Before 1860 secession was considered to be constitutional

In other words, you can't show any law that prevents secession. The libtard boot-licker credo is "do what we tell you and shut the fuck up or we'll kill you."

So I guess the OWS protestors shouldn't have been forced to stop their protest? As I recall, the government moved in and forcibly ejected them. As I also recall, you were in your cheerleader outfit and had your pom-poms going during that "might makes right" demonstration of force.

You're a professional dumbass.

You don't see him lamenting over Indians, Africans or basically anyone that had to submit to the heel of America.

But Confederates?

"Don't cry for me Argentina!"

:lol:

According to you and your ilk the American military determined the justness of our treatment of those groups. "Might makes right," eh retard?
 
Despite your attempts at revisionist history, the South shot first. They started it, the North ended it.

I'm sure when they fired on Fort Sumpter, those were "reasonable" cannon balls being fired.

You're a professional dumbass.


tell us again why Virginia and Tennessee seceded?

Because like every other Confederate traitor, they wanted to have the right to enslave people.

because they all had slaves,right?
 
Because like every other Confederate traitor, they wanted to have the right to enslave people.

really

then why didn't they go out in the first round?

Your knowledge of history is pathetic

What you are trying to do is play gotcha with some obscure bullshit that only matters to racists.

That's fine.

Doesn't work.

Pretty sure that in a great many southern states if they could vote on having slaves again, they would vote yes in a heart beat.

really?

I'm a racist now for knowing the history of the civil war?
 
really

then why didn't they go out in the first round?

Your knowledge of history is pathetic

What you are trying to do is play gotcha with some obscure bullshit that only matters to racists.

That's fine.

Doesn't work.

Pretty sure that in a great many southern states if they could vote on having slaves again, they would vote yes in a heart beat.

really?

I'm a racist now for knowing the history of the civil war?

When they know they're losing the argument, they always pull out the race card.

According to the Lincoln cult worshipers, the slaves deserved to be in changes because we had the power to impose it on them.

Libturds are two-bit thugs, pure and simple.
 
Last edited:
The question (the many questions involved, in fact) has been settled for a long time now. Move on.
 
Lincoln was the traitor. He's the one who made war on states of the union. He also flushed the Constitution down the toilet.

Lincoln preserved the Union. The rebels who started the war and fired its first shots were defeated, then punished far more gently than justice might have dictated and that many at the time would have found understandable. Lincoln remains our greatest President from our most perilous hour.
 
This is for all you servile turds who believe the Constitution outlaws secession:

"During the weeks following the [1860] election, [Northern newspaper] editors of all parties assumed that secession as a constitutional right was not in question . . . . On the contrary, the southern claim to a right of peaceable withdrawal was countenanced out of reverence for the natural law principle of government by consent of the governed."

~ Howard Cecil Perkins, editor, Northern Editorials on Secession, p. 10

The first several generations of Americans understood that the Declaration of Independence was the ultimate states’ rights document. The citizens of the states would delegate certain powers to a central government in their Constitution, and these powers (mostly for national defense and foreign policy purposes) would hopefully be exercised for the benefit of the citizens of the "free and independent" states, as they are called in the Declaration.

The understanding was that if American citizens were in fact to be the masters rather than the servants of government, they themselves would have to police the national government that was created by them for their mutual benefit. If the day ever came that the national government became the sole arbiter of the limits of its own powers, then Americans would live under a tyranny as bad or worse than the one the colonists fought a revolution against. As the above quotation denotes, the ultimate natural law principle behind this thinking was Jefferson’s famous dictum in the Declaration of Independence that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and that whenever that consent is withdrawn the people of the free and independent states, as sovereigns, have a duty to abolish that government and replace it with a new one if they wish.

This was the fundamental understanding of the meaning of the Declaration of Independence – that it was a Declaration of Secession from the British empire – of the first several generations of Americans. As the 1, 107-page book, Northern Editorials on Secession shows, this view was held just as widely in the Northern states as in the Southern states in 1860-1861. Among the lone dissenters was Abe Lincoln, a corporate lawyer/lobbyist/politician with less than a year of formal education who probably never even read The Federalist Papers.

What Americans Used To Know About the Declaration of Independence by Thomas DiLorenzo

Then the confederate states shouldn't have started the civil war.
 
Lincoln was the traitor. He's the one who made war on states of the union. He also flushed the Constitution down the toilet.

Lincoln preserved the Union. The rebels who started the war and fired its first shots were defeated, then punished far more gently than justice might have dictated and that many at the time would have found understandable. Lincoln remains our greatest President from our most perilous hour.

They must be teaching some fucked up stuff about Lincoln that so many think him a traitor.
 
This is for all you servile turds who believe the Constitution outlaws secession:

"During the weeks following the [1860] election, [Northern newspaper] editors of all parties assumed that secession as a constitutional right was not in question . . . . On the contrary, the southern claim to a right of peaceable withdrawal was countenanced out of reverence for the natural law principle of government by consent of the governed."

~ Howard Cecil Perkins, editor, Northern Editorials on Secession, p. 10

The first several generations of Americans understood that the Declaration of Independence was the ultimate states’ rights document. The citizens of the states would delegate certain powers to a central government in their Constitution, and these powers (mostly for national defense and foreign policy purposes) would hopefully be exercised for the benefit of the citizens of the "free and independent" states, as they are called in the Declaration.

The understanding was that if American citizens were in fact to be the masters rather than the servants of government, they themselves would have to police the national government that was created by them for their mutual benefit. If the day ever came that the national government became the sole arbiter of the limits of its own powers, then Americans would live under a tyranny as bad or worse than the one the colonists fought a revolution against. As the above quotation denotes, the ultimate natural law principle behind this thinking was Jefferson’s famous dictum in the Declaration of Independence that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and that whenever that consent is withdrawn the people of the free and independent states, as sovereigns, have a duty to abolish that government and replace it with a new one if they wish.

This was the fundamental understanding of the meaning of the Declaration of Independence – that it was a Declaration of Secession from the British empire – of the first several generations of Americans. As the 1, 107-page book, Northern Editorials on Secession shows, this view was held just as widely in the Northern states as in the Southern states in 1860-1861. Among the lone dissenters was Abe Lincoln, a corporate lawyer/lobbyist/politician with less than a year of formal education who probably never even read The Federalist Papers.

What Americans Used To Know About the Declaration of Independence by Thomas DiLorenzo

Then the confederate states shouldn't have started the civil war.

Lincoln started the war. He invaded the South.

You're just a boot-licking Lincoln worshiping moron.
 
So I guess the OWS protestors shouldn't have been forced to stop their protest? As I recall, the government moved in and forcibly ejected them. As I also recall, you were in your cheerleader outfit and had your pom-poms going during that "might makes right" demonstration of force.

You're a professional dumbass.

You don't see him lamenting over Indians, Africans or basically anyone that had to submit to the heel of America.

But Confederates?

"Don't cry for me Argentina!"

:lol:

According to you and your ilk the American military determined the justness of our treatment of those groups. "Might makes right," eh retard?

It kinda does, "retard".

You don't win wars by being weak.

:lol:
 
Lincoln was the traitor. He's the one who made war on states of the union. He also flushed the Constitution down the toilet.

Lincoln preserved the Union. The rebels who started the war and fired its first shots were defeated, then punished far more gently than justice might have dictated and that many at the time would have found understandable. Lincoln remains our greatest President from our most perilous hour.

They must be teaching some fucked up stuff about Lincoln that so many think him a traitor.

Yeah, the facts are some "fucked up stuff."
 
This is for all you servile turds who believe the Constitution outlaws secession:

"During the weeks following the [1860] election, [Northern newspaper] editors of all parties assumed that secession as a constitutional right was not in question . . . . On the contrary, the southern claim to a right of peaceable withdrawal was countenanced out of reverence for the natural law principle of government by consent of the governed."

~ Howard Cecil Perkins, editor, Northern Editorials on Secession, p. 10

The first several generations of Americans understood that the Declaration of Independence was the ultimate states’ rights document. The citizens of the states would delegate certain powers to a central government in their Constitution, and these powers (mostly for national defense and foreign policy purposes) would hopefully be exercised for the benefit of the citizens of the "free and independent" states, as they are called in the Declaration.

The understanding was that if American citizens were in fact to be the masters rather than the servants of government, they themselves would have to police the national government that was created by them for their mutual benefit. If the day ever came that the national government became the sole arbiter of the limits of its own powers, then Americans would live under a tyranny as bad or worse than the one the colonists fought a revolution against. As the above quotation denotes, the ultimate natural law principle behind this thinking was Jefferson’s famous dictum in the Declaration of Independence that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and that whenever that consent is withdrawn the people of the free and independent states, as sovereigns, have a duty to abolish that government and replace it with a new one if they wish.

This was the fundamental understanding of the meaning of the Declaration of Independence – that it was a Declaration of Secession from the British empire – of the first several generations of Americans. As the 1, 107-page book, Northern Editorials on Secession shows, this view was held just as widely in the Northern states as in the Southern states in 1860-1861. Among the lone dissenters was Abe Lincoln, a corporate lawyer/lobbyist/politician with less than a year of formal education who probably never even read The Federalist Papers.

What Americans Used To Know About the Declaration of Independence by Thomas DiLorenzo

Then the confederate states shouldn't have started the civil war.

Lincoln started the war. He invaded the South.

You're just a boot-licking Lincoln worshiping moron.
No he didnt... the war started with the attack of fort Sumter....Maybe you need to learn some history
 
Lincoln was the traitor. He's the one who made war on states of the union. He also flushed the Constitution down the toilet.

Lincoln preserved the Union. The rebels who started the war and fired its first shots were defeated, then punished far more gently than justice might have dictated and that many at the time would have found understandable. Lincoln remains our greatest President from our most perilous hour.

Lincoln destroyed the union. Prior to the Civil War, the union was a voluntary association of sovereign states. After the war, it was an empire populated by subjects.

Lincoln is a tyrant and a war criminal who wiped his ass on the Constitution.

If Southerners were traitors, then why weren't any of them tried for treason after the war?
 
Then the confederate states shouldn't have started the civil war.

Lincoln started the war. He invaded the South.

You're just a boot-licking Lincoln worshiping moron.
No he didnt... the war started with the attack of fort Sumter....Maybe you need to learn some history

Occupying Fort Sumter was an act of war. Attempting to resupply it was another act of war. All you lying Lincoln cult members are trying desperately to ignore those facts. That shows you know the truth of the matter. You just don't give a fuck about the truth.
 
You don't see him lamenting over Indians, Africans or basically anyone that had to submit to the heel of America.

But Confederates?

"Don't cry for me Argentina!"

:lol:

According to you and your ilk the American military determined the justness of our treatment of those groups. "Might makes right," eh retard?

It kinda does, "retard".

You don't win wars by being weak.

:lol:

So black slaves deserved to be black slaves? Is that really what you're saying, retard?
 
Lincoln was the traitor. He's the one who made war on states of the union. He also flushed the Constitution down the toilet.

Lincoln preserved the Union. The rebels who started the war and fired its first shots were defeated, then punished far more gently than justice might have dictated and that many at the time would have found understandable. Lincoln remains our greatest President from our most perilous hour.

Lincoln destroyed the union. Prior to the Civil War, the union was a voluntary association of sovereign states. After the war, it was an empire populated by subjects.

Lincoln is a tyrant and a war criminal who wiped his ass on the Constitution.

If Southerners were traitors, then why weren't any of them tried for treason after the war?

Because Lincoln was a far better man then they were.
 
Lincoln started the war. He invaded the South.

You're just a boot-licking Lincoln worshiping moron.
No he didnt... the war started with the attack of fort Sumter....Maybe you need to learn some history

Occupying Fort Sumter was an act of war. Attempting to resupply it was another act of war. All you lying Lincoln cult members are trying desperately to ignore those facts. That shows you know the truth of the matter. You just don't give a fuck about the truth.

Jesus what the fuck did they teach you in history???? Sumter was always a union base.
 
According to you and your ilk the American military determined the justness of our treatment of those groups. "Might makes right," eh retard?

It kinda does, "retard".

You don't win wars by being weak.

:lol:

So black slaves deserved to be black slaves? Is that really what you're saying, retard?
I dont know why dont you read the confederate constitution where it says black people will always be slaves and inferior to their confederate white people. Paraphrasing of course.

It is sad your so ignorant of history that you idolized confederates who caused the deaths of more Americans then any war fought.
 
No he didnt... the war started with the attack of fort Sumter....Maybe you need to learn some history

Occupying Fort Sumter was an act of war. Attempting to resupply it was another act of war. All you lying Lincoln cult members are trying desperately to ignore those facts. That shows you know the truth of the matter. You just don't give a fuck about the truth.

Jesus what the fuck did they teach you in history???? Sumter was always a union base.

No it wasn't. The property was within the borders of South Carolina. That makes it Carolina territory. If a country tells the American government to remove it's troops from within its territory, then the American government had better do it. Otherwise its committing an act of war.
 
Lincoln was the traitor. He's the one who made war on states of the union. He also flushed the Constitution down the toilet.

Lincoln preserved the Union. The rebels who started the war and fired its first shots were defeated, then punished far more gently than justice might have dictated and that many at the time would have found understandable. Lincoln remains our greatest President from our most perilous hour.

They must be teaching some fucked up stuff about Lincoln that so many think him a traitor.

No, it's just that sour grapes are being served at a lot of school lunches in some locations.
 

Forum List

Back
Top