Irrefutable legal arguments supporting the right of secession

[Bombur]

So you consider the Confederate States children?

Part of the United States illegally attempted to secede in order to protect the institution of slavery- which is commonly called a rebellion. In the process they fired on Americans troops.

The United States, after being attacked by the rebels, put down the rebellion.

And incidentally freed the slaves of the rebellious states, and ultimately lead to the freedom of all slaves.

We do know that the Civil War resulted in the end of legal slavery in the United States.
If there was no Civil War, then there could very well still be the Confederation of Slave Owning States in the South to this day.

The North wanted to preserve slavery too. It was the most lucrative industry they had. If you can't understand that simple fact, there's nothing to discuss.

Sigh. Slavery was the most lucrative industry the South had- i.e. the production of new slaves was the primary basis of wealth in most of the slave owning states (not all- some like Delaware had very few slaves).

The 'North' elected the new anti-slavery Republican Party because most of the voters in the North were opposed to the institution of slavery, even if they were not actually abolitionists.

Lincoln was a moderate within the Republican Party- his goals were to prevent expansion of slavery into the Western States- and to preserve the Union. If the slave owning states of the Confederacy had not attempted to leave to protect their human property, Lincoln would have done nothing more than what he did with Maryland- which was propose compensated and gradual emancipation.

But the Confederate slave owning States gambled wrong- and that cost them lots of lives- and all of their slaves.

They elected him because they were opposed to the SPREAD of slavery and because he promised repeatedly not to abolish it. And every slave ship was manufactured in the North and Boston and New York thrived off of the perpetuation of slavery. You got your head so far up your ass you actually think the North were the good guys in all this. Such astounding ignorance makes an intelligent discussion on this topic impossible.

Lincoln repeatedly argued against slavery period. It is important to draw a distinction between what Lincoln would have wanted in his ideal world and what he fought for politically. He was very willing to compromise his beliefs on slavery to prevent war. You are referencing his compromise.

The south was mad at the north for not returning slaves back to the south. They saw the entire Republican party as an enemy to their "property" rights. Once again read up on their reasons for the rebellion. It is their perspective that is what really matters since it was their decisions that drove us toward war.

You accuse others of ignorance but everything you said demonstrates an incomplete and slanted view of reality. Just because ships were built in the north that doesn't mean there wasn't wide spread support for ending the institution of slavery. Your logic is just bad.

More ignorance. He didn't try all that hard to stop a bloody war. He was a sick man, drunk on power, using the Alien and Sedition Act to prosecute political opponents, ordering the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court arrested and taking the first chance he got to plunge the continent into a state of war. The fact that you Leftwats think he was a good guy proves Bripat right. You really are Lincoln cultists.

He was a great man despite your delusions about reality.

 

[Faun]

The was a rebellion in the United States. The United States put down the rebellion.

No there wasn't. Herr Lincoln Uber Alles invaded sovereign nations that had seceded.

If your children ran away from home, do you think that gives you the right to kill them?

So you consider the Confederate States children?

Part of the United States illegally attempted to secede in order to protect the institution of slavery- which is commonly called a rebellion. In the process they fired on Americans troops.

The United States, after being attacked by the rebels, put down the rebellion.

And incidentally freed the slaves of the rebellious states, and ultimately lead to the freedom of all slaves.

We do know that the Civil War resulted in the end of legal slavery in the United States.
If there was no Civil War, then there could very well still be the Confederation of Slave Owning States in the South to this day.

The North wanted to preserve slavery too. It was the most lucrative industry they had. If you can't understand that simple fact, there's nothing to discuss.

Sigh. Slavery was the most lucrative industry the South had- i.e. the production of new slaves was the primary basis of wealth in most of the slave owning states (not all- some like Delaware had very few slaves).

The 'North' elected the new anti-slavery Republican Party because most of the voters in the North were opposed to the institution of slavery, even if they were not actually abolitionists.

Lincoln was a moderate within the Republican Party- his goals were to prevent expansion of slavery into the Western States- and to preserve the Union. If the slave owning states of the Confederacy had not attempted to leave to protect their human property, Lincoln would have done nothing more than what he did with Maryland- which was propose compensated and gradual emancipation.

But the Confederate slave owning States gambled wrong- and that cost them lots of lives- and all of their slaves.

They elected him because they were opposed to the SPREAD of slavery and because he promised repeatedly not to abolish it. And every slave ship was manufactured in the North and Boston and New York thrived off of the perpetuation of slavery. You got your head so far up your ass you actually think the North were the good guys in all this. Such astounding ignorance makes an intelligent discussion on this topic impossible.

The north were the good guys. They were, for the most part, against slavery and had outlawed slavery in almost every state in the north. That said, for the sake of keeping the country whole, the north was willing to compromise and left the south keep their slaves and let new states in the south be slave states. The south broke that deal too when Democrat Stephen Douglas effectively repealed the Missouri Compromise because he wanted his state to be a slave state.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The North wanted to preserve slavery too. It was the most lucrative industry they had. If you can't understand that simple fact, there's nothing to discuss.

Sigh. Slavery was the most lucrative industry the South had- i.e. the production of new slaves was the primary basis of wealth in most of the slave owning states (not all- some like Delaware had very few slaves).

The 'North' elected the new anti-slavery Republican Party because most of the voters in the North were opposed to the institution of slavery, even if they were not actually abolitionists.

Lincoln was a moderate within the Republican Party- his goals were to prevent expansion of slavery into the Western States- and to preserve the Union. If the slave owning states of the Confederacy had not attempted to leave to protect their human property, Lincoln would have done nothing more than what he did with Maryland- which was propose compensated and gradual emancipation.

But the Confederate slave owning States gambled wrong- and that cost them lots of lives- and all of their slaves.

They elected him because they were opposed to the SPREAD of slavery and because he promised repeatedly not to abolish it. And every slave ship was manufactured in the North and Boston and New York thrived off of the perpetuation of slavery. You got your head so far up your ass you actually think the North were the good guys in all this. Such astounding ignorance makes an intelligent discussion on this topic impossible.

Lincoln repeatedly argued against slavery period. It is important to draw a distinction between what Lincoln would have wanted in his ideal world and what he fought for politically. He was very willing to compromise his beliefs on slavery to prevent war. You are referencing his compromise.

The south was mad at the north for not returning slaves back to the south. They saw the entire Republican party as an enemy to their "property" rights. Once again read up on their reasons for the rebellion. It is their perspective that is what really matters since it was their decisions that drove us toward war.

You accuse others of ignorance but everything you said demonstrates an incomplete and slanted view of reality. Just because ships were built in the north that doesn't mean there wasn't wide spread support for ending the institution of slavery. Your logic is just bad.

More ignorance. He didn't try all that hard to stop a bloody war. He was a sick man, drunk on power, using the Alien and Sedition Act to prosecute political opponents, ordering the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court arrested and taking the first chance he got to plunge the continent into a state of war. The fact that you Leftwats think he was a good guy proves Bripat right. You really are Lincoln cultists.

He was a great man despite your delusions about reality.

So was Hitler, cultist.

 

[Syriusly]

Sigh. Slavery was the most lucrative industry the South had- i.e. the production of new slaves was the primary basis of wealth in most of the slave owning states (not all- some like Delaware had very few slaves).

The 'North' elected the new anti-slavery Republican Party because most of the voters in the North were opposed to the institution of slavery, even if they were not actually abolitionists.

Lincoln was a moderate within the Republican Party- his goals were to prevent expansion of slavery into the Western States- and to preserve the Union. If the slave owning states of the Confederacy had not attempted to leave to protect their human property, Lincoln would have done nothing more than what he did with Maryland- which was propose compensated and gradual emancipation.

But the Confederate slave owning States gambled wrong- and that cost them lots of lives- and all of their slaves.

They elected him because they were opposed to the SPREAD of slavery and because he promised repeatedly not to abolish it. And every slave ship was manufactured in the North and Boston and New York thrived off of the perpetuation of slavery. You got your head so far up your ass you actually think the North were the good guys in all this. Such astounding ignorance makes an intelligent discussion on this topic impossible.

Lincoln repeatedly argued against slavery period. It is important to draw a distinction between what Lincoln would have wanted in his ideal world and what he fought for politically. He was very willing to compromise his beliefs on slavery to prevent war. You are referencing his compromise.

The south was mad at the north for not returning slaves back to the south. They saw the entire Republican party as an enemy to their "property" rights. Once again read up on their reasons for the rebellion. It is their perspective that is what really matters since it was their decisions that drove us toward war.

You accuse others of ignorance but everything you said demonstrates an incomplete and slanted view of reality. Just because ships were built in the north that doesn't mean there wasn't wide spread support for ending the institution of slavery. Your logic is just bad.

More ignorance. He didn't try all that hard to stop a bloody war. He was a sick man, drunk on power, using the Alien and Sedition Act to prosecute political opponents, ordering the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court arrested and taking the first chance he got to plunge the continent into a state of war. The fact that you Leftwats think he was a good guy proves Bripat right. You really are Lincoln cultists.

He was a great man despite your delusions about reality.

So was Hitler, cultist.

So you think that Hitler was a great man?

Interesting.

 

[bripat9643]

BINGO!

I am glad you two idiots share the same delusion.

Back in reality Lincoln preserved the union, ended slavery, and fought against the states that had such a warped view of reality that they openly went to war against their fellow countrymen because people wouldn't return their slaves when they ran away.

OK BACK TO REALITY, LINCOLN DIDN'T WANT TO BE THE PRESIDENT WHO LOST 11 STATES, AS PROMISED IN 1828 , SC LEFT THE UNION BECAUSE OF THE NORTH INCREASED TARIFFS FROM 15 to 37%, SLAVERY AS AN INSTITUTION WAS ON ITS WAY OUT.


.

Actually your wrong. It was because Lincoln made it clear if made president he wouldn't allow the slave trade in the new territories.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Bennett is also incensed by the fact that Lincoln never opposed Southern slavery but only its extension into the territories. Indeed, in his first inaugural address he pledged his everlasting support for Southern slavery by making it explicitly constitutional with the "Corwin Amendment," that had already passed the U.S. House and Senate.

Abraham Lincoln, in his first inaugural address, said of the Corwin Amendment:[1][17]


I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service....holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.

Why do you democrats always twist what he said? He said he would save the union any way he could because you ignoramus it was his job. That doesn't mean h supported slavery. Those lies are pathetic.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

He supported a Constitutional amendment to enshrine slavery into the Constitution forever.

 

[bripat9643]

I can sum up your post in two words: Nuh uhn!

All you do is repeat the same horseshit over and over and over like a mantra. If that's what it take to salve your guilty conscience.

I'll list my pat responses to your bullshit talking points.

#1. Secession wasn't a rebellion.
#2. It doesn't matter why they seceded. Lincoln didn't invade Virginia to free the slaves.
#3. Ending slavery wasn't sufficient cause for invading a state of the union. It was legal.
#4. Kicking trespassers out of your territory is not an act of war.

In the future just refer to one of these whenever you indulge the compulsion to regurgitate your list of talking points.

Of course it is a rebellion you retard it is why they were called rebels

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Oh, right. Because a bunch of ignorant carpetbagger Yankees used a term incorrectly we are all supposed to accept it as gospel.

That's what passes for logic among the Lincoln cult Illuminati

Dummy the confederates are the ones who started calling them rebels. My god don't any of you ever read?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Did they? Where's the evidence?

It is called a history book gobfind one in the library.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

In other words, you can't produce the evidence.

Of course, we already knew that.

 

[bripat9643]

No it wasn't the people who fired on them. Soldiers follow orders. The article of secession was notice that South Carolina was withdrawing its membership in the union and rescinding all previous negotiations including the lease of land that Ft. Sumpter was on. The fact that the US government refused to relinquish territory it no longer had rights to is what caused that conflict. That's putting responsibility back where it belongs.

As I said- South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- I was not saying that the soldier who lit the first fuse was at fault- it was the civilian and military command who chose to go to war against the United States and ordered him to fire the first shot

South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- to try to enforce its claim that the fort was no longer part of the United States.

And by doing so- fired the first shots of the Civil War- which caused a war that was not necessary- and cost the lives of 600,000.

And they lost the slaves that they were trying to keep ownership of. If they had not seceded- or even had not fired on American troops- they could possibly still be enjoying the ownership of their black slaves to this day.

You're just repeating yourself. Surely you're intelligent to see the futility in this argument. You'll keep saying the militia commander had no right to fire on Fort Sumpter and I'll keep saying they did. Fort Sumpter did not start the war, Lincoln marshaling an army of 75,000 troops and ordering them to invade started the war.

Lincoln called for those 75,000 three days after South Carolina fired on American troops in an American fort, and started the hostilities.

The facts are always worth repeating- the first shots of the Civil War were by Confederate rebel forces firing on American troops in Fort Sumter.

All to protect the Confederate States which had seceded in order to protect their right to own human property- rights enshrined in the Confederate Constitution.

The Poles fired the first shots of WW II. According to your theory that means they started the war.

Lincoln didn't invade Virginia to free the slaves. He didn't give a damn about them. He invaded to impose confiscatory tariffs on the Southern states.

Holy analogy fail Batman!

To say Lincoln didn't give a damn about the slaves is comically ignorant.

Your "facts" are so far from reality you might as well just claim that Lincoln was an alien from outer space.

What evidence is there that Lincoln gave a damn about the slaves?

 

[bripat9643]

You're just repeating yourself. Surely you're intelligent to see the futility in this argument. You'll keep saying the militia commander had no right to fire on Fort Sumpter and I'll keep saying they did. Fort Sumpter did not start the war, Lincoln marshaling an army of 75,000 troops and ordering them to invade started the war. Had Herr Lincoln Uber Alles not been so eager to kill 600,000 men to slake his bent bloodthirst, damages such as Fort Sumpter by the South and the blockade by the North could have been negotiated peacefully.

Let's put it another way. Even Jean Luc Picard, Captain of the Starship Enterprise would criticize Too Tall for not exploring all options before steering the country on a sure path to a bloody war.

And you know it.

The rebellion of the Southern states started the war. The act of secession was itself the act that justified all necessary and proper action by the President to preserve the Union.

Where do you get this shit?

Secession is only illegal in the mind of the country being seceded from.

No it's illegal under the Constitution. No state is capable of seceding without breaking federal laws.

A declaration of secession is not a legal process by which the state or the residents of the state become exempt from federal law. There is no law that allows that.

Wrong! Get it through your thick deer skull. The states created the Constitution and the states can change it or even dissolve it with or without permission from the federal government. The original power is with the states. You Libtards seem to think the federal government sprang forth from nothing and created the states. Read a history book.

The states established how the Constitution could be changed. They couldn't change it all by themselves and even Washington helped establish the authority of the Federal government with force.

Do you want to fail again?

Secession doesn't require a change in the Constitution.

 

[Syriusly]

This thread is naturally going nowhere.

The pro-Confederate/pro-Slavery cultists of course want to demonize Lincoln- after all Lincoln showed what happens when states attempt to illegally secede- and Lincoln's actions ended legal slavery.

This thread started out with Brip announcing that his opinion was 'irrefutable'- and after 700 posts- he still confuses his ignoring every contrary opinion with 'irrefutable'.

My final words as I drop out of this thread.

The slave owning Confederate States attempted to secede to protect their legal institution of slavery and their human property. This is demonstrated by the provisions in the Confederate Constitution and the numerous declarations of the causes of Secession.

If they had been allowed to secede, there would have been no legal reason for the Confederacy to ever end slavery- and the modern Confederate States might have been enjoying the fruits of their human property today.

And the Confederacy made a major error in attacking American troops, and thereby starting the armed conflict.

The war was an American tragedy- but the war shaped the country the United States emerged as- and including the United States being the most powerful country in the world.

Oh and Brip as incredibly wrong as he is incredibly ignorant.

With that I leave the thread to Brip and Saint telling everyone their revisionist histories of the Civil War.

 

[Bombur]

As I said- South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- I was not saying that the soldier who lit the first fuse was at fault- it was the civilian and military command who chose to go to war against the United States and ordered him to fire the first shot

South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- to try to enforce its claim that the fort was no longer part of the United States.

And by doing so- fired the first shots of the Civil War- which caused a war that was not necessary- and cost the lives of 600,000.

And they lost the slaves that they were trying to keep ownership of. If they had not seceded- or even had not fired on American troops- they could possibly still be enjoying the ownership of their black slaves to this day.

You're just repeating yourself. Surely you're intelligent to see the futility in this argument. You'll keep saying the militia commander had no right to fire on Fort Sumpter and I'll keep saying they did. Fort Sumpter did not start the war, Lincoln marshaling an army of 75,000 troops and ordering them to invade started the war.

Lincoln called for those 75,000 three days after South Carolina fired on American troops in an American fort, and started the hostilities.

The facts are always worth repeating- the first shots of the Civil War were by Confederate rebel forces firing on American troops in Fort Sumter.

All to protect the Confederate States which had seceded in order to protect their right to own human property- rights enshrined in the Confederate Constitution.

The Poles fired the first shots of WW II. According to your theory that means they started the war.

Lincoln didn't invade Virginia to free the slaves. He didn't give a damn about them. He invaded to impose confiscatory tariffs on the Southern states.

Holy analogy fail Batman!

To say Lincoln didn't give a damn about the slaves is comically ignorant.

Your "facts" are so far from reality you might as well just claim that Lincoln was an alien from outer space.

What evidence is there that Lincoln gave a damn about the slaves?

Lincoln Douglas debates are a good place to start but there is plenty of other examples of his position. There is also the point of view of the South which is also very important.

 

[Bombur]

The rebellion of the Southern states started the war. The act of secession was itself the act that justified all necessary and proper action by the President to preserve the Union.

Where do you get this shit?

Secession is only illegal in the mind of the country being seceded from.

No it's illegal under the Constitution. No state is capable of seceding without breaking federal laws.

A declaration of secession is not a legal process by which the state or the residents of the state become exempt from federal law. There is no law that allows that.

Wrong! Get it through your thick deer skull. The states created the Constitution and the states can change it or even dissolve it with or without permission from the federal government. The original power is with the states. You Libtards seem to think the federal government sprang forth from nothing and created the states. Read a history book.

The states established how the Constitution could be changed. They couldn't change it all by themselves and even Washington helped establish the authority of the Federal government with force.

Do you want to fail again?

Secession doesn't require a change in the Constitution.

You just made a statement of belief that is not supported by history and the facts. My comments were a statement of fact established by history.

 

[Redfish]

Where do you get this shit?

Secession is only illegal in the mind of the country being seceded from.

No it's illegal under the Constitution. No state is capable of seceding without breaking federal laws.

A declaration of secession is not a legal process by which the state or the residents of the state become exempt from federal law. There is no law that allows that.

Wrong! Get it through your thick deer skull. The states created the Constitution and the states can change it or even dissolve it with or without permission from the federal government. The original power is with the states. You Libtards seem to think the federal government sprang forth from nothing and created the states. Read a history book.

The states established how the Constitution could be changed. They couldn't change it all by themselves and even Washington helped establish the authority of the Federal government with force.

Do you want to fail again?

Secession doesn't require a change in the Constitution.

You just made a statement of belief that is not supported by history and the facts. My comments were a statement of fact established by history.

Uhhh, your version of history. Thats the problem with revisionist historians, they try to rewrite history to be the way they want it to be rather than the way it was.

Revising history is a crime, it should be punishable by death. If we ignore history or fail to accept its reality, then we are doomed to repeat it.

 

[Bombur]

No it's illegal under the Constitution. No state is capable of seceding without breaking federal laws.

A declaration of secession is not a legal process by which the state or the residents of the state become exempt from federal law. There is no law that allows that.

Wrong! Get it through your thick deer skull. The states created the Constitution and the states can change it or even dissolve it with or without permission from the federal government. The original power is with the states. You Libtards seem to think the federal government sprang forth from nothing and created the states. Read a history book.

The states established how the Constitution could be changed. They couldn't change it all by themselves and even Washington helped establish the authority of the Federal government with force.

Do you want to fail again?

Secession doesn't require a change in the Constitution.

You just made a statement of belief that is not supported by history and the facts. My comments were a statement of fact established by history.

Uhhh, your version of history. Thats the problem with revisionist historians, they try to rewrite history to be the way they want it to be rather than the way it was.

Revising history is a crime, it should be punishable by death. If we ignore history or fail to accept its reality, then we are doomed to repeat it.

Saying that in the context of what I said and what this other twerp said is absolutely hilarious.

 

[paperview]

... The South seceded and took a fort.

Not just *a* fort -- they seized ALL the federal buildings, forts and arsenals all across the south.

Property belonging to the entire US.

You are a comically confused simpleton. I don't really care this much about your delusion. I am more fascinated by it than anything else. It is borderline psychotic.

After years of debating numbskull bripat, it was concluded by most back then, he truly is a total Lost Cause.

 

[Redfish]

Wrong! Get it through your thick deer skull. The states created the Constitution and the states can change it or even dissolve it with or without permission from the federal government. The original power is with the states. You Libtards seem to think the federal government sprang forth from nothing and created the states. Read a history book.

The states established how the Constitution could be changed. They couldn't change it all by themselves and even Washington helped establish the authority of the Federal government with force.

Do you want to fail again?

Secession doesn't require a change in the Constitution.

You just made a statement of belief that is not supported by history and the facts. My comments were a statement of fact established by history.

Uhhh, your version of history. Thats the problem with revisionist historians, they try to rewrite history to be the way they want it to be rather than the way it was.

Revising history is a crime, it should be punishable by death. If we ignore history or fail to accept its reality, then we are doomed to repeat it.

Saying that in the context of what I said and what this other twerp said is absolutely hilarious.

Nope, its absolutely accurate.

 

[Bombur]

The states established how the Constitution could be changed. They couldn't change it all by themselves and even Washington helped establish the authority of the Federal government with force.

Do you want to fail again?

Secession doesn't require a change in the Constitution.

You just made a statement of belief that is not supported by history and the facts. My comments were a statement of fact established by history.

Uhhh, your version of history. Thats the problem with revisionist historians, they try to rewrite history to be the way they want it to be rather than the way it was.

Revising history is a crime, it should be punishable by death. If we ignore history or fail to accept its reality, then we are doomed to repeat it.

Saying that in the context of what I said and what this other twerp said is absolutely hilarious.

Nope, its absolutely accurate.

 

[there4eyeM]

Secessionists just can't get over the Union having been inviolable and Perpetual. They don't only want to destroy the nation, they want to make-believe it is legal. Rebellion, sedition, violence and exhortations to more led to the fighting of the Civil War. The victory of the Union was just if ever war was.

 

[bripat9643]

No it wasn't the people who fired on them. Soldiers follow orders. The article of secession was notice that South Carolina was withdrawing its membership in the union and rescinding all previous negotiations including the lease of land that Ft. Sumpter was on. The fact that the US government refused to relinquish territory it no longer had rights to is what caused that conflict. That's putting responsibility back where it belongs.

As I said- South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- I was not saying that the soldier who lit the first fuse was at fault- it was the civilian and military command who chose to go to war against the United States and ordered him to fire the first shot

South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- to try to enforce its claim that the fort was no longer part of the United States.

And by doing so- fired the first shots of the Civil War- which caused a war that was not necessary- and cost the lives of 600,000.

And they lost the slaves that they were trying to keep ownership of. If they had not seceded- or even had not fired on American troops- they could possibly still be enjoying the ownership of their black slaves to this day.

You're just repeating yourself. Surely you're intelligent to see the futility in this argument. You'll keep saying the militia commander had no right to fire on Fort Sumpter and I'll keep saying they did. Fort Sumpter did not start the war, Lincoln marshaling an army of 75,000 troops and ordering them to invade started the war.

Lincoln called for those 75,000 three days after South Carolina fired on American troops in an American fort, and started the hostilities.

The facts are always worth repeating- the first shots of the Civil War were by Confederate rebel forces firing on American troops in Fort Sumter.

All to protect the Confederate States which had seceded in order to protect their right to own human property- rights enshrined in the Confederate Constitution.

You don't seem to get it. The whole country was not in a state of civil war until Lincoln turned it into one. Before the invasion there was nothing but a docket of grievances between the United States and former member states, after the invasion was a full out bloody war with thousands of men dying.

The eagerness with which you immoral Leftists leap at the chance to kill hundreds of thousands of people is astonishing. Moral people do everything in their power to avoid war.

Like Jean Luc Picard.

All Lincoln did was get elected and the southern democrats started a war. For fucks sake do any of you pass history class or do they no longer teach this in schools?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Lincoln started the war.

 

[bripat9643]

Rather, it continues and is intended to make more perfect the Perpetual Union in place.

More made up horseshit.

 

[bripat9643]

Secessionists just can't get over the Union having been inviolable and Perpetual. They don't only want to destroy the nation, they want to make-believe it is legal. Rebellion, sedition, violence and exhortations to more led to the fighting of the Civil War. The victory of the Union was just if ever war was.

Why should anyone "get over" what is patently untrue?

Secession is already legal. This government is so corrupt that no one but a gang of bootlickers will miss it when it disappears.