For Every Confederate Soldier Statue They Remove, Put Up 10

[DigitalDrifter]

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

Actually they didn't act first, they attempted a peaceful negotiation and transfer, when that didn't happen, they were forced to physically remove the occupying foreign army.

 

[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.

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.

Oh got it, the CONservative CONfederate States of AmeriKKKa didn't want to follow the law, they just "believed" they had a right to secede, and so they fired upon US Gov't property and got their ass handed to them??

 

[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.

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

That's the whole point though, they didn't view it as soverign territory.

Same thing with our forefathers. Once the colonies declared independence, they demanded the British leave, and felt they gad every right to physically remove occupying forces.

 

[JonKoch]

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

Actually they didn't act first, they attempted a peaceful negotiation and transfer, when that didn't happen, they were forced to physically remove the occupying foreign army.

 

[rightwinger]

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

Actually they didn't act first, they attempted a peaceful negotiation and transfer, when that didn't happen, they were forced to physically remove the occupying foreign army.

They were not forced to do anything
They could have left the fort alone

It was the South who took hostile actions. They realized it was Federal property when they tried to negotiate. Just like in their secession, they acted rashly when they did not get their way

At first they blockaded the fort to keep it from being resupplied. Then they lost patience and attacked a Federal facility

Stupid move and it gave Lincoln a reason to attack

 

[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.

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.

Oh got it, the CONservative CONfederate States of AmeriKKKa didn't want to follow the law, they just "believed" they had a right to secede, and so they fired upon US Gov't property and got their ass handed to them??

There was nothing in the Constitution at the time that expressly forbid secession.
These states felt the only way to preserve their right to legally retain slavery was to be their own country with their own constitution.
The Union had an entirely different reason to physically force the South to remain.
IMO their (the North's) reasoning does not morally or ethically fulfill the need for war.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

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

Actually they didn't act first, they attempted a peaceful negotiation and transfer, when that didn't happen, they were forced to physically remove the occupying foreign army.

They were not forced to do anything
They could have left the fort alone

It was the South who took hostile actions. They realized it was Federal property when they tried to negotiate. Just like in their secession, they acted rashly when they did not get their way

At first they blockaded the fort to keep it from being resupplied. Then they lost patience and attacked a Federal facility

Stupid move and it gave Lincoln a reason to attack

But again, in their minds they WERE the feds now in this case.

I'm glad you admitted that last fact. Lincoln was needing a reason to physically stop the secession.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

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

Actually they didn't act first, they attempted a peaceful negotiation and transfer, when that didn't happen, they were forced to physically remove the occupying foreign army.

I guess that's why they have the presidency, the House, the Senate, and 31 state houses.

Damn elections.

 

[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.

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.

Oh got it, the CONservative CONfederate States of AmeriKKKa didn't want to follow the law, they just "believed" they had a right to secede, and so they fired upon US Gov't property and got their ass handed to them??

There was nothing in the Constitution at the time that expressly forbid secession.
These states felt the only way to preserve their right to legally retain slavery was to be their own country with their own constitution.
The Union had an entirely different reason to physically force the South to remain.
IMO their (the North's) reasoning does not morally or ethically fulfill the need for war.

Weird, you'd think they would simply want to amend the US CONSTITUTION versus take up arms against the federal Gov't??

Your premise is BS, in the FACT that the CSA fired upon FEDERAL PROPERTY!

But once more,, the reason for the treason by the CSA

 

[JonKoch]

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

Actually they didn't act first, they attempted a peaceful negotiation and transfer, when that didn't happen, they were forced to physically remove the occupying foreign army.

I guess that's why they have the presidency, the House, the Senate, and 31 state houses.

Damn elections.

CONservative party? Seriously?

But no, the GOP has most of that even though they lost the popular vote for Prez by almost 3 million AND

Senate Democrats won over 23 million more votes than Republicans

The 48 members of the Democratic caucus in the Senate, in their most recent respective elections dating back to 2012, collectively earned 78.4 million votes on their way to victory. Republicans, by contrast, won just 54.8 million votes—even though there are 52 of them.
We're the popular party: Senate Democrats won over 23 million more votes than Republicans


GOP Memo: Gerrymandering Won Us The House Majority

We're the popular party: Senate Democrats won over 23 million more votes than Republicans


Republicans Make Big Advances Thanks to Citizens United




Prior to Citizens United, which was decided in 2010, left-leaning groups held a moderate-to-significant advantage in election spending. After Citizens United, conservatives absolutely dominated the field:

Why Republicans Love Citizens United, In One Chart – ThinkProgress

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

There are lots of us non-southerners who recognize this as the American history that it is. You applaud nazi book burning.
You're duped by neo-Nazi history revisionism.

STATUES AND MONUMENTS TO TRAITOROUS BASTARDS THAT KILLED HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS IN THEIR WAR FOR THE RIGHT TO KEEP SLAVES? Read a damn book about it cupcake!!!!

You're an ignorant neonazi democrat dupe.
Slavery was used as a wedge issue.
Consider the segregation of the north and the federal law that equated a black with 3/5 human. You need to apply chronological context lest you appear duped by democrat neonazism.

Listen you right wing cupcake, the 3/5th thing was BECAUSE the CONservative Southern States of AmeriKKKa wanted to count slaves as "people" for representation in Congress/taxes but NOT ANYTHING else. The North wanted SLAVES not to be counted at ALL, but ACCEPTED the 3/5th compromise of SLAVES, NOT BLACKS!!!



" Often misinterpreted to mean that African Americans as individuals are considered three-fifths of a person or that they are three-fifths of a citizen of the U.S., the three-fifths clause (Article I, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution of 1787) in fact declared that for purposes of representation in Congress, enslaved blacks in a state would be counted as three-fifths of the number of white inhabitants of that state."


To simplify, free blacks were counted just as the whites were counted, but a slave did represent 3/5 of a person.



WEDGE ISSUE? YOU POOR CUPCAKE


"IF you were to bother to read, you would notice that the Articles of Secession for EVERY ONE of the treasonous states that formed the Con-federacy stated slavery and the preservation of slavery as a prime reason for secession. You gonna deny that too?"
bodecea

That was the US constitution you cited. Good for you. How about those segregated ghettos of the north?

 

[JonKoch]

There are lots of us non-southerners who recognize this as the American history that it is. You applaud nazi book burning.
You're duped by neo-Nazi history revisionism.

STATUES AND MONUMENTS TO TRAITOROUS BASTARDS THAT KILLED HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS IN THEIR WAR FOR THE RIGHT TO KEEP SLAVES? Read a damn book about it cupcake!!!!

You're an ignorant neonazi democrat dupe.
Slavery was used as a wedge issue.
Consider the segregation of the north and the federal law that equated a black with 3/5 human. You need to apply chronological context lest you appear duped by democrat neonazism.

Listen you right wing cupcake, the 3/5th thing was BECAUSE the CONservative Southern States of AmeriKKKa wanted to count slaves as "people" for representation in Congress/taxes but NOT ANYTHING else. The North wanted SLAVES not to be counted at ALL, but ACCEPTED the 3/5th compromise of SLAVES, NOT BLACKS!!!



" Often misinterpreted to mean that African Americans as individuals are considered three-fifths of a person or that they are three-fifths of a citizen of the U.S., the three-fifths clause (Article I, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution of 1787) in fact declared that for purposes of representation in Congress, enslaved blacks in a state would be counted as three-fifths of the number of white inhabitants of that state."


To simplify, free blacks were counted just as the whites were counted, but a slave did represent 3/5 of a person.



WEDGE ISSUE? YOU POOR CUPCAKE


"IF you were to bother to read, you would notice that the Articles of Secession for EVERY ONE of the treasonous states that formed the Con-federacy stated slavery and the preservation of slavery as a prime reason for secession. You gonna deny that too?"
bodecea

That was the US constitution you cited. Good for you. How about those segregated ghettos of the north?

Did the Northerners call them property cupcake?

Your ignoring the 3/5th comment noted

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

There are lots of us non-southerners who recognize this as the American history that it is. You applaud nazi book burning.
You're duped by neo-Nazi history revisionism.

STATUES AND MONUMENTS TO TRAITOROUS BASTARDS THAT KILLED HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS IN THEIR WAR FOR THE RIGHT TO KEEP SLAVES? Read a damn book about it cupcake!!!!

You're an ignorant neonazi democrat dupe.
Slavery was used as a wedge issue.
Consider the segregation of the north and the federal law that equated a black with 3/5 human. You need to apply chronological context lest you appear duped by democrat neonazism.

Listen you right wing cupcake, the 3/5th thing was BECAUSE the CONservative Southern States of AmeriKKKa wanted to count slaves as "people" for representation in Congress/taxes but NOT ANYTHING else. The North wanted SLAVES not to be counted at ALL, but ACCEPTED the 3/5th compromise of SLAVES, NOT BLACKS!!!



" Often misinterpreted to mean that African Americans as individuals are considered three-fifths of a person or that they are three-fifths of a citizen of the U.S., the three-fifths clause (Article I, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution of 1787) in fact declared that for purposes of representation in Congress, enslaved blacks in a state would be counted as three-fifths of the number of white inhabitants of that state."


To simplify, free blacks were counted just as the whites were counted, but a slave did represent 3/5 of a person.



WEDGE ISSUE? YOU POOR CUPCAKE


"IF you were to bother to read, you would notice that the Articles of Secession for EVERY ONE of the treasonous states that formed the Con-federacy stated slavery and the preservation of slavery as a prime reason for secession. You gonna deny that too?"
bodecea

That was the US constitution you cited. Good for you. How about those segregated ghettos of the north?

Did the Northerners call them property cupcake?

Your ignoring the 3/5th comment noted

I already pointed out your reference to the constitutional 3/5 ruling.
So you think racism and racial opression are OK as long as they're not slavery?
More left wing selective-context fascism.

 

[JQPublic1]

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

That's the whole point though, they didn't view it as soverign territory.

Same thing with our forefathers. Once the colonies declared independence, they demanded the British leave, and felt they gad every right to physically remove occupying forces.

What gave the South the right to confiscate Federal Property? that is what Fort Sumner was...federal property. Did the South make an offer to compensate the Union for all the federal property remaining in their new found nation?

 

[DigitalDrifter]

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

That's the whole point though, they didn't view it as soverign territory.

Same thing with our forefathers. Once the colonies declared independence, they demanded the British leave, and felt they gad every right to physically remove occupying forces.

What gave the South the right to confiscate Federal Property? that is what Fort Sumner was...federal property. Did the South make an offer to compensate the Union for all the federal property remaining in their new found nation?

They tried to negotiate a peaceful transition, when that failed they viewed themselves as the feds over that piece of property, and when the occupying army would not leave, the new country of the South physically removed them.
We did the same thing to the British, 85 years earlier.

 

[mamooth]

This is one of the monuments that was removed. Our resident klansmen here are defending monuments that literally have words carved in stone praising white supremacy.

 

[JonKoch]

STATUES AND MONUMENTS TO TRAITOROUS BASTARDS THAT KILLED HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS IN THEIR WAR FOR THE RIGHT TO KEEP SLAVES? Read a damn book about it cupcake!!!!

You're an ignorant neonazi democrat dupe.
Slavery was used as a wedge issue.
Consider the segregation of the north and the federal law that equated a black with 3/5 human. You need to apply chronological context lest you appear duped by democrat neonazism.

Listen you right wing cupcake, the 3/5th thing was BECAUSE the CONservative Southern States of AmeriKKKa wanted to count slaves as "people" for representation in Congress/taxes but NOT ANYTHING else. The North wanted SLAVES not to be counted at ALL, but ACCEPTED the 3/5th compromise of SLAVES, NOT BLACKS!!!



" Often misinterpreted to mean that African Americans as individuals are considered three-fifths of a person or that they are three-fifths of a citizen of the U.S., the three-fifths clause (Article I, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution of 1787) in fact declared that for purposes of representation in Congress, enslaved blacks in a state would be counted as three-fifths of the number of white inhabitants of that state."


To simplify, free blacks were counted just as the whites were counted, but a slave did represent 3/5 of a person.



WEDGE ISSUE? YOU POOR CUPCAKE


"IF you were to bother to read, you would notice that the Articles of Secession for EVERY ONE of the treasonous states that formed the Con-federacy stated slavery and the preservation of slavery as a prime reason for secession. You gonna deny that too?"
bodecea

That was the US constitution you cited. Good for you. How about those segregated ghettos of the north?

Did the Northerners call them property cupcake?

Your ignoring the 3/5th comment noted

I already pointed out your reference to the constitutional 3/5 ruling.
So you think racism and racial opression are OK as long as they're not slavery?
More left wing selective-context fascism.

Sorry cupcake YOU said "federal law that equated a black with 3/5 human."


BZZ you were proven wrong about that, are going to admit it cupcake? Or run away to you safe space?



Yes, it's been the "liberals" of the left with the racist past and current? LMAOROG

 

[JonKoch]

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

That's the whole point though, they didn't view it as soverign territory.

Same thing with our forefathers. Once the colonies declared independence, they demanded the British leave, and felt they gad every right to physically remove occupying forces.

What gave the South the right to confiscate Federal Property? that is what Fort Sumner was...federal property. Did the South make an offer to compensate the Union for all the federal property remaining in their new found nation?

They tried to negotiate a peaceful transition, when that failed they viewed themselves as the feds over that piece of property, and when the occupying army would not leave, the new country of the South physically removed them.
We did the same thing to the British, 85 years earlier.

'

Don't understand the difference with England and self rule versus SLAVERY huh cupcake?

So the CONservative cupcakes just chose to use violence to implement what they wanted huh?

How'd that "physically removing" thing work out

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

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

That's the whole point though, they didn't view it as soverign territory.

Same thing with our forefathers. Once the colonies declared independence, they demanded the British leave, and felt they gad every right to physically remove occupying forces.

What gave the South the right to confiscate Federal Property? that is what Fort Sumner was...federal property. Did the South make an offer to compensate the Union for all the federal property remaining in their new found nation?

You're brainwashed. The Fed stole state property.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

You're an ignorant neonazi democrat dupe.
Slavery was used as a wedge issue.
Consider the segregation of the north and the federal law that equated a black with 3/5 human. You need to apply chronological context lest you appear duped by democrat neonazism.

Listen you right wing cupcake, the 3/5th thing was BECAUSE the CONservative Southern States of AmeriKKKa wanted to count slaves as "people" for representation in Congress/taxes but NOT ANYTHING else. The North wanted SLAVES not to be counted at ALL, but ACCEPTED the 3/5th compromise of SLAVES, NOT BLACKS!!!



" Often misinterpreted to mean that African Americans as individuals are considered three-fifths of a person or that they are three-fifths of a citizen of the U.S., the three-fifths clause (Article I, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution of 1787) in fact declared that for purposes of representation in Congress, enslaved blacks in a state would be counted as three-fifths of the number of white inhabitants of that state."


To simplify, free blacks were counted just as the whites were counted, but a slave did represent 3/5 of a person.



WEDGE ISSUE? YOU POOR CUPCAKE


"IF you were to bother to read, you would notice that the Articles of Secession for EVERY ONE of the treasonous states that formed the Con-federacy stated slavery and the preservation of slavery as a prime reason for secession. You gonna deny that too?"
bodecea

That was the US constitution you cited. Good for you. How about those segregated ghettos of the north?

Did the Northerners call them property cupcake?

Your ignoring the 3/5th comment noted

I already pointed out your reference to the constitutional 3/5 ruling.
So you think racism and racial opression are OK as long as they're not slavery?
More left wing selective-context fascism.

Sorry cupcake YOU said "federal law that equated a black with 3/5 human."


BZZ you were proven wrong about that, are going to admit it cupcake? Or run away to you safe space?



Yes, it's been the "liberals" of the left with the racist past and current? LMAOROG

You're a Nazi book-burner who selectively applies context in order to force an agenda. And you're so brainwashed you can't even get your brain around that.