Modern conservatives sympathizing with The Confederacy... Is this a thing now?

[Skylar]

Lincoln had no intention of abolishing slavery when he was elected. The best he could have hoped for was to block expansion into new states and stop enforcement of the fugitive slave act

As it was, the South forced his hand and lost big time

"Might makes right," eh numskull?

Live by the sword, die by the sword. If the South didn't want a military conflict, they shouldn't have attacked a US military base.

They did. And the rest is history.

I've been over this at least 100 times in this forum. Ft Sumter was not Union territory. It lies within the borders of South Carolina. As such, South Carolina was perfectly within its rights to use force to evict the trespassers.

You keep trying to ignore the above.

No one is fooled.

Oh, you've typed the claim 100 times. But you're under this adorable misconception that you typing an accusation somehow makes it true. You citing you doesn't establish any fact. But merely your opinion. And you've presented nothing but you typing the accusation.

When I challenge you to show us evidence in the LAW that the US government had no authority to keep troops at Ft. Sumpter, you've got jack shit.

And that's why you fail. Opinion isn't fact. And all you have is unsupported opinion.

It's well accepted international law, dumbass.

Again, says you. You keep citing yourself as Lincoln, as international law, as US law. And you're none of these things. Show us any international law at the time that recognized that US troops couldn't reside at a US military base.

You can't. All you can do is share your personal opinion. And really, no one gives a shit about your opinion.

 

[-S-]

You mean he was an was an imperialist who wanted to subjugate the Southern states and force them to pay crushing tariffs so his Northern industrialist cronies could siphon off their wealth.

Their wealth was accumulated through unconstitutional means. Slavery was, is, and always will be unconstitutional (the fact that America didn't always consider this truth is beside the point). If the government tells you what you're doing is unconstitutional, you either follow the rules or you rebel and get what's coming to you. The south chose option 2.

You aren't going to stop arguing slavery even if no one else is arguing slavery, are you?

Slavery is part of the Confederate equation, no matter how much one tries to push it to the side.

I'm tired of reading "the Confederacy's motives are irrelevant" and other equivalents. When evaluating any situation honestly, motive is always pertinent.

 

[Skylar]

You mean he was an was an imperialist who wanted to subjugate the Southern states and force them to pay crushing tariffs so his Northern industrialist cronies could siphon off their wealth.

Their wealth was accumulated through unconstitutional means. Slavery was, is, and always will be unconstitutional (the fact that America didn't always consider this truth is beside the point). If the government tells you what you're doing is unconstitutional, you either follow the rules or you rebel and get what's coming to you. The south chose option 2.

You aren't going to stop arguing slavery even if no one else is arguing slavery, are you?

Slavery is part of the Confederate equation, no matter how much one tries to push it to the side.

I'm tired of reading "the Confederacy's motives are irrelevant" and other equivalents. When evaluating any situation honestly, motive is always pertinent.

And the South's motives were to preserve slavery. A system of degradation and vile exploitation that the South used as the foundation of its economy.

 

[-S-]

You mean he was an was an imperialist who wanted to subjugate the Southern states and force them to pay crushing tariffs so his Northern industrialist cronies could siphon off their wealth.

Their wealth was accumulated through unconstitutional means. Slavery was, is, and always will be unconstitutional (the fact that America didn't always consider this truth is beside the point). If the government tells you what you're doing is unconstitutional, you either follow the rules or you rebel and get what's coming to you. The south chose option 2.

You aren't going to stop arguing slavery even if no one else is arguing slavery, are you?

Slavery is part of the Confederate equation, no matter how much one tries to push it to the side.

I'm tired of reading "the Confederacy's motives are irrelevant" and other equivalents. When evaluating any situation honestly, motive is always pertinent.

And the South's motives were to preserve slavery. A system of degradation and vile exploitation that the South used as the foundation of its economy.

How people fail to see the connection baffles me.

Complete tunnel vision.

 

[bripat9643]

You mean he was an was an imperialist who wanted to subjugate the Southern states and force them to pay crushing tariffs so his Northern industrialist cronies could siphon off their wealth.

Their wealth was accumulated through unconstitutional means. Slavery was, is, and always will be unconstitutional (the fact that America didn't always consider this truth is beside the point). If the government tells you what you're doing is unconstitutional, you either follow the rules or you rebel and get what's coming to you. The south chose option 2.

You aren't going to stop arguing slavery even if no one else is arguing slavery, are you?

Slavery is part of the Confederate equation, no matter how much one tries to push it to the side.

I'm tired of reading "the Confederacy's motives are irrelevant" and other equivalents. When evaluating any situation honestly, motive is always pertinent.

Motive is not relevant when you haven't done anything. Turds like you insist on bringing slavery into the issue because otherwise it becomes obvious that Lincoln was a mass murdering, war mongering tyrant who wiped his ass on the Constitution.

 

[bripat9643]

You mean he was an was an imperialist who wanted to subjugate the Southern states and force them to pay crushing tariffs so his Northern industrialist cronies could siphon off their wealth.

Their wealth was accumulated through unconstitutional means. Slavery was, is, and always will be unconstitutional (the fact that America didn't always consider this truth is beside the point). If the government tells you what you're doing is unconstitutional, you either follow the rules or you rebel and get what's coming to you. The south chose option 2.

You aren't going to stop arguing slavery even if no one else is arguing slavery, are you?

Slavery is part of the Confederate equation, no matter how much one tries to push it to the side.

I'm tired of reading "the Confederacy's motives are irrelevant" and other equivalents. When evaluating any situation honestly, motive is always pertinent.

And the South's motives were to preserve slavery. A system of degradation and vile exploitation that the South used as the foundation of its economy.

How people fail to see the connection baffles me.

Complete tunnel vision.

Lincoln himself denied that there was any connection, dumbass.

 

[bripat9643]

You mean he was an was an imperialist who wanted to subjugate the Southern states and force them to pay crushing tariffs so his Northern industrialist cronies could siphon off their wealth.

Their wealth was accumulated through unconstitutional means. Slavery was, is, and always will be unconstitutional (the fact that America didn't always consider this truth is beside the point). If the government tells you what you're doing is unconstitutional, you either follow the rules or you rebel and get what's coming to you. The south chose option 2.

You aren't going to stop arguing slavery even if no one else is arguing slavery, are you?

Slavery is part of the Confederate equation, no matter how much one tries to push it to the side.

I'm tired of reading "the Confederacy's motives are irrelevant" and other equivalents. When evaluating any situation honestly, motive is always pertinent.

And the South's motives were to preserve slavery. A system of degradation and vile exploitation that the South used as the foundation of its economy.

The South didn't start the war. They just wanted to be left alone, so their motives are irrelevant.

 

[Skylar]

You mean he was an was an imperialist who wanted to subjugate the Southern states and force them to pay crushing tariffs so his Northern industrialist cronies could siphon off their wealth.

Their wealth was accumulated through unconstitutional means. Slavery was, is, and always will be unconstitutional (the fact that America didn't always consider this truth is beside the point). If the government tells you what you're doing is unconstitutional, you either follow the rules or you rebel and get what's coming to you. The south chose option 2.

You aren't going to stop arguing slavery even if no one else is arguing slavery, are you?

Slavery is part of the Confederate equation, no matter how much one tries to push it to the side.

I'm tired of reading "the Confederacy's motives are irrelevant" and other equivalents. When evaluating any situation honestly, motive is always pertinent.

And the South's motives were to preserve slavery. A system of degradation and vile exploitation that the South used as the foundation of its economy.

The South didn't start the war. They just wanted to be left alone, so their motives are irrelevant.

Obviously they did with their attack on Ft. Sumter. If you believe that the union troops had no authority to be in their OWN military base, show us the law stating this.

But you can't. All you can do is imagine a version of history where you could possible be right. Alas, that's not the world we actually live in.

 

[-S-]

You mean he was an was an imperialist who wanted to subjugate the Southern states and force them to pay crushing tariffs so his Northern industrialist cronies could siphon off their wealth.

Their wealth was accumulated through unconstitutional means. Slavery was, is, and always will be unconstitutional (the fact that America didn't always consider this truth is beside the point). If the government tells you what you're doing is unconstitutional, you either follow the rules or you rebel and get what's coming to you. The south chose option 2.

You aren't going to stop arguing slavery even if no one else is arguing slavery, are you?

Slavery is part of the Confederate equation, no matter how much one tries to push it to the side.

I'm tired of reading "the Confederacy's motives are irrelevant" and other equivalents. When evaluating any situation honestly, motive is always pertinent.

And the South's motives were to preserve slavery. A system of degradation and vile exploitation that the South used as the foundation of its economy.

The South didn't start the war. They just wanted to be left alone, so their motives are irrelevant.

But they didn't deserve to be left alone. Like a dog that craps in the bedroom and gets its nose rubbed in it, the south was treating humans wrong and needed to be trained to act accordingly.

 

[Skylar]

Their wealth was accumulated through unconstitutional means. Slavery was, is, and always will be unconstitutional (the fact that America didn't always consider this truth is beside the point). If the government tells you what you're doing is unconstitutional, you either follow the rules or you rebel and get what's coming to you. The south chose option 2.

You aren't going to stop arguing slavery even if no one else is arguing slavery, are you?

Slavery is part of the Confederate equation, no matter how much one tries to push it to the side.

I'm tired of reading "the Confederacy's motives are irrelevant" and other equivalents. When evaluating any situation honestly, motive is always pertinent.

And the South's motives were to preserve slavery. A system of degradation and vile exploitation that the South used as the foundation of its economy.

How people fail to see the connection baffles me.

Complete tunnel vision.

Lincoln himself denied that there was any connection, dumbass.

Quote him denying that there was any connection.

 

[bripat9643]

Their wealth was accumulated through unconstitutional means. Slavery was, is, and always will be unconstitutional (the fact that America didn't always consider this truth is beside the point). If the government tells you what you're doing is unconstitutional, you either follow the rules or you rebel and get what's coming to you. The south chose option 2.

You aren't going to stop arguing slavery even if no one else is arguing slavery, are you?

Slavery is part of the Confederate equation, no matter how much one tries to push it to the side.

I'm tired of reading "the Confederacy's motives are irrelevant" and other equivalents. When evaluating any situation honestly, motive is always pertinent.

And the South's motives were to preserve slavery. A system of degradation and vile exploitation that the South used as the foundation of its economy.

The South didn't start the war. They just wanted to be left alone, so their motives are irrelevant.

But they didn't deserve to be left alone. Like a dog that craps in the bedroom and gets its nose rubbed in it, the south was treating humans wrong and needed to be trained to act accordingly.

So then why didn't the federal government invade Cuba? They has slavery as well. In fact, there are countries that have slavery right now. Why isn't out government carpet bombing them?

You're argument falls to pieces the minute you start applying it to other countries.

Bottom line: you're an idiot.

 

[bripat9643]

You aren't going to stop arguing slavery even if no one else is arguing slavery, are you?

Slavery is part of the Confederate equation, no matter how much one tries to push it to the side.

I'm tired of reading "the Confederacy's motives are irrelevant" and other equivalents. When evaluating any situation honestly, motive is always pertinent.

And the South's motives were to preserve slavery. A system of degradation and vile exploitation that the South used as the foundation of its economy.

How people fail to see the connection baffles me.

Complete tunnel vision.

Lincoln himself denied that there was any connection, dumbass.

Quote him denying that there was any connection.

"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it"

Abraham Lincoln, Letter to Horace Greely, 1862​

 

[rightwinger]

You aren't going to stop arguing slavery even if no one else is arguing slavery, are you?

Slavery is part of the Confederate equation, no matter how much one tries to push it to the side.

I'm tired of reading "the Confederacy's motives are irrelevant" and other equivalents. When evaluating any situation honestly, motive is always pertinent.

And the South's motives were to preserve slavery. A system of degradation and vile exploitation that the South used as the foundation of its economy.

The South didn't start the war. They just wanted to be left alone, so their motives are irrelevant.

But they didn't deserve to be left alone. Like a dog that craps in the bedroom and gets its nose rubbed in it, the south was treating humans wrong and needed to be trained to act accordingly.

So then why didn't the federal government invade Cuba? They has slavery as well. In fact, there are countries that have slavery right now. Why isn't out government carpet bombing them?

You're argument falls to pieces the minute you start applying it to other countries.

Bottom line: you're an idiot.

Maybe because Cuba was not part of the United States and Cuba didn't attack us

 

[bripat9643]

Slavery is part of the Confederate equation, no matter how much one tries to push it to the side.

I'm tired of reading "the Confederacy's motives are irrelevant" and other equivalents. When evaluating any situation honestly, motive is always pertinent.

And the South's motives were to preserve slavery. A system of degradation and vile exploitation that the South used as the foundation of its economy.

The South didn't start the war. They just wanted to be left alone, so their motives are irrelevant.

But they didn't deserve to be left alone. Like a dog that craps in the bedroom and gets its nose rubbed in it, the south was treating humans wrong and needed to be trained to act accordingly.

So then why didn't the federal government invade Cuba? They has slavery as well. In fact, there are countries that have slavery right now. Why isn't out government carpet bombing them?

You're argument falls to pieces the minute you start applying it to other countries.

Bottom line: you're an idiot.

Maybe because Cuba was not part of the United States and Cuba didn't attack us

South Carolina was not part of the United States after it seceded. It also didn't attack the United States. It kicked some trespassers out of its territory.

You keep regurgitating the same old horseshit. You're obviously incapable of rational thought.

 

[Skylar]

Slavery is part of the Confederate equation, no matter how much one tries to push it to the side.

I'm tired of reading "the Confederacy's motives are irrelevant" and other equivalents. When evaluating any situation honestly, motive is always pertinent.

And the South's motives were to preserve slavery. A system of degradation and vile exploitation that the South used as the foundation of its economy.

How people fail to see the connection baffles me.

Complete tunnel vision.

Lincoln himself denied that there was any connection, dumbass.

Quote him denying that there was any connection.

"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it"

Abraham Lincoln, Letter to Horace Greely, 1862​

That isn't him saying that there's no connection between slavery and the confederacy. Please quote him denying that there is any connection.

 

[-S-]

You aren't going to stop arguing slavery even if no one else is arguing slavery, are you?

Slavery is part of the Confederate equation, no matter how much one tries to push it to the side.

I'm tired of reading "the Confederacy's motives are irrelevant" and other equivalents. When evaluating any situation honestly, motive is always pertinent.

And the South's motives were to preserve slavery. A system of degradation and vile exploitation that the South used as the foundation of its economy.

The South didn't start the war. They just wanted to be left alone, so their motives are irrelevant.

But they didn't deserve to be left alone. Like a dog that craps in the bedroom and gets its nose rubbed in it, the south was treating humans wrong and needed to be trained to act accordingly.

So then why didn't the federal government invade Cuba? They has slavery as well. In fact, there are countries that have slavery right now. Why isn't out government carpet bombing them?

You're argument falls to pieces the minute you start applying it to other countries.

Bottom line: you're an idiot.

To my knowledge, neither Cuba nor any other vague country you're referencing were part of the USA and broke off because of slavery. Maybe that's why. We had an interest in teaching the south to fly right, because they were part of the USA. As many others have pointed out here, the USA had military bases in Confederate states. So your argument falls apart on the basis that it makes zero sense. It's apples and oranges. This is simple stuff, bro..

 

[natstew]

Whether or not the Southern Sovereign States had the right under the Constitution to secede has nothing to do with slavery. They are separate issues.

 

[Skylar]

Whether or not the Southern Sovereign States had the right under the Constitution to secede has nothing to do with slavery. They are separate issues.

It has everything to do with the claim that 'There's nothing more American than what the South fought for'.

Unless you believe there's nothing more American than slavery.

 

[rightwinger]

And the South's motives were to preserve slavery. A system of degradation and vile exploitation that the South used as the foundation of its economy.

The South didn't start the war. They just wanted to be left alone, so their motives are irrelevant.

But they didn't deserve to be left alone. Like a dog that craps in the bedroom and gets its nose rubbed in it, the south was treating humans wrong and needed to be trained to act accordingly.

So then why didn't the federal government invade Cuba? They has slavery as well. In fact, there are countries that have slavery right now. Why isn't out government carpet bombing them?

You're argument falls to pieces the minute you start applying it to other countries.

Bottom line: you're an idiot.

Maybe because Cuba was not part of the United States and Cuba didn't attack us

South Carolina was not part of the United States after it seceded. It also didn't attack the United States. It kicked some trespassers out of its territory.

You keep regurgitating the same old horseshit. You're obviously incapable of rational thought.

Of course they were
The traitors also attacked their own country

Got what they deserved

 

[deltex1]

yeah. They hate education for obvious reasons as well

Can't you assholes see things through the eyes of your adversaries? I hear it's very helpful in negotiations and avoiding conflict.