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

[thanatos144]

On the flip side, show us where it states that those that entered the Union COULD exit the Union.

Right here.


"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

They tried and failed.

The consequence of the effort is irrelevant. As the entire exercise amounts to nothing else. They died free... and exercising their God-given right to be free.

I find it absurd anyone would use the term free with any confederate. I am sure their slaves were just happy they were dead. The confederates are the antithesis of what being a conservative is.

How are they any different than the Founding Fathers, all of whom owned slaves?

They all didn't own slaves short bus.

 

[thanatos144]

It is clear. Totalitarians LOVE and HONOR Dishonest Abe.

Totalitarians...birds of a feather flock together.

So saving the country is a bad thing....... thank god Lincoln had more sense

Lincoln didn't "save" the country. He destroyed it. He certainly destroyed the South.

I guess you endorse the explanation of that Vietnam general who said "in order to save the village we had to destroy it."

That's why the Country is not the greatest and most powerful in the world it is today--

and the South is a maudlin mass of heapin' junk fluid.

The Roman Empire was larger and more powerful than the Roman REpublic.

Does that mean that the Empire was better than the Republic?

DId you really miss that implication, or were you being dishonest?

You might want to reread that post a gain

 

[bripat9643]

It is clear. Totalitarians LOVE and HONOR Dishonest Abe.

Totalitarians...birds of a feather flock together.

So saving the country is a bad thing....... thank god Lincoln had more sense

Lincoln didn't "save" the country. He destroyed it. He certainly destroyed the South.

I guess you endorse the explanation of that Vietnam general who said "in order to save the village we had to destroy it."

Aww trailer park is still trying to spread his ignorance. How quaint. Let's see here . The democrat confederates tried to destroy the country by first splitting in into pieces because Lincoln wouldn't allow slavery into the new territory and then they started a war because they feared Thier slaver life style was in jeopardy. they lost and in the process the country was intact and even more people had liberty and freedom......

I think you must be a feril baboon. As if secession was some kind of catastrophe like an earthquake. All that happens is a border changes and tyrants like Lincoln have fewer people to push around. I'll bet, like a good little boot-licking toady, you were crying when the Soviet client states decided they no longer wanted to be ruled from Moscow, weren't you?

Also, once again, moron, Lincoln started the war. Lincoln invaded Virginia.

 

[bripat9643]

Right here.


"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

They tried and failed.

The consequence of the effort is irrelevant. As the entire exercise amounts to nothing else. They died free... and exercising their God-given right to be free.

I find it absurd anyone would use the term free with any confederate. I am sure their slaves were just happy they were dead. The confederates are the antithesis of what being a conservative is.

How are they any different than the Founding Fathers, all of whom owned slaves?

They all didn't own slaves short bus.

Ah, well that changes everything!

NOT.

 

[paperview]

It's a grim testament to how uninformed some Americans are when you hear them start arguing that the Civil War was not about slavery.

That would include Abraham Lincoln who said it was not about slavery.

For Lincoln, it was about saving the Union.

For the Confederates, it was about preserving, protecting, defending and expanding

Slavery.

 

[bripat9643]

It is clear. Totalitarians LOVE and HONOR Dishonest Abe.

Totalitarians...birds of a feather flock together.

So saving the country is a bad thing....... thank god Lincoln had more sense

Lincoln didn't "save" the country. He destroyed it. He certainly destroyed the South.

I guess you endorse the explanation of that Vietnam general who said "in order to save the village we had to destroy it."

That's why the Country is not the greatest and most powerful in the world it is today--

and the South is a maudlin mass of heapin' junk fluid.

The Roman Empire was larger and more powerful than the Roman REpublic.

Does that mean that the Empire was better than the Republic?

DId you really miss that implication, or were you being dishonest?

You might want to reread that post a gain

I think you're the one who needs to reread it. Obviously it went right over your head.

 

[thanatos144]

It is clear. Totalitarians LOVE and HONOR Dishonest Abe.

Totalitarians...birds of a feather flock together.

So saving the country is a bad thing....... thank god Lincoln had more sense

Good lord...how can you be so slanted?

1. no union is perpetual...if that were true, ancient empires would still exist.
2. whether secession is legal or not, matters not. When a group of people no longer wish to part of a unified state, in a democratic state, they should be allowed to peacefully secede.
3.keeping a nation together by use of force, is no different than what tyrants like Stalin, Mao, and others have done.
4.Your thinking is akin to the husband murdering his wife, to save his marriage.

This is yet another lengthy thread on Lincoln's war...and proof once again that statist brainwashing Americans endured in government schools cannot be undone, for some.

Son they lost their bid for power when they started a war. It wasn't freedom they wanted.

 

[thanatos144]

It's a grim testament to how uninformed some Americans are when you hear them start arguing that the Civil War was not about slavery.

You can repeat that myth until the sun burns out, but it will still be a myth. Are you ever going to deal with the facts and arguments that have been presented against that myth? Or, as you do on other issues, are you just going to keep repeating your claim and ignore the facts and arguments against it?

I say the later

-Geaux

Agreed. It serves their purpose to demonize the Confederacy, and by extension, the South.

The confederates should be shunned like the nazis are shunned.

 

[bripat9643]

It's a grim testament to how uninformed some Americans are when you hear them start arguing that the Civil War was not about slavery.

That would include Abraham Lincoln who said it was not about slavery.

For Lincoln, it was about saving the Union.

For the Confederates, it was about preserving, protecting, defending and expanding

Slavery.

"Saving the Union" is just a euphemism for hegemony, imperialism and crony capitalism and imposing crushing tariffs on the Souther states for Lincoln's cronies in the North. Politicians can always come up with benign sounding names for their malevolent schemes, like calling taxes "contributions."

 

[bripat9643]

It's a grim testament to how uninformed some Americans are when you hear them start arguing that the Civil War was not about slavery.

You can repeat that myth until the sun burns out, but it will still be a myth. Are you ever going to deal with the facts and arguments that have been presented against that myth? Or, as you do on other issues, are you just going to keep repeating your claim and ignore the facts and arguments against it?

I say the later

-Geaux

Agreed. It serves their purpose to demonize the Confederacy, and by extension, the South.

The confederates should be shunned like the nazis are shunned.

You should be shunned for being such an obvious moron and brainwashed Lincoln cult member.

 

[bripat9643]

It is clear. Totalitarians LOVE and HONOR Dishonest Abe.

Totalitarians...birds of a feather flock together.

So saving the country is a bad thing....... thank god Lincoln had more sense

Good lord...how can you be so slanted?

1. no union is perpetual...if that were true, ancient empires would still exist.
2. whether secession is legal or not, matters not. When a group of people no longer wish to part of a unified state, in a democratic state, they should be allowed to peacefully secede.
3.keeping a nation together by use of force, is no different than what tyrants like Stalin, Mao, and others have done.
4.Your thinking is akin to the husband murdering his wife, to save his marriage.

This is yet another lengthy thread on Lincoln's war...and proof once again that statist brainwashing Americans endured in government schools cannot be undone, for some.

Son they lost their bid for power when they started a war. It wasn't freedom they wanted.

They weren't "bidding for power," moron. They just wanted to be left alone.

 

[thanatos144]

Oh my. Another one that thinks the south didn't start the war.



On that point alone, you lose.

Really? Maintaining a military base in another nation against it's wishes is not an Act of War?

Read history. It was there before the confederates threw their tantrum and stayed there by agreement. So it wasn't a invasion.

 

[bripat9643]

In Slaves We Trust. Their foundation, their cornerstone, the engine that ran the southern economy, their lifeblood working the fields, emblazoned right on their currency.

Where? I don't see that written on the note. Furthermore, your note seems to have been issued in 1858. It must be bogus.

 

[mikegriffith1]

So one speech by the Confederate vice president, Alexander Stephens, is supposed to be the final, total word on the Confederacy? Really? Do you know who Alexander Stephens was? Do you know that Stephens ardently opposed secession? Do you know what a bit, minor player he was in the CSA? I discuss Stephens' speech in Slavery and Southern Independence, which I'm guessing none of you liberals have bothered to read yet.

Before Civil War scholarship came to be dominated by the PC line, a number of historians were willing to be objective and accurate about the Confederacy. Historians Robert Divine, T. H. Bren, George Fredrickson, and R. Hal Williams have commented on the formation of the Confederacy as follows:

The [Confederate] convention acted as a provisional government while at the same time drafting a permanent constitution. . . . Voted down were proposals to reopen the Atlantic slave trade . . . and to prohibit the admission of free states to the new Confederacy. . . .​

. . . it was clear from the actions of the Montgomery convention that the goal of the new converts to secessionism was not to establish a slaveholders' reactionary utopia. What they really wanted was to recreate the Union as it had been before the rise of the new Republican Party, and they opted for secession only when it seemed clear that separation was the only way to achieve their aim. The decision to allow free states to join the Confederacy reflected a hope that much of the old Union could be reconstituted under southern direction. (Robert Divine, T. H. Bren, George Fredrickson, and R. Hal Williams, America Past and Present, Fifth Edition, New York: Longman, 1998 pp. 444-445, emphasis added)​

Historian Allan Nevins said the following about the Confederate Constitution in his book The Emergence of Lincoln:

The most remarkable features of the new instrument [the Confederate Constitution] sprang from the purifying and reforming zeal of the delegates, who hoped to create a more guarded and virtuous government than that of Washington. The President was to hold office six years, and be ineligible for reelection. Expenditures were to be limited by a variety of careful provisions, and the President was given budgetary control over appropriations which Congress could break only by a two-thirds vote.​

Subordinate employees were protected against the forays of the spoils system. No bounties were ever to be paid out of the Treasury, no protective tariff was to be passed, and no post office deficit was to be permitted. . . . Some of these changes were unmistakable improvements, and the spirit behind all of them was an earnest desire to make government more honest and efficient. (Allan Nevins, The Emergence of Lincoln, Volume 2, The Ordeal of the Union series, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1950, p. 435)​

After noting that “limited government was the Confederate ideal,” political science professor Marshall L. DeRosa discusses some of the innovations in the Confederate Constitution:

Some of those innovations include modifications of the budgetary and appropriations process, such as the line-item veto, the elimination of legislative riders, the exclusion of industrial and agricultural protectionism, and drastic restrictions on internal improvements [national public works projects]. . . .​

Those omissions expose certain shibboleths [common ideas], such as the specious [false] contention that the Confederacy was designed exclusively or primarily to maintain a slavocracy. The Confederate Constitution does not mandate slavery; not only was slavery not constitutionally mandated, but certain constitutional provisions cleared the way for nonslave states to join the Confederacy. (The Confederate Constitution of 1861, University of Missouri Press, 1991, pp. 133-134)​

 

[bripat9643]

Oh my. Another one that thinks the south didn't start the war.



On that point alone, you lose.

Really? Maintaining a military base in another nation against it's wishes is not an Act of War?

Read history. It was there before the confederates threw their tantrum and stayed there by agreement. So it wasn't a invasion.

It was an invasion the minute they were asked to leave and they refused, numskull.

 

[thanatos144]

It is clear. Totalitarians LOVE and HONOR Dishonest Abe.

Totalitarians...birds of a feather flock together.

So saving the country is a bad thing....... thank god Lincoln had more sense

Lincoln didn't "save" the country. He destroyed it. He certainly destroyed the South.

I guess you endorse the explanation of that Vietnam general who said "in order to save the village we had to destroy it."

Aww trailer park is still trying to spread his ignorance. How quaint. Let's see here . The democrat confederates tried to destroy the country by first splitting in into pieces because Lincoln wouldn't allow slavery into the new territory and then they started a war because they feared Thier slaver life style was in jeopardy. they lost and in the process the country was intact and even more people had liberty and freedom......

I think you must be a feril baboon. As if secession was some kind of catastrophe like an earthquake. All that happens is a border changes and tyrants like Lincoln have fewer people to push around. I'll bet, like a good little boot-licking toady, you were crying when the Soviet client states decided they no longer wanted to be ruled from Moscow, weren't you?

Also, once again, moron, Lincoln started the war. Lincoln invaded Virginia.

We live in the USA not Russia and I guess your slaver heroes shouldn't have started a war

 

[thanatos144]

It's a grim testament to how uninformed some Americans are when you hear them start arguing that the Civil War was not about slavery.

You can repeat that myth until the sun burns out, but it will still be a myth. Are you ever going to deal with the facts and arguments that have been presented against that myth? Or, as you do on other issues, are you just going to keep repeating your claim and ignore the facts and arguments against it?

I say the later

-Geaux

Agreed. It serves their purpose to demonize the Confederacy, and by extension, the South.

The confederates should be shunned like the nazis are shunned.

You should be shunned for being such an obvious moron and brainwashed Lincoln cult member.

Yep just what I figured you are a idiot who worships evil

 

[thanatos144]

It is clear. Totalitarians LOVE and HONOR Dishonest Abe.

Totalitarians...birds of a feather flock together.

So saving the country is a bad thing....... thank god Lincoln had more sense

Good lord...how can you be so slanted?

1. no union is perpetual...if that were true, ancient empires would still exist.
2. whether secession is legal or not, matters not. When a group of people no longer wish to part of a unified state, in a democratic state, they should be allowed to peacefully secede.
3.keeping a nation together by use of force, is no different than what tyrants like Stalin, Mao, and others have done.
4.Your thinking is akin to the husband murdering his wife, to save his marriage.

This is yet another lengthy thread on Lincoln's war...and proof once again that statist brainwashing Americans endured in government schools cannot be undone, for some.

Son they lost their bid for power when they started a war. It wasn't freedom they wanted.

They weren't "bidding for power," moron. They just wanted to be left alone.

People who want to be left alone don't start wars

 

[thanatos144]

Oh my. Another one that thinks the south didn't start the war.



On that point alone, you lose.

Really? Maintaining a military base in another nation against it's wishes is not an Act of War?

Read history. It was there before the confederates threw their tantrum and stayed there by agreement. So it wasn't a invasion.

It was an invasion the minute they were asked to leave and they refused, numskull.

Why should they leave land that was theirs because slavers threw a tantrum?

 

[paperview]

In Slaves We Trust. Their foundation, their cornerstone, the engine that ran the southern economy, their lifeblood working the fields, emblazoned right on their currency.

Where? I don't see that written on the note. Furthermore, your note seems to have been issued in 1858. It must be bogus.

Need more?