For Every Confederate Soldier Statue They Remove, Put Up 10

[ph3iron]

Use the monuments in dog parks across the country

Let the dogs pay their respects

Can't be here, very limited sense of humor in the USA.
(Except for the pres)

 

[JonKoch]

Lincoln opposed slavery.......always did
Lincoln was also a politician. He understood the politics of both the north and the south. He sided with the abolitionists but was unwilling to break the nation in two to accommodate them.
But the war was about slavery. Secession was to ensure slavery
Lincoln wanted to reunite the nation and was willing to tolerate more slavery if the south would rejoin the Union
But in the end....it was Lincoln who issued the Emancipation Proclamation and fought for the 13th amendment



.

Lincoln went to war to preserve the Union.
Later he added ending slavery as a major goal.

Your point?

THE US WAS ATTACKED BY THE CONservative CONfederate States of AmeriKKKa Bubs. Don't know much about REAL history huh?

Lol!!
Dude, don't go there, you will lose.

Because of it's location, the newly formed country felt Ft Sumter was their's, the Union continued to claim it.
The South sent a group to D.C. to negotiate transfer of the fort to the new country. The Union refused.
The South then called on the commanding officer of Ft Sumter, who by the way was a former slave owner himself, to vacate the premises. He refused, thus why the South acting like any other country would, fired on the fort to remove the occupying foreign army. Much the same way our forefathers fired the first shots of the Revolutionary War.

LMAOROG, Oh cupcake



Named after General Thomas Sumter, Revolutionary War hero, Fort Sumter was built after the War of 1812, as one of a series of fortifications on the southern U.S. coast to protect the harbors. Construction began in 1829, and the structure was still unfinished in 1861, when the Civil War began.



In a letter delivered January 31, 1861, South Carolina Governor Pickens demanded of President Buchanan that he surrender Fort Sumter because" I regard that possession is not consistent with the dignity or safety of the State of South Carolina."] Over the next few months repeated calls for evacuation of Fort Sumter[[12] from the government of South Carolina and then from Confederate Brigadier General P. G. T. Beauregard were ignored.

Fort Sumter - Wikipedia


YOU CONservative bastards STILL are as traitorous as the scum who fired on FEDERAL PROPERTY!

 

[JonKoch]

Lincoln opposed slavery.......always did
Lincoln was also a politician. He understood the politics of both the north and the south. He sided with the abolitionists but was unwilling to break the nation in two to accommodate them.
But the war was about slavery. Secession was to ensure slavery
Lincoln wanted to reunite the nation and was willing to tolerate more slavery if the south would rejoin the Union
But in the end....it was Lincoln who issued the Emancipation Proclamation and fought for the 13th amendment



.

Lincoln went to war to preserve the Union.
Later he added ending slavery as a major goal.

Yes he did
He wanted to give the south an opportunity to rejoin the union without additional bloodshed. He was willing to allow them to rejoin the union and allow the legislative process to resolve the issue of slavery

But the south wanted no part of it. Slavery had already been abandoned in most of the civilized world without bloodshed. But the south insisted they would not give up their slaves without a fight. It cost us 600,000 lives and the destruction of the south to finally abandon the barbaric practice of slavery

The Confederacy is an embarrassment to the south....not something to be honored

I'm not honoring it, but they had as much right to declare independence and secede as the U.S. did 85 years earlier.
Thanks to Lincoln's demands to preserve the Union, over 600,000 were killed and scores more injured.
IMO Lincoln is the one who should not be honored, and in fact he is a traitor to the rights of free men who should have been free to plot their own destiny, despite their horrendous practice of slavery.

You keep making that comparison but it is not morally justified

We fought the Revolution to obtain a right to vote on our own self determination
The Confederacy formed to forever preserve a nation where slavery was allowed

They are not the same. Self determination to maintain 40% of your population in bondage is not justifiable
Lincoln did not kill 600,000. It was the South's determination to fight to preserve slavery that led to 600,000 deaths. No other nation on earth insisted on bloodshed of that magnitude to preserve the right to own other human beings....The despicable Confederacy did

Had Lincoln and the Union recognized the new country, there would not have been bloodshed in the first place.
Do you honestly believe the new country wished for a war they could not physically win?
Of course not, they simply wanted the same right to leave the Union, as they did to join the Union.
They seceded in order to preserve their dispicable practice of slavery.
The Union was willing to aggressively kill in order to preserve the Union. NOT to destroy the practice of slavery. That came later, and in fact Lincoln himself considered forcibly removing the slaves and sending them to other colonies. In the end though, he wanted to only make that offer, and not force it.

Weird it's the CONservatives who today claim to "love the US Constitution" who don't understand those traitorous bastards who wanted to secede never had the LEGAL RIGHT TO DO IT ON THEIR OWN, according to the US Constitution!

 

[JonKoch]

Your point?

THE US WAS ATTACKED BY THE CONservative CONfederate States of AmeriKKKa Bubs. Don't know much about REAL history huh?

Lol!!
Dude, don't go there, you will lose.

Because of it's location, the newly formed country felt Ft Sumter was their's, the Union continued to claim it.
The South sent a group to D.C. to negotiate transfer of the fort to the new country. The Union refused.
The South then called on the commanding officer of Ft Sumter, who by the way was a former slave owner himself, to vacate the premises. He refused, thus why the South acting like any other country would, fired on the fort to remove the occupying foreign army. Much the same way our forefathers fired the first shots of the Revolutionary War.

Ft Sumter was FEDERAL property. It never belonged to the State of South Carolina

The United States Government was under no legal obligation to turn its fort over to another country. The fact that the South chose a military solution sealed their doom

Correct, it was a federal fort. However because of it's proximity, the new country rightly so felt the fort was inside their territory. Again, they tried for a peaceful solution, but the Union refused to budge. The new country had every bit as much a right to remove the occupiers, as did our patriot forefathers had in removing British soldiers after declaring their right of independence.

"felt"

CONservatives and their feelings over law, again....

 

[JonKoch]

Lincoln went to war to preserve the Union.
Later he added ending slavery as a major goal.

Yes he did
He wanted to give the south an opportunity to rejoin the union without additional bloodshed. He was willing to allow them to rejoin the union and allow the legislative process to resolve the issue of slavery

But the south wanted no part of it. Slavery had already been abandoned in most of the civilized world without bloodshed. But the south insisted they would not give up their slaves without a fight. It cost us 600,000 lives and the destruction of the south to finally abandon the barbaric practice of slavery

The Confederacy is an embarrassment to the south....not something to be honored

I'm not honoring it, but they had as much right to declare independence and secede as the U.S. did 85 years earlier.
Thanks to Lincoln's demands to preserve the Union, over 600,000 were killed and scores more injured.
IMO Lincoln is the one who should not be honored, and in fact he is a traitor to the rights of free men who should have been free to plot their own destiny, despite their horrendous practice of slavery.

You keep making that comparison but it is not morally justified

We fought the Revolution to obtain a right to vote on our own self determination
The Confederacy formed to forever preserve a nation where slavery was allowed

They are not the same. Self determination to maintain 40% of your population in bondage is not justifiable
Lincoln did not kill 600,000. It was the South's determination to fight to preserve slavery that led to 600,000 deaths. No other nation on earth insisted on bloodshed of that magnitude to preserve the right to own other human beings....The despicable Confederacy did

Had Lincoln and the Union recognized the new country, there would not have been bloodshed in the first place.
Do you honestly believe the new country wished for a war they could not physically win?
Of course not, they simply wanted the same right to leave the Union, as they did to join the Union.
They seceded in order to preserve their dispicable practice of slavery.
The Union was willing to aggressively kill in order to preserve the Union. NOT to destroy the practice of slavery. That came later, and in fact Lincoln himself considered forcibly removing the slaves and sending them to other colonies. In the end though, he wanted to only make that offer, and not force it.

The South had the right to vote and full representation in Congress (representation in excess of their free population)
They were just not happy with votes that went against them. Their are no provisions in the Constitution that they signed to allow for withdrawing from the Union. If it was allowed, our Constitution would have defined a process to request withdrawal and a formal means to divide property, debt and other joint assets

They COULD have attempted to get a 2/3rds vote to amend but the CONservative traitorous bastards chose to attack the UNION instead, killing hundreds of thousands of US....

 

[there4eyeM]

The colonies were dominated by England without their consent nor any representation in government. The Perpetual Union, that formed the United States, was a voluntarily joined by the former colonies and a war for liberation was fought. It is not at all symmetrical. When some areas of the nation illegally sought rupture of the Union and renunciation of their agreement, the violence that occurred to resolve the issue was entirely on the heads of those areas.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Lincoln went to war to preserve the Union.
Later he added ending slavery as a major goal.

Yes he did
He wanted to give the south an opportunity to rejoin the union without additional bloodshed. He was willing to allow them to rejoin the union and allow the legislative process to resolve the issue of slavery

But the south wanted no part of it. Slavery had already been abandoned in most of the civilized world without bloodshed. But the south insisted they would not give up their slaves without a fight. It cost us 600,000 lives and the destruction of the south to finally abandon the barbaric practice of slavery

The Confederacy is an embarrassment to the south....not something to be honored

I'm not honoring it, but they had as much right to declare independence and secede as the U.S. did 85 years earlier.
Thanks to Lincoln's demands to preserve the Union, over 600,000 were killed and scores more injured.
IMO Lincoln is the one who should not be honored, and in fact he is a traitor to the rights of free men who should have been free to plot their own destiny, despite their horrendous practice of slavery.

You keep making that comparison but it is not morally justified

We fought the Revolution to obtain a right to vote on our own self determination
The Confederacy formed to forever preserve a nation where slavery was allowed

They are not the same. Self determination to maintain 40% of your population in bondage is not justifiable
Lincoln did not kill 600,000. It was the South's determination to fight to preserve slavery that led to 600,000 deaths. No other nation on earth insisted on bloodshed of that magnitude to preserve the right to own other human beings....The despicable Confederacy did

Had Lincoln and the Union recognized the new country, there would not have been bloodshed in the first place.
Do you honestly believe the new country wished for a war they could not physically win?
Of course not, they simply wanted the same right to leave the Union, as they did to join the Union.
They seceded in order to preserve their dispicable practice of slavery.
The Union was willing to aggressively kill in order to preserve the Union. NOT to destroy the practice of slavery. That came later, and in fact Lincoln himself considered forcibly removing the slaves and sending them to other colonies. In the end though, he wanted to only make that offer, and not force it.

The South had the right to vote and full representation in Congress (representation in excess of their free population)
They were just not happy with votes that went against them. Their are no provisions in the Constitution that they signed to allow for withdrawing from the Union. If it was allowed, our Constitution would have defined a process to request withdrawal and a formal means to divide property, debt and other joint assets

Not true, and the forbidding of secession is debatable at best. Three of the original thirteen states, New York, Virginia, and Rhode Island only ratified Constitution conditionally. These three explicitly retained the right to secede. At the time of the Civil War, there was no clear cut Constitutional answer whether secession was legal or not.
Lincoln didn't wait for an answer, he went to all out war to stop it, and in doing so hundreds of thousands died under his leadership. I spit on his grave.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

The colonies were dominated by England without their consent nor any representation in government. The Perpetual Union, that formed the United States, was a voluntarily joined by the former colonies and a war for liberation was fought. It is not at all symmetrical. When some areas of the nation illegally sought rupture of the Union and renunciation of their agreement, the violence that occurred to resolve the issue was entirely on the heads of those areas.

Totally disagree with that.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Yes he did
He wanted to give the south an opportunity to rejoin the union without additional bloodshed. He was willing to allow them to rejoin the union and allow the legislative process to resolve the issue of slavery

But the south wanted no part of it. Slavery had already been abandoned in most of the civilized world without bloodshed. But the south insisted they would not give up their slaves without a fight. It cost us 600,000 lives and the destruction of the south to finally abandon the barbaric practice of slavery

The Confederacy is an embarrassment to the south....not something to be honored

I'm not honoring it, but they had as much right to declare independence and secede as the U.S. did 85 years earlier.
Thanks to Lincoln's demands to preserve the Union, over 600,000 were killed and scores more injured.
IMO Lincoln is the one who should not be honored, and in fact he is a traitor to the rights of free men who should have been free to plot their own destiny, despite their horrendous practice of slavery.

You keep making that comparison but it is not morally justified

We fought the Revolution to obtain a right to vote on our own self determination
The Confederacy formed to forever preserve a nation where slavery was allowed

They are not the same. Self determination to maintain 40% of your population in bondage is not justifiable
Lincoln did not kill 600,000. It was the South's determination to fight to preserve slavery that led to 600,000 deaths. No other nation on earth insisted on bloodshed of that magnitude to preserve the right to own other human beings....The despicable Confederacy did

Had Lincoln and the Union recognized the new country, there would not have been bloodshed in the first place.
Do you honestly believe the new country wished for a war they could not physically win?
Of course not, they simply wanted the same right to leave the Union, as they did to join the Union.
They seceded in order to preserve their dispicable practice of slavery.
The Union was willing to aggressively kill in order to preserve the Union. NOT to destroy the practice of slavery. That came later, and in fact Lincoln himself considered forcibly removing the slaves and sending them to other colonies. In the end though, he wanted to only make that offer, and not force it.

The South had the right to vote and full representation in Congress (representation in excess of their free population)
They were just not happy with votes that went against them. Their are no provisions in the Constitution that they signed to allow for withdrawing from the Union. If it was allowed, our Constitution would have defined a process to request withdrawal and a formal means to divide property, debt and other joint assets

They COULD have attempted to get a 2/3rds vote to amend but the CONservative traitorous bastards chose to attack the UNION instead, killing hundreds of thousands of US....

Thanks to Lincoln. As I've pointed out, the new country had nothing to gain by going to war. The war was forced upon them.

 

[rightwinger]

I'm not honoring it, but they had as much right to declare independence and secede as the U.S. did 85 years earlier.
Thanks to Lincoln's demands to preserve the Union, over 600,000 were killed and scores more injured.
IMO Lincoln is the one who should not be honored, and in fact he is a traitor to the rights of free men who should have been free to plot their own destiny, despite their horrendous practice of slavery.

You keep making that comparison but it is not morally justified

We fought the Revolution to obtain a right to vote on our own self determination
The Confederacy formed to forever preserve a nation where slavery was allowed

They are not the same. Self determination to maintain 40% of your population in bondage is not justifiable
Lincoln did not kill 600,000. It was the South's determination to fight to preserve slavery that led to 600,000 deaths. No other nation on earth insisted on bloodshed of that magnitude to preserve the right to own other human beings....The despicable Confederacy did

Had Lincoln and the Union recognized the new country, there would not have been bloodshed in the first place.
Do you honestly believe the new country wished for a war they could not physically win?
Of course not, they simply wanted the same right to leave the Union, as they did to join the Union.
They seceded in order to preserve their dispicable practice of slavery.
The Union was willing to aggressively kill in order to preserve the Union. NOT to destroy the practice of slavery. That came later, and in fact Lincoln himself considered forcibly removing the slaves and sending them to other colonies. In the end though, he wanted to only make that offer, and not force it.

The South had the right to vote and full representation in Congress (representation in excess of their free population)
They were just not happy with votes that went against them. Their are no provisions in the Constitution that they signed to allow for withdrawing from the Union. If it was allowed, our Constitution would have defined a process to request withdrawal and a formal means to divide property, debt and other joint assets

They COULD have attempted to get a 2/3rds vote to amend but the CONservative traitorous bastards chose to attack the UNION instead, killing hundreds of thousands of US....

Thanks to Lincoln. As I've pointed out, the new country had nothing to gain by going to war. The war was forced upon them.

If you don't want to go to war....You don't pick a fight

But the Confederacy was never known for it's wise decisions

 

[bodecea]

Lincoln went to war to preserve the Union.
Later he added ending slavery as a major goal.

Your point?

THE US WAS ATTACKED BY THE CONservative CONfederate States of AmeriKKKa Bubs. Don't know much about REAL history huh?

Lol!!
Dude, don't go there, you will lose.

Because of it's location, the newly formed country felt Ft Sumter was their's, the Union continued to claim it.
The South sent a group to D.C. to negotiate transfer of the fort to the new country. The Union refused.
The South then called on the commanding officer of Ft Sumter, who by the way was a former slave owner himself, to vacate the premises. He refused, thus why the South acting like any other country would, fired on the fort to remove the occupying foreign army. Much the same way our forefathers fired the first shots of the Revolutionary War.

LMAOROG, Oh cupcake



Named after General Thomas Sumter, Revolutionary War hero, Fort Sumter was built after the War of 1812, as one of a series of fortifications on the southern U.S. coast to protect the harbors. Construction began in 1829, and the structure was still unfinished in 1861, when the Civil War began.



In a letter delivered January 31, 1861, South Carolina Governor Pickens demanded of President Buchanan that he surrender Fort Sumter because" I regard that possession is not consistent with the dignity or safety of the State of South Carolina."] Over the next few months repeated calls for evacuation of Fort Sumter[[12] from the government of South Carolina and then from Confederate Brigadier General P. G. T. Beauregard were ignored.

Fort Sumter - Wikipedia


YOU CONservative bastards STILL are as traitorous as the scum who fired on FEDERAL PROPERTY!

Can you imagine today if some President just gave away a Federal Military Installation without a fight?

 

[bodecea]

Lincoln went to war to preserve the Union.
Later he added ending slavery as a major goal.

Yes he did
He wanted to give the south an opportunity to rejoin the union without additional bloodshed. He was willing to allow them to rejoin the union and allow the legislative process to resolve the issue of slavery

But the south wanted no part of it. Slavery had already been abandoned in most of the civilized world without bloodshed. But the south insisted they would not give up their slaves without a fight. It cost us 600,000 lives and the destruction of the south to finally abandon the barbaric practice of slavery

The Confederacy is an embarrassment to the south....not something to be honored

I'm not honoring it, but they had as much right to declare independence and secede as the U.S. did 85 years earlier.
Thanks to Lincoln's demands to preserve the Union, over 600,000 were killed and scores more injured.
IMO Lincoln is the one who should not be honored, and in fact he is a traitor to the rights of free men who should have been free to plot their own destiny, despite their horrendous practice of slavery.

You keep making that comparison but it is not morally justified

We fought the Revolution to obtain a right to vote on our own self determination
The Confederacy formed to forever preserve a nation where slavery was allowed

They are not the same. Self determination to maintain 40% of your population in bondage is not justifiable
Lincoln did not kill 600,000. It was the South's determination to fight to preserve slavery that led to 600,000 deaths. No other nation on earth insisted on bloodshed of that magnitude to preserve the right to own other human beings....The despicable Confederacy did

Had Lincoln and the Union recognized the new country, there would not have been bloodshed in the first place.
Do you honestly believe the new country wished for a war they could not physically win?
Of course not, they simply wanted the same right to leave the Union, as they did to join the Union.
They seceded in order to preserve their dispicable practice of slavery.
The Union was willing to aggressively kill in order to preserve the Union. NOT to destroy the practice of slavery. That came later, and in fact Lincoln himself considered forcibly removing the slaves and sending them to other colonies. In the end though, he wanted to only make that offer, and not force it.

Weird it's the CONservatives who today claim to "love the US Constitution" who don't understand those traitorous bastards who wanted to secede never had the LEGAL RIGHT TO DO IT ON THEIR OWN, according to the US Constitution!

Actually, it's not the secession that caused all the death and destruction...it was the starting a war against the U.S.

 

[bodecea]

Yes he did
He wanted to give the south an opportunity to rejoin the union without additional bloodshed. He was willing to allow them to rejoin the union and allow the legislative process to resolve the issue of slavery

But the south wanted no part of it. Slavery had already been abandoned in most of the civilized world without bloodshed. But the south insisted they would not give up their slaves without a fight. It cost us 600,000 lives and the destruction of the south to finally abandon the barbaric practice of slavery

The Confederacy is an embarrassment to the south....not something to be honored

I'm not honoring it, but they had as much right to declare independence and secede as the U.S. did 85 years earlier.
Thanks to Lincoln's demands to preserve the Union, over 600,000 were killed and scores more injured.
IMO Lincoln is the one who should not be honored, and in fact he is a traitor to the rights of free men who should have been free to plot their own destiny, despite their horrendous practice of slavery.

You keep making that comparison but it is not morally justified

We fought the Revolution to obtain a right to vote on our own self determination
The Confederacy formed to forever preserve a nation where slavery was allowed

They are not the same. Self determination to maintain 40% of your population in bondage is not justifiable
Lincoln did not kill 600,000. It was the South's determination to fight to preserve slavery that led to 600,000 deaths. No other nation on earth insisted on bloodshed of that magnitude to preserve the right to own other human beings....The despicable Confederacy did

Had Lincoln and the Union recognized the new country, there would not have been bloodshed in the first place.
Do you honestly believe the new country wished for a war they could not physically win?
Of course not, they simply wanted the same right to leave the Union, as they did to join the Union.
They seceded in order to preserve their dispicable practice of slavery.
The Union was willing to aggressively kill in order to preserve the Union. NOT to destroy the practice of slavery. That came later, and in fact Lincoln himself considered forcibly removing the slaves and sending them to other colonies. In the end though, he wanted to only make that offer, and not force it.

The South had the right to vote and full representation in Congress (representation in excess of their free population)
They were just not happy with votes that went against them. Their are no provisions in the Constitution that they signed to allow for withdrawing from the Union. If it was allowed, our Constitution would have defined a process to request withdrawal and a formal means to divide property, debt and other joint assets

Not true, and the forbidding of secession is debatable at best. Three of the original thirteen states, New York, Virginia, and Rhode Island only ratified Constitution conditionally. These three explicitly retained the right to secede. At the time of the Civil War, there was no clear cut Constitutional answer whether secession was legal or not.
Lincoln didn't wait for an answer, he went to all out war to stop it, and in doing so hundreds of thousands died under his leadership. I spit on his grave.

"Lincoln didn't wait for an answer"......? Oh? He fired on the seceding states, did he?

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Your point?

THE US WAS ATTACKED BY THE CONservative CONfederate States of AmeriKKKa Bubs. Don't know much about REAL history huh?

Lol!!
Dude, don't go there, you will lose.

Because of it's location, the newly formed country felt Ft Sumter was their's, the Union continued to claim it.
The South sent a group to D.C. to negotiate transfer of the fort to the new country. The Union refused.
The South then called on the commanding officer of Ft Sumter, who by the way was a former slave owner himself, to vacate the premises. He refused, thus why the South acting like any other country would, fired on the fort to remove the occupying foreign army. Much the same way our forefathers fired the first shots of the Revolutionary War.

Ft Sumter was FEDERAL property. It never belonged to the State of South Carolina

The United States Government was under no legal obligation to turn its fort over to another country. The fact that the South chose a military solution sealed their doom

Correct, it was a federal fort. However because of it's proximity, the new country rightly so felt the fort was inside their territory. Again, they tried for a peaceful solution, but the Union refused to budge. The new country had every bit as much a right to remove the occupiers, as did our patriot forefathers had in removing British soldiers after declaring their right of independence.

We have a military base at Guantanamo Bay CUBA. A country we did not even recognize till three years ago. It belongs by treaty to the United States. The Cubans do not like us there but realize that if they were to attack Gitmo, we would go in there and kick their asses.......Just like we did with Ft Sumter

This is a great example I can use.

Let's say there was a complete revolution in Cuba the results of which creates a new country, whole new government, constitution, etc.

The new country announces all previous treaties, deals with other countries, etc are now null and void.
In doing so, the new country announces the property known as 'Gitmo' resides inside their territory, and demands the occupying army leave.
Should the U.S. refuse and stay, or should they leave?

 

[rightwinger]

THE US WAS ATTACKED BY THE CONservative CONfederate States of AmeriKKKa Bubs. Don't know much about REAL history huh?

Lol!!
Dude, don't go there, you will lose.

Because of it's location, the newly formed country felt Ft Sumter was their's, the Union continued to claim it.
The South sent a group to D.C. to negotiate transfer of the fort to the new country. The Union refused.
The South then called on the commanding officer of Ft Sumter, who by the way was a former slave owner himself, to vacate the premises. He refused, thus why the South acting like any other country would, fired on the fort to remove the occupying foreign army. Much the same way our forefathers fired the first shots of the Revolutionary War.

Ft Sumter was FEDERAL property. It never belonged to the State of South Carolina

The United States Government was under no legal obligation to turn its fort over to another country. The fact that the South chose a military solution sealed their doom

Correct, it was a federal fort. However because of it's proximity, the new country rightly so felt the fort was inside their territory. Again, they tried for a peaceful solution, but the Union refused to budge. The new country had every bit as much a right to remove the occupiers, as did our patriot forefathers had in removing British soldiers after declaring their right of independence.

We have a military base at Guantanamo Bay CUBA. A country we did not even recognize till three years ago. It belongs by treaty to the United States. The Cubans do not like us there but realize that if they were to attack Gitmo, we would go in there and kick their asses.......Just like we did with Ft Sumter

This is a great example I can use.

Let's say there was a complete revolution in Cuba the results of which creates a new country, whole new government, constitution, etc.

The new country announces all previous treaties, deals with other countries, etc are now null and void.
In doing so, the new country announces the property known as 'Gitmo' resides inside their territory, and demands the occupying army leave.
Should the U.S. refuse and stay, or should they leave?

Cuba did have a revolution, they did declare the treaties invalid, they did demand we leave
The US said no...as is their right
If Cuba had tried to attack Gitmo, it would have led to the US retaliating. Same thing that happened at Sumter

The Confederates were a bunch of hotheads who acted first without considering the consequences. They overreacted when Lincoln was elected, they overreacted when they decided to attack a Federal fort

It's like sucker punching someone who weighs 100 lbs more than you. You might land a lucky punch, but usually, you end up getting the shit beat out of you

 

[JonKoch]

THE US WAS ATTACKED BY THE CONservative CONfederate States of AmeriKKKa Bubs. Don't know much about REAL history huh?

Lol!!
Dude, don't go there, you will lose.

Because of it's location, the newly formed country felt Ft Sumter was their's, the Union continued to claim it.
The South sent a group to D.C. to negotiate transfer of the fort to the new country. The Union refused.
The South then called on the commanding officer of Ft Sumter, who by the way was a former slave owner himself, to vacate the premises. He refused, thus why the South acting like any other country would, fired on the fort to remove the occupying foreign army. Much the same way our forefathers fired the first shots of the Revolutionary War.

Ft Sumter was FEDERAL property. It never belonged to the State of South Carolina

The United States Government was under no legal obligation to turn its fort over to another country. The fact that the South chose a military solution sealed their doom

Correct, it was a federal fort. However because of it's proximity, the new country rightly so felt the fort was inside their territory. Again, they tried for a peaceful solution, but the Union refused to budge. The new country had every bit as much a right to remove the occupiers, as did our patriot forefathers had in removing British soldiers after declaring their right of independence.

We have a military base at Guantanamo Bay CUBA. A country we did not even recognize till three years ago. It belongs by treaty to the United States. The Cubans do not like us there but realize that if they were to attack Gitmo, we would go in there and kick their asses.......Just like we did with Ft Sumter

This is a great example I can use.

Let's say there was a complete revolution in Cuba the results of which creates a new country, whole new government, constitution, etc.

The new country announces all previous treaties, deals with other countries, etc are now null and void.
In doing so, the new country announces the property known as 'Gitmo' resides inside their territory, and demands the occupying army leave.
Should the U.S. refuse and stay, or should they leave?

Is that what happened at Ft Sumpter???

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

and you slave mongers got your asses handed to you

YOU did - November 2016.

Hillary had nearly 3 million more votes than Don The Con

That skull of yours really is pretty damn thick, eh?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Why do you post opinions in place of law? Ben had his opinions, as did all others.

As to your pic - indeed, the United States is not a Christian nation.

But it is by a high percentage a nation of Christians.

Law? Oh right the Founders went with the BIG FEDERAL GOV'T US CONSTITUTION AFTER THAT FAILED "STATES RIGHTS" ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION.....

Please make sense so that I may respond.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Lincoln went to war to preserve the Union.
Later he added ending slavery as a major goal.

Your point?

THE US WAS ATTACKED BY THE CONservative CONfederate States of AmeriKKKa Bubs. Don't know much about REAL history huh?

Lol!!
Dude, don't go there, you will lose.

Because of it's location, the newly formed country felt Ft Sumter was their's, the Union continued to claim it.
The South sent a group to D.C. to negotiate transfer of the fort to the new country. The Union refused.
The South then called on the commanding officer of Ft Sumter, who by the way was a former slave owner himself, to vacate the premises. He refused, thus why the South acting like any other country would, fired on the fort to remove the occupying foreign army. Much the same way our forefathers fired the first shots of the Revolutionary War.

LMAOROG, Oh cupcake



Named after General Thomas Sumter, Revolutionary War hero, Fort Sumter was built after the War of 1812, as one of a series of fortifications on the southern U.S. coast to protect the harbors. Construction began in 1829, and the structure was still unfinished in 1861, when the Civil War began.



In a letter delivered January 31, 1861, South Carolina Governor Pickens demanded of President Buchanan that he surrender Fort Sumter because" I regard that possession is not consistent with the dignity or safety of the State of South Carolina."] Over the next few months repeated calls for evacuation of Fort Sumter[[12] from the government of South Carolina and then from Confederate Brigadier General P. G. T. Beauregard were ignored.

Fort Sumter - Wikipedia


YOU CONservative bastards STILL are as traitorous as the scum who fired on FEDERAL PROPERTY!

Thank you, but I don't need a cut and paste from Wiki. I'm aware of the history of the fort.

Again, you're missing the point that the South had declared their independence and due to the proximity of the fort, they viewed the occupying army as a foreign entity. They were consistent with their demands of a withdraw.

 

[rightwinger]

Your point?

THE US WAS ATTACKED BY THE CONservative CONfederate States of AmeriKKKa Bubs. Don't know much about REAL history huh?

Lol!!
Dude, don't go there, you will lose.

Because of it's location, the newly formed country felt Ft Sumter was their's, the Union continued to claim it.
The South sent a group to D.C. to negotiate transfer of the fort to the new country. The Union refused.
The South then called on the commanding officer of Ft Sumter, who by the way was a former slave owner himself, to vacate the premises. He refused, thus why the South acting like any other country would, fired on the fort to remove the occupying foreign army. Much the same way our forefathers fired the first shots of the Revolutionary War.

LMAOROG, Oh cupcake



Named after General Thomas Sumter, Revolutionary War hero, Fort Sumter was built after the War of 1812, as one of a series of fortifications on the southern U.S. coast to protect the harbors. Construction began in 1829, and the structure was still unfinished in 1861, when the Civil War began.



In a letter delivered January 31, 1861, South Carolina Governor Pickens demanded of President Buchanan that he surrender Fort Sumter because" I regard that possession is not consistent with the dignity or safety of the State of South Carolina."] Over the next few months repeated calls for evacuation of Fort Sumter[[12] from the government of South Carolina and then from Confederate Brigadier General P. G. T. Beauregard were ignored.

Fort Sumter - Wikipedia


YOU CONservative bastards STILL are as traitorous as the scum who fired on FEDERAL PROPERTY!

Thank you, but I don't need a cut and paste from Wiki. I'm aware of the history of the fort.

Again, you're missing the point that the South had declared their independence and due to the proximity of the fort, they viewed the occupying army as a foreign entity. They were consistent with their demands of a withdraw.

South Carolina had an option of doing nothing
The US was not using the fort to block shipping. It was just there
They could have waited until the fort was impeding commerce in the Charleston port. Then they would have been justified

As it was, they attacked sovereign territory and gave the north a justification to retaliate