If only Abraham Lincoln had understood and obeyed the Constitution

[Slash]

You have no better understanding of religion than you do of American History...but I am not here to educate you personally...I merely post the truth for whoever may be interested.

Aww, is that how you respond to "I like these laws from the OT, but not those ones"??? You brought up laws straight out of the Deuteronomic Code. I brought up laws straight out of the Deuteronomic Code. But mine are obviously not ok, while your choice ones are.

I am curious what church you follow.

Your diversions though are pretty weak honestly. You seemed to talk a lot earlier, but now you seem to clam up pretty quickly and give some sort of non-answer when confronted here.

Kind of odd that every time I bring up a truth, you don't actually counter it either. Just go off on another non-related rant. You just try and divert the topic elsewhere and on to the next topic. It's like nailing jello to the wall.

 

[gipper]

Perpetual Union.

Fuck that!

 

[gipper]

Nineteenth Century liberals had a long list of grievances against the South, nearly all of them based on faulty information and of course the same applies to the liberals today and their attacks on President Trump, Republicans, Conservatism and still many of them are hung up on 'sectionalism' aka hatred (still) of the South and Southerners in general...one sees this on most of the liberal boards.

Such propaganda as they espouse is pitiful. Nothing is more indicative of this than that of their comments on Southern Slavery as it it existed in that long bygone era..........obviously basing their complaints on stuff they have seen in movies or other fictional sources when actual words spoken by former slaves regarding slavery down South are available to all and online but of course they do not want the truth about that nor do they want to hear that the War Between The States Was not about slavery.

….On the real cause of the not-so-civil war

The war of 1861-65 was NOT about slavery at all, but about economic imposition upon the Southern states by the money/business dominated government in Washington, DC. The REAL reason for that war was the fact that northern manufacturers, making their clothing, farm implements, furniture, tools, etc., produced them for sale at a certain price – a HIGH price, at that. Southern states had some, but not a lot, of industry, and were in need of those very products. It just so happened that the European nations of France, Spain, England, and the Dutch, were producing and selling those same basic needs for a much LOWER price than the Northern produced goods. As the South had a lower standard of living (income, production, wages) than the North, they eagerly imported those foreign goods at each Southern port for much cheaper prices – simply because they could AFFORD to buy them at those prices. Northern businessmen and bankers put immediate pressure on the politicians in DC to make their “cash cow” (the Southern states) HAVE to buy from the North. To do that, they passed tariffs (the last straw being the Morrill Tariffs) to RAISE the price of those imported European goods, so that they would cost MORE than the Yankee goods.

The Feds passed the tariffs, of course – but the Southern states would ignore enforcing them at Southern ports (chiefly, Charleston, Savannah, New Orleans, and Galveston). So the Yankee dominated Congress – just as today, totally beholden to the Money Power – passed NEW laws, providing for FEDERAL officials (among them, military personnel) to set up federal stations in each Southern port to enforce and collect the tariffs – tariffs that would RAISE the price of those European goods ABOVE the prices of like goods produced in the Northern states. When even THAT did not produce the desired results, DC passed laws dictating that all foreign ships must FIRST enter the ports of Boston and Philadelphia before proceeding to deliver ANY goods to the South, so that the tariffs could be applied.

Faced with this economic strangulation, the South collectively decided that their own economic survival depended upon exercising their perfectly legal right to leave the Union, and set up their OWN nation, if you will. Secession was not something undertaken lightly. There were serious debates in each state about the pros and cons of leaving the Union and setting up their own association of states – a confederacy.



The plusses for such a step far outweighed the negatives, and the Southern states assured the Northern ones that in the event of any national emergency in the form of a THREAT from the outside, the Confederate states would immediately join forces with their Northern sisters in defense of the homeland. If you think that this was the FIRST instance of secession by states, I suggest you study the War of 1812, when more than one NORTHERN state threatened secession and actually SAT OUT that war rather than send forces to help their sister states fight the British. Rather strange that NOT ONE VOICE was raised at that time about secession being “illegal!” In actuality, it was not questioned at all as to its legality.


This moderate and fair stance threw the bankers and capitalists into a tizzy. European nations, very anti-slavery, in their editorials and public pronouncements, took a pro-South stance, stating that the Southern states had the more legitimate cause in the “family quarrel.” Those foreign nations would NEVER have done that if the war had been about the issue of slavery. Those “outsiders” had a much clearer view of the REAL issues, unlike Americans, caught up in the eye of the storm.


Southern states exercised their rights and dismissed the tariff-collectors from their ports. The Yankee garrison at the port of Charleston on the island and behind the walls of Fort Sumter were among the last Federal presence . Lincoln saw that the last chance of appeasing or serving the 1860s version of the “military-industrial complex” lay in making that fort the cause for WAR. Thus rather than ordering the abandonment of that federal presence within the territorial jurisdiction of the southern state of South Carolina, he sent reinforcements by sea to the isolated garrison – knowing that such an action would in all likelihood provoke a military response. Southern officials learned of the impending reinforcement – no doubt given the information by those trying to provoke war – and thus began the bombardment of Fort Sumter.

Confederate Memorial Day 1910



The Yankee forces surrendered before the reinforcements (also bringing much-needed food and ammunition) could arrive. Interestingly, not ONE Yankee soldier was killed in that bombardment; thus it is likely that a peaceful resolution could have been reached even AFTER the surrender of Fort Sumter. But those influencing Lincoln could not allow a peaceful resolution. They had to have their tariffs enforced, their beholden cash cow back in line and buying Yankee goods. Thus Lincoln’s plan to provoke combat, and to be able to blame it on South Carolina, worked like a charm. “They fired the first shot” was the echoing cry, which carried with it the obvious implication that “the South is GUILTY, they brought this on themselves.”


The historical record shows that even Lincoln declared that the war was not about slavery (check out his SPEECHES at that time!) – at least in the first 2 years of that war – two years that were won overwhelmingly by Southern fighting men.

With sagging morale and rapidly deteriorating support from northern states grown sick of their sons coming home in body bags, a moral issue was needed. Editorials in those few Yankee papers that were still free of government control were using expressions like “let our Southern sisters go their own way; the death and destruction must stop!”

Those promoting that war upon the South then decided to use the issue of SLAVERY as the CAUSE for which they were fighting. The ploy, though nothing more than a political ruse, worked. Even European newspapers began backing the North, as they too were caught up in Lincoln’s seemingly “magnificent” Gettysburg Address. A fact very pertinent to my point that the war was not about slavery – what percent of Southern people owned at least ONE slave? My grad work research gave me that answer – 4.8%. That’s correct. That means that 95% of Southern people had NOTHING vested in the institution, all the more reason not to go off and fight a war for it!

Would poor, generally illiterate Southern men and boys go off to the horrid conditions of war to fight for slavery? Highly unlikely. BUT – if those same males were told that the Federal Government is invading Southern states by military force, would they fight to defend their states and homes? A resounding YES.

How does all this apply to the current disagreement about those Texas license plates honoring the Confederacy? It applies because of the FALSE history that has been taught due to a political/social/racial agenda since the end of that war, and the following 12 years of the horror in the period of military rule over the Southern states known as “Reconstruction.”

The winning side always writes the history, and unfortunately, that “history” is about as close to the TRUTH as a Cinderella fairy-tale. The stupid argument that the Confederate battle flag is a symbol of “racism” is strictly a post-modern twist on falsified history.

Slavery existed for 4 years under that banner as a legal institution; it existed for nearly 100 years under the Yankee stars and stripes. And even the term “civil war” as applied to that fratricidal conflict is a total misnomer. A civil war takes place when there are two (or more) factions trying to take over the central government. This was NEVER the case in the war between North and South. The South had no interest in taking over DC; those states wanted to co-exist in peace.

When the fighting started, Southern states were fighting a DEFENSIVE war against Yankee troops INVADING their homelands!! When one considers that most Southern boys fighting for their states were dirt-poor and had nothing to gain by upholding slavery – an institution that even helped perpetuate poverty among Southern whites, it does not make sense that they would leave their homes, march from Texas or Florida or anywhere to suffer the most unimaginable horrors to fight to the death to preserve the institution of slavery. But does it make sense that they would rally for 4 years to fight an INVADER threatening their homes and way of life? Absolutely! Rarely if ever is it mentioned that blacks and Indians in substantial numbers fought on the Southern side. The false image of North equals good guys, South equals EVIL, must be preserved, to justify the carnage and evil visited upon Southern people, particularly civilians, by occupying Yankee forces.


The “hurt feelings” and racist attitudes of those against honoring the Confederate battle flag and the actions of disgusting wimp politicians like Rick Perry and so many like him are the result of being taught decades of FALSE history. This issue – pretty small, actually, in the overall grand scheme of things – does illustrate the very negative effects of teaching FALSE history to a gullible, trusting, and accepting populace. Once the “fly” has been introduced into the ointment, especially in today’s phony “politically-correct” and historically blind populace, the poisoning of the minds and pushing of GUILT is extremely difficult to straighten. Our only solace is in the belief that the pendulum does not swing the same way all the time, and that the truth will eventually out.

……See also
More on how Wall Street greed provoked the South and triggered the “Civil War” – John de Nugent

A southerner on the Confederacy; truth about black slavery; if “Jade Helm” goes from drill to real – John de Nugent

Fun statements. I like rewriting history at times too. This ones about as good as mine that the Civil War was about Abraham Lincoln creating Nuclear weapons.

Don't you find it interesting that in the reasons for secessions the states that seceded wrote NOT ONE mentioned these tariffs you speak of? Maybe becase the tarriff law in place was written by a southern Senator (he became the VP of the confederacy)? Hmmm, it would be like if the new tax law passes and in 100 years we get to hear how Republicans revolted in 2018 over the new tax laws. It's that dumb of a theory.

They did mention slavery though. Oh yeah, protecting that showed up everywhere. Not just as a way for free labor, but as a God given right to the white man and the cornerstone of their rebellion.

As for the "Yankee invasion", ummm, remember Military bases are federal property, not state property. You can even find the deed for Fort Sumter where it is ceded to the Government of the US. And when the USA failed to hand it over it was bombed for 24 hours straight. Cuba has asked us to give Guantanemo back plenty of times. We've said no. If they bombed our soldiers and Marines there for a day straight because of that I hope the US would defend it's assets and military lives as well. Remember, the South seceded and took EVERYTHING they could from the US. Ships that belonged to the federal Gov't. Bases. Mints. Banks. Money. Just told them to stuff it. Then attacked a US military installation for the first shots of the war.

Slavery did exist in slave states a long time. Remember Northern states were taking action to ban slavery and ban the slave trade in their states DURING the American Revolution. They went to the original Continental Congresses with ideas of a slave free US. But Southern states would not join a Union without slavery, so in the best interests of a nation to defeat the British they gave in on that.

Just because most Germans, poor men, fought for their country rather than the 3rd Reichs dream of a superior race and world domination, doesn't mean Hitler was a good guy. It doesn't mean his ideals were good ones. Honestly it makes it even worse that he would send people to their deaths over them. Same with the Confederacy. I don't hate those that fought and died. But those that sent them to war against the USA over the institution of slavery. Fuck them.


That's a nice study about the 5% of them. Granted that seems to be completely the opposite of what the 1860 census showed us. You know. The actual facts of the time, rather than us deciding to throw them away and create new ones that suit our needs.

In 1860 the census found out what percent of families owned slaves. 35% of those in Alabama did for example. 49% in Mississippi. 46% in South Carolina. Now granted if dad owns a slave, I am sure you are breaking down the numbers that even though that slave works for the family, an 8 person family means only 12% of those in that house would have anything to do with a slave. It's an easy and rather lazy way to bend the truth for your needs.

Again, you can rewrite this new version of history all you want. The great thing about the history of the US is it is written down. You can read the congressional meetings at state assemblies on the issue and see slavery was the defining reason they wanted out of the union. You can identify the states rights they felt were being infringed upon. Runaway slaves not being returned to slave states. Slavery not being able to expand to new states. States not having a right to re-open the slave trade. Of course now we need to call those "states rights" since pro-slavery rights doesn't fit the new agenda we all like.

Kinda funny how you Lincoln said the war wasn't a war on slavery early on. Remember, when the states were starting to secede and the war was starting, Washington DC was between two slave states. Yeah he could have said it was a war on slavery. And woken up the next day in the heart of the Confederacy and waved a white flag and surrendered the US. He could have spoken tougher on slavery when he was giving his campaign speeches in slave states and his opponents were calling him a "black republican" and that he'd send the country to war over slavery, but that would have lost him votes. Just like Trump says he is pro-immigrant and Hillary says she is pro-gun when campaigning in those area's that are for those things.

In the end, Lincolns acts were a war on slavery. Immediately in office he free'd the slaves in the one place he could (Washington DC). As soon as he wasn't under attack from the South, when he was having to be slipped out of Washington DC so they couldnt catch him, and they beat the rebels back, he issued the Emancipation Proclamation. Something most people call the most questionable use of presidential powers ever. After the war many called him the dirtiest politician ever. Bringing up exposing secrets and damning stories on other politicians if they wouldn't work to create that amendment to free all the slaves. He is still the only president ever to sign an amendment, the one that free'd the slaves. But yeah, even though his life was chock full of a battle against slavery. Even though he was from the abolitionist party, he wasn't anti-slavery lol. That'd be like in 150 years some guy trying to rewrite history that Trump wasn't anti-illegal immigrants. That he was actually anti-2nd amendment. It's literally that dumb of a statement.

I kinda had fun reading your re-write on US history there. But you are going to need to break into the Library of Congress with a LOT of white out to remove the actual history that's written down to get that story you made up through.

Thanks for the fun fantasy though.

The South offered to pay for all federal properties and their share of the federal debt, before the war. Lincoln told them to fuck off and prepare to die.

 

[gipper]

Yeah the minute you started saying Slavery was godly and that slaves had it better off how they were I kinda shut you off kid.


You can't say you are after truth and twist historical fact as much as you do. You can't say you are after truth and try and white out and burn history. You can't say you are after truth and create lies that COMPLETELY disagree with historical fact. It's like hearing someone say they are boycotting McDonalds as they eat a Big Mac. You really are that retarded with your beliefs. But whatever helps you sleep at night I guess, enjoy your nazi parties and all that I guess.

Spew your hate and lies, not into either of those things.

You have been well indoctrinated into political correctness and the myths associated with slavery and the evil of the South in general....try and read the whole article posted....it was difficult to post due to its length and might seem rather herky jerky the was it was posted...just click on the link provided and you can read it all in order. As the article makes perfectly clear.....Slavery was sanctioned by the Holy Bible.....though the Southern Form was not perfect and differed from the form of Slavery sactioned by the Bible in some ways.

Dude, you are claiming that slavery is good and not bad to the blacks. Just stop. You are an embarrasment to the human race.

You speak of "myths of the south" then try and erase written history, and rewrite your own story. That says ALL YOU NEED TO SAY.

And yes. The old testament also said that we should ""Make tassels on the four corners of the cloak you wear." That doesn't mean your tassel-less jacket is ungodly does it?

I am guessing the roof of your house doesn't have a battlement on it. So you are an ungodly man correct? Eating a cheeseburger is against God (can't mix milk and meat, all fat must be saved for God).

Wearing a cotton Poly blend T-shirt is ungodly (can't mix fabrics in clothing).

But you don't want to follow any of those but the "hey, owning other human beings is what God wants". Remind me, what church believes in that translation? Oh that's right. The KKK is the ONLY one. Hmmm....

Come on. Don't go full retard here.

Slavery should have been terminated at the Founding, but unfortunately Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and others were slave owners.

At any rate, Lincoln’s War was entirely unjustified, unconstitutional, and heinous. The mass murder of 850k Americans, destruction of half the nation, and decades of racist actions hardly makes the war worthwhile. Lincoln was a tyrant, fool, and a dumbass statist like Jake.

 

[Slash]

The South offered to pay for all federal properties and their share of the federal debt, before the war. Lincoln told them to fuck off and prepare to die.

Actually they didn't. They offered to buy some, but most bases, and ships and gold they just took.

And Cuba has offered deals to get back Guantanemo. We have said no. If their answer was bombing our soldiers and marines there for a full day straight, I hope we would fight back too. That's an act of war.

 

[Slash]

Slavery should have been terminated at the Founding, but unfortunately Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and others were slave owners.

At any rate, Lincoln’s War was entirely unjustified, unconstitutional, and heinous. The mass murder of 850k Americans, destruction of half the nation, and decades of racist actions hardly makes the war worthwhile. Lincoln was a tyrant, fool, and a dumbass statist like Jake.

And that's how many want to re-write our history. First of all the war was justified. States were in rebellion and the Supreme court ruled that the secession was illegal. ANd unless you want to rip up the Constitution of the US, the Supreme Court determines the "law of the land".

Now who started it is easy. South in their rebellion took over US bases, ships, ports, gold, and weapons. Then they were also the first to attack, bombing a US military base for a 24 hour period.

If California decided to leave the US, take some nuclear subs from the US, then bomb our troops and bases on US Federal property in California, I would hope we would fight back against those rebelling.

But who needs facts, when we can just burn the books, white out what we don't want to read, and come up with a new narrative that makes us feel happier and warmer.

 

[gipper]

Slavery should have been terminated at the Founding, but unfortunately Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and others were slave owners.

At any rate, Lincoln’s War was entirely unjustified, unconstitutional, and heinous. The mass murder of 850k Americans, destruction of half the nation, and decades of racist actions hardly makes the war worthwhile. Lincoln was a tyrant, fool, and a dumbass statist like Jake.

And that's how many want to re-write our history. First of all the war was justified. States were in rebellion and the Supreme court ruled that the secession was illegal. ANd unless you want to rip up the Constitution of the US, the Supreme Court determines the "law of the land".

Now who started it is easy. South in their rebellion took over US bases, ships, ports, gold, and weapons. Then they were also the first to attack, bombing a US military base for a 24 hour period.

If California decided to leave the US, take some nuclear subs from the US, then bomb our troops and bases on US Federal property in California, I would hope we would fight back against those rebelling.

But who needs facts, when we can just burn the books, white out what we don't want to read, and come up with a new narrative that makes us feel happier and warmer.

The war was entirely unjustified and unconstitutional, but statists don’t agree. LMFAO.

The states were sovereign before Lincoln killed them. Lincoln claimed he went to war to save the Union. How dumb is that? His deal was I will kill you if you don’t stay with me. Like a crazy estranged husband.

Had Lincoln NOT invaded, there was no war. As such, he was the aggressor. While he wanted to save the Union, he ruthlessly pursued actions that caused death and destruction of AMERICANS. The exact definition of TREASON.

 

[gipper]

The South offered to pay for all federal properties and their share of the federal debt, before the war. Lincoln told them to fuck off and prepare to die.

Actually they didn't. They offered to buy some, but most bases, and ships and gold they just took.

And Cuba has offered deals to get back Guantanemo. We have said no. If their answer was bombing our soldiers and marines there for a full day straight, I hope we would fight back too. That's an act of war.

Fuck that! War is always the health of the State, but statist like it.

 

[gipper]

The South offered to pay for all federal properties and their share of the federal debt, before the war. Lincoln told them to fuck off and prepare to die.

Actually they didn't. They offered to buy some, but most bases, and ships and gold they just took.

And Cuba has offered deals to get back Guantanemo. We have said no. If their answer was bombing our soldiers and marines there for a full day straight, I hope we would fight back too. That's an act of war.

Yes they did. But your boy Dishonest Abe, said fuck off and DIE!

Statist suck.

 

[Sundance508]

You have no better understanding of religion than you do of American History...but I am not here to educate you personally...I merely post the truth for whoever may be interested.

Aww, is that how you respond to "I like these laws from the OT, but not those ones"??? You brought up laws straight out of the Deuteronomic Code. I brought up laws straight out of the Deuteronomic Code. But mine are obviously not ok, while your choice ones are.

I am curious what church you follow.

Your diversions though are pretty weak honestly. You seemed to talk a lot earlier, but now you seem to clam up pretty quickly and give some sort of non-answer when confronted here.

Kind of odd that every time I bring up a truth, you don't actually counter it either. Just go off on another non-related rant. You just try and divert the topic elsewhere and on to the next topic. It's like nailing jello to the wall.

"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President, Confederate States of America (Jefferson Davis, "Inaugural Address as Provisional President of the Confederacy," Montgomery, AL, 1861-FEB-18, Confederate States of America, Congressional Journal, 1:64-66.)

 

[Sundance508]

Demolishing the Lincoln Myth:

'Lincoln mythology is the ideological cornerstone of American statism. He was in reality the most hated of all American presidents during his lifetime according to an excellent book by historian Larry Tagg entitled The Unpopular Mr. Lincoln: America’s Most Reviled President. He was so hated in the North that the New York Times editorialized a wish that he would be assassinated. This is perfectly understandable: He illegally suspended Habeas Corpus and imprisoned tens of thousands of Northern political critics without due process; shut down over 300 opposition newspapers; committed treason by invading the Southern states (Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution defines treason as “only levying war upon the states” or “giving aid and comfort to their enemies,” which of course is exactly what Lincoln did). He enforced military conscription with the murder of hundreds of New York City draft protesters in 1863 and with the mass execution of deserters from his army. He deported a congressional critic (Democratic Congressman Clement Vallandigham of Ohio); confiscated firearms; and issued an arrest warrant for the Chief Justice when the jurist issued an opinion that only Congress could legally suspend Habeas Corpus. He waged an unnecessary war (all other countries ended slavery peacefully in that century) that resulted in the death of as many as 850,000 Americans according to new research published in the last two years. Standardizing for today’s population, that would be similar to 8.5 million American deaths in a four-year war'.



“Lincoln is theology, not historiology. He is a faith, he is a church, he is a religion, and he has his own priests and acolytes, most of whom . . . are passionately opposed to anybody telling the truth about him . . . with rare exceptions, you can’t believe what any major Lincoln scholar tells you about Abraham Lincoln and race.”

–Lerone Bennett, Jr., Forced into Glory, p. 114

 

[Slash]

The war was entirely unjustified and unconstitutional, but statists don’t agree. LMFAO.

The states were sovereign before Lincoln killed them. Lincoln claimed he went to war to save the Union. How dumb is that? His deal was I will kill you if you don’t stay with me. Like a crazy estranged husband.

Had Lincoln NOT invaded, there was no war. As such, he was the aggressor. While he wanted to save the Union, he ruthlessly pursued actions that caused death and destruction of AMERICANS. The exact definition of TREASON.

There is ONE way to make the war unconstitutional. That's to go and find the US Constitution and take a big container of white out. And white out Article 3.

That's the ONLY way. You literally have to destroy the US Constitution to make the war unconstitutional.

That's what these Neo-revisionists want. Burn the books, tell a new story.

 

[Syriusly]

The white supremacist insanity is well exposed above.

The white supremacist insanity is well exposed above.

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything"................Abraham Lincoln

Ah so you love Abraham Lincoln. when he reflects your opinion......lol

My quotes regarding Mr. Lincoln are made merely to demonstrate his true nature.n

And you agree with him on these points- that is clear.

Do you think Mr. Lincoln the great emancipator was wrong?

I think that Mr. Lincoln- who did indeed take the actions that in the end resulted in the emancipation of all the slaves- was wrong in his racist views.

Just like you.

Of course Lincoln was a product of his time when virtually everyone was a racist- while you resist your times- and embrace the racism of 150 years ago.

Just like you applaud slavery.

 

[Syriusly]

Demolishing the Lincoln Myth: r.

Considering that in your OP you quote an enthusiastic Slaver and the VP of the Confederate states as part of your propaganda series- really this is just more of your pro slavery, pro-racism propaganda.

 

[gipper]

The war was entirely unjustified and unconstitutional, but statists don’t agree. LMFAO.

The states were sovereign before Lincoln killed them. Lincoln claimed he went to war to save the Union. How dumb is that? His deal was I will kill you if you don’t stay with me. Like a crazy estranged husband.

Had Lincoln NOT invaded, there was no war. As such, he was the aggressor. While he wanted to save the Union, he ruthlessly pursued actions that caused death and destruction of AMERICANS. The exact definition of TREASON.

There is ONE way to make the war unconstitutional. That's to go and find the US Constitution and take a big container of white out. And white out Article 3.

That's the ONLY way. You literally have to destroy the US Constitution to make the war unconstitutional.

That's what these Neo-revisionists want. Burn the books, tell a new story.

No. Secession was always an option to any state. Then Lincoln killed the states.

 

[Slash]

"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President, Confederate States of America (Jefferson Davis, "Inaugural Address as Provisional President of the Confederacy," Montgomery, AL, 1861-FEB-18, Confederate States of America, Congressional Journal, 1:64-66.)

The ONLY mention of slavery in the New Testament. When Paul tells Philemon to treat a slave, not as a slave but a brother in Christ. That's the only one. So whatever bible you are reading.... not a bible.

Again, you pick and choose which OT laws you want to follow. The definition of a hypocrite.

Again, what denomination are you?

 

[Slash]

No. Secession was always an option to any state. Then Lincoln killed the states.

Again, the Supreme court heard a case on that and ruled that the secessions that led to the Civil war were in fact illegal. The Supreme Court is empowered by the Constitution of the US to be the law of the land.

The only way you are able to say secession was Constitutional, is to burn the Constitution.

 

[Slash]

When states were in rebellion and attacking US bases, Lincoln fought the rebellion. Exactly as his powers allowed him to.

The only way to believe he was being treasonous against the US... is to destroy the US Constitution.

That's the issue with those nazi fucks. They want to destroy the constitution of the US so they can re-write this new Nazi history of theirs.

 

[Syriusly]

The war was entirely unjustified and unconstitutional, but statists don’t agree. LMFAO.

The states were sovereign before Lincoln killed them. Lincoln claimed he went to war to save the Union. How dumb is that? His deal was I will kill you if you don’t stay with me. Like a crazy estranged husband.

Had Lincoln NOT invaded, there was no war. As such, he was the aggressor. While he wanted to save the Union, he ruthlessly pursued actions that caused death and destruction of AMERICANS. The exact definition of TREASON.

There is ONE way to make the war unconstitutional. That's to go and find the US Constitution and take a big container of white out. And white out Article 3.

That's the ONLY way. You literally have to destroy the US Constitution to make the war unconstitutional.

That's what these Neo-revisionists want. Burn the books, tell a new story.

No. Secession was always an option to any state. Then Lincoln killed the states.

Poor little snowflake.

 

[Syriusly]

When states were in rebellion and attacking US bases, Lincoln fought the rebellion. Exactly as his powers allowed him to.

The only way to believe he was being treasonous against the US... is to destroy the US Constitution.

That's the issue with those nazi fucks. They want to destroy the constitution of the US so they can re-write this new Nazi history of theirs.

Yep.

They revolted in order to protect their imagined threat against their 'right to own humans'- and the Confederate fanboys celebrate their revolt to continue to own slaves.