Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Sorry guy. You just said it yourself. If the CSA was not a nation then they werent legitimate. Thats just another reason they got their asses kicked for pretending to be a sovereign nation without permission. Everywhere you turn your logic betrays you.You asked.....Sorry bub. The CSA exists in the history books only to put a name to the losers. You were a joke with no recognition and got your asses kicked for your petulance. Name one country that recognized the CSA as a sovereign nation. I'll wait.They lost that stance once they committed acts of war and were told forcefully they could no longer be an independent nation. Sorry but Venezuela never was part of the US. Stop reaching. Its pitiful.You do realize that upon secession the Southern States were no more part of the U.S. Than was Venezuela, right?Yes i understand the difference. However, what does that have to do with the point?
We arent talking about the reasons the North kicked the souths ass. We are talking about the fact the south fought to maintain slavery. BTW you do realize Venezuela is not part of the US dont you?
No, the war was over secession, not over whether or not the now foreign States to the south of the U.S. Held slaves or not.
The war was over slavery. The confederates documented that.Well, there actually is no need to secede as that would be an exercise in redundancy, as clearly the Southern States already accomplished secession.You do realize that upon secession the Southern States were no more part of the U.S. Than was Venezuela, right?Yes i understand the difference. However, what does that have to do with the point?
We arent talking about the reasons the North kicked the souths ass. We are talking about the fact the south fought to maintain slavery. BTW you do realize Venezuela is not part of the US dont you?
No, the war was over secession, not over whether or not the now foreign States to the south of the U.S. Held slaves or not.
You could secede in your little panty-lined bunker right now -- set up your own "government" and think you actually are not part of the US -- but no one will recognize it.
Just as the US did not recognize the CSA as legitimate - as well as every other country in the world did.
You state that the U.S. did not recognize the CSA as legitimate?
Yet they went to war with the CSA?
What makes you think that the U.S. is the authority on which State relationships are legitimate and which are not?
Is it written somewhere in international law that in order for foreign State relationships to be legitimate, they must first petition the U.S. for recognition?
Surely the States that were united in the Southern Confederacy recognized their relationship with the other States.
The CSA is in History books as existing and legitimate.
Name one country that recognized the CSA as a sovereign nation. I'll wait
The CSA was NOT a nation, it was a Confederacy of nation States. This is what YOUR union was intended to be, as Alexander Hamilton stated in the "federalist" #32....
"An entire consolidation of the States into one complete national sovereignty would imply an entire subordination of the parts; and whatever powers might remain in them, would be altogether dependent on the general will. But as the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty."
So by 1861 the States no longer were considered as retaining any vestige of sovereignty?
Now as each State was a nation itself united in a confederacy with other nation/States, they each recognized one another as legitimate.
Are not governments instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed?
You state.....Logically? You werent allowed to secede from the US for starters. No one gave you permission and thats why you got your ass kicked. Since you entire argument seems to rest on the fallacy you had permission to secede, I would suggest you get a new argument.So, you sa
So you say the war was over the South wanting to keep slavery?I wasnt talking to you so not interested in what you care about.I don't care where your family is from, you are a Yankee.The confederates told us what they thought. Matter of fact they documented it. BTW my family is from the south.Gotta love it when morons from the north try to tell people from the south what they think.
The war was not over Slavery, secession was.
You cannot seem to distinguish between the two, is there some problem with your ability to understand this?
The war was over the south wanting to keep slavery. You cant seem to grasp this. Is there a problem with your ability to think?
Lets look at this logically, if you are able.
The South Seceded from the U.S. at which point the Southern States were no longer part of the U.S. therefore it is your assertion that the "South" left the union so that they could keep their slaves and then said.....
Hey we are no longer part of the U.S. therefore we can now keep our Slaves without any interference from the U.S. but, what the hell, lets go to war over slavery anyway?
Do you see how ignorant you appear?
When the Southern States seceded over slavery, they were free to do as they wish, so why on earth would they go to war unless the U.S. was invading those States to force them to free their Slaves?
So it is now your assertion that the U.S. invaded the now foreign Southern States to force them to free their Slaves, yet they stopped their crusade at the gulf coast instead of making war on Venezuela to force that foreign State to free their Slaves as well?
Why?
If the war was to free slaves in foreign States that were not part of the union, then why did the U.S. not continue this crusade?
Why was the Black man sooo important that they went to war to free them, yet at that very same time, the U.S. was continuing its extermination of the Native American Indian?
Is it your assertion that the Black man is better than the Red man?
Logically, I cannot understand that YOUR government would go to war to free the Black Slaves while exterminating the Native American Indian, and then stop this grand crusade to end Slavery at the Gulf coast and not go to war with every State on the planet to end the enslavement of the Black Man.
I admit the Union kicked your ass over secession. The losers fought over slavery.You state.....Logically? You werent allowed to secede from the US for starters. No one gave you permission and thats why you got your ass kicked. Since you entire argument seems to rest on the fallacy you had permission to secede, I would suggest you get a new argument.So, you sa
So you say the war was over the South wanting to keep slavery?I wasnt talking to you so not interested in what you care about.I don't care where your family is from, you are a Yankee.The confederates told us what they thought. Matter of fact they documented it. BTW my family is from the south.
The war was not over Slavery, secession was.
You cannot seem to distinguish between the two, is there some problem with your ability to understand this?
The war was over the south wanting to keep slavery. You cant seem to grasp this. Is there a problem with your ability to think?
Lets look at this logically, if you are able.
The South Seceded from the U.S. at which point the Southern States were no longer part of the U.S. therefore it is your assertion that the "South" left the union so that they could keep their slaves and then said.....
Hey we are no longer part of the U.S. therefore we can now keep our Slaves without any interference from the U.S. but, what the hell, lets go to war over slavery anyway?
Do you see how ignorant you appear?
When the Southern States seceded over slavery, they were free to do as they wish, so why on earth would they go to war unless the U.S. was invading those States to force them to free their Slaves?
So it is now your assertion that the U.S. invaded the now foreign Southern States to force them to free their Slaves, yet they stopped their crusade at the gulf coast instead of making war on Venezuela to force that foreign State to free their Slaves as well?
Why?
If the war was to free slaves in foreign States that were not part of the union, then why did the U.S. not continue this crusade?
Why was the Black man sooo important that they went to war to free them, yet at that very same time, the U.S. was continuing its extermination of the Native American Indian?
Is it your assertion that the Black man is better than the Red man?
Logically, I cannot understand that YOUR government would go to war to free the Black Slaves while exterminating the Native American Indian, and then stop this grand crusade to end Slavery at the Gulf coast and not go to war with every State on the planet to end the enslavement of the Black Man.
Logically? You werent allowed to secede from the US for starters. No one gave you permission and thats why you got your ass kicked.
Oh, so now you admit that the war was over the right of secession?
Now please by all means cite the Law that states that secession is illegal or unlawful.
If there was no law against secession, then clearly in the absence of a law, something is legal, hence Lincoln and YOUR Yankee ancestors were in rebellion to the lawful authority of YOUR CONstitutions tenth amendment.
Even YOUR COMRADE Paperview has stated that since YOUR U.S. CONstitution did not state that Slavery was illegal, then clearly Slavery was legal in the U.S.
Such would also apply to secession.
As for gettin my ass kicked....
I was not around, and I would say that hundreds of thousands of DEAD YANKEE SOLDIERS GOT THEIR "ASS KICKED", AS THEIR LIVES WERE ENDED IN THAT WAR, WHICH YOU REFER TO ASS SOME SORT OF ASS KICKING.
No, they were not a nation, as I stated, the CSA was a confederacy of Nation States. You cannot seem to distinguish between the two. Such is why you cannot even comprehend that YOUR united States was never intended to be a consolidation, but rather a union.Sorry guy. You just said it yourself. If the CSA was not a nation then they werent legitimate. Thats just another reason they got their asses kicked for pretending to be a sovereign nation without permission. Everywhere you turn your logic betrays you.You asked.....Sorry bub. The CSA exists in the history books only to put a name to the losers. You were a joke with no recognition and got your asses kicked for your petulance. Name one country that recognized the CSA as a sovereign nation. I'll wait.They lost that stance once they committed acts of war and were told forcefully they could no longer be an independent nation. Sorry but Venezuela never was part of the US. Stop reaching. Its pitiful.You do realize that upon secession the Southern States were no more part of the U.S. Than was Venezuela, right?
No, the war was over secession, not over whether or not the now foreign States to the south of the U.S. Held slaves or not.
The war was over slavery. The confederates documented that.Well, there actually is no need to secede as that would be an exercise in redundancy, as clearly the Southern States already accomplished secession.You do realize that upon secession the Southern States were no more part of the U.S. Than was Venezuela, right?
No, the war was over secession, not over whether or not the now foreign States to the south of the U.S. Held slaves or not.
You could secede in your little panty-lined bunker right now -- set up your own "government" and think you actually are not part of the US -- but no one will recognize it.
Just as the US did not recognize the CSA as legitimate - as well as every other country in the world did.
You state that the U.S. did not recognize the CSA as legitimate?
Yet they went to war with the CSA?
What makes you think that the U.S. is the authority on which State relationships are legitimate and which are not?
Is it written somewhere in international law that in order for foreign State relationships to be legitimate, they must first petition the U.S. for recognition?
Surely the States that were united in the Southern Confederacy recognized their relationship with the other States.
The CSA is in History books as existing and legitimate.
Name one country that recognized the CSA as a sovereign nation. I'll wait
The CSA was NOT a nation, it was a Confederacy of nation States. This is what YOUR union was intended to be, as Alexander Hamilton stated in the "federalist" #32....
"An entire consolidation of the States into one complete national sovereignty would imply an entire subordination of the parts; and whatever powers might remain in them, would be altogether dependent on the general will. But as the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty."
So by 1861 the States no longer were considered as retaining any vestige of sovereignty?
Now as each State was a nation itself united in a confederacy with other nation/States, they each recognized one another as legitimate.
Are not governments instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed?
What semantics have I played?When you play semantics everyone knows you just lost the debate.JAKE,James, STFU, then go read 9th paragraph of the Cornerstone speech by the CSA vice-president, think about it, then report to us what the veep had to say about the cause of the war as "This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution." Corner Stone Speech Teaching American History
Perhaps you should just post the wording wherein the statement is made that the War was over slavery. The closest that I find is the mention of revolution, yet revolution is not war, there are many forms of revolution, as in a revolutionary idea, the industrial revolution, a momentous change in a situation, such as the relationship between the States via secession, etc....
Please post his exact reference to the causes of the war.
Think about it Jake....Why would the Southern States go to war after they exited the union to "Preserve Slavery" why would they go to war when secession already accomplished the preservation of Slavery if left alone and not attacked by the U.S. Slavery would have been preserved: don't you think?
The only thing that has failed is your logic and your intelligence.What semantics have I played?When you play semantics everyone knows you just lost the debate.JAKE,James, STFU, then go read 9th paragraph of the Cornerstone speech by the CSA vice-president, think about it, then report to us what the veep had to say about the cause of the war as "This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution." Corner Stone Speech Teaching American History
Perhaps you should just post the wording wherein the statement is made that the War was over slavery. The closest that I find is the mention of revolution, yet revolution is not war, there are many forms of revolution, as in a revolutionary idea, the industrial revolution, a momentous change in a situation, such as the relationship between the States via secession, etc....
Please post his exact reference to the causes of the war.
Think about it Jake....Why would the Southern States go to war after they exited the union to "Preserve Slavery" why would they go to war when secession already accomplished the preservation of Slavery if left alone and not attacked by the U.S. Slavery would have been preserved: don't you think?
Proper definitions are not semantics. You are to simple minded to grasp proper definitions therefore your comprehension skills fail you.
So here is what we have learned from this thread.....You do realize that upon secession the Southern States were no more part of the U.S. Than was Venezuela, right?Yes i understand the difference. However, what does that have to do with the point?But surely you must understand the difference between a declaration of war, and a declaration of secession. If not, then you are the idiot.The end of what occupation? I'm not being hypocritical. I think all people like you are idiots when you claim the confederates didnt go to war over slavery.The last sentence is in reference to the restoration and end to the occupation.
Since you admit to no moral high ground, then stop being hypocritical in your continuous attacks on those who support their CSA.
Apparently the war was over the useless forts that your government wished to maintain in the Southern Confederate States since Slavery was legal and prospered under YOUR CONstitution as you have stated was the intent of the founders'.
Yes, occupation is a result of war, and the replacement of our State governments.
Perhaps you can explain this to this idiot.....
If the Yankee made war on the Southern confederacy, to end slavery in those States, then why did this crusade not continue into other States such as Venezuela?
The 13th amendment was a shoe in with only the Northern States left united.
Why fight to free the black man in those now foreign States, yet continue exterminating the Red Man?
Is Black better than Red ?
Please explain these things to this idiot.
We arent talking about the reasons the North kicked the souths ass. We are talking about the fact the south fought to maintain slavery. BTW you do realize Venezuela is not part of the US dont you?
No, the war was over secession, not over whether or not the now foreign States to the south of the U.S. Held slaves or not.
You could secede in your little panty-lined bunker right now -- set up your own "government" and think you actually are not part of the US -- but no one will recognize it.
Just as the US did not recognize the CSA as legitimate - as well as every other country in the world did.
Seems to me that I am far above you on both counts.The only thing that has failed is your logic and your intelligence.What semantics have I played?When you play semantics everyone knows you just lost the debate.JAKE,James, STFU, then go read 9th paragraph of the Cornerstone speech by the CSA vice-president, think about it, then report to us what the veep had to say about the cause of the war as "This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution." Corner Stone Speech Teaching American History
Perhaps you should just post the wording wherein the statement is made that the War was over slavery. The closest that I find is the mention of revolution, yet revolution is not war, there are many forms of revolution, as in a revolutionary idea, the industrial revolution, a momentous change in a situation, such as the relationship between the States via secession, etc....
Please post his exact reference to the causes of the war.
Think about it Jake....Why would the Southern States go to war after they exited the union to "Preserve Slavery" why would they go to war when secession already accomplished the preservation of Slavery if left alone and not attacked by the U.S. Slavery would have been preserved: don't you think?
Proper definitions are not semantics. You are to simple minded to grasp proper definitions therefore your comprehension skills fail you.
So now you have changed your position? Earlier you stated that YOUR government was fighting to end Slavery, now they were fighting in order that they may force a tyranny much the same as Russia did under the former Soviet Union where it to was held together by force.I admit the Union kicked your ass over secession. The losers fought over slavery.You state.....Logically? You werent allowed to secede from the US for starters. No one gave you permission and thats why you got your ass kicked. Since you entire argument seems to rest on the fallacy you had permission to secede, I would suggest you get a new argument.So, you sa
So you say the war was over the South wanting to keep slavery?I wasnt talking to you so not interested in what you care about.I don't care where your family is from, you are a Yankee.
The war was not over Slavery, secession was.
You cannot seem to distinguish between the two, is there some problem with your ability to understand this?
The war was over the south wanting to keep slavery. You cant seem to grasp this. Is there a problem with your ability to think?
Lets look at this logically, if you are able.
The South Seceded from the U.S. at which point the Southern States were no longer part of the U.S. therefore it is your assertion that the "South" left the union so that they could keep their slaves and then said.....
Hey we are no longer part of the U.S. therefore we can now keep our Slaves without any interference from the U.S. but, what the hell, lets go to war over slavery anyway?
Do you see how ignorant you appear?
When the Southern States seceded over slavery, they were free to do as they wish, so why on earth would they go to war unless the U.S. was invading those States to force them to free their Slaves?
So it is now your assertion that the U.S. invaded the now foreign Southern States to force them to free their Slaves, yet they stopped their crusade at the gulf coast instead of making war on Venezuela to force that foreign State to free their Slaves as well?
Why?
If the war was to free slaves in foreign States that were not part of the union, then why did the U.S. not continue this crusade?
Why was the Black man sooo important that they went to war to free them, yet at that very same time, the U.S. was continuing its extermination of the Native American Indian?
Is it your assertion that the Black man is better than the Red man?
Logically, I cannot understand that YOUR government would go to war to free the Black Slaves while exterminating the Native American Indian, and then stop this grand crusade to end Slavery at the Gulf coast and not go to war with every State on the planet to end the enslavement of the Black Man.
Logically? You werent allowed to secede from the US for starters. No one gave you permission and thats why you got your ass kicked.
Oh, so now you admit that the war was over the right of secession?
Now please by all means cite the Law that states that secession is illegal or unlawful.
If there was no law against secession, then clearly in the absence of a law, something is legal, hence Lincoln and YOUR Yankee ancestors were in rebellion to the lawful authority of YOUR CONstitutions tenth amendment.
Even YOUR COMRADE Paperview has stated that since YOUR U.S. CONstitution did not state that Slavery was illegal, then clearly Slavery was legal in the U.S.
Such would also apply to secession.
As for gettin my ass kicked....
I was not around, and I would say that hundreds of thousands of DEAD YANKEE SOLDIERS GOT THEIR "ASS KICKED", AS THEIR LIVES WERE ENDED IN THAT WAR, WHICH YOU REFER TO ASS SOME SORT OF ASS KICKING.
I am curious about your statement that YOUR US did not recognize our CSA as legitimate: Why do you think that the U.S. did not recognize the CSA as legitimate?You do realize that upon secession the Southern States were no more part of the U.S. Than was Venezuela, right?Yes i understand the difference. However, what does that have to do with the point?But surely you must understand the difference between a declaration of war, and a declaration of secession. If not, then you are the idiot.The end of what occupation? I'm not being hypocritical. I think all people like you are idiots when you claim the confederates didnt go to war over slavery.The last sentence is in reference to the restoration and end to the occupation.
Since you admit to no moral high ground, then stop being hypocritical in your continuous attacks on those who support their CSA.
Apparently the war was over the useless forts that your government wished to maintain in the Southern Confederate States since Slavery was legal and prospered under YOUR CONstitution as you have stated was the intent of the founders'.
Yes, occupation is a result of war, and the replacement of our State governments.
Perhaps you can explain this to this idiot.....
If the Yankee made war on the Southern confederacy, to end slavery in those States, then why did this crusade not continue into other States such as Venezuela?
The 13th amendment was a shoe in with only the Northern States left united.
Why fight to free the black man in those now foreign States, yet continue exterminating the Red Man?
Is Black better than Red ?
Please explain these things to this idiot.
We arent talking about the reasons the North kicked the souths ass. We are talking about the fact the south fought to maintain slavery. BTW you do realize Venezuela is not part of the US dont you?
No, the war was over secession, not over whether or not the now foreign States to the south of the U.S. Held slaves or not.
You could secede in your little panty-lined bunker right now -- set up your own "government" and think you actually are not part of the US -- but no one will recognize it.
Just as the US did not recognize the CSA as legitimate - as well as every other country in the world did.
Its spelled "PESTILENCE", not petulance. The pestilence on liberty is YOUR U.S. as it continued on exterminating the Native American Indian, it continues to be a pestilence on the world with its perpetual warmongering and hegemony. Operation AJAX comes to mind, wherein the democratic government of Iran was overthrown by YOUR government and replaced with a tyrant who murdered and tortured those people for decades so that YOUR government could take their oil.Sorry bub. The CSA ranks as one of the worst ideas in the history of mankind. The CSA exists in the history books only to put a name to the losers. You were a joke with no recognition and got your asses kicked for your petulance. Name one country that recognized the CSA as a sovereign nation. I'll wait.They lost that stance once they committed acts of war and were told forcefully they could no longer be an independent nation. Sorry but Venezuela never was part of the US. Stop reaching. Its pitiful.You do realize that upon secession the Southern States were no more part of the U.S. Than was Venezuela, right?Yes i understand the difference. However, what does that have to do with the point?But surely you must understand the difference between a declaration of war, and a declaration of secession. If not, then you are the idiot.
Apparently the war was over the useless forts that your government wished to maintain in the Southern Confederate States since Slavery was legal and prospered under YOUR CONstitution as you have stated was the intent of the founders'.
Yes, occupation is a result of war, and the replacement of our State governments.
Perhaps you can explain this to this idiot.....
If the Yankee made war on the Southern confederacy, to end slavery in those States, then why did this crusade not continue into other States such as Venezuela?
The 13th amendment was a shoe in with only the Northern States left united.
Why fight to free the black man in those now foreign States, yet continue exterminating the Red Man?
Is Black better than Red ?
Please explain these things to this idiot.
We arent talking about the reasons the North kicked the souths ass. We are talking about the fact the south fought to maintain slavery. BTW you do realize Venezuela is not part of the US dont you?
No, the war was over secession, not over whether or not the now foreign States to the south of the U.S. Held slaves or not.
The war was over slavery. The confederates documented that.Well, there actually is no need to secede as that would be an exercise in redundancy, as clearly the Southern States already accomplished secession.You do realize that upon secession the Southern States were no more part of the U.S. Than was Venezuela, right?Yes i understand the difference. However, what does that have to do with the point?But surely you must understand the difference between a declaration of war, and a declaration of secession. If not, then you are the idiot.
Apparently the war was over the useless forts that your government wished to maintain in the Southern Confederate States since Slavery was legal and prospered under YOUR CONstitution as you have stated was the intent of the founders'.
Yes, occupation is a result of war, and the replacement of our State governments.
Perhaps you can explain this to this idiot.....
If the Yankee made war on the Southern confederacy, to end slavery in those States, then why did this crusade not continue into other States such as Venezuela?
The 13th amendment was a shoe in with only the Northern States left united.
Why fight to free the black man in those now foreign States, yet continue exterminating the Red Man?
Is Black better than Red ?
Please explain these things to this idiot.
We arent talking about the reasons the North kicked the souths ass. We are talking about the fact the south fought to maintain slavery. BTW you do realize Venezuela is not part of the US dont you?
No, the war was over secession, not over whether or not the now foreign States to the south of the U.S. Held slaves or not.
You could secede in your little panty-lined bunker right now -- set up your own "government" and think you actually are not part of the US -- but no one will recognize it.
Just as the US did not recognize the CSA as legitimate - as well as every other country in the world did.
You state that the U.S. did not recognize the CSA as legitimate?
Yet they went to war with the CSA?
What makes you think that the U.S. is the authority on which State relationships are legitimate and which are not?
Is it written somewhere in international law that in order for foreign State relationships to be legitimate, they must first petition the U.S. for recognition?
Surely the States that were united in the Southern Confederacy recognized their relationship with the other States.
The CSA is in History books as existing and legitimate.
Yeah just keep deflecting away from your idiotic opinion that the south did not fight to defend themselves.Youve grown boring with your deflections. Its not even fun laughing at you now. You do this everytime i embarrass you.Why deflect to "my pride?" What proof do you have of your claims that every single fighter in the south fought the war to defend the practice of slavery and not to defend their homes states and families.More deflections. Your pride must be hurt.You're the one claiming to have personal knowledge of the reasons for the people who fought in the civil war. I assume you must have first hand knowledge to be able to make that claim. Or are you now admitting that you were lying?So you are deflecting to a scenario where I fought in the Civil War and you expect me to take you seriously?Ah, so you are deflecting to discussions of infants to defend your point that the south was not defending itself from invasion by the north.
Never changed my position. You got your ass kicked over seceding without permission and so the north could take away your means of generating wealth with slaves. Read a history book.So now you have changed your position? Earlier you stated that YOUR government was fighting to end Slavery, now they were fighting in order that they may force a tyranny much the same as Russia did under the former Soviet Union where it to was held together by force.I admit the Union kicked your ass over secession. The losers fought over slavery.You state.....Logically? You werent allowed to secede from the US for starters. No one gave you permission and thats why you got your ass kicked. Since you entire argument seems to rest on the fallacy you had permission to secede, I would suggest you get a new argument.So, you sa
So you say the war was over the South wanting to keep slavery?I wasnt talking to you so not interested in what you care about.
The war was over the south wanting to keep slavery. You cant seem to grasp this. Is there a problem with your ability to think?
Lets look at this logically, if you are able.
The South Seceded from the U.S. at which point the Southern States were no longer part of the U.S. therefore it is your assertion that the "South" left the union so that they could keep their slaves and then said.....
Hey we are no longer part of the U.S. therefore we can now keep our Slaves without any interference from the U.S. but, what the hell, lets go to war over slavery anyway?
Do you see how ignorant you appear?
When the Southern States seceded over slavery, they were free to do as they wish, so why on earth would they go to war unless the U.S. was invading those States to force them to free their Slaves?
So it is now your assertion that the U.S. invaded the now foreign Southern States to force them to free their Slaves, yet they stopped their crusade at the gulf coast instead of making war on Venezuela to force that foreign State to free their Slaves as well?
Why?
If the war was to free slaves in foreign States that were not part of the union, then why did the U.S. not continue this crusade?
Why was the Black man sooo important that they went to war to free them, yet at that very same time, the U.S. was continuing its extermination of the Native American Indian?
Is it your assertion that the Black man is better than the Red man?
Logically, I cannot understand that YOUR government would go to war to free the Black Slaves while exterminating the Native American Indian, and then stop this grand crusade to end Slavery at the Gulf coast and not go to war with every State on the planet to end the enslavement of the Black Man.
Logically? You werent allowed to secede from the US for starters. No one gave you permission and thats why you got your ass kicked.
Oh, so now you admit that the war was over the right of secession?
Now please by all means cite the Law that states that secession is illegal or unlawful.
If there was no law against secession, then clearly in the absence of a law, something is legal, hence Lincoln and YOUR Yankee ancestors were in rebellion to the lawful authority of YOUR CONstitutions tenth amendment.
Even YOUR COMRADE Paperview has stated that since YOUR U.S. CONstitution did not state that Slavery was illegal, then clearly Slavery was legal in the U.S.
Such would also apply to secession.
As for gettin my ass kicked....
I was not around, and I would say that hundreds of thousands of DEAD YANKEE SOLDIERS GOT THEIR "ASS KICKED", AS THEIR LIVES WERE ENDED IN THAT WAR, WHICH YOU REFER TO ASS SOME SORT OF ASS KICKING.
The south fought to defend themselves from losing slavery. There is no defending that and thats why they got their asses kicked.Yeah just keep deflecting away from your idiotic opinion that the south did not fight to defend themselves.Youve grown boring with your deflections. Its not even fun laughing at you now. You do this everytime i embarrass you.Why deflect to "my pride?" What proof do you have of your claims that every single fighter in the south fought the war to defend the practice of slavery and not to defend their homes states and families.More deflections. Your pride must be hurt.You're the one claiming to have personal knowledge of the reasons for the people who fought in the civil war. I assume you must have first hand knowledge to be able to make that claim. Or are you now admitting that you were lying?So you are deflecting to a scenario where I fought in the Civil War and you expect me to take you seriously?
Your point?"But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other -- though last, not least.
The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization.
This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.
Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted.
The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically.
It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away.
This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time.
The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition.
[Applause.]
This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."
http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~ras2777/amgov/stephens.html
Please cite the article and section in YOUR CONstitution that states that a Southern State, or any other must request permission from the North to secede.Never changed my position. You got your ass kicked over seceding without permission and so the north could take away your means of generating wealth with slaves. Read a history book.So now you have changed your position? Earlier you stated that YOUR government was fighting to end Slavery, now they were fighting in order that they may force a tyranny much the same as Russia did under the former Soviet Union where it to was held together by force.I admit the Union kicked your ass over secession. The losers fought over slavery.You state.....Logically? You werent allowed to secede from the US for starters. No one gave you permission and thats why you got your ass kicked. Since you entire argument seems to rest on the fallacy you had permission to secede, I would suggest you get a new argument.So, you sa
So you say the war was over the South wanting to keep slavery?
Lets look at this logically, if you are able.
The South Seceded from the U.S. at which point the Southern States were no longer part of the U.S. therefore it is your assertion that the "South" left the union so that they could keep their slaves and then said.....
Hey we are no longer part of the U.S. therefore we can now keep our Slaves without any interference from the U.S. but, what the hell, lets go to war over slavery anyway?
Do you see how ignorant you appear?
When the Southern States seceded over slavery, they were free to do as they wish, so why on earth would they go to war unless the U.S. was invading those States to force them to free their Slaves?
So it is now your assertion that the U.S. invaded the now foreign Southern States to force them to free their Slaves, yet they stopped their crusade at the gulf coast instead of making war on Venezuela to force that foreign State to free their Slaves as well?
Why?
If the war was to free slaves in foreign States that were not part of the union, then why did the U.S. not continue this crusade?
Why was the Black man sooo important that they went to war to free them, yet at that very same time, the U.S. was continuing its extermination of the Native American Indian?
Is it your assertion that the Black man is better than the Red man?
Logically, I cannot understand that YOUR government would go to war to free the Black Slaves while exterminating the Native American Indian, and then stop this grand crusade to end Slavery at the Gulf coast and not go to war with every State on the planet to end the enslavement of the Black Man.
Logically? You werent allowed to secede from the US for starters. No one gave you permission and thats why you got your ass kicked.
Oh, so now you admit that the war was over the right of secession?
Now please by all means cite the Law that states that secession is illegal or unlawful.
If there was no law against secession, then clearly in the absence of a law, something is legal, hence Lincoln and YOUR Yankee ancestors were in rebellion to the lawful authority of YOUR CONstitutions tenth amendment.
Even YOUR COMRADE Paperview has stated that since YOUR U.S. CONstitution did not state that Slavery was illegal, then clearly Slavery was legal in the U.S.
Such would also apply to secession.
As for gettin my ass kicked....
I was not around, and I would say that hundreds of thousands of DEAD YANKEE SOLDIERS GOT THEIR "ASS KICKED", AS THEIR LIVES WERE ENDED IN THAT WAR, WHICH YOU REFER TO ASS SOME SORT OF ASS KICKING.
Youre the only one making a fool of himself. I am amazed you are this uneducated. Please show me in the constitution, (the real one) where it states that any state has a right to secede. I'll wait.Please cite the article and section in YOUR CONstitution that states that a Southern State, or any other must request permission from the North to secede.Never changed my position. You got your ass kicked over seceding without permission and so the north could take away your means of generating wealth with slaves. Read a history book.So now you have changed your position? Earlier you stated that YOUR government was fighting to end Slavery, now they were fighting in order that they may force a tyranny much the same as Russia did under the former Soviet Union where it to was held together by force.I admit the Union kicked your ass over secession. The losers fought over slavery.You state.....Logically? You werent allowed to secede from the US for starters. No one gave you permission and thats why you got your ass kicked. Since you entire argument seems to rest on the fallacy you had permission to secede, I would suggest you get a new argument.
Logically? You werent allowed to secede from the US for starters. No one gave you permission and thats why you got your ass kicked.
Oh, so now you admit that the war was over the right of secession?
Now please by all means cite the Law that states that secession is illegal or unlawful.
If there was no law against secession, then clearly in the absence of a law, something is legal, hence Lincoln and YOUR Yankee ancestors were in rebellion to the lawful authority of YOUR CONstitutions tenth amendment.
Even YOUR COMRADE Paperview has stated that since YOUR U.S. CONstitution did not state that Slavery was illegal, then clearly Slavery was legal in the U.S.
Such would also apply to secession.
As for gettin my ass kicked....
I was not around, and I would say that hundreds of thousands of DEAD YANKEE SOLDIERS GOT THEIR "ASS KICKED", AS THEIR LIVES WERE ENDED IN THAT WAR, WHICH YOU REFER TO ASS SOME SORT OF ASS KICKING.
You are further making a fool of yourself.
Incorrect. The "people" in the south fought to defend themselves being being killed by the people from the north, and the mercenaries from Europe. Some of the people in the south may have had a desire to keep their slaves, but that would be a very very small portion of the people in the south, further, it was legal to keep slaves in the north and the south. So your accusation is ludicrous.The south fought to defend themselves from losing slavery. There is no defending that and thats why they got their asses kicked.Yeah just keep deflecting away from your idiotic opinion that the south did not fight to defend themselves.Youve grown boring with your deflections. Its not even fun laughing at you now. You do this everytime i embarrass you.Why deflect to "my pride?" What proof do you have of your claims that every single fighter in the south fought the war to defend the practice of slavery and not to defend their homes states and families.More deflections. Your pride must be hurt.You're the one claiming to have personal knowledge of the reasons for the people who fought in the civil war. I assume you must have first hand knowledge to be able to make that claim. Or are you now admitting that you were lying?
Incorrect. The large majority of people in the south and all of the confederates had a vested interest in continuing slavery regardless of if they owned a slave or not. They would not have gotten their asses kicked had they merely conceded slavery was over. In that light your assertion is moronic.Incorrect. The "people" in the south fought to defend themselves being being killed by the people from the north, and the mercenaries from Europe. Some of the people in the south may have had a desire to keep their slaves, but that would be a very very small portion of the people in the south, further, it was legal to keep slaves in the north and the south. So your accusation is ludicrous.The south fought to defend themselves from losing slavery. There is no defending that and thats why they got their asses kicked.Yeah just keep deflecting away from your idiotic opinion that the south did not fight to defend themselves.Youve grown boring with your deflections. Its not even fun laughing at you now. You do this everytime i embarrass you.Why deflect to "my pride?" What proof do you have of your claims that every single fighter in the south fought the war to defend the practice of slavery and not to defend their homes states and families.More deflections. Your pride must be hurt.
