...I just realized Lincoln was the Hitler of the 19th century.

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Forcing a people to live under a government they don't want is fighting for freedom?

War is peace, freedom is slavery, etc... etc...

What were the slaveowners doing to the blacks? Giving them a vote?

How fucking stupid are you anyway? I'm guessing you ate lead paint chips as a child.

Yup, he's the name nut claiming that Americans were terrorist during WWII. Another person that likes to make up their own history

Please find the post where I called Americans during WWII terrorists.

 

[JBeukema]

you HAVE TO ACCEPT THE COURT'S RULING.

Just as we were to accept the Kings?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

the southern population shouldn't have waged war against their country.

Well that's an easy thing to say now - the south lost. What about certain British citizens who live in America waging war on their country? Round about 1776 or so? You've got no problem with that, right?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Forcing a people to live under a government they don't want is fighting for freedom?

War is peace, freedom is slavery, etc... etc...

What were the slaveowners doing to the blacks? Giving them a vote?

How fucking stupid are you anyway? I'm guessing you ate lead paint chips as a child.

So you think the British were right during the Revolutionary War, since the colonies were practicing slavery, right?

You're one of those teabagging revisionist history assholes ain't ya?

Slavery was practiced all over the WORLD for a bit. Lincoln figured out it was wrong, and when he started to take steps to stop it, THAT is when the south decided to leave the union.

Where do you study your history, the back of a Kool Aid packet?

 

[JBeukema]

Where in the Constitution did the Court find the language that says the states have no right to secede?

If she actually knows about what she is talking about she will know it didn't. They just looked at the issue after the war and declared that the south was wrong.

"The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible
Union, composed of indestructible States. ... Considered, therefore, as
transactions under the Constitution, the Ordinance of Secession, adopted
by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and
all the Acts of her Legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance,
were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. ... Our
conclusion, therefore, is, that Texas continued to be a State, and a State
of the Union, notwithstanding the transactions to which we have referred."

My bold....

Whoever wrote that is fucking retarded. With a vote from the legislatures and Congress, a state can be destroyed, split in two, three, or twenty- or merged with another.

That's what the Constitution says.

Section 3

1: New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.


THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION - We the People

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

What were the slaveowners doing to the blacks? Giving them a vote?

How fucking stupid are you anyway? I'm guessing you ate lead paint chips as a child.

So you think the British were right during the Revolutionary War, since the colonies were practicing slavery, right?

You're one of those teabagging revisionist history assholes ain't ya?

Slavery was practiced all over the WORLD for a bit. Lincoln figured out it was wrong, and when he started to take steps to stop it, THAT is when the south decided to leave the union.

Where do you study your history, the back of a Kool Aid packet?

So was that a yes, or a no?

 

[ABikerSailor]

No, I don't think they were right. They kept slaves as well.

The British were taxing this country unjustly, and that is why the Revolution happened.

Try again.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No, I don't think they were right. They kept slaves as well.

The British were taxing this country unjustly, and that is why the Revolution happened.

Try again.

The north kept slaves as well.

 

[ABikerSailor]

No, I don't think they were right. They kept slaves as well.

The British were taxing this country unjustly, and that is why the Revolution happened.

Try again.

The north kept slaves as well.

Really? Then why did the slaves run from the south to the north?

I'll give you a hint........it's called freedom.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No, I don't think they were right. They kept slaves as well.

The British were taxing this country unjustly, and that is why the Revolution happened.

Try again.

The north kept slaves as well.

Really? Then why did the slaves run from the south to the north?

I'll give you a hint........it's called freedom.

Apparently you've never heard of the border states.

 

[Dr Gregg]

What were the slaveowners doing to the blacks? Giving them a vote?

How fucking stupid are you anyway? I'm guessing you ate lead paint chips as a child.

Yup, he's the name nut claiming that Americans were terrorist during WWII. Another person that likes to make up their own history

Please find the post where I called Americans during WWII terrorists.

Right, deny it, like I'm going to go through tons of threads. YOu most certainly did

 

[JBeukema]

No, I don't think they were right. They kept slaves as well.

The British were taxing this country unjustly, and that is why the Revolution happened.

Try again.

The north kept slaves as well.

Really? Then why did the slaves run from the south to the north?

I'll give you a hint........it's called freedom.

They were on their way to Canada. The North was along the way.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yup, he's the name nut claiming that Americans were terrorist during WWII. Another person that likes to make up their own history

Please find the post where I called Americans during WWII terrorists.

Right, deny it, like I'm going to go through tons of threads. YOu most certainly did

http://www.usmessageboard.com/educa...an-who-armed-atomic-bomb-dropped-on-japs.html

I believe that's the thread you're referencing, so now that I've done most of your work for you perhaps you can find the post where I called Americans terrorists?

 

[industry7]

the southern population shouldn't have waged war against their country.

and hitler didn't target anyone committing treason.

might be one of the more absurd analogies i've seen.

Actually states have a right to succeed, but the north throw a hissy fit and started a war.

 

[Liberty]

They both committed ridiculous and pointless genocide...maybe no where near in similar methods or to the same ends, but they both killed a large enough amount of people that should taint their legacy as villainous in my opinion.

Welcome to the boards you retarded punching bag. You're gonna love it here.

Lincoln fought a war for an ideal which was freedom. The southerners were the ones that wanted to keep slaves.

By the way, if you look at how the SOUTHERN people treated blacks, it's very similar to how Hitler treated the Jews. Forced labor, intensive punishment for slight infractions.........no, if you want to compare anything from the Civil War to Nazi Germany, it should be the slaveowners.

Why? Because the slaveowners were discriminating based on racial identity, just like Hitler.

If anything, Lincoln was more like Churchill.

you do realize that free black men in the south were slave owners right

 

[Dr.Traveler]

It seems a debate on "Sherman's March to the Sea" is destined to come up every 6 months or so here.

I still have the same opinion on the topic:

Don't go to war if you aren't ready for the consequences.

Whether the South was justified or not to try to leave, whether the South legally could leave or not... all that is distraction from the central issue. When you make a decision you know will lead to war you'd best make ready to deal with pretty terrible consequences.

 

[Mr Natural]

the southern population shouldn't have waged war against their country.

and hitler didn't target anyone committing treason.

might be one of the more absurd analogies i've seen.

Actually states have a right to succeed, but the north throw a hissy fit and started a war.

Who fired the first shot?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

the southern population shouldn't have waged war against their country.

and hitler didn't target anyone committing treason.

might be one of the more absurd analogies i've seen.

Actually states have a right to succeed, but the north throw a hissy fit and started a war.

Who fired the first shot?

Who instigated that shot?

 

[Mr Natural]

Actually states have a right to succeed, but the north throw a hissy fit and started a war.

Who fired the first shot?

Who instigated that shot?

The South by demanding that the US Army surrender a US fort.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Who fired the first shot?

Who instigated that shot?

The South by demanding that the US Army surrender a US fort.

That would be incorrect. Lincoln knew that the south would not allow him to resupply that fort, and he needed that incident to get public opinion on his side for a war.