`t have statues of Washington, Jefferson etc. ? They considered themselves to be citizens of the United States, not some make believe thing called a confederacy.
Click to expand...

Virginians considered themselves to be citizens of Virginia.


----------



## Bezukhov

bripat9643 said:


> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> August West said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Truth is laid out nicely by a southern who is a prominent CW author and whose ancestors fought for the south. It was about slavery as nearly every state`s Ordinance of Secession clearly stated. There is no way around it.
> http://78ohio.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Fellow-Southerners-final-version.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't about slavery:
> 
> Why The War Was Not About Slavery | Abbeville Institute
> 
> Abraham Lincoln said war was over taxes, not slavery
> 
> How We Know The So-Called “Civil War” Was Not Over Slavery - PaulCraigRoberts.org
> 
> https://www.mightytaxes.com/taxes-caused-civil-war/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Secession was all about slavery. The Southern states made that quite plain. Was Slavery a valid reason for secession?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln made it plain that he was not invading Virginia to end slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was slavery a valid reason for secession?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any reason is valid for secession.  When you quit a private club, do you have to give a "valid" reason?
Click to expand...

I guess you're right. The choice the South faced was between secession or doing the just and moral thing and freeing their slaves. They chose secession.


----------



## bripat9643

Bezukhov said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't about slavery:
> 
> Why The War Was Not About Slavery | Abbeville Institute
> 
> Abraham Lincoln said war was over taxes, not slavery
> 
> How We Know The So-Called “Civil War” Was Not Over Slavery - PaulCraigRoberts.org
> 
> https://www.mightytaxes.com/taxes-caused-civil-war/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secession was all about slavery. The Southern states made that quite plain. Was Slavery a valid reason for secession?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln made it plain that he was not invading Virginia to end slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was slavery a valid reason for secession?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any reason is valid for secession.  When you quit a private club, do you have to give a "valid" reason?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess you're right. The choice the South faced was between secession or doing the just and moral thing and freeing their slaves. They chose secession.
Click to expand...

Morals change over time.  Your opinions are irrelevant.  

The bottom line is that Lincoln invaded Virginia and thereby started the war.


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> Secession was all about slavery. The Southern states made that quite plain. Was Slavery a valid reason for secession?
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln made it plain that he was not invading Virginia to end slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Confederate Slave States made it plain that they were seceding to ensure the perpetuation of slavery.
> 
> And then they attacked the U.S. Army as part of the agenda to protect slavery 'rights'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln made it clear that ending slavery was not the reason he was invading Virginia.
> 
> End of story.
> 
> The U.S. Army was trespassing on the territory of South Carolina.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Confederate Slave States made it plain that they were seceding to ensure the perpetuation of slavery.
> 
> And then they attacked the U.S. Army as part of the agenda to protect slavery 'rights'
> 
> Which of course you defend.
> 
> Which is what you slavery apologists do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The US army was trespassing on their territory.  They were legally entitled to attack them.
> 
> It doesn't matter what reason the Confederate states stated, there was no law saying they couldn't secede, and the bottom line is that Lincoln stated quite plainly that he didn't invade Virginia to end slavery.  He didn't give a damn about slavery.
> 
> Your claim that South Carolina started the war is therefore absurd.
> 
> I have never apologized for slavery, so that means you're a sleazy lying douchebag.
Click to expand...


On December 17, 1836, South Carolina officially ceded all "right, title and, claim" to the site of Fort Sumter to the United States.[7]- so no- the U.S. Army was not trespassing. 
The rebel slave states fired on the troops of the U.S. Army- officially starting the war. 
Of course to you slavery apologists it doesn't matter that the Confederate States rebelled to preserve their rights to own humans.

And of course Lincoln, after the troops of the United States were attacked, did not invade to free the slaves. 
But it is a lie that Lincoln didn't care about slaves or slavery- Lincoln himself was a life long abolitionist- but he was a pragmatic abolitionist- he was willing to endure slavery in order to preserve the Union- unlike the Confederacy who tried to destroy the Union in order to preserve slavery.

The North didn't go to war to end slavery, but the South went to war to protect their slave rights. 

You apologize for the Confederate slave states every time your defend the Confederate actions.


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> Secession was all about slavery. The Southern states made that quite plain. Was Slavery a valid reason for secession?
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln made it plain that he was not invading Virginia to end slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was slavery a valid reason for secession?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any reason is valid for secession.  When you quit a private club, do you have to give a "valid" reason?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess you're right. The choice the South faced was between secession or doing the just and moral thing and freeing their slaves. They chose secession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Morals change over time.  Your opinions are irrelevant.
> 
> The bottom line is that Lincoln invaded Virginia and thereby started the war.
Click to expand...


The bottom line is the war started when the Confederate Slave states fired on American troops.


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was slavery a valid reason for secession?
> 
> 
> 
> Any reason is valid for secession.  When you quit a private club, do you have to give a "valid" reason?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In this case the reason was to protect the rights of Confederate slave owners to own human property.
> 
> That is what you slavery apologists are defending.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even if that were true, it isn't a valid justification for the mass slaughter perpetrated by Abraham Lincoln.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course- in your mind there is no justification for ending slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is justification for ending it, but slaughtering 850,000 people isn't a legitimate means of ending it.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately the Confederate Slave states didn't realize that their attack on Americans would cause the deaths of 850,000 people. 

I wonder- exactly how many deaths are legitimate for ending the slavery of 3,953,762 Americans?

I am guessing for you it is zero. That if a single white person was going to be harmed by freeing 3,953,762 Americans from slavery that would be one too many.


----------



## Bezukhov

bripat9643 said:


> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> Secession was all about slavery. The Southern states made that quite plain. Was Slavery a valid reason for secession?
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln made it plain that he was not invading Virginia to end slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was slavery a valid reason for secession?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any reason is valid for secession.  When you quit a private club, do you have to give a "valid" reason?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess you're right. The choice the South faced was between secession or doing the just and moral thing and freeing their slaves. They chose secession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Morals change over time.  Your opinions are irrelevant.
> 
> The bottom line is that Lincoln invaded Virginia and thereby started the war.
Click to expand...


Morals change, yes. Is the United States more moral, or less moral since the abolition of Slavery?


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> Secession was all about slavery. The Southern states made that quite plain. Was Slavery a valid reason for secession?
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln made it plain that he was not invading Virginia to end slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was slavery a valid reason for secession?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any reason is valid for secession.  When you quit a private club, do you have to give a "valid" reason?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess you're right. The choice the South faced was between secession or doing the just and moral thing and freeing their slaves. They chose secession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Morals change over time.  ....
Click to expand...





No, they don’t.


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln made it plain that he was not invading Virginia to end slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederate Slave States made it plain that they were seceding to ensure the perpetuation of slavery.
> 
> And then they attacked the U.S. Army as part of the agenda to protect slavery 'rights'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln made it clear that ending slavery was not the reason he was invading Virginia.
> 
> End of story.
> 
> The U.S. Army was trespassing on the territory of South Carolina.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Confederate Slave States made it plain that they were seceding to ensure the perpetuation of slavery.
> 
> And then they attacked the U.S. Army as part of the agenda to protect slavery 'rights'
> 
> Which of course you defend.
> 
> Which is what you slavery apologists do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The US army was trespassing on their territory.  They were legally entitled to attack them.
> 
> It doesn't matter what reason the Confederate states stated, there was no law saying they couldn't secede, and the bottom line is that Lincoln stated quite plainly that he didn't invade Virginia to end slavery.  He didn't give a damn about slavery.
> 
> Your claim that South Carolina started the war is therefore absurd.
> 
> I have never apologized for slavery, so that means you're a sleazy lying douchebag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On December 17, 1836, South Carolina officially ceded all "right, title and, claim" to the site of Fort Sumter to the United States.[7]- so no- the U.S. Army was not trespassing.
> The rebel slave states fired on the troops of the U.S. Army- officially starting the war.
> Of course to you slavery apologists it doesn't matter that the Confederate States rebelled to preserve their rights to own humans.
> 
> And of course Lincoln, after the troops of the United States were attacked, did not invade to free the slaves.
> But it is a lie that Lincoln didn't care about slaves or slavery- Lincoln himself was a life long abolitionist- but he was a pragmatic abolitionist- he was willing to endure slavery in order to preserve the Union- unlike the Confederacy who tried to destroy the Union in order to preserve slavery.
> 
> The North didn't go to war to end slavery, but the South went to war to protect their slave rights.
> 
> You apologize for the Confederate slave states every time your defend the Confederate actions.
Click to expand...

South Carolina ceded the property to the Federal government, but it legal jurisdiction over the property.  Ft Sumter was still part of South Carolina, and federal troops were trespassing.  They got what they deserved: eviction.

Lincoln was a white supremacist.  He certainly was no abolitionist:

_"There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races ... A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas ...."

"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."

"I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position."_​


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> Secession was all about slavery. The Southern states made that quite plain. Was Slavery a valid reason for secession?
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln made it plain that he was not invading Virginia to end slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was slavery a valid reason for secession?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any reason is valid for secession.  When you quit a private club, do you have to give a "valid" reason?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess you're right. The choice the South faced was between secession or doing the just and moral thing and freeing their slaves. They chose secession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ....
> 
> The bottom line is that Lincoln invaded Virginia and thereby started the war.
Click to expand...



Wrong, wannabe. Your idiotic attempt at revision only makes you look more and more like the fool you are.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln made it plain that he was not invading Virginia to end slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was slavery a valid reason for secession?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any reason is valid for secession.  When you quit a private club, do you have to give a "valid" reason?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess you're right. The choice the South faced was between secession or doing the just and moral thing and freeing their slaves. They chose secession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Morals change over time.  ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they don’t.
Click to expand...

Only a moron would say something that stupid.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was slavery a valid reason for secession?
> 
> 
> 
> Any reason is valid for secession.  When you quit a private club, do you have to give a "valid" reason?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess you're right. The choice the South faced was between secession or doing the just and moral thing and freeing their slaves. They chose secession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Morals change over time.  ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they don’t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only a moron would say something that stupid.
Click to expand...


Only someone who understands what “morality” is.


----------



## bripat9643

Bezukhov said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln made it plain that he was not invading Virginia to end slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was slavery a valid reason for secession?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any reason is valid for secession.  When you quit a private club, do you have to give a "valid" reason?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess you're right. The choice the South faced was between secession or doing the just and moral thing and freeing their slaves. They chose secession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Morals change over time.  Your opinions are irrelevant.
> 
> The bottom line is that Lincoln invaded Virginia and thereby started the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Morals change, yes. Is the United States more moral, or less moral since the abolition of Slavery?
Click to expand...

How is that relevant to the question of who started the Civil War?  How "moral" is slaughtering 850,000 innocent men, women and children?


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any reason is valid for secession.  When you quit a private club, do you have to give a "valid" reason?
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you're right. The choice the South faced was between secession or doing the just and moral thing and freeing their slaves. They chose secession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Morals change over time.  ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they don’t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only a moron would say something that stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only someone who understands what “morality” is.
Click to expand...

How "moral" was invading a sovereign country and slaughtering 850,000 innocent people?


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln made it plain that he was not invading Virginia to end slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was slavery a valid reason for secession?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any reason is valid for secession.  When you quit a private club, do you have to give a "valid" reason?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess you're right. The choice the South faced was between secession or doing the just and moral thing and freeing their slaves. They chose secession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Morals change over time.  Your opinions are irrelevant.
> 
> The bottom line is that Lincoln invaded Virginia and thereby started the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bottom line is the war started when the Confederate Slave states fired on American troops.
Click to expand...

Wrong.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was slavery a valid reason for secession?
> 
> 
> 
> Any reason is valid for secession.  When you quit a private club, do you have to give a "valid" reason?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess you're right. The choice the South faced was between secession or doing the just and moral thing and freeing their slaves. They chose secession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Morals change over time.  Your opinions are irrelevant.
> 
> The bottom line is that Lincoln invaded Virginia and thereby started the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Morals change, yes. Is the United States more moral, or less moral since the abolition of Slavery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is that relevant to the question of who started the Civil War?  ....?
Click to expand...



There is no question. The filthy traitors of the so-called confederacy, who you so devoutly worship, started the war. As a consequence, they got a small measure of what ‘people’ like you deserve.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you're right. The choice the South faced was between secession or doing the just and moral thing and freeing their slaves. They chose secession.
> 
> 
> 
> Morals change over time.  ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they don’t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only a moron would say something that stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only someone who understands what “morality” is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How "moral" was invading a sovereign country and slaughtering 850,000 innocent people?
Click to expand...



That didn’t happen.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any reason is valid for secession.  When you quit a private club, do you have to give a "valid" reason?
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you're right. The choice the South faced was between secession or doing the just and moral thing and freeing their slaves. They chose secession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Morals change over time.  Your opinions are irrelevant.
> 
> The bottom line is that Lincoln invaded Virginia and thereby started the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Morals change, yes. Is the United States more moral, or less moral since the abolition of Slavery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is that relevant to the question of who started the Civil War?  ....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is no question. The filthy traitors of the so-called confederacy, who you so devoutly worship, started the war. As a consequence, they got a small measure of what ‘people’ like you deserve.
Click to expand...

There is no question that Lincoln started the war, shit for brains.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Morals change over time.  ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they don’t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only a moron would say something that stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only someone who understands what “morality” is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How "moral" was invading a sovereign country and slaughtering 850,000 innocent people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That didn’t happen.
Click to expand...

It sure as hell did.


----------



## August West

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you're right. The choice the South faced was between secession or doing the just and moral thing and freeing their slaves. They chose secession.
> 
> 
> 
> Morals change over time.  ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they don’t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only a moron would say something that stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only someone who understands what “morality” is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How "moral" was invading a sovereign country and slaughtering 850,000 innocent people?
Click to expand...

Slaughtering innocent people in Vietnam and Iraq was immoral. You got one right skippy.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you're right. The choice the South faced was between secession or doing the just and moral thing and freeing their slaves. They chose secession.
> 
> 
> 
> Morals change over time.  Your opinions are irrelevant.
> 
> The bottom line is that Lincoln invaded Virginia and thereby started the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Morals change, yes. Is the United States more moral, or less moral since the abolition of Slavery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is that relevant to the question of who started the Civil War?  ....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is no question. The filthy traitors of the so-called confederacy, who you so devoutly worship, started the war. As a consequence, they got a small measure of what ‘people’ like you deserve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no question that Lincoln started the war, shit for brains.
Click to expand...


You fail History - AGAIN.


----------



## bripat9643

August West said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Morals change over time.  ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they don’t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only a moron would say something that stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only someone who understands what “morality” is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How "moral" was invading a sovereign country and slaughtering 850,000 innocent people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Slaughtering innocent people in Vietnam and Iraq was immoral. You got one right skippy.
Click to expand...

I was just about to ask you nitwits if you thought slaughtering civilians in Vietnam was moral.  How about Germany and Japan, for that matter.  Was bombing Dresden moral?  Fire bombing Tokyo?


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Morals change over time.  Your opinions are irrelevant.
> 
> The bottom line is that Lincoln invaded Virginia and thereby started the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Morals change, yes. Is the United States more moral, or less moral since the abolition of Slavery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is that relevant to the question of who started the Civil War?  ....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is no question. The filthy traitors of the so-called confederacy, who you so devoutly worship, started the war. As a consequence, they got a small measure of what ‘people’ like you deserve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no question that Lincoln started the war, shit for brains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You fail History - AGAIN.
Click to expand...

No, you do.


----------



## rightwinger

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you're right. The choice the South faced was between secession or doing the just and moral thing and freeing their slaves. They chose secession.
> 
> 
> 
> Morals change over time.  Your opinions are irrelevant.
> 
> The bottom line is that Lincoln invaded Virginia and thereby started the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Morals change, yes. Is the United States more moral, or less moral since the abolition of Slavery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is that relevant to the question of who started the Civil War?  ....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is no question. The filthy traitors of the so-called confederacy, who you so devoutly worship, started the war. As a consequence, they got a small measure of what ‘people’ like you deserve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no question that Lincoln started the war, shit for brains.
Click to expand...

Those in Ft Sumter beg to differ

Our flag was fired upon


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> Morals change, yes. Is the United States more moral, or less moral since the abolition of Slavery?
> 
> 
> 
> How is that relevant to the question of who started the Civil War?  ....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is no question. The filthy traitors of the so-called confederacy, who you so devoutly worship, started the war. As a consequence, they got a small measure of what ‘people’ like you deserve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no question that Lincoln started the war, shit for brains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You fail History - AGAIN.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you do.
Click to expand...



I’ve taught History for more than 20 years. How about you, big mouth?


----------



## bripat9643

rightwinger said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Morals change over time.  Your opinions are irrelevant.
> 
> The bottom line is that Lincoln invaded Virginia and thereby started the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Morals change, yes. Is the United States more moral, or less moral since the abolition of Slavery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is that relevant to the question of who started the Civil War?  ....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is no question. The filthy traitors of the so-called confederacy, who you so devoutly worship, started the war. As a consequence, they got a small measure of what ‘people’ like you deserve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no question that Lincoln started the war, shit for brains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those in Ft Sumter beg to differ
> 
> Our flag was fired upon
Click to expand...

Who cares what the trespassers in Ft Sumter have to say about it?  Of course, you don't have a clue what they would say.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is that relevant to the question of who started the Civil War?  ....?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no question. The filthy traitors of the so-called confederacy, who you so devoutly worship, started the war. As a consequence, they got a small measure of what ‘people’ like you deserve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no question that Lincoln started the war, shit for brains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You fail History - AGAIN.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I’ve taught History for more than 20 years. How about you, big mouth?
Click to expand...

You mean you have spewed propaganda for 20 years


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no question. The filthy traitors of the so-called confederacy, who you so devoutly worship, started the war. As a consequence, they got a small measure of what ‘people’ like you deserve.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no question that Lincoln started the war, shit for brains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You fail History - AGAIN.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I’ve taught History for more than 20 years. How about you, big mouth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean you have spewed propaganda for 20 years
Click to expand...




No you ignorant dropout, that’s not what I mean.


----------



## Picaro

Bezukhov said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't about slavery:
> 
> Why The War Was Not About Slavery | Abbeville Institute
> 
> Abraham Lincoln said war was over taxes, not slavery
> 
> How We Know The So-Called “Civil War” Was Not Over Slavery - PaulCraigRoberts.org
> 
> https://www.mightytaxes.com/taxes-caused-civil-war/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secession was all about slavery. The Southern states made that quite plain. Was Slavery a valid reason for secession?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln made it plain that he was not invading Virginia to end slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was slavery a valid reason for secession?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any reason is valid for secession.  When you quit a private club, do you have to give a "valid" reason?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess you're right. The choice the South faced was between secession or doing the just and moral thing and freeing their slaves. They chose secession.
Click to expand...


Pure ignorance here. The South had already won all the SC battles over slavery, no reason to secede over that. Even all of the major newspapers of the day knew it was over tariffs, not slavery, and the Republicans ran on keeping black people in the south and not on freeing slaves.


----------



## Picaro

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you're right. The choice the South faced was between secession or doing the just and moral thing and freeing their slaves. They chose secession.
> 
> 
> 
> Morals change over time.  ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they don’t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only a moron would say something that stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only someone who understands what “morality” is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How "moral" was invading a sovereign country and slaughtering 850,000 innocent people?
Click to expand...


Plus another 700,000 to a million of those 'slaves' they were allegedly 'freeing'.


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederate Slave States made it plain that they were seceding to ensure the perpetuation of slavery.
> 
> And then they attacked the U.S. Army as part of the agenda to protect slavery 'rights'
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln made it clear that ending slavery was not the reason he was invading Virginia.
> 
> End of story.
> 
> The U.S. Army was trespassing on the territory of South Carolina.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Confederate Slave States made it plain that they were seceding to ensure the perpetuation of slavery.
> 
> And then they attacked the U.S. Army as part of the agenda to protect slavery 'rights'
> 
> Which of course you defend.
> 
> Which is what you slavery apologists do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The US army was trespassing on their territory.  They were legally entitled to attack them.
> 
> It doesn't matter what reason the Confederate states stated, there was no law saying they couldn't secede, and the bottom line is that Lincoln stated quite plainly that he didn't invade Virginia to end slavery.  He didn't give a damn about slavery.
> 
> Your claim that South Carolina started the war is therefore absurd.
> 
> I have never apologized for slavery, so that means you're a sleazy lying douchebag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On December 17, 1836, South Carolina officially ceded all "right, title and, claim" to the site of Fort Sumter to the United States.[7]- so no- the U.S. Army was not trespassing.
> The rebel slave states fired on the troops of the U.S. Army- officially starting the war.
> Of course to you slavery apologists it doesn't matter that the Confederate States rebelled to preserve their rights to own humans.
> 
> And of course Lincoln, after the troops of the United States were attacked, did not invade to free the slaves.
> But it is a lie that Lincoln didn't care about slaves or slavery- Lincoln himself was a life long abolitionist- but he was a pragmatic abolitionist- he was willing to endure slavery in order to preserve the Union- unlike the Confederacy who tried to destroy the Union in order to preserve slavery.
> 
> The North didn't go to war to end slavery, but the South went to war to protect their slave rights.
> 
> You apologize for the Confederate slave states every time your defend the Confederate actions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> South Carolina ceded the property to the Federal government, but it legal jurisdiction over the property.  Ft Sumter was still part of South Carolina, and federal troops were trespassing.  They got what they deserved: eviction.
> 
> Lincoln was a white supremacist.  He certainly was no abolitionist:
> 
> _"There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races ... A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas ...."
> 
> "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."
> 
> "I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position."_​
Click to expand...


Lincoln was not a 'white supremacist'- he was a racist. LIke virtually everyone in the Republican Party at the time. Along with virtually everyone in the Democratic Party. 
Most abolitionists were racists too. 

But Lincoln was most certainly an abolitionist- but a very pragmatic one. Which is of course why the Confederates rebelled against the United States when he was elected- over fear that he would enact abolitionist policies. 

_Lincoln declared his opposition to slavery, which he repeated in his route to presidency.[14] Speaking in his Kentucky accent, with a very powerful voice,[15] he said the Kansas Act had a "declared indifference, but as I must think, a covert real zeal for the spread of slavery. I cannot but hate it. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world.._
_
You know I dislike slavery; and you fully admit the abstract wrong of it... I also acknowledge your rights and my obligations, under the constitution, in regard to your slaves. I confess I hate to see the poor creatures hunted down, and caught, and carried back to their stripes, and unrewarded toils; but I bite my lip and keep quiet. In 1841 you and I had together a tedious low-water trip, on a Steam Boat from Louisville to St. Louis. You may remember, as I well do, that from Louisville to the mouth of the Ohio, there were, on board, ten or a dozen slaves, shackled together with irons. That sight was a continued torment to me; and I see something like it every time I touch the Ohio, or any other slave-border. It is hardly fair for you to assume, that I have no interest in a thing which has, and continually exercises, the power of making me miserable. You ought rather to appreciate how much the great body of the Northern people do crucify their feelings, in order to maintain their loyalty to the Constitution and the Union. … How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor of degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes." 

Lincoln wrote that the 'only substantial difference' between North and South was that 'You think slavery is right and ought to be extended; we think it is wrong and ought to be restricted.' _


----------



## Syriusly

Picaro said:


> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> Secession was all about slavery. The Southern states made that quite plain. Was Slavery a valid reason for secession?
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln made it plain that he was not invading Virginia to end slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was slavery a valid reason for secession?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any reason is valid for secession.  When you quit a private club, do you have to give a "valid" reason?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess you're right. The choice the South faced was between secession or doing the just and moral thing and freeing their slaves. They chose secession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pure ignorance here. The South had already won all the SC battles over slavery, no reason to secede over that. Even all of the major newspapers of the day knew it was over tariffs, not slavery, and the Republicans ran on keeping black people in the south and not on freeing slaves.
Click to expand...


Pure revisionist history here. 

The Republicans ran on restricting the expansion of slavery.
Republican Party Platform of 1860 - Teaching American History

The seceding states were very clear that they were seceding to protect slavery rights- I know you have seen this before but always good to refute your revisionism
A Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union - Teaching American History
_*Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery –* the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. *There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin*_

*It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.

It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.

Do I need to post the other states with similar announcements as to the causes of secession? 
*


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you're right. The choice the South faced was between secession or doing the just and moral thing and freeing their slaves. They chose secession.
> 
> 
> 
> Morals change over time.  ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they don’t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only a moron would say something that stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only someone who understands what “morality” is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How "moral" was invading a sovereign country and slaughtering 850,000 innocent people?
Click to expand...


How moral was starting a civil war, resulting in the deaths of 850,000 innocent people, just to protect the right to own 3,000,000 slaves?


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln made it clear that ending slavery was not the reason he was invading Virginia.
> 
> End of story.
> 
> The U.S. Army was trespassing on the territory of South Carolina.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Confederate Slave States made it plain that they were seceding to ensure the perpetuation of slavery.
> 
> And then they attacked the U.S. Army as part of the agenda to protect slavery 'rights'
> 
> Which of course you defend.
> 
> Which is what you slavery apologists do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The US army was trespassing on their territory.  They were legally entitled to attack them.
> 
> It doesn't matter what reason the Confederate states stated, there was no law saying they couldn't secede, and the bottom line is that Lincoln stated quite plainly that he didn't invade Virginia to end slavery.  He didn't give a damn about slavery.
> 
> Your claim that South Carolina started the war is therefore absurd.
> 
> I have never apologized for slavery, so that means you're a sleazy lying douchebag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On December 17, 1836, South Carolina officially ceded all "right, title and, claim" to the site of Fort Sumter to the United States.[7]- so no- the U.S. Army was not trespassing.
> The rebel slave states fired on the troops of the U.S. Army- officially starting the war.
> Of course to you slavery apologists it doesn't matter that the Confederate States rebelled to preserve their rights to own humans.
> 
> And of course Lincoln, after the troops of the United States were attacked, did not invade to free the slaves.
> But it is a lie that Lincoln didn't care about slaves or slavery- Lincoln himself was a life long abolitionist- but he was a pragmatic abolitionist- he was willing to endure slavery in order to preserve the Union- unlike the Confederacy who tried to destroy the Union in order to preserve slavery.
> 
> The North didn't go to war to end slavery, but the South went to war to protect their slave rights.
> 
> You apologize for the Confederate slave states every time your defend the Confederate actions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> South Carolina ceded the property to the Federal government, but it legal jurisdiction over the property.  Ft Sumter was still part of South Carolina, and federal troops were trespassing.  They got what they deserved: eviction.
> 
> Lincoln was a white supremacist.  He certainly was no abolitionist:
> 
> _"There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races ... A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas ...."
> 
> "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."
> 
> "I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position."_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lincoln was not a 'white supremacist'- he was a racist. LIke virtually everyone in the Republican Party at the time. Along with virtually everyone in the Democratic Party.
> Most abolitionists were racists too.
> 
> But Lincoln was most certainly an abolitionist- but a very pragmatic one. Which is of course why the Confederates rebelled against the United States when he was elected- over fear that he would enact abolitionist policies.
> 
> _Lincoln declared his opposition to slavery, which he repeated in his route to presidency.[14] Speaking in his Kentucky accent, with a very powerful voice,[15] he said the Kansas Act had a "declared indifference, but as I must think, a covert real zeal for the spread of slavery. I cannot but hate it. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world..
> 
> You know I dislike slavery; and you fully admit the abstract wrong of it... I also acknowledge your rights and my obligations, under the constitution, in regard to your slaves. I confess I hate to see the poor creatures hunted down, and caught, and carried back to their stripes, and unrewarded toils; but I bite my lip and keep quiet. In 1841 you and I had together a tedious low-water trip, on a Steam Boat from Louisville to St. Louis. You may remember, as I well do, that from Louisville to the mouth of the Ohio, there were, on board, ten or a dozen slaves, shackled together with irons. That sight was a continued torment to me; and I see something like it every time I touch the Ohio, or any other slave-border. It is hardly fair for you to assume, that I have no interest in a thing which has, and continually exercises, the power of making me miserable. You ought rather to appreciate how much the great body of the Northern people do crucify their feelings, in order to maintain their loyalty to the Constitution and the Union. … How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor of degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes."
> 
> Lincoln wrote that the 'only substantial difference' between North and South was that 'You think slavery is right and ought to be extended; we think it is wrong and ought to be restricted.' _
Click to expand...

You can be opposed to slavery and still be a white supremacist.  There's no doubt that Lincoln was the later:
_
“Free them [slaves] and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of them” (CW, Vol. II, p. 256).  


“What I would most desire,” Abraham Lincoln also declared, “would be the separation of the white and black races” (CW, Vol. II, p. 521).  And, “I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races . . . .  I am in favor of the race to which I belong, having the superior position” (CW, Vol. III, p. 16).

 “I am not, nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold [political] office, nor to intermarry with white people,”_​
CW - Lincoln's collected work.

However, Lincoln made it plain time and time again that he was perfectly willing to tolerate slavery.  He was even willing to enshrine it permanently into the Constitution.


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Morals change over time.  ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they don’t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only a moron would say something that stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only someone who understands what “morality” is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How "moral" was invading a sovereign country and slaughtering 850,000 innocent people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How moral was starting a civil war, resulting in the deaths of 850,000 innocent people, just to protect the right to own 3,000,000 slaves?
Click to expand...

Lincoln started the Civil War, moron.


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you're right. The choice the South faced was between secession or doing the just and moral thing and freeing their slaves. They chose secession.
> 
> 
> 
> Morals change over time.  Your opinions are irrelevant.
> 
> The bottom line is that Lincoln invaded Virginia and thereby started the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Morals change, yes. Is the United States more moral, or less moral since the abolition of Slavery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is that relevant to the question of who started the Civil War?  ....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is no question. The filthy traitors of the so-called confederacy, who you so devoutly worship, started the war. As a consequence, they got a small measure of what ‘people’ like you deserve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no question that Lincoln started the war, shit for brains.
Click to expand...


That is what you slavery apologists keep saying. 

Meanwhile it was troops of the rebel slave states who fired on American soldiers that started the war.


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they don’t.
> 
> 
> 
> Only a moron would say something that stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only someone who understands what “morality” is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How "moral" was invading a sovereign country and slaughtering 850,000 innocent people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How moral was starting a civil war, resulting in the deaths of 850,000 innocent people, just to protect the right to own 3,000,000 slaves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln started the Civil War, moron.
Click to expand...


Nope- despite what you slavery apologists say- it was the men who rebelled against the United States to protect their 'rights' to own human property that started the war when they fired on the U.S. Army.


----------



## Flash

Interesting


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Morals change over time.  Your opinions are irrelevant.
> 
> The bottom line is that Lincoln invaded Virginia and thereby started the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Morals change, yes. Is the United States more moral, or less moral since the abolition of Slavery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is that relevant to the question of who started the Civil War?  ....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is no question. The filthy traitors of the so-called confederacy, who you so devoutly worship, started the war. As a consequence, they got a small measure of what ‘people’ like you deserve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no question that Lincoln started the war, shit for brains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is what you slavery apologists keep saying.
> 
> Meanwhile it was troops of the rebel slave states who fired on American soldiers that started the war.
Click to expand...

Wrong, as always.  Your theory seems to be that the U.S. military and government can do no wrong.  That's obvious horseshit.


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US army was trespassing on their territory.  They were legally entitled to attack them.
> 
> It doesn't matter what reason the Confederate states stated, there was no law saying they couldn't secede, and the bottom line is that Lincoln stated quite plainly that he didn't invade Virginia to end slavery.  He didn't give a damn about slavery.
> 
> Your claim that South Carolina started the war is therefore absurd.
> 
> I have never apologized for slavery, so that means you're a sleazy lying douchebag.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On December 17, 1836, South Carolina officially ceded all "right, title and, claim" to the site of Fort Sumter to the United States.[7]- so no- the U.S. Army was not trespassing.
> The rebel slave states fired on the troops of the U.S. Army- officially starting the war.
> Of course to you slavery apologists it doesn't matter that the Confederate States rebelled to preserve their rights to own humans.
> 
> And of course Lincoln, after the troops of the United States were attacked, did not invade to free the slaves.
> But it is a lie that Lincoln didn't care about slaves or slavery- Lincoln himself was a life long abolitionist- but he was a pragmatic abolitionist- he was willing to endure slavery in order to preserve the Union- unlike the Confederacy who tried to destroy the Union in order to preserve slavery.
> 
> The North didn't go to war to end slavery, but the South went to war to protect their slave rights.
> 
> You apologize for the Confederate slave states every time your defend the Confederate actions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> South Carolina ceded the property to the Federal government, but it legal jurisdiction over the property.  Ft Sumter was still part of South Carolina, and federal troops were trespassing.  They got what they deserved: eviction.
> 
> Lincoln was a white supremacist.  He certainly was no abolitionist:
> 
> _"There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races ... A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas ...."
> 
> "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."
> 
> "I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position."_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lincoln was not a 'white supremacist'- he was a racist. LIke virtually everyone in the Republican Party at the time. Along with virtually everyone in the Democratic Party.
> Most abolitionists were racists too.
> 
> But Lincoln was most certainly an abolitionist- but a very pragmatic one. Which is of course why the Confederates rebelled against the United States when he was elected- over fear that he would enact abolitionist policies.
> 
> _Lincoln declared his opposition to slavery, which he repeated in his route to presidency.[14] Speaking in his Kentucky accent, with a very powerful voice,[15] he said the Kansas Act had a "declared indifference, but as I must think, a covert real zeal for the spread of slavery. I cannot but hate it. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world..
> 
> You know I dislike slavery; and you fully admit the abstract wrong of it... I also acknowledge your rights and my obligations, under the constitution, in regard to your slaves. I confess I hate to see the poor creatures hunted down, and caught, and carried back to their stripes, and unrewarded toils; but I bite my lip and keep quiet. In 1841 you and I had together a tedious low-water trip, on a Steam Boat from Louisville to St. Louis. You may remember, as I well do, that from Louisville to the mouth of the Ohio, there were, on board, ten or a dozen slaves, shackled together with irons. That sight was a continued torment to me; and I see something like it every time I touch the Ohio, or any other slave-border. It is hardly fair for you to assume, that I have no interest in a thing which has, and continually exercises, the power of making me miserable. You ought rather to appreciate how much the great body of the Northern people do crucify their feelings, in order to maintain their loyalty to the Constitution and the Union. … How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor of degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes."
> 
> Lincoln wrote that the 'only substantial difference' between North and South was that 'You think slavery is right and ought to be extended; we think it is wrong and ought to be restricted.' _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can be opposed to slavery and still be a white supremacist.  There's no doubt that Lincoln was the later:
> _
> “Free them [slaves] and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of them” (CW, Vol. II, p. 256).
> 
> 
> “What I would most desire,” Abraham Lincoln also declared, “would be the separation of the white and black races” (CW, Vol. II, p. 521).  And, “I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races . . . .  I am in favor of the race to which I belong, having the superior position” (CW, Vol. III, p. 16).
> 
> “I am not, nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold [political] office, nor to intermarry with white people,”_​
> CW - Lincoln's collected work.
> 
> However, Lincoln made it plain time and time again that he was perfectly willing to tolerate slavery.  He was even willing to enshrine it permanently into the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Lincoln was not a 'white supremacist'- he was a racist.* LIke virtually everyone in the Republican Party at the time. Along with virtually everyone in the Democratic Party.
> Most abolitionists were racists too.
> 
> But Lincoln was most certainly an abolitionist- but a very pragmatic one. Which is of course why the Confederates rebelled against the United States when he was elected- over fear that he would enact abolitionist policies.
> 
> _Lincoln declared his opposition to slavery, which he repeated in his route to presidency.[14] Speaking in his Kentucky accent, with a very powerful voice,[15] he said the Kansas Act had a "declared indifference, but as I must think, a covert real zeal for the spread of slavery. I cannot but hate it. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world..
> 
> You know I dislike slavery; and you fully admit the abstract wrong of it... I also acknowledge your rights and my obligations, under the constitution, in regard to your slaves. I confess I hate to see the poor creatures hunted down, and caught, and carried back to their stripes, and unrewarded toils; but I bite my lip and keep quiet. In 1841 you and I had together a tedious low-water trip, on a Steam Boat from Louisville to St. Louis. You may remember, as I well do, that from Louisville to the mouth of the Ohio, there were, on board, ten or a dozen slaves, shackled together with irons. That sight was a continued torment to me; and I see something like it every time I touch the Ohio, or any other slave-border. It is hardly fair for you to assume, that I have no interest in a thing which has, and continually exercises, the power of making me miserable. You ought rather to appreciate how much the great body of the Northern people do crucify their feelings, in order to maintain their loyalty to the Constitution and the Union. … How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor of degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes."
> 
> *Lincoln wrote that the 'only substantial difference' between North and South was that 'You think slavery is right and ought to be extended; we think it is wrong and ought to be restricted.*_
Click to expand...

Lincoln stated in plain terms that he believed the white race to be superior to the black race.  That's the textbook definition of a white supremacist.  He also was definitely not an abolitionist.

You just can't stop lying.


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> Morals change, yes. Is the United States more moral, or less moral since the abolition of Slavery?
> 
> 
> 
> How is that relevant to the question of who started the Civil War?  ....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is no question. The filthy traitors of the so-called confederacy, who you so devoutly worship, started the war. As a consequence, they got a small measure of what ‘people’ like you deserve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no question that Lincoln started the war, shit for brains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is what you slavery apologists keep saying.
> 
> Meanwhile it was troops of the rebel slave states who fired on American soldiers that started the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong, as always.  Your theory seems to be that the U.S. military and government can do no wrong.  That's obvious horseshit.
Click to expand...


You are the one defending the actions of the rebel slave states with your theory that slave owners can do no wrong. 

Meanwhile it was troops of the rebel slave states who fired on American soldiers that started the war.


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is that relevant to the question of who started the Civil War?  ....?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no question. The filthy traitors of the so-called confederacy, who you so devoutly worship, started the war. As a consequence, they got a small measure of what ‘people’ like you deserve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no question that Lincoln started the war, shit for brains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is what you slavery apologists keep saying.
> 
> Meanwhile it was troops of the rebel slave states who fired on American soldiers that started the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong, as always.  Your theory seems to be that the U.S. military and government can do no wrong.  That's obvious horseshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one defending the actions of the rebel slave states with your theory that slave owners can do no wrong.
> 
> Meanwhile it was troops of the rebel slave states who fired on American soldiers that started the war.
Click to expand...

I have never claimed that slave owners can do no wrong.  However, they are entitled to defend their territory, and Ft Sumter was definitely a part of their territory.  They did nothing wrong by firing on the Union scallywags who were trespassing on it.  

Lincoln started the war by invading Virginia.  That is beyond any doubt.


----------



## Syriusly

Speaking of white supremacists

 Georgia Governor Joseph E. Brown concurred:

Among us the poor white laborer is respected as an equal. His family is treated with kindness, consideration and respect. He does not belong to the menial class. The negro is in no sense of the term his equal. He feels and knows this. He belongs to the only true aristocracy, the race of white men. He black no masters boots, and bows the knee to no one save God alone. He receives higher wages for his labor than does the laborer of any other portion of the world, and he raises up his children with the knowledge, that they belong to no inferior cast, but that the highest members of the society in which he lives, will, if their conduct is good, respect and treat them as equals.


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no question. The filthy traitors of the so-called confederacy, who you so devoutly worship, started the war. As a consequence, they got a small measure of what ‘people’ like you deserve.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no question that Lincoln started the war, shit for brains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is what you slavery apologists keep saying.
> 
> Meanwhile it was troops of the rebel slave states who fired on American soldiers that started the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong, as always.  Your theory seems to be that the U.S. military and government can do no wrong.  That's obvious horseshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one defending the actions of the rebel slave states with your theory that slave owners can do no wrong.
> 
> Meanwhile it was troops of the rebel slave states who fired on American soldiers that started the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have never claimed that slave owners can do no wrong.  However, they are entitled to defend their territory, and Ft Sumter was definitely a part of their territory.  They did nothing wrong by firing on the Union scallywags who were trespassing on it.
> 
> Lincoln started the war by invading Virginia.  That is beyond any doubt.
Click to expand...


You slavery apologists keep repeating that as if you say it often enough you can bring slavery back to the Confederacy.


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> South Carolina ceded the property to the Federal government, but it legal jurisdiction over the property.  Ft Sumter was still part of South Carolina, and federal troops were trespassing.  They got what they deserved: eviction.
> 
> Lincoln was a white supremacist.  He certainly was no abolitionist:
> 
> _"There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races ... A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas ...."
> 
> "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."
> 
> "I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position."_​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln was not a 'white supremacist'- he was a racist. LIke virtually everyone in the Republican Party at the time. Along with virtually everyone in the Democratic Party.
> Most abolitionists were racists too.
> 
> But Lincoln was most certainly an abolitionist- but a very pragmatic one. Which is of course why the Confederates rebelled against the United States when he was elected- over fear that he would enact abolitionist policies.
> 
> _Lincoln declared his opposition to slavery, which he repeated in his route to presidency.[14] Speaking in his Kentucky accent, with a very powerful voice,[15] he said the Kansas Act had a "declared indifference, but as I must think, a covert real zeal for the spread of slavery. I cannot but hate it. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world..
> 
> You know I dislike slavery; and you fully admit the abstract wrong of it... I also acknowledge your rights and my obligations, under the constitution, in regard to your slaves. I confess I hate to see the poor creatures hunted down, and caught, and carried back to their stripes, and unrewarded toils; but I bite my lip and keep quiet. In 1841 you and I had together a tedious low-water trip, on a Steam Boat from Louisville to St. Louis. You may remember, as I well do, that from Louisville to the mouth of the Ohio, there were, on board, ten or a dozen slaves, shackled together with irons. That sight was a continued torment to me; and I see something like it every time I touch the Ohio, or any other slave-border. It is hardly fair for you to assume, that I have no interest in a thing which has, and continually exercises, the power of making me miserable. You ought rather to appreciate how much the great body of the Northern people do crucify their feelings, in order to maintain their loyalty to the Constitution and the Union. … How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor of degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes."
> 
> Lincoln wrote that the 'only substantial difference' between North and South was that 'You think slavery is right and ought to be extended; we think it is wrong and ought to be restricted.' _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can be opposed to slavery and still be a white supremacist.  There's no doubt that Lincoln was the later:
> _
> “Free them [slaves] and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of them” (CW, Vol. II, p. 256).
> 
> 
> “What I would most desire,” Abraham Lincoln also declared, “would be the separation of the white and black races” (CW, Vol. II, p. 521).  And, “I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races . . . .  I am in favor of the race to which I belong, having the superior position” (CW, Vol. III, p. 16).
> 
> “I am not, nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold [political] office, nor to intermarry with white people,”_​
> CW - Lincoln's collected work.
> 
> However, Lincoln made it plain time and time again that he was perfectly willing to tolerate slavery.  He was even willing to enshrine it permanently into the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Lincoln was not a 'white supremacist'- he was a racist.* LIke virtually everyone in the Republican Party at the time. Along with virtually everyone in the Democratic Party.
> Most abolitionists were racists too.
> 
> But Lincoln was most certainly an abolitionist- but a very pragmatic one. Which is of course why the Confederates rebelled against the United States when he was elected- over fear that he would enact abolitionist policies.
> 
> _Lincoln declared his opposition to slavery, which he repeated in his route to presidency.[14] Speaking in his Kentucky accent, with a very powerful voice,[15] he said the Kansas Act had a "declared indifference, but as I must think, a covert real zeal for the spread of slavery. I cannot but hate it. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world..
> 
> You know I dislike slavery; and you fully admit the abstract wrong of it... I also acknowledge your rights and my obligations, under the constitution, in regard to your slaves. I confess I hate to see the poor creatures hunted down, and caught, and carried back to their stripes, and unrewarded toils; but I bite my lip and keep quiet. In 1841 you and I had together a tedious low-water trip, on a Steam Boat from Louisville to St. Louis. You may remember, as I well do, that from Louisville to the mouth of the Ohio, there were, on board, ten or a dozen slaves, shackled together with irons. That sight was a continued torment to me; and I see something like it every time I touch the Ohio, or any other slave-border. It is hardly fair for you to assume, that I have no interest in a thing which has, and continually exercises, the power of making me miserable. You ought rather to appreciate how much the great body of the Northern people do crucify their feelings, in order to maintain their loyalty to the Constitution and the Union. … How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor of degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes."
> 
> *Lincoln wrote that the 'only substantial difference' between North and South was that 'You think slavery is right and ought to be extended; we think it is wrong and ought to be restricted.*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln stated in plain terms that he believed the white race to be superior to the black race.  That's the textbook definition of a white supremacist.  He also was definitely not an abolitionist.
> 
> You just can't stop lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lincoln was a racist- like virtually every abolitionist at the time.
> 
> *Lincoln was not a 'white supremacist'- he was a racist.* LIke virtually everyone in the Republican Party at the time. Along with virtually everyone in the Democratic Party.
> Most abolitionists were racists too.
> 
> But Lincoln was most certainly an abolitionist- but a very pragmatic one. Which is of course why the Confederates rebelled against the United States when he was elected- over fear that he would enact abolitionist policies.
> 
> _Lincoln declared his opposition to slavery, which he repeated in his route to presidency.[14] Speaking in his Kentucky accent, with a very powerful voice,[15] he said the Kansas Act had a "declared indifference, but as I must think, a covert real zeal for the spread of slavery. I cannot but hate it. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world..
> 
> You know I dislike slavery; and you fully admit the abstract wrong of it... I also acknowledge your rights and my obligations, under the constitution, in regard to your slaves. I confess I hate to see the poor creatures hunted down, and caught, and carried back to their stripes, and unrewarded toils; but I bite my lip and keep quiet. In 1841 you and I had together a tedious low-water trip, on a Steam Boat from Louisville to St. Louis. You may remember, as I well do, that from Louisville to the mouth of the Ohio, there were, on board, ten or a dozen slaves, shackled together with irons. That sight was a continued torment to me; and I see something like it every time I touch the Ohio, or any other slave-border. It is hardly fair for you to assume, that I have no interest in a thing which has, and continually exercises, the power of making me miserable. You ought rather to appreciate how much the great body of the Northern people do crucify their feelings, in order to maintain their loyalty to the Constitution and the Union. … How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor of degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes."
> 
> *Lincoln wrote that the 'only substantial difference' between North and South was that 'You think slavery is right and ought to be extended; we think it is wrong and ought to be restricted*_
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter how many times you post that quote of Lincoln disingenuously complaining about how he feels when he sees slaves.  He stated many times that he was perfectly content to allow slavery if that was required to keep the Confederate states from seceding.

He wasn't an abolitionist.


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> Speaking of white supremacists
> 
> Georgia Governor Joseph E. Brown concurred:
> 
> Among us the poor white laborer is respected as an equal. His family is treated with kindness, consideration and respect. He does not belong to the menial class. The negro is in no sense of the term his equal. He feels and knows this. He belongs to the only true aristocracy, the race of white men. He black no masters boots, and bows the knee to no one save God alone. He receives higher wages for his labor than does the laborer of any other portion of the world, and he raises up his children with the knowledge, that they belong to no inferior cast, but that the highest members of the society in which he lives, will, if their conduct is good, respect and treat them as equals.



So?  Lincoln felt the same way, exactly.


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no question that Lincoln started the war, shit for brains.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is what you slavery apologists keep saying.
> 
> Meanwhile it was troops of the rebel slave states who fired on American soldiers that started the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong, as always.  Your theory seems to be that the U.S. military and government can do no wrong.  That's obvious horseshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one defending the actions of the rebel slave states with your theory that slave owners can do no wrong.
> 
> Meanwhile it was troops of the rebel slave states who fired on American soldiers that started the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have never claimed that slave owners can do no wrong.  However, they are entitled to defend their territory, and Ft Sumter was definitely a part of their territory.  They did nothing wrong by firing on the Union scallywags who were trespassing on it.
> 
> Lincoln started the war by invading Virginia.  That is beyond any doubt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You slavery apologists keep repeating that as if you say it often enough you can bring slavery back to the Confederacy.
Click to expand...

Cut the slander, you sleazy lying douchebag.  Everyone following this thread knows I don't support slavery.  Only a douchebag would claim otherwise.


----------



## Flash

How comt these Brits get to leave a Union but the Americans were not allowed to leave that filthy ass Union in 1861?


----------



## Syriusly

More of the statements of South about why secession was about slavery
South Carolina
..A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction. This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.


----------



## bripat9643

Flash said:


> How comt these Brits get to leave a Union but the Americans were not allowed to leave that filthy ass Union in 1861?



American liberals would be making war on them if they were in charge of the EU.


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is what you slavery apologists keep saying.
> 
> Meanwhile it was troops of the rebel slave states who fired on American soldiers that started the war.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, as always.  Your theory seems to be that the U.S. military and government can do no wrong.  That's obvious horseshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one defending the actions of the rebel slave states with your theory that slave owners can do no wrong.
> 
> Meanwhile it was troops of the rebel slave states who fired on American soldiers that started the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have never claimed that slave owners can do no wrong.  However, they are entitled to defend their territory, and Ft Sumter was definitely a part of their territory.  They did nothing wrong by firing on the Union scallywags who were trespassing on it.
> 
> Lincoln started the war by invading Virginia.  That is beyond any doubt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You slavery apologists keep repeating that as if you say it often enough you can bring slavery back to the Confederacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cut the slander, you sleazy lying douchebag.  Everyone following this thread knows I don't support slavery.  Only a douchebag would claim otherwise.
Click to expand...


Well lets see. 
You support the rights of the Confederate States to own slaves.
You support the rights of the Confederate States to leave the Union to keep their slaves.
You argue that the freedom of 3,000,000 slaves is not worth the deaths of 850,000 Americans. 

What exactly is the difference between 'supporting slavery' and 'apologizing for those who did support slavery'?


----------



## Syriusly

Flash said:


> How comt these Brits get to leave a Union but the Americans were not allowed to leave that filthy ass Union in 1861?



There is an actual provision with the European Union that specifically identifies the process for leaving the EU.

Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, enacted by the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, introduced for the first time a procedure for a member state to withdraw voluntarily from the EU.[11] The article states that:[13]


Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3)[14] of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council [of the European Union], acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

But I hope that the Brits don't end up shelling some Danish patrol boat tomorrow just to show that they are no longer part of the EU


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, as always.  Your theory seems to be that the U.S. military and government can do no wrong.  That's obvious horseshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one defending the actions of the rebel slave states with your theory that slave owners can do no wrong.
> 
> Meanwhile it was troops of the rebel slave states who fired on American soldiers that started the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have never claimed that slave owners can do no wrong.  However, they are entitled to defend their territory, and Ft Sumter was definitely a part of their territory.  They did nothing wrong by firing on the Union scallywags who were trespassing on it.
> 
> Lincoln started the war by invading Virginia.  That is beyond any doubt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You slavery apologists keep repeating that as if you say it often enough you can bring slavery back to the Confederacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cut the slander, you sleazy lying douchebag.  Everyone following this thread knows I don't support slavery.  Only a douchebag would claim otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well lets see.
> You support the rights of the Confederate States to own slaves.
Click to expand...


Pure horseshit.  I simply stated an irrefutable historical fact:  The Constitution protected the right of Americans to own slaves.   This was true in the North as well as the South.



Syriusly said:


> You support the rights of the Confederate States to leave the Union to keep their slaves.



Again, I simply state an historical fact.  The right of a state to secede was well accepted and documented before the Civil War.  It doesn't matter what the reason was.  Nowhere does the Constitution grant the authority for the federal government to make war on any state.



Syriusly said:


> You argue that the freedom of 3,000,000 slaves is not worth the deaths of 850,000 Americans.



Only a bonehead would believe it was.  Every other country on the planet abolished slavery without fighting a war over it.  The theory that the United States couldn't do likewise doesn't pass the laugh test.



Syriusly said:


> What exactly is the difference between 'supporting slavery' and 'apologizing for those who did support slavery'?



I haven't done either, you lying bucket of pig semen.


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> How comt these Brits get to leave a Union but the Americans were not allowed to leave that filthy ass Union in 1861?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is an actual provision with the European Union that specifically identifies the process for leaving the EU.
> 
> Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, enacted by the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, introduced for the first time a procedure for a member state to withdraw voluntarily from the EU.[11] The article states that:[13]
> 
> 
> Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
> A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3)[14] of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council [of the European Union], acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
> 
> But I hope that the Brits don't end up shelling some Danish patrol boat tomorrow just to show that they are no longer part of the EU
Click to expand...

That's illegitimate.  They can't impose terms after the fact.  The UK just gave them the middle finger salute.  If the UK did fire on some Danish patrol boat, what could the EU do about it?  That's the main difference between the Union and the EU, the later is entirely toothless.


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> How comt these Brits get to leave a Union but the Americans were not allowed to leave that filthy ass Union in 1861?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is an actual provision with the European Union that specifically identifies the process for leaving the EU.
> 
> Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, enacted by the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, introduced for the first time a procedure for a member state to withdraw voluntarily from the EU.[11] The article states that:[13]
> 
> 
> Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
> A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3)[14] of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council [of the European Union], acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
> 
> But I hope that the Brits don't end up shelling some Danish patrol boat tomorrow just to show that they are no longer part of the EU
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's illegitimate.  They can't impose terms after the fact.  The UK just gave them the middle finger salute.  If the UK did fire on some Danish patrol boat, what could the EU do about it?  That's the main difference between the Union and the EU, the later is entirely toothless.
Click to expand...


How is it illegitimate? 

It is exactly the provision the UK cited when it notified the EU it was leaving the EU.


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one defending the actions of the rebel slave states with your theory that slave owners can do no wrong.
> 
> Meanwhile it was troops of the rebel slave states who fired on American soldiers that started the war.
> 
> 
> 
> I have never claimed that slave owners can do no wrong.  However, they are entitled to defend their territory, and Ft Sumter was definitely a part of their territory.  They did nothing wrong by firing on the Union scallywags who were trespassing on it.
> 
> Lincoln started the war by invading Virginia.  That is beyond any doubt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You slavery apologists keep repeating that as if you say it often enough you can bring slavery back to the Confederacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cut the slander, you sleazy lying douchebag.  Everyone following this thread knows I don't support slavery.  Only a douchebag would claim otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well lets see.
> You support the rights of the Confederate States to own slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pure horseshit.  I simply stated an irrefutable historical fact:  The Constitution protected the right of Americans to own slaves.   This was true in the North as well as the South.
> .
Click to expand...


Do you support the rights of the Confederate States to own slaves
Its a yes or no question.


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one defending the actions of the rebel slave states with your theory that slave owners can do no wrong.
> 
> Meanwhile it was troops of the rebel slave states who fired on American soldiers that started the war.
> 
> 
> 
> I have never claimed that slave owners can do no wrong.  However, they are entitled to defend their territory, and Ft Sumter was definitely a part of their territory.  They did nothing wrong by firing on the Union scallywags who were trespassing on it.
> 
> Lincoln started the war by invading Virginia.  That is beyond any doubt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You slavery apologists keep repeating that as if you say it often enough you can bring slavery back to the Confederacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cut the slander, you sleazy lying douchebag.  Everyone following this thread knows I don't support slavery.  Only a douchebag would claim otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well lets see.
> You support the rights of the Confederate States to own slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pure horseshit.  I simply stated an irrefutable historical fact:  The Constitution protected the right of Americans to own slaves.   This was true in the North as well as the South.
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> You support the rights of the Confederate States to leave the Union to keep their slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> You argue that the freedom of 3,000,000 slaves is not worth the deaths of 850,000 Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a bonehead would believe it was.  Every other country on the planet abolished slavery without fighting a war over it.  The theory that the United States couldn't do likewise doesn't pass the laugh test..
Click to expand...


I asked before how many lives would you be willing to lose in order to free 3,000,000 slaves. 

You have answered that question- you don't think that a single life should have been lost to free 3,000,000 slaves. 

And no one is surprised by this.


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> How comt these Brits get to leave a Union but the Americans were not allowed to leave that filthy ass Union in 1861?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is an actual provision with the European Union that specifically identifies the process for leaving the EU.
> 
> Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, enacted by the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, introduced for the first time a procedure for a member state to withdraw voluntarily from the EU.[11] The article states that:[13]
> 
> 
> Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
> A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3)[14] of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council [of the European Union], acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
> 
> But I hope that the Brits don't end up shelling some Danish patrol boat tomorrow just to show that they are no longer part of the EU
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's illegitimate.  They can't impose terms after the fact.  The UK just gave them the middle finger salute.  If the UK did fire on some Danish patrol boat, what could the EU do about it?  That's the main difference between the Union and the EU, the later is entirely toothless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is it illegitimate?
> 
> It is exactly the provision the UK cited when it notified the EU it was leaving the EU.
Click to expand...

Because it was adopted after the fact.  Any conditions for leaving have to be in place before joining.


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have never claimed that slave owners can do no wrong.  However, they are entitled to defend their territory, and Ft Sumter was definitely a part of their territory.  They did nothing wrong by firing on the Union scallywags who were trespassing on it.
> 
> Lincoln started the war by invading Virginia.  That is beyond any doubt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You slavery apologists keep repeating that as if you say it often enough you can bring slavery back to the Confederacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cut the slander, you sleazy lying douchebag.  Everyone following this thread knows I don't support slavery.  Only a douchebag would claim otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well lets see.
> You support the rights of the Confederate States to own slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pure horseshit.  I simply stated an irrefutable historical fact:  The Constitution protected the right of Americans to own slaves.   This was true in the North as well as the South.
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> You support the rights of the Confederate States to leave the Union to keep their slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> You argue that the freedom of 3,000,000 slaves is not worth the deaths of 850,000 Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a bonehead would believe it was.  Every other country on the planet abolished slavery without fighting a war over it.  The theory that the United States couldn't do likewise doesn't pass the laugh test..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked before how many lives would you be willing to lose in order to free 3,000,000 slaves.
> 
> You have answered that question- you don't think that a single life should have been lost to free 3,000,000 slaves.
> 
> And no one is surprised by this.
Click to expand...

It wasn't necessary to lose a single life to free the slaves.  How many lives did Brazil lose when it freed its slaves?


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have never claimed that slave owners can do no wrong.  However, they are entitled to defend their territory, and Ft Sumter was definitely a part of their territory.  They did nothing wrong by firing on the Union scallywags who were trespassing on it.
> 
> Lincoln started the war by invading Virginia.  That is beyond any doubt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You slavery apologists keep repeating that as if you say it often enough you can bring slavery back to the Confederacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cut the slander, you sleazy lying douchebag.  Everyone following this thread knows I don't support slavery.  Only a douchebag would claim otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well lets see.
> You support the rights of the Confederate States to own slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pure horseshit.  I simply stated an irrefutable historical fact:  The Constitution protected the right of Americans to own slaves.   This was true in the North as well as the South.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you support the rights of the Confederate States to own slaves
> Its a yes or no question.
Click to expand...

Meaningless bullshit.  The Constitution gave them the right to own slaves.  Whether I approve or you approve is irrelevant.


----------



## Flash

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> How comt these Brits get to leave a Union but the Americans were not allowed to leave that filthy ass Union in 1861?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is an actual provision with the European Union that specifically identifies the process for leaving the EU.
> 
> Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, enacted by the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, introduced for the first time a procedure for a member state to withdraw voluntarily from the EU.[11] The article states that:[13]
> 
> 
> Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
> A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3)[14] of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council [of the European Union], acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
> 
> But I hope that the Brits don't end up shelling some Danish patrol boat tomorrow just to show that they are no longer part of the EU
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's illegitimate.  They can't impose terms after the fact.  The UK just gave them the middle finger salute.  If the UK did fire on some Danish patrol boat, what could the EU do about it?  That's the main difference between the Union and the EU, the later is entirely toothless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is it illegitimate?
> 
> It is exactly the provision the UK cited when it notified the EU it was leaving the EU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it was adopted after the fact.  Any conditions for leaving have to be in place before joining.
Click to expand...



The main reasons Jefferson Davis was released from prison rather than having a trial was the asshole Unionist didn't want to to litigate secession in the courts.  He was preparing a defense that secession was legal and the Union pukes didn't want get a ruling on it because Davis's argument was pretty solid.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they don’t.
> 
> 
> 
> Only a moron would say something that stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only someone who understands what “morality” is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How "moral" was invading a sovereign country and slaughtering 850,000 innocent people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How moral was starting a civil war, resulting in the deaths of 850,000 innocent people, just to protect the right to own 3,000,000 slaves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln started the Civil War, moron.
Click to expand...


Wrong, idiot.


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> You slavery apologists keep repeating that as if you say it often enough you can bring slavery back to the Confederacy.
> 
> 
> 
> Cut the slander, you sleazy lying douchebag.  Everyone following this thread knows I don't support slavery.  Only a douchebag would claim otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well lets see.
> You support the rights of the Confederate States to own slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pure horseshit.  I simply stated an irrefutable historical fact:  The Constitution protected the right of Americans to own slaves.   This was true in the North as well as the South.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you support the rights of the Confederate States to own slaves
> Its a yes or no question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meaningless bullshit.  The Constitution gave them the right to own slaves.  Whether I approve or you approve is irrelevant.
Click to expand...


So to repeat- you support the rights of the Confederate States to own slaves. 

Which is what I had said before.


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> You slavery apologists keep repeating that as if you say it often enough you can bring slavery back to the Confederacy.
> 
> 
> 
> Cut the slander, you sleazy lying douchebag.  Everyone following this thread knows I don't support slavery.  Only a douchebag would claim otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well lets see.
> You support the rights of the Confederate States to own slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pure horseshit.  I simply stated an irrefutable historical fact:  The Constitution protected the right of Americans to own slaves.   This was true in the North as well as the South.
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> You support the rights of the Confederate States to leave the Union to keep their slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> You argue that the freedom of 3,000,000 slaves is not worth the deaths of 850,000 Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a bonehead would believe it was.  Every other country on the planet abolished slavery without fighting a war over it.  The theory that the United States couldn't do likewise doesn't pass the laugh test..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked before how many lives would you be willing to lose in order to free 3,000,000 slaves.
> 
> You have answered that question- you don't think that a single life should have been lost to free 3,000,000 slaves.
> 
> And no one is surprised by this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wasn't necessary to lose a single life to free the slaves.  How many lives did Brazil lose when it freed its slaves?
Click to expand...


So if the Civil War had not been fought- and the Confederacy had actually managed to rebel and become an independent nation- what year would they have freed their slaves?
After specifically leaving the United States and enshrining in explicit language in the Confederate Constitution the right to own slaves. 

But thanks for confirming what I had already pointed out- a single life lost to free 3,000,000 slaves from torture and rape would be one life too many.


----------



## anynameyouwish

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is what you slavery apologists keep saying.
> 
> Meanwhile it was troops of the rebel slave states who fired on American soldiers that started the war.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, as always.  Your theory seems to be that the U.S. military and government can do no wrong.  That's obvious horseshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one defending the actions of the rebel slave states with your theory that slave owners can do no wrong.
> 
> Meanwhile it was troops of the rebel slave states who fired on American soldiers that started the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have never claimed that slave owners can do no wrong.  However, they are entitled to defend their territory, and Ft Sumter was definitely a part of their territory.  They did nothing wrong by firing on the Union scallywags who were trespassing on it.
> 
> Lincoln started the war by invading Virginia.  That is beyond any doubt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You slavery apologists keep repeating that as if you say it often enough you can bring slavery back to the Confederacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cut the slander, you sleazy lying douchebag.  Everyone following this thread knows I don't support slavery.  Only a douchebag would claim otherwise.
Click to expand...



you support the RIGHT of STATES to allow WHITES to own blacks.

THAT is the same thing.


to contrast:


you say you don't support slavery but you have no objection to others owning slaves.


now compare THAT to....

"I OPPOSE HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE and I AM WILLING to start a CIVIL WAR TO KILL MY LIBERAL ENEMIES"......


Slavery doesn't drive you to civil war.

but homosexuality does!


----------



## bripat9643

anynameyouwish said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, as always.  Your theory seems to be that the U.S. military and government can do no wrong.  That's obvious horseshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one defending the actions of the rebel slave states with your theory that slave owners can do no wrong.
> 
> Meanwhile it was troops of the rebel slave states who fired on American soldiers that started the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have never claimed that slave owners can do no wrong.  However, they are entitled to defend their territory, and Ft Sumter was definitely a part of their territory.  They did nothing wrong by firing on the Union scallywags who were trespassing on it.
> 
> Lincoln started the war by invading Virginia.  That is beyond any doubt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You slavery apologists keep repeating that as if you say it often enough you can bring slavery back to the Confederacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cut the slander, you sleazy lying douchebag.  Everyone following this thread knows I don't support slavery.  Only a douchebag would claim otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you support the RIGHT of STATES to allow WHITES to own blacks.
> 
> THAT is the same thing.
> 
> 
> to contrast:
> 
> 
> you say you don't support slavery but you have no objection to others owning slaves.
> 
> 
> now compare THAT to....
> 
> "I OPPOSE HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE and I AM WILLING to start a CIVIL WAR TO KILL MY LIBERAL ENEMIES"......
> 
> 
> Slavery doesn't drive you to civil war.
> 
> but homosexuality does!
Click to expand...

Slavery was a historical fact, and the Constitution condoned it.  That's all that matters in this discussion.  If you claim that it was right for Lincoln to invade the Confederacy, then you admit you don't give a crap about the Constitution or the law.


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cut the slander, you sleazy lying douchebag.  Everyone following this thread knows I don't support slavery.  Only a douchebag would claim otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well lets see.
> You support the rights of the Confederate States to own slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pure horseshit.  I simply stated an irrefutable historical fact:  The Constitution protected the right of Americans to own slaves.   This was true in the North as well as the South.
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> You support the rights of the Confederate States to leave the Union to keep their slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> You argue that the freedom of 3,000,000 slaves is not worth the deaths of 850,000 Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a bonehead would believe it was.  Every other country on the planet abolished slavery without fighting a war over it.  The theory that the United States couldn't do likewise doesn't pass the laugh test..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked before how many lives would you be willing to lose in order to free 3,000,000 slaves.
> 
> You have answered that question- you don't think that a single life should have been lost to free 3,000,000 slaves.
> 
> And no one is surprised by this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wasn't necessary to lose a single life to free the slaves.  How many lives did Brazil lose when it freed its slaves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if the Civil War had not been fought- and the Confederacy had actually managed to rebel and become an independent nation- what year would they have freed their slaves?
> After specifically leaving the United States and enshrining in explicit language in the Confederate Constitution the right to own slaves.
> 
> But thanks for confirming what I had already pointed out- a single life lost to free 3,000,000 slaves from torture and rape would be one life too many.
Click to expand...

Slaves would have been escaping to the North in a flood, so it would have ended shortly anyways.


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cut the slander, you sleazy lying douchebag.  Everyone following this thread knows I don't support slavery.  Only a douchebag would claim otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well lets see.
> You support the rights of the Confederate States to own slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pure horseshit.  I simply stated an irrefutable historical fact:  The Constitution protected the right of Americans to own slaves.   This was true in the North as well as the South.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you support the rights of the Confederate States to own slaves
> Its a yes or no question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meaningless bullshit.  The Constitution gave them the right to own slaves.  Whether I approve or you approve is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So to repeat- you support the rights of the Confederate States to own slaves.
> 
> Which is what I had said before.
Click to expand...

You have a reading comprehension problem.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only a moron would say something that stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only someone who understands what “morality” is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How "moral" was invading a sovereign country and slaughtering 850,000 innocent people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How moral was starting a civil war, resulting in the deaths of 850,000 innocent people, just to protect the right to own 3,000,000 slaves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln started the Civil War, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong, idiot.
Click to expand...

It's a fact.


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one defending the actions of the rebel slave states with your theory that slave owners can do no wrong.
> 
> Meanwhile it was troops of the rebel slave states who fired on American soldiers that started the war.
> 
> 
> 
> I have never claimed that slave owners can do no wrong.  However, they are entitled to defend their territory, and Ft Sumter was definitely a part of their territory.  They did nothing wrong by firing on the Union scallywags who were trespassing on it.
> 
> Lincoln started the war by invading Virginia.  That is beyond any doubt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You slavery apologists keep repeating that as if you say it often enough you can bring slavery back to the Confederacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cut the slander, you sleazy lying douchebag.  Everyone following this thread knows I don't support slavery.  Only a douchebag would claim otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you support the RIGHT of STATES to allow WHITES to own blacks.
> 
> THAT is the same thing.
> 
> 
> to contrast:
> 
> 
> you say you don't support slavery but you have no objection to others owning slaves.
> 
> 
> now compare THAT to....
> 
> "I OPPOSE HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE and I AM WILLING to start a CIVIL WAR TO KILL MY LIBERAL ENEMIES"......
> 
> 
> Slavery doesn't drive you to civil war.
> 
> but homosexuality does!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Slavery was a historical fact, and the Constitution condoned it.  That's all that matters in this discussion.  If you claim that it was right for Lincoln to invade the Confederacy, then you admit you don't give a crap about the Constitution or the law.
Click to expand...


If the Confederacy was a separete country, then Lincoln had every right to invade that country for attacking American troops.


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well lets see.
> You support the rights of the Confederate States to own slaves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pure horseshit.  I simply stated an irrefutable historical fact:  The Constitution protected the right of Americans to own slaves.   This was true in the North as well as the South.
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> You support the rights of the Confederate States to leave the Union to keep their slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> You argue that the freedom of 3,000,000 slaves is not worth the deaths of 850,000 Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a bonehead would believe it was.  Every other country on the planet abolished slavery without fighting a war over it.  The theory that the United States couldn't do likewise doesn't pass the laugh test..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked before how many lives would you be willing to lose in order to free 3,000,000 slaves.
> 
> You have answered that question- you don't think that a single life should have been lost to free 3,000,000 slaves.
> 
> And no one is surprised by this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wasn't necessary to lose a single life to free the slaves.  How many lives did Brazil lose when it freed its slaves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if the Civil War had not been fought- and the Confederacy had actually managed to rebel and become an independent nation- what year would they have freed their slaves?
> After specifically leaving the United States and enshrining in explicit language in the Confederate Constitution the right to own slaves.
> 
> But thanks for confirming what I had already pointed out- a single life lost to free 3,000,000 slaves from torture and rape would be one life too many.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Slaves would have been escaping to the North in a flood, so it would have ended shortly anyways.
Click to expand...


Wasn't happening before the Civil War, don't know why you imagine it would be easier for them afterwards.


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have never claimed that slave owners can do no wrong.  However, they are entitled to defend their territory, and Ft Sumter was definitely a part of their territory.  They did nothing wrong by firing on the Union scallywags who were trespassing on it.
> 
> Lincoln started the war by invading Virginia.  That is beyond any doubt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You slavery apologists keep repeating that as if you say it often enough you can bring slavery back to the Confederacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cut the slander, you sleazy lying douchebag.  Everyone following this thread knows I don't support slavery.  Only a douchebag would claim otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you support the RIGHT of STATES to allow WHITES to own blacks.
> 
> THAT is the same thing.
> 
> 
> to contrast:
> 
> 
> you say you don't support slavery but you have no objection to others owning slaves.
> 
> 
> now compare THAT to....
> 
> "I OPPOSE HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE and I AM WILLING to start a CIVIL WAR TO KILL MY LIBERAL ENEMIES"......
> 
> 
> Slavery doesn't drive you to civil war.
> 
> but homosexuality does!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Slavery was a historical fact, and the Constitution condoned it.  That's all that matters in this discussion.  If you claim that it was right for Lincoln to invade the Confederacy, then you admit you don't give a crap about the Constitution or the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the Confederacy was a separete country, then Lincoln had every right to invade that country for attacking American troops.
Click to expand...

Nope.  Those troops were on the soil of South Carolina.  Lincoln was obligated to remove them when it was requested.


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pure horseshit.  I simply stated an irrefutable historical fact:  The Constitution protected the right of Americans to own slaves.   This was true in the North as well as the South.
> 
> Only a bonehead would believe it was.  Every other country on the planet abolished slavery without fighting a war over it.  The theory that the United States couldn't do likewise doesn't pass the laugh test..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked before how many lives would you be willing to lose in order to free 3,000,000 slaves.
> 
> You have answered that question- you don't think that a single life should have been lost to free 3,000,000 slaves.
> 
> And no one is surprised by this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wasn't necessary to lose a single life to free the slaves.  How many lives did Brazil lose when it freed its slaves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if the Civil War had not been fought- and the Confederacy had actually managed to rebel and become an independent nation- what year would they have freed their slaves?
> After specifically leaving the United States and enshrining in explicit language in the Confederate Constitution the right to own slaves.
> 
> But thanks for confirming what I had already pointed out- a single life lost to free 3,000,000 slaves from torture and rape would be one life too many.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Slaves would have been escaping to the North in a flood, so it would have ended shortly anyways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wasn't happening before the Civil War, don't know why you imagine it would be easier for them afterwards.
Click to expand...

Before secession, the North was obligated to enforce slavery.  After secession, it wasn't.


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> You slavery apologists keep repeating that as if you say it often enough you can bring slavery back to the Confederacy.
> 
> 
> 
> Cut the slander, you sleazy lying douchebag.  Everyone following this thread knows I don't support slavery.  Only a douchebag would claim otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you support the RIGHT of STATES to allow WHITES to own blacks.
> 
> THAT is the same thing.
> 
> 
> to contrast:
> 
> 
> you say you don't support slavery but you have no objection to others owning slaves.
> 
> 
> now compare THAT to....
> 
> "I OPPOSE HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE and I AM WILLING to start a CIVIL WAR TO KILL MY LIBERAL ENEMIES"......
> 
> 
> Slavery doesn't drive you to civil war.
> 
> but homosexuality does!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Slavery was a historical fact, and the Constitution condoned it.  That's all that matters in this discussion.  If you claim that it was right for Lincoln to invade the Confederacy, then you admit you don't give a crap about the Constitution or the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the Confederacy was a separete country, then Lincoln had every right to invade that country for attacking American troops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  Those troops were on the soil of South Carolina.  Lincoln was obligated to remove them when it was requested.
Click to expand...


Obligated how?


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cut the slander, you sleazy lying douchebag.  Everyone following this thread knows I don't support slavery.  Only a douchebag would claim otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you support the RIGHT of STATES to allow WHITES to own blacks.
> 
> THAT is the same thing.
> 
> 
> to contrast:
> 
> 
> you say you don't support slavery but you have no objection to others owning slaves.
> 
> 
> now compare THAT to....
> 
> "I OPPOSE HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE and I AM WILLING to start a CIVIL WAR TO KILL MY LIBERAL ENEMIES"......
> 
> 
> Slavery doesn't drive you to civil war.
> 
> but homosexuality does!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Slavery was a historical fact, and the Constitution condoned it.  That's all that matters in this discussion.  If you claim that it was right for Lincoln to invade the Confederacy, then you admit you don't give a crap about the Constitution or the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the Confederacy was a separete country, then Lincoln had every right to invade that country for attacking American troops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  Those troops were on the soil of South Carolina.  Lincoln was obligated to remove them when it was requested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obligated how?
Click to expand...


Obligated by international law.  Occupying foreign territory is an act of war, moron.


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I asked before how many lives would you be willing to lose in order to free 3,000,000 slaves.
> 
> You have answered that question- you don't think that a single life should have been lost to free 3,000,000 slaves.
> 
> And no one is surprised by this.
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't necessary to lose a single life to free the slaves.  How many lives did Brazil lose when it freed its slaves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if the Civil War had not been fought- and the Confederacy had actually managed to rebel and become an independent nation- what year would they have freed their slaves?
> After specifically leaving the United States and enshrining in explicit language in the Confederate Constitution the right to own slaves.
> 
> But thanks for confirming what I had already pointed out- a single life lost to free 3,000,000 slaves from torture and rape would be one life too many.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Slaves would have been escaping to the North in a flood, so it would have ended shortly anyways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wasn't happening before the Civil War, don't know why you imagine it would be easier for them afterwards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Before secession, the North was obligated to enforce slavery.  After secession, it wasn't.
Click to expand...


Before secession it would have been illegal for the Confederate States to create an armed border- to protect the Confederacy from the Abolitionists of the North and their slaves escaping.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only someone who understands what “morality” is.
> 
> 
> 
> How "moral" was invading a sovereign country and slaughtering 850,000 innocent people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How moral was starting a civil war, resulting in the deaths of 850,000 innocent people, just to protect the right to own 3,000,000 slaves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln started the Civil War, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong, idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a fact.
Click to expand...



No , you ignorant buffoon, it’s not. Stop getting your ‘history’ from stormfront, you uneducated asshole.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> you support the RIGHT of STATES to allow WHITES to own blacks.
> 
> THAT is the same thing.
> 
> 
> to contrast:
> 
> 
> you say you don't support slavery but you have no objection to others owning slaves.
> 
> 
> now compare THAT to....
> 
> "I OPPOSE HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE and I AM WILLING to start a CIVIL WAR TO KILL MY LIBERAL ENEMIES"......
> 
> 
> Slavery doesn't drive you to civil war.
> 
> but homosexuality does!
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was a historical fact, and the Constitution condoned it.  That's all that matters in this discussion.  If you claim that it was right for Lincoln to invade the Confederacy, then you admit you don't give a crap about the Constitution or the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the Confederacy was a separete country, then Lincoln had every right to invade that country for attacking American troops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  Those troops were on the soil of South Carolina.  Lincoln was obligated to remove them when it was requested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obligated how?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obligated by international law.  Occupying foreign territory is an act of war, moron.
Click to expand...


Not “foreign territory,” idiot.


----------



## flacaltenn

Syriusly said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only a moron would say something that stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only someone who understands what “morality” is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How "moral" was invading a sovereign country and slaughtering 850,000 innocent people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How moral was starting a civil war, resulting in the deaths of 850,000 innocent people, just to protect the right to own 3,000,000 slaves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln started the Civil War, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope- despite what you slavery apologists say- it was the men who rebelled against the United States to protect their 'rights' to own human property that started the war when they fired on the U.S. Army.
Click to expand...


Anyone who asserts the Civil War was just about slavery is poorly educated.. The frictions in COngress were LARGELY about tarrffs and funding national infrastructure and the severe DISCONNECT between the economic requirements of the North and South...


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How "moral" was invading a sovereign country and slaughtering 850,000 innocent people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How moral was starting a civil war, resulting in the deaths of 850,000 innocent people, just to protect the right to own 3,000,000 slaves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln started the Civil War, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong, idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No , you ignorant buffoon, it’s not. Stop getting your ‘history’ from stormfront, you uneducated asshole.
Click to expand...

It is a fact.   Stop getting your history from the Daily Worker.

You always insult when you know you're losing.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery was a historical fact, and the Constitution condoned it.  That's all that matters in this discussion.  If you claim that it was right for Lincoln to invade the Confederacy, then you admit you don't give a crap about the Constitution or the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the Confederacy was a separete country, then Lincoln had every right to invade that country for attacking American troops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  Those troops were on the soil of South Carolina.  Lincoln was obligated to remove them when it was requested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obligated how?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obligated by international law.  Occupying foreign territory is an act of war, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not “foreign territory,” idiot.
Click to expand...

Yes it was.  SC seceded.  we've already blown up your theory that secession was illegal.


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't necessary to lose a single life to free the slaves.  How many lives did Brazil lose when it freed its slaves?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if the Civil War had not been fought- and the Confederacy had actually managed to rebel and become an independent nation- what year would they have freed their slaves?
> After specifically leaving the United States and enshrining in explicit language in the Confederate Constitution the right to own slaves.
> 
> But thanks for confirming what I had already pointed out- a single life lost to free 3,000,000 slaves from torture and rape would be one life too many.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Slaves would have been escaping to the North in a flood, so it would have ended shortly anyways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wasn't happening before the Civil War, don't know why you imagine it would be easier for them afterwards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Before secession, the North was obligated to enforce slavery.  After secession, it wasn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Before secession it would have been illegal for the Confederate States to create an armed border- to protect the Confederacy from the Abolitionists of the North and their slaves escaping.
Click to expand...

Nut burgers like you keep saying it's impossible for the US to enforce its Southern border against illegal aliens.  Why would it have been so easy to prevent slaves from crossing it?


----------



## Bezukhov

flacaltenn said:


> Anyone who asserts the Civil War was just about slavery is poorly educated.. The frictions in COngress were LARGELY about tarrffs and funding national infrastructure and the severe DISCONNECT between the economic requirements of the North and South...



This had nothing to do with tariffs.
*Caning of Charles Sumner*
Caning of Charles Sumner - Wikipedia


----------



## bripat9643

Bezukhov said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who asserts the Civil War was just about slavery is poorly educated.. The frictions in COngress were LARGELY about tarrffs and funding national infrastructure and the severe DISCONNECT between the economic requirements of the North and South...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This had nothing to do with tariffs.
> *Caning of Charles Sumner*
> Caning of Charles Sumner - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

Of course it did, dumbass.  Tariffs almost led to secession a number of times previously


----------



## Picaro

flacaltenn said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only someone who understands what “morality” is.
> 
> 
> 
> How "moral" was invading a sovereign country and slaughtering 850,000 innocent people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How moral was starting a civil war, resulting in the deaths of 850,000 innocent people, just to protect the right to own 3,000,000 slaves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lincoln started the Civil War, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope- despite what you slavery apologists say- it was the men who rebelled against the United States to protect their 'rights' to own human property that started the war when they fired on the U.S. Army.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone who asserts the Civil War was just about slavery is poorly educated.. The frictions in COngress were LARGELY about tarrffs and funding national infrastructure and the severe DISCONNECT between the economic requirements of the North and South...
Click to expand...


Slavery was a unifying factor for forming a Confederacy AFTER the waves of secessions had already  taken place; some people are just not very bright about the obvious, is all, they're just happy bashing southerners and hate when it turns out they weren't always the bad guys n stuff. It's pretty simple; when the first of the Morrill tariff bills passed, SC seceded. It was also the Homestead Acts and railroad subsidies as well, not just tariffs, _an entire raft of bills that would drastically alter how the Feds funded itself, and f course when the South proposed their own tariff rates of 10% and shipping direct to Europe without the Yankee middle men, the north suddenly wanted war._


----------



## Picaro

bripat9643 said:


> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who asserts the Civil War was just about slavery is poorly educated.. The frictions in COngress were LARGELY about tarrffs and funding national infrastructure and the severe DISCONNECT between the economic requirements of the North and South...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This had nothing to do with tariffs.
> *Caning of Charles Sumner*
> Caning of Charles Sumner - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it did, dumbass.  Tariffs almost led to secession a number of times previously
Click to expand...


Yes, and mostly from northern states at that. Nobody ever thought the union was anything but voluntary until Lincoln fabricated the notion to appease his financial cronies. He was a railroad lawyer, after all, made most of his money and political career from helping them screw over little people.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Confederacy was a separete country, then Lincoln had every right to invade that country for attacking American troops.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Those troops were on the soil of South Carolina.  Lincoln was obligated to remove them when it was requested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obligated how?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obligated by international law.  Occupying foreign territory is an act of war, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not “foreign territory,” idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes it was.  SC seceded.  we've already blown up your theory that secession was illegal.
Click to expand...



Every Supreme Court, legitimate historians, and the citizens of the United States of America for over 150 years say you’re full of shit.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Those troops were on the soil of South Carolina.  Lincoln was obligated to remove them when it was requested.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obligated how?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obligated by international law.  Occupying foreign territory is an act of war, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not “foreign territory,” idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes it was.  SC seceded.  we've already blown up your theory that secession was illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Every Supreme Court, legitimate historians, and the citizens of the United States of America for over 150 years say you’re full of shit.
Click to expand...

The vast majority of SC members are political hacks, and "legitimate historians" is a euphemism meaning "Lincoln cult members."  Plenty of U.S citizens disagree.

You have engaged in multiple logical fallacies here, among them are the appeal to authority and the bandwagon fallacy.  The only thing that matters is the facts, and they show you to be dead wrong.


----------



## Flash

For you uneducated low information Moon Bats that only have a Jr High School History course understanding of the Civil War I suggest you read the book "The South Was Right" by Kennedy and Kennedy.

That way you won't be so uneducated and low information.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obligated how?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obligated by international law.  Occupying foreign territory is an act of war, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not “foreign territory,” idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes it was.  SC seceded.  we've already blown up your theory that secession was illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Every Supreme Court, legitimate historians, and the citizens of the United States of America for over 150 years say you’re full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The vast majority of SC members are political hacks, and "legitimate historians" is a euphemism meaning "Lincoln cult members."
> 
> ....
Click to expand...



= you stomping your little feet and demanding that your hatred, ignorance, and bitterness be accepted as “fact.” They aren’t by anyone but your fellow refugees from stormfront. You fail, loser, just like the traitorous reb scum you worship failed.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obligated how?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obligated by international law.  Occupying foreign territory is an act of war, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not “foreign territory,” idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes it was.  SC seceded.  we've already blown up your theory that secession was illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Every Supreme Court, legitimate historians, and the citizens of the United States of America for over 150 years say you’re full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...
> 
> You have engaged in multiple logical fallacies here....
Click to expand...



Have you ever studied Logic formally? You really don’t seem to understand the terms you are trying to use.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obligated by international law.  Occupying foreign territory is an act of war, moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not “foreign territory,” idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes it was.  SC seceded.  we've already blown up your theory that secession was illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Every Supreme Court, legitimate historians, and the citizens of the United States of America for over 150 years say you’re full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...
> 
> You have engaged in multiple logical fallacies here....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever studied Logic formally? You really don’t seem to understand the terms you are trying to use.
Click to expand...

Yes,  I have taken a course in formal logic, dumbass.  That's how I know that you are incapable of committing logic.


----------



## bripat9643

Unkotare said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obligated by international law.  Occupying foreign territory is an act of war, moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not “foreign territory,” idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes it was.  SC seceded.  we've already blown up your theory that secession was illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Every Supreme Court, legitimate historians, and the citizens of the United States of America for over 150 years say you’re full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The vast majority of SC members are political hacks, and "legitimate historians" is a euphemism meaning "Lincoln cult members."
> 
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> = you stomping your little feet and demanding that your hatred, ignorance, and bitterness be accepted as “fact.” They aren’t by anyone but your fellow refugees from stormfront. You fail, loser, just like the traitorous reb scum you worship failed.
Click to expand...

The "facts" are in the documents from the period, dumbass.  No one has to accept them based on my authority.  On the other hand, nothing you have posted in this thread is a fact.  There are historical documents that discredit all your infantile claims.


----------



## there4eyeM

Civil War fact:
The South lost.


----------



## bripat9643

there4eyeM said:


> Civil War fact:
> The South lost.


Not under discussion, shit for brains.


----------



## there4eyeM

Obviously, facts don't interest petullent children.


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not “foreign territory,” idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it was.  SC seceded.  we've already blown up your theory that secession was illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Every Supreme Court, legitimate historians, and the citizens of the United States of America for over 150 years say you’re full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The vast majority of SC members are political hacks, and "legitimate historians" is a euphemism meaning "Lincoln cult members."
> 
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> = you stomping your little feet and demanding that your hatred, ignorance, and bitterness be accepted as “fact.” They aren’t by anyone but your fellow refugees from stormfront. You fail, loser, just like the traitorous reb scum you worship failed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The "facts" are in the documents from the period, dumbass.  No one has to accept them based on my authority.  ....
Click to expand...


Supreme Court rulings are historic documents, right?


----------

