For Every Confederate Soldier Statue They Remove, Put Up 10

[Scamp]

How about the Northern/Yankee state of New Jersey...Sent 88,000 soldiers to invade the South. Left over 6,000 dead in Southern dust.

But they had slavery when the war started. And they still had slavery when the war was over. Then, when they first voted for ratification of the 13th Amendment to free the slaves...they voted NO. They only had a few slaves but they sure as hell did not want to free them.

I bet that is not taught in New Jersey schools.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

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

They declared their independence and since Lincoln and the Union refused to recognize their declaration, war became the only option left.

Gawd you wingnutters, but you support the sovereign citizens movement too?

Look, from my perspective, this has nothing to do with militias, slavery, etc.
I simply look at it as whether or not states could vote to declare their independence and leave the Union.

We all know why the South wanted to secede, it was the only way they were going to be able to continue their horrific practice of enslaving other human beings.
However, that is absolutely not the reason the Union forcibly kept them from becoming their own country.
There was nothing in the Constitution at the time that made it clear that terrotories could vote to join the Union, but not be able to vote to leave.

IMO it was morally wrong to kill others in order to force them to remain in the Union.

Weird you'd think the traitorous states could've figured out all they needed to do was get an amendment passed?

But your premise is BS, the traitors fired on the USA

They fired on the fort, because the Union refused to negotiate a transfer.

Ever hear of the phrase 'The Shot Heard Round the World' ?

Well, it's actually been used several times regarding historical events. One of those was the first shot of the Revolutionary War. Now regardless of whether those first shots came at Lexington, or Concord, it's usually accepted that our forefathers fired the first shots and officially became traitors to the Crown.

Much in the same way the South's declaration of Independence is viewed as traitorous to some.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

There was nothing in the US Constitution that prevented secession. As a matter of fact, we were a country born of secession. From England.

BZZ

Texas v. White. Texas v. White, (1869), U.S. Supreme Court case in which it was held that the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede.

Texas v. White - Wikipedia


THEY NEEDED TO PASS A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO DO IT, LEGALLY, THEY CHOSE VIOLENCE INSTEAD!!!

And of course Texas vs White came after the Civil War. Prior to that, there was nothing in the Constitution that firmly forbid secession.

 

[rightwinger]

There was nothing in the US Constitution that prevented secession. As a matter of fact, we were a country born of secession. From England.

BZZ

Texas v. White. Texas v. White, (1869), U.S. Supreme Court case in which it was held that the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede.

Texas v. White - Wikipedia


THEY NEEDED TO PASS A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO DO IT, LEGALLY, THEY CHOSE VIOLENCE INSTEAD!!!

And of course Texas vs White came after the Civil War. Prior to that, there was nothing in the Constitution that firmly forbid secession.

It ruled on the same Constitutional issue

 

[bodecea]

How about the Northern/Yankee state of New Jersey...Sent 88,000 soldiers to invade the South. Left over 6,000 dead in Southern dust.

But they had slavery when the war started. And they still had slavery when the war was over. Then, when they first voted for ratification of the 13th Amendment to free the slaves...they voted NO. They only had a few slaves but they sure as hell did not want to free them.

I bet that is not taught in New Jersey schools.

Did they start the war?

 

[bodecea]

'

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

They declared their independence and since Lincoln and the Union refused to recognize their declaration, war became the only option left.

Gawd you wingnutters, but you support the sovereign citizens movement too?

Look, from my perspective, this has nothing to do with militias, slavery, etc.
I simply look at it as whether or not states could vote to declare their independence and leave the Union.

We all know why the South wanted to secede, it was the only way they were going to be able to continue their horrific practice of enslaving other human beings.
However, that is absolutely not the reason the Union forcibly kept them from becoming their own country.
There was nothing in the Constitution at the time that made it clear that terrotories could vote to join the Union, but not be able to vote to leave.

IMO it was morally wrong to kill others in order to force them to remain in the Union.

Weird you'd think the traitorous states could've figured out all they needed to do was get an amendment passed?

But your premise is BS, the traitors fired on the USA

They fired on the fort, because the Union refused to negotiate a transfer.

Ever hear of the phrase 'The Shot Heard Round the World' ?

Well, it's actually been used several times regarding historical events. One of those was the first shot of the Revolutionary War. Now regardless of whether those first shots came at Lexington, or Concord, it's usually accepted that our forefathers fired the first shots and officially became traitors to the Crown.

Much in the same way the South's declaration of Independence is viewed as traitorous to some.

Why should the Union have negotiated a transfer? It was their fort. Or are you for the Federal government giving up their military installations now?

 

[bodecea]

And what part of the Civil War did Martin Van Buren participate in?

 

[DigitalDrifter]

There was nothing in the US Constitution that prevented secession. As a matter of fact, we were a country born of secession. From England.

BZZ

Texas v. White. Texas v. White, (1869), U.S. Supreme Court case in which it was held that the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede.

Texas v. White - Wikipedia


THEY NEEDED TO PASS A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO DO IT, LEGALLY, THEY CHOSE VIOLENCE INSTEAD!!!

And of course Texas vs White came after the Civil War. Prior to that, there was nothing in the Constitution that firmly forbid secession.

It ruled on the same Constitutional issue

Afterwards.

 

[rightwinger]

They declared their independence and since Lincoln and the Union refused to recognize their declaration, war became the only option left.

Gawd you wingnutters, but you support the sovereign citizens movement too?

Look, from my perspective, this has nothing to do with militias, slavery, etc.
I simply look at it as whether or not states could vote to declare their independence and leave the Union.

We all know why the South wanted to secede, it was the only way they were going to be able to continue their horrific practice of enslaving other human beings.
However, that is absolutely not the reason the Union forcibly kept them from becoming their own country.
There was nothing in the Constitution at the time that made it clear that terrotories could vote to join the Union, but not be able to vote to leave.

IMO it was morally wrong to kill others in order to force them to remain in the Union.

Weird you'd think the traitorous states could've figured out all they needed to do was get an amendment passed?

But your premise is BS, the traitors fired on the USA

They fired on the fort, because the Union refused to negotiate a transfer.

Ever hear of the phrase 'The Shot Heard Round the World' ?

Well, it's actually been used several times regarding historical events. One of those was the first shot of the Revolutionary War. Now regardless of whether those first shots came at Lexington, or Concord, it's usually accepted that our forefathers fired the first shots and officially became traitors to the Crown.

Much in the same way the South's declaration of Independence is viewed as traitorous to some.

Why should the Union have negotiated a transfer? It was their fort. Or are you for the Federal government giving up their military installations now?

Whether the South should have attacked Ft Sumer and started the war or not was irrelevant...They did and it led to their destruction

The real issue was the creation of the despicable Confederacy in the first place. The only nation in history ever created for the sole purpose of preserving the right to slavery

 

[rightwinger]

There was nothing in the US Constitution that prevented secession. As a matter of fact, we were a country born of secession. From England.

BZZ

Texas v. White. Texas v. White, (1869), U.S. Supreme Court case in which it was held that the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede.

Texas v. White - Wikipedia


THEY NEEDED TO PASS A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO DO IT, LEGALLY, THEY CHOSE VIOLENCE INSTEAD!!!

And of course Texas vs White came after the Civil War. Prior to that, there was nothing in the Constitution that firmly forbid secession.

It ruled on the same Constitutional issue

Afterwards.

Same Constitution......it didn't change
The South did not ask for a Constitutional approval before they seceded

 

[Scamp]

And what part of the Civil War did Martin Van Buren participate in?

None.

He was a slave owner, the OP is about ignorant people being anti-Confederate because they had slaves. Well so did the Union. But Northern people are trying to cover that up. Duh.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

They declared their independence and since Lincoln and the Union refused to recognize their declaration, war became the only option left.

Gawd you wingnutters, but you support the sovereign citizens movement too?

Look, from my perspective, this has nothing to do with militias, slavery, etc.
I simply look at it as whether or not states could vote to declare their independence and leave the Union.

We all know why the South wanted to secede, it was the only way they were going to be able to continue their horrific practice of enslaving other human beings.
However, that is absolutely not the reason the Union forcibly kept them from becoming their own country.
There was nothing in the Constitution at the time that made it clear that terrotories could vote to join the Union, but not be able to vote to leave.

IMO it was morally wrong to kill others in order to force them to remain in the Union.

Weird you'd think the traitorous states could've figured out all they needed to do was get an amendment passed?

But your premise is BS, the traitors fired on the USA

They fired on the fort, because the Union refused to negotiate a transfer.

Ever hear of the phrase 'The Shot Heard Round the World' ?

Well, it's actually been used several times regarding historical events. One of those was the first shot of the Revolutionary War. Now regardless of whether those first shots came at Lexington, or Concord, it's usually accepted that our forefathers fired the first shots and officially became traitors to the Crown.

Much in the same way the South's declaration of Independence is viewed as traitorous to some.

Why should the Union have negotiated a transfer? It was their fort. Or are you for the Federal government giving up their military installations now?

The British also considered the military instalations they occupied to be theirs.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

There was nothing in the US Constitution that prevented secession. As a matter of fact, we were a country born of secession. From England.

BZZ

Texas v. White. Texas v. White, (1869), U.S. Supreme Court case in which it was held that the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede.

Texas v. White - Wikipedia


THEY NEEDED TO PASS A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO DO IT, LEGALLY, THEY CHOSE VIOLENCE INSTEAD!!!

And of course Texas vs White came after the Civil War. Prior to that, there was nothing in the Constitution that firmly forbid secession.

It ruled on the same Constitutional issue

Afterwards.

Same Constitution......it didn't change
The South did not ask for a Constitutional approval before they seceded

They didn't feel they needed to.

 

[rightwinger]

BZZ

Texas v. White. Texas v. White, (1869), U.S. Supreme Court case in which it was held that the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede.

Texas v. White - Wikipedia


THEY NEEDED TO PASS A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO DO IT, LEGALLY, THEY CHOSE VIOLENCE INSTEAD!!!

And of course Texas vs White came after the Civil War. Prior to that, there was nothing in the Constitution that firmly forbid secession.

It ruled on the same Constitutional issue

Afterwards.

Same Constitution......it didn't change
The South did not ask for a Constitutional approval before they seceded

They didn't feel they needed to.

Then how could they legally secede?

Can you divorce by just walking away from a marriage and saying you were done?
There were legal, financial, personal and logistic entanglements of belonging to the United States and then claiming you do not

 

[bodecea]

And of course Texas vs White came after the Civil War. Prior to that, there was nothing in the Constitution that firmly forbid secession.

It ruled on the same Constitutional issue

Afterwards.

Same Constitution......it didn't change
The South did not ask for a Constitutional approval before they seceded

They didn't feel they needed to.

Then how could they legally secede?

Can you divorce by just walking away from a marriage and saying you were done?
There were legal, financial, personal and logistic entanglements of belonging to the United States and then claiming you do not

Secession wasn't the issue, it was firing on a Federal Installation and STARTING a war they couldn't win. Stupid.

 

[Scamp]

It ruled on the same Constitutional issue

Afterwards.

Same Constitution......it didn't change
The South did not ask for a Constitutional approval before they seceded

They didn't feel they needed to.

Then how could they legally secede?

Can you divorce by just walking away from a marriage and saying you were done?
There were legal, financial, personal and logistic entanglements of belonging to the United States and then claiming you do not

Secession wasn't the issue, it was firing on a Federal Installation and STARTING a war they couldn't win. Stupid.

Wrong. When the US attempted to resupply the fort, it violated an armistice between SC and the US. And it was an act of treachery, and an act of war.

 

[rightwinger]

It ruled on the same Constitutional issue

Afterwards.

Same Constitution......it didn't change
The South did not ask for a Constitutional approval before they seceded

They didn't feel they needed to.

Then how could they legally secede?

Can you divorce by just walking away from a marriage and saying you were done?
There were legal, financial, personal and logistic entanglements of belonging to the United States and then claiming you do not

Secession wasn't the issue, it was firing on a Federal Installation and STARTING a war they couldn't win. Stupid.

Two different issues

But piss poor decisions by the South in both instances

 

[Scamp]

If the South would have won the war, Lincoln would have been hanged for his war crimes against the South.

Instead he was shot. Sic Semper Tyrannis

 

[Vandalshandle]

Well, since we now know that the Civil War was unconstitutional, I guess that the only thing to do is for the US government to grant the succession, and start building a wall between the North and the South.

 

[Scamp]

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right, which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize and make their own, of so much of the territory as they inhabit"
...Abraham Lincoln in his speech in Congress in 1846.